Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

New York Times sues DoD over Domestic Spying

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the good-a-reason-as-any dept.

511

gbobeck writes "Yahoo News is reporting that the New York Times has filed suit against the U.S. Defense Department. The suit is seeking the release of all relevant documents and a list of people targeted by the NSA domestic spying program. As stated in the article: 'The Times had requested the documents in December under the Freedom of Information Act but sued upon being unsatisfied with the Pentagon's response that the request was being processed as quickly as possible, according to the six-page suit filed at federal court in New York.'"

cancel ×

511 comments

The list of people who were targetted... (1)

brilinux (255400) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818160)

Like, say, all of the people who work for the New York Times...

Re:The list of people who were targetted... (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818257)

> Like, say, all of the people who work for the New York Times...

What, this isn't the FBI trying to recapture the (fabulous, baby!) glory days of J. Edgar Hoover.

This is NSA doing the surveillance. If you want the list of people targeted, you gotta call these guys [census.gov] !

Re:The list of people who were targetted... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818258)

Buncha pinko liberal bush-bashing terror allies, those Times writers are! I sure hope the government is spying on them so we don't get 911'd again!

Re:The list of people who were targetted... (1)

biendamon (723952) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818347)

Yeah! That Saddam bin Laden's still out there!

You know when you're winning (1)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818328)

when they start shooting at (or spying on) you.

Looks to me as if the Times has gotten under a few peoples skin - and not just Maureen O'Dowd for so accurately satarising Bush.

you can sue my sausage! (0, Flamebait)

Asshat_Nazi (946431) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818161)

because you are teh gay!

Interesting... (-1, Flamebait)

stankulp (69949) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818169)

...that the NYT was never concerned when Jimmah or Bubba did the same thing.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818311)

...that the NYT was never concerned when Jimmah or Bubba did the same thing.

Ok, now may we please see the links or the facts that back that statement up? Even if you don't have facts, you could at least try to link to conspiracy freak rumor sites.

And that would be because they didn't. (1)

biendamon (723952) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818312)

It's a fascinating thing to see, the "you guys did it - or something superficially like it - so it's OK for my guys to do it" reaction.

Neither Clinton nor Carter "did the same thing." They used the FISA court to get warrants. This is public knowledge, so you can stop pretending it isn't, now.

Clinton's Other Domestic Spying Program (1)

stankulp (69949) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818435)

Re:Clinton's Other Domestic Spying Program (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818527)

B-b-buh-but Clinton...!

I swear, that should go down in history with, "But I was just following orders!" in the Big Book O' Lame-Ass Excuses.

Re:Clinton's Other Domestic Spying Program (1)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818570)

But does this indicate that Clinton "spied" on anti-abortion citizens without a warrant?

Here is the DOJ link: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/tfreppub.htm [usdoj.gov] . While you may disagree with the goal of VAAPCON, the fact is, it appears they were using perfectly legal means (obtaining judicial warrants) to gain the information in order to prosecute people that were breaking the law.

Re:And that would be because they didn't. (1)

whats_a_zip (743877) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818510)

It's a fascinating thing to see, the "you guys did it - or something superficially like it - so it's OK for my guys to do it" reaction.

Exactly! This is one of the big reasons nothing ever gets fixed in government. It happens on both sides of the aisle. If one side gets caught doing something, they immediately point out how the other side did it at one point too.
How about this? How about every time a law is broken, we treat it as an individual event. Kind of how it happens for us little people. If I get caught speeding, and say, but other people do it too... the cop will acknowledge the point and give me my ticket!

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818316)

..and, predictably, parent gets modded troll, even though it brings up a valid point about the double standard employed on a *daily* basis by the NYT. And, in the process, /.

Why is this rated a troll? (0)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818329)

The question stands....why is the Times willing to sue now, but not under those two administrations? The question is legitimate...

Re:Why is this rated a troll? (4, Informative)

biendamon (723952) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818379)

Because there's no evidence either Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton authorized warrantless wiretaps. It's that simple.

Re:Why is this rated a troll? (1)

OS24Ever (245667) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818391)

Because the other two administrations followed the law, and the current one feels it knows better than the law.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818330)

How do you define 'the same thing' ?
Did Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton really do 'the same thing?'
I am pretty sure the technology didn't exist in the 1970's for 'the same thing' to be done.

Please explain.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818335)

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton followed the law to spy on citizens.

Bush did not follow the FISA law and that's why this is a scandal.

Even more interesting (1)

Xonstantine (947614) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818340)

Was the calls by the NYT for investigation into the Valerie Plame leak for the purpose of prosecuting the leakers (even though the NYT aided and abetted the leak).

Then the NYT turns around and publishes information that is much more damaging to national security than the Plame case ever was. Hopefully there will be a grand jury investigation to put some of these NYT guys in jail. Last time I checked, releasing highly classified information is illegal, and the programs in question were classified for that rarity of reasons...actual national security. Not that it matters to the NYT when a juicy story is involved.

Re:Even more interesting (1)

Talian (746379) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818472)

National Security sure seems to be the wayward byword of the day.
It, terrorism, terrorists, enemy combatants, these are just labels used whenever they suit the purpose of the speaker without actual relevance to the true security of the nation. Personally, I'm estatic that -someone- had the nerve to tell the american people that their elected officials -may- be breaking the law. I emphasis may because I don't know, but I damn sure have the right to. And if you think for a minute that anyone "against" us doesn't think we're monitoring their calls already, and that this "leak" caused any surprises over there, you're in for a shock.

Re:Even more interesting (1)

biendamon (723952) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818568)

Was the calls by the NYT for investigation into the Valerie Plame leak for the purpose of prosecuting the leakers (even though the NYT aided and abetted the leak).

That would be because the leakers were not whistleblowers.

Then the NYT turns around and publishes information that is much more damaging to national security than the Plame case ever was.

Only if you accept the Bush argument that basically boils down to "we need to be able to break the law at our whim - to protect you." I, for one, am very conservative in that I do not trust the government to know what's best for me. If you do not accept that argument, then Bush's actions are technically illegal - which he has already admitted is the case without his torturous arguments about the powers of the Commander in Chief.

From this perspective, the leaker is a hero - and a whistleblower, protected by whistleblower laws.

Not the same goddam thing at all! (4, Informative)

no reason to be here (218628) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818341)

They didn't do the same thing! Bush was doing his spying without a warrant. Carter and Clinton both followed the guidelines of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and their administrations went to the SECRET FISA court to get warrants for any surveillance that was being done. Duh-bya did not. He broke the law. Period. End of story. There was not a security threat in getting a warrant. It was a SECRET FUCKING COURT that he had to go to to get the warrant, but he didn't. Why? Who knows. Probably because this administration is so arrogant and ridiculous as to think the rules never apply to them. Of course, we the peopole have let them get away with just about everything sneaky and underhanded that they've done, so one can't really blame them for thinking that way.

And BTW, you neo-cons need to get a new rejoinder. the whole "but..but Clinton" thing is getting really fucking stale.

Re:Not the same goddam thing at all! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818398)

*cough*RICO*cough*

Re:Not the same goddam thing at all! (1)

Xonstantine (947614) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818439)

Of course, Clinton spied on US citizens when there was no national security risk or even criminal intent (Catholic Church, abortion protest groups, etc). It was so objectionable that the FBI agents assigned objected to it since they believed it to be illegal.

Bush, in contrast, was spying on residents in the US who's numbers just happened to be in cell phones captured from terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.

The FISA process is broken, and all it takes is a libtard judge to block a FISA warrant to get something like Zacharias Moussaoui, who's picked up for immigration violations, is strongly suspected of having terrorist ties, but our agents are blocked from looking at his computer because of civil liberties concerns.

Whether or not Bush broke the FISA law is debatable...but I can pretty much guarantee you, if he broke the law, it'll go to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will find he acted within the powers delegated to him by the Constitution and that the FISA law is an Unconstitutional usurpation of Executive authority by the Legislative branch. And this would happen even if there were a couple more liberal judges. This is a perfect test case.

Mmmm... Kool Aid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818502)

The FISA process is broken, and all it takes is a libtard judge to block a FISA warrant to get something like Zacharias Moussaoui, who's picked up for immigration violations, is strongly suspected of having terrorist ties, but our agents are blocked from looking at his computer because of civil liberties concerns.

Anything less than a Reichstag-style rubber stamp court is as unacceptable as a media that isn't servile to the government.

Ummm, no (1)

TheConfusedOne (442158) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818471)

Bubba was busy saying that he didn't need warrants for PHYSICAL SEARCHES of US properties. Of course he was using the excuse of the drug war instead of something inconsequential like national security, but hey...

Re:Interesting... (1)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818348)

Interesting... that the bushbot response to Dear Leader's criminal bypass of FISA is to scream "them durned libruls did it, too!" Oh, and BTW - that talking point you've borrowed from Rush Limbaugh is (surprise, surprise) incorrect.

Re:Interesting... (4, Insightful)

Intron (870560) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818369)

Evidence of Carter or Clinton ordering a warrantless wiretap? Clinton called for [thinkprogress.org] allowing warrantless searches, but that isn't what he did. Show some facts.

If you are going to get into past presidents, lets talk about who gave weapons and money to terrorists in Iran and Nicaragua, hmm?

Re:Interesting... (1)

jasonditz (597385) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818449)

Shhhhhh!! You'll make Ollie North cry, and we just finally got him to go to sleep.

Re:Interesting... (1)

gbobeck (926553) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818499)

Don't forget which president supported Saddam Hussein.

Yay! (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818173)

We'll get to know after the suit has been resolved in about 3-4 years.

NSA already tried (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818194)

The NSA tried to send the data over a few months ago, but they gave up at the NYT registration screen.

Wonderful (1)

Pres. Ronald Reagan (659566) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818201)

So the terrorists know that they're being spied upon, allowing them to be more surreptitious in their planning? I guess the NY Times is yearning for another 9/11 to fill the pages of their paper for a few weeks.

Re:Wonderful (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818252)

So the terrorists know that they're being spied upon, allowing them to be more surreptitious in their planning? I guess the NY Times is yearning for another 9/11 to fill the pages of their paper for a few weeks.

Ah yes, anyone exercising their right to bring the government to task must be helping the terrorists. Good grief, how easily some people surrender liberty in crisis. What's worse is they have surrendered it to an Administration which even its own Congressional and Gubnorial allies are beginning to view with thinly veiled disdain.

Re:Wonderful (1)

typical (886006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818271)

You know, if anyone is really saying "yes, I think we're going to blow up X" over phones/email/whatever, they're probably pretty aware of the possible risk.

I'm with the NYT on the grounds that the warrantless wiretaps are illegal. However, I'm sure that the NYT is going to lose. We've seen enough stuff that's *completely* unrelated to terrorism being pushed through while playing off fears of terrorism that I'd say that FOIA demands are going to get about as much traction as a demand to see McCarthy's list of communists during the height of his power.

Re:Wonderful (1)

LightningBolt! (664763) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818464)

So the terrorists know that they're being spied upon, allowing them to be more surreptitious in their planning? I guess the NY Times is yearning for another 9/11 to fill the pages of their paper for a few weeks.

Got the message.

Thanks,
Pete

Next Article (1, Funny)

c0d3h4x0r (604141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818202)

Entire NYT Staff Held as "Enemy Combatants" at Guantanamo Bay

Re:Next Article (2, Funny)

ArikTheRed (865776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818331)

Yeah, that'll be the headline from the Washington Post.

we need to thank them (1)

eobanb (823187) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818205)

We need to thank the NY Times for doing this. They might be unpopular here at slashdot for their 'evil' online registration, but they've stood up for the public's right to know what their government is doing many times before. Hello? Pentagon Papers?

Re:we need to thank them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818332)

well, the public's right to know if you subscribe with them. :)

Re:we need to thank them (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818357)

We need to thank the NY Times for doing this. They might be unpopular here at slashdot for their 'evil' online registration, but they've stood up for the public's right to know what their government is doing many times before.

In fact, I think they should also ask for a list of all of the people that are working for our intel community - especially overseas in places like North Korea and Iran. And since a lot of Chinese businesses read the NYT, they'd certainly have an audience for a list of the names of all of the people in Taiwan that have close ties with US intel people. I mean, what is our government doing? How can we tell, unless everything that they're doing is completely transparent? Sure, doing so will completely undermine security, but people who value security aren't deserving of liberty, blah blah, right?

Also, there are probably some domestic organized crime types that are under investigation, though perhaps not yet the target of a warrant. Since we're spending tax dollars trying to decide if we should use warranted taps on those guys, the NYT should be able to get a list of everyone considered connected to organized crime in the US. I'm sure they'll be good and not tip off Brooklyn's own Franky "TracPhone" Carpaccio that the feds are planning a wiretap as they look into his human trafficking from Carjackistan or whatnot. Go NYT! Print it all. Every last bit. Why not! There would be so much of it that the bad guys would need armies of intel analysts to sort through it and figure out what's relevent. Maybe even their own giant agency with the most sophisticated tech in the world to look for patterns that would point to the need for the warrant... oh, wait.

Re:we need to thank them (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818492)

How can we tell, unless everything that they're doing is completely transparent? Sure, doing so will completely undermine security, but people who value security aren't deserving of liberty, blah blah, right?

If the government really cares about the security of their intelligence operations, then they should be careful to follow the law. Otherwise, they risk having details of the operations revealed in the course of efforts to bring to justice the criminals in the government who ignore the laws.

Apparently, the government doesn't seem care all that much about the laws, so they must not think that there's much real security risk in revealing this stuff.

Yeah, real principled (2, Insightful)

TheConfusedOne (442158) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818509)

Of course if you ask them to run some cartoons that are responsible for world-wide protest and violence they'll hem and haw and quake in their boots.

Okay (1)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818211)

so if they win the suit, the DoD can turn over page after page of redacted document that looks like a magic marker threw up all over it. If they don't want the information to get out, it won't.

Re:Okay (1)

Aspirator (862748) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818452)

It is precisely the people for whom they couldn't get court approval to
bug that we care about here.

If there are names of people on this list which are sensitive, then they
can redact them. But it seems that the very point of controversy
is that the surveilance concerned is a 'fishing expedition' bugging
people for whom there is no reasonable cause to bug.

To release page after page of insignificant names, bugged for no good reason,
would seem to hold up the case against the buggers.

Re:Okay (1)

bishop32x (691667) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818578)

which is why they'll just redact all of them.

DOJ Circuit Court Rulings (2, Informative)

ExE122 (954104) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818218)

Based on past rulings [usdoj.gov] , the Department of Justice seem to uphold the FOIA in such cases. This isn't the first time the pentagon has used stall tactics to hold back information. I'm glad we have checks and balances.

But the Bush administration says the president as commander in chief of the armed forces has the authority to carry out the intercepts and that Congress also gave him the authority upon approving the use of force in response to the September 11 attacks

... at least we have some checks and balances. I see that the Bush administration still thinks they reign supreme.

I also heard that the president doesn't like pita bread, so we're ridding the country of that as well.

Re:DOJ Circuit Court Rulings (1)

DaLac (956299) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818349)

Since the pentagon deals with infomation gathering then what is the problem with giving them a little extra time? They need to make sure that they do not endanger any current operations before they release anything. This ,means that they need more time than other organisations.

Re:DOJ Circuit Court Rulings (1)

DJCacophony (832334) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818555)

If they're such pros at information gathering, then why would they need extra time to gather this information?

Re:DOJ Circuit Court Rulings (1)

professionalfurryele (877225) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818364)

If you had real checks and balances another arm of government would be demanding that this information be published. Unless of course you think the media is basically another arm of government... maybe you are on to something there.

I *am* the law! (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818226)

Asking the government for arbitration when your complaint is against the government? I can't imagine how this exciting story will turn out!

Pointless (1)

Luscious868 (679143) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818228)

What a pointless lawsuit. The information is classified and thus the Freedom of Information Act won't apply. Sure maybe they'll get lucky and a left leaning judge will initially side with them but there is no way they'll ultimately win this thing. I guess there's no harm in trying if they can afford it, other than wasting the time of an already overloaded court system.

Re:Pointless (3, Interesting)

raehl (609729) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818524)

Even if the lawsuit is not successful, it still serves two purposes:

- It highlights the fact that the government engaged in warrantless wiretaps, and helps make more of the public aware of the problem and keep them thinking about the problem
- It helps NYT sell papers with articles about how the government engaged in warrantless wiretaps.

We probably are not too concerned with the second, but the motivation provided to the paper by the second causes the paper to act in a manner that gives us the benefits of the first. Go Free Press.

Re:Pointless (1)

leeharris100 (890639) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818543)

I agree. Do they honestly think the GOVERNMENT will let this info get out if they don't want it to?

The Administration That Made Foot-Dragging An Art (4, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818232)


Here's the Associated Press article [firstamendmentcenter.org] on the same subject...contains a bit more info on the actual request than the Reuters copy, including:
From TFA:
The lawsuit said the Department of Defense acknowledged receipt of the request on Dec. 30, 2005, but the response, required in 20 business days, never came.


Coming from an administration that took 411 days to set up a Public Inquiry into 9/11, the most significant terrorist attack in the history of the American nation, this amont of foot-dragging is a mere warm-up. Expect this to go nowhere fast.

Re:The Administration That Made Foot-Dragging An A (1)

L7_ (645377) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818580)

Since the datamining tool that they are using is automated (e.g. supposedly correlated foreign phone calls with domestic callers) then just how many people are going to be listed?

Can the DoD use the same excuse that google is giving it? that there is no easy way to deliver 10 million names (even you are probably 26 nodes down in the search tree) as it would be technologically unfeasable and reveal too much information about how and when and why they do thier searches.

Getting all that information out into the public might not be as trivial as doing a database dump. :x

Somewhere.... out there... (4, Funny)

SB5 (165464) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818240)

Somewhere out there, Journalists are looking into their pants, and finding they have testicles. -paraphased from Penny-Arcade.

In other news... (4, Funny)

Paladin144 (676391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818243)

The Bush administration has announced plans to kill the Freedom of Information Act, saying that it "gives the terr'rists aid and comfort."

When asked if he would support the administration's efforts, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said, "I...uh... what? They're going to kill what? Oh, well. I guess. I must obey my masters."

The ACLU released a statement condemning the move, but they were clubbed and beaten by government thugs before they could take any questions from reporters.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818352)

Awwww! Poor ACLU. The Anti-Constitution Leftist Union. Tar and Feather those leftist activists!

Re:In other news... (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818408)

Pity your comment was not modded as insightful.

If republicans win another term, you can expect the US to be turned over to corporates.

First Alaskan reserve land would be turned over wholesale to oil companies.

Iran would be attacked, and in retaliation US would suffer the second worst 9/11. This would make the US declare martial law all around in US thus suspending the FOIA indefinitely. You would be detained if you sare to look up the secret service in eye.

DMCA would include a law prohibiting you from inviting your non-cable subscribers to watch Baseball with you. In fact before marriage, you and your GF first need to check whether you both have rights to watch cable.

Non-Wintel PC's would be outlawed technically through usage of protected chips that prevent non-windows OS to be installed.

iTunes songs would move to subcription model costing $29.99 to listen to all songs you purchase for $2.49 each.

Cell companies would be prohibited from declaring their costing model to consumers. This would leave you in suspense as to your first and subsequent bills. Each month you would pay a varied amount based on usage.

Analog and CRT TV's would be outlawed in favor of Plasma.

Choicepoint would charge you for maintaining data about you while providing no privacy.

And lastly, most of US population would migrate to Europe and Asia, and telecommute daily-;))

ITs going to be a war of attrtion (1)

rf0 (159958) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818268)

Its just going to be the side that runs out of money first...I think I know which side is going to win

once again this proves.... (1)

pauly_thumbs (416028) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818290)

.....that the NYT is _out_of_touch_ with the american public.

I am *confident* that most americans don't mind people who are taking calls to and from the middle east are being monitored.

WE ARE AT WAR!!!

Re:once again this proves.... (3, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818363)

That's odd, because your country is not officially at war...

Oh you mean that loosely defined "send our troops anywhere and disregard local laws" bit ... oh ok.

As for "oh well monitoring the middle east calls is ok isn't it?" the point of the "slippery slope" is where does it end? It's easier for me to enter Romania of all places then it is the united states. Land of freedom? My ass. I can visit the UK for upto 6 months. I can't do that in the USA (or ireland for that matter :-()

Tom

Re:once again this proves.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818400)

You must excuse the GP - his sarcasm/bitterness indicator has been broken with overuse and will need some time to repair.

Re:once again this proves.... (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818440)

the point of the "slippery slope" is where does it end?

At the same time, "slippery slope" is a logic error of argumentation.

Re:once again this proves.... (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818547)

Gah? Are you making fun of my grammor or are you saying the slippery slope doesn't exist? ...

Re:once again this proves.... (1)

pauly_thumbs (416028) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818456)

"That's odd, because your country is not officially at war..."

offically not at war?

you seem to forget the whole airplanes crashing into buildings.

"easier to enter romania"

Romania is not the economic superpower of the world.... go to romania... have fun :)

"where does it end?"

it ENDS when the violence against the west ends. the only bargaining chip the middle wast has is Oil ... that chip will soon be worthless, Consumer demand for alternatives and the MASSIVE ammount of drilling happening elsewhere will make the middle east once again the lonely backwater that is longs to be again.

Re:once again this proves.... (4, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818513)

"you seem to forget the whole airplanes crashing into buildings."

And you seem to forget you can't declare war on an idea. A formal declaration of war means cessation of trading, recalling foreign diplomats, sending troops to defeat a foreign power and occupy.

You got the last part down, but last I checked YOU STILL HAVE A SAUDI EMBASSY IN THE STATES.

Oh yeah, where did the 9/11 "terrorists" come from? Iraq? Afghanistan? ...

You really need to stop watching Fox News.

tom

Re:once again this proves.... (1)

pauly_thumbs (416028) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818573)

THAT'S THe LAST STRAW.... You're going on the watch list ;)

Re:once again this proves.... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818589)

"send our troops anywhere and disregard local laws"

      And the UN security council, and international law...

Re:once again this proves.... (1)

SoCalChris (573049) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818385)

Most of us don't mind at all if those calls are monitored, as long as they have a warrant to monitor them, and are doing it legally.

Re:once again this proves.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818416)

God, another crackhead moron.

We are at war with whom? We fought in Afghanistan and one, which I supported fully. But then Bush is going around and starting more wars and destablizing everything for no good reason. The number of terrorists you crackheads are generating in Iraw (which will no doubt ally with Iran once the shiites are in power) is crazy.

There are HUNDREDS of companies with dictators, are we going to be losing more and more thousands of solidiars lives fighting them all, just so some other bunch of thugs, or muslim fanatics can take over?

Don't forget, Osama called Saddam an infidel. He was a secular dictator, just wanted power, and did not let radical islamic terror groups operate. Now, we've got a country that is going to be run by shieks, whose majority religious group happens to be the same as Iran's.

Republicans are like crackheads.

Re:once again this proves.... (1)

pauly_thumbs (416028) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818482)

"There are HUNDREDS of companies with dictators"

COMPANIES with dictators -- nice :)

Re:once again this proves.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818455)

This has nothing to do with monitoring phone calls either to or from the middle east. The government, and more specifically the NSA, have that ability and authority. This concerns monitoring communications between parties within the US, with neither a warrant, nor judicial oversight.

Before this "policy", the government could obtain permission from the judicial system to monitor a persons communication if they had probable cause. Some form of evidence was needed to justify the invasion of privacy. Now, no evidence is required, and their is NO OVERSIGHT. This sets a dangerous precedent, and creates a system that will breed abuse.

Re:once again this proves.... (1)

Civil_Disobedient (261825) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818473)

I am *confident*

Uh huh. And Bush was *confident* that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

So you see, you can be absolutely certain about something in your own little world, yet still have no connection with the real one.

To wit: I am *confident* you are not an American citizen with relatives in the Middle East.

Re:once again this proves.... (1)

pauly_thumbs (416028) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818518)

"To wit: I am *confident* you are not an American citizen with relatives in the Middle East."

No but a whole army navy airfoce marine corp and coast guard.

dude there totally were WOMD in Iraq -- ask the kurds.

I hope that our Armies march ON TO IRAN AND SYRIA

66% of the US Populace ISN'T confident in Bush... (1)

DeadMilkman (855027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818561)

I wouldn't be so sure where you place your confidence.

We *the people* no longer trust Bush. If they gave us a reason to trust him with this or had shown ample trustworthy action in the past then maybe you would have a valid point....alas...

no.

Re:once again this proves.... (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818564)

WE ARE AT WAR!!!

      Against who, exactly?

Good move, outlook not so good (3, Insightful)

fak3r (917687) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818299)

While I applaud this move, I doubt much will happen seeing as how this administration is one of the worst in terms of openness. Look at the energy deal Cheney brokered back before 9/11 (since that's always the reason for keeping things hush/hush), after a protracted suit but some enviromental agencies nothing came of it; denied by the courts even though there was precidence of more openness.

I know the attacks I'll face but look; 9/11, Katrina, the deficit, the protracted war in Iraq; do you really feel safer with what this government is doing? Does it seem like they're always prepared to serve OUR best interests? Call me an idealist, but come on, with all the crap that's gone down the American people DESERVE to know what's going on; the blind leading the blind routine is old, let's get an educated populus for our next election!

(of course the republican's scare tactics will be put on full force: 9/11, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, attacked on our shores, this post 9/11 world, defending the homeland, evildoers determined to do us harm, etc)

Seems like nothing to see here ( yet )... (1)

grassy_knoll (412409) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818319)

From TFA:
David McCraw, a lawyer for the Times, acknowledged that the list of documents sought was lengthy but that the Pentagon failed to assert there were "unusual circumstances," a provision of the law that would grant the Pentagon extra time to respond.


So:
  • NY Times requests a huge pile of documents on a fishing expedition.
  • Pentagon / NSA dont respond quickly enough.
  • NY Times sues.
  • profit?


At least NYT isn't just making it up this time [wikipedia.org] .

The real interesting bits would be if this FOIA request turned up something interesting, but I doubt it. Either the relevant documents will be classified ( and will remain so effectively indefinately ) or so heavily redacted they're useless. I'd hope something interesting would slip through.. but that doesn't seem likely.

Waiting for 2008 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818339)

Regardless of what happens NYT and when we see these pentagon papers when we're all 90 and don't give 2 shizts...Until then just waiting for 2008 and waiting to get atleast competent prez.

Re:Waiting for 2008 (1)

dwayner79 (880742) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818450)

You mean one as articulate as yourself...

Why all the secrecy (4, Insightful)

porkface (562081) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818375)

Let's face it, the NSA has changed the way it spies, and is hesitant to explain that for two reasons.

First, they're probably spying on all of us. That is to say, they are probably just recording as much as humanly possible and then going back to review calls and other communications which their datamining and watch lists suggest have the highest probability of yielding results. They can't explain this to anyone, save for a few pliable Congressional reps, because the law says they're not supposed to do that first part without a warrant. I believe they started the program under the belief that if a tree falls in the woods, but nobody goes back to review the tape, then they weren't spying on the tree. The problem with this is that now we're getting even further away from this concept of Democracy our leaders spout off about when referring to the rest of the world. I know we've always been a representative democracy, but if we can't have transparency to the voters, it's really just a dictatorship by whomever presents the cleanest TV image.

Second, they don't want to explain how they're spying because any system is easy to circumvent when you know how that system works. Unfortunately, if you really believe in our system and our morals and our way of life, then you have to stand behind it and expect that it will hold up to a little transparency. Anyone who simply discards our rules as they see fit is, quite simply, un-American.

The thing that worries me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818584)

The thing that worries me is that the secrecy has become its own form of protection. The same secrecy that may be allowing them to perform illegal acts in the name of "homeland security", may be enough to keep those acts from ever coming to light. It concerns me that the act of quietly destroying a very small amount of internal records now-- or the act of having simply failed to keep certain records in the first place-- would allow the executive (someday once the courts finally get around to forcing them to expose their activities to public scrutiny) to eradicate all trace of certain illegal activities they have performed and then say "yes, we've handed over everything".

The amount of effort required to achieve this would be so minimal that the word "cover-up" would not really even be applicable; it's just, certain critical things would simply never come to light.

We would all of course hope that our elected officials and security agencies would not perform actions like this-- but, of course, this is the exact problem in the first place. We can only hope. A system where we must hope that the government will be subject to the rule of law is useless, what we need is a system where we know that the government will be subject to the rule of law because there are safeguards and oversights in place to keep people accountable for their actions.

Those who fear the government... (1)

dwayner79 (880742) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818405)

... Are doing something illegal. The government is responsible for protecting its citizens and making sure laws are being followed. (it is not to feed, clothe, or teach but that is a whole 'nother story). I am completely fine with government doing what is reasonably neccessary to protect me even if my phone conversation with my ji-had buddies is being listened in on. For once, someone has the balls to protect this country and the "civil rights" propronents want to bring it down. I know that we should have freedoms, but in a post 9-11 age, there is certain information that should not be released for the public to have. This is why we elect government officials. I love freedom, but I am willing to give some up if it means my wife and daughter are safer as a result. This happens all the time. I give up my right to go 100 mph on the interstate so that others are safe. We allow are personal items to be searched when we travel by plane. This is a privacy right we give up to ensure safety. So sue on NYT, and know that as a result we are all a little LESS safe.

Rant over.

Re:Those who fear the government... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818525)

I don't care what supposed God-given right this government thinks it has. But the laws that this country has created to keep the POTENTIAL power-hungry leaders that it foresaw we might have (note, I do NOT accuse this gov't - yet...) are there for a very good reason. If this gov't truly did 'have the balls' to protect this country, then they should also 'have the balls' to go through the proper procedures put in place (especially since, if they were legitimately needed taps, they were a shoo-in for approval). THAT is how you protect his country - by protecting the American ideals and values, NOT by circumventing those very things because 'you know what's right/needed'. We got rid of our monarchy because we didn't want one man who 'knew what was right/needed' to decide that for the rest of us. Let's keep it that way. /rant over

Re:Those who fear the government... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818536)

Those who fear the government are doing something illegal

      Actually, if you increase the sensitivity of any test you also increase the false positive rate. This is a fact and any statistician will point this out to you.

      That means the more you wiretap, the more likely you are to find people who seem guilty, but really are not. So you've spent a LOT more money to "catch" a lot more "seemingly" guilty people. The actual increase in the number of real guilty people "caught" will not be all that great. What you are doing is making the whole process less efficient because now you have a great deal more data to sort through. Unless of course you don't care anymore about who you throw in jail.

Re:Those who fear the government... (1)

spazoidspam (708589) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818539)

Im sure someone else has mentioned this in the thread before.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
-Benjamin Franklin

Re:Those who fear the government... (1)

laketrout (23080) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818574)

OK. Keep your head in the sand and everything will be alright...

You insensi7ive clod!? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818414)

Wanting To Leave Party Politics Aside (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818438)

This seems like a really bad idea, how much longer would WWII have lasted if we had been forced to reveal that we had cracked the Japanese codes, or we had successfully cracked the enigma machine? I still see nothing wrong with intercepting Internet, radio, telephone, telegraph, carrier-pigeon. smoke signal messages intercepted coming into this country. If the government really wants to monitor my E-mails between myself and friends in foreign countries I hope they enjoy the converstations about what is a better sport football or football. If you will excuse me I need to go crawl back under my rock now...

sw33t (1)

Soviet Assassin (815206) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818479)

i hope NYT sticks it to the capitolist bastards. *evil laugh*

Damn the subpoena, full shredders ahead! (1)

HunterZ (20035) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818493)

"The Times had requested the documents in December under the Freedom of Information Act but sued upon being unsatisfied with the Pentagon's response that the request was being processed as quickly as possible..."

By "processing" I bet they meant shredding documents.

For those unfamiliar with the NYT.. (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818496)

..they're the ones with the news website that is mostly unusable without a privacy-shaving registration or BugMeNot [bugmenot.com] .

Re:For those unfamiliar with the NYT.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818558)

website that is mostly unusable without a privacy-shaving registration or BugMeNot.
Whoa, for a second there I thought BugMeNot was some method/website for bypassing illegal governmental wiretaps.

Thank You, NY Times (1)

Enrique1218 (603187) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818501)

Glad to see someone step and demand more openness from this administration. Circumventing established protocols with regard to obtaining warrants and violating Americans constitutional rights is a travesty. With this administration track record on disinformation to the American public and general incompetence. We need more information so we can judge accurately the actions of this administration. This is suppose to be a democracy. It is a shame that Congress has decided to waive its right to oversight on decisions to preserve a partisan line.

Why is this a Slashdot story? (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818512)

I sort-of get why the rest of these were covered on Slashdot. Not this one though.

Someone sues for info about an NSA operation. How is this news? Anyone can file suit for anything at any time.

How is this news for nerds? The NSA isn't spying on nerds, it's spying on terrorists and the people they contact.

How is this "Your Rights Online"? Is there a new right to be free from surveillance in wartime when you associate with the enemy? there never was before.

If You Haven't Done Anything Wrong... (1)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818562)

...you have nothing to worry about. In the post 9/11 world, security is king. And sometimes that means giving up certain freedoms and rights temporarily. It's all for a good cause: to root out the terrorists. If you're on the right side of this fight, you have nothing to worry about because the government won't be looking in on what you do at all. They are more concerned about finding people who support the terrorists by dissenting with the Bush administration. We have nutjob liberal bloggers out there who are trying to take the wind out of Bush's sails by repeatedly publishing false information known to come from terrorist operatives like Truth Out, MoveOn.org, IndieMedia, and the ACLU. If we just let them run rampant and change people's opinions about the War on Terror, how can we succeed? These people need to be shutdown because every word they publish against our president and his staff if a word in favor of Al Queda, The Taliban, Osama Bin Laden and the like. I don't worry myself about being investigated because I say the right things and align myself with people of character. If you do the same, you don't have anything to worry about either. But if you spend time tearing down the hard work of George W. Bush or associate with enemy combatants (yes even bloggers who hate Bush qualify in my book), then maybe you should be looking over your shoulder and re-evaluating your position. The War on Terror includes a domestic War on Liberals in my mind. It's time to finally shut down liberal voices before they can damage the progress we've made in America these past six years.

Cool! (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818567)

Anything that drains cash from that tabloid works for me.
All that and they'll still lose!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...