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!

Court Orders White House to Disclose Telecom Ties

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the fess-up-to-it-boys dept.

The Courts 147

rgiskard01 writes "Glenn Greenwald is reporting at Salon.com on a win for the EFF, in the battle for clarity regarding the telecom surveillance scandal. A federal judge ordered the Bush administration yesterday to accede to the EFF's Freedom of Information Act request. Assuming the White House follows the court order, they would have to make public their lobbying ties to the telecoms industry. 'These disclosures will reveal ... which members of Congress McConnell and other Bush officials privately lobbied. As an argument of last resort, the administration even proposed disclosing these documents on December 31 so that -- as EFF pointed out -- the information would be available only after Congress passed the new FISA bill. The court rejected every administration claim as to why it should not have to disclose these records.'" Greenwald goes on to argue that the order should be leveled against Senators as well, to get a sense of who else is in Ma Bell's pocket.

cancel ×

147 comments

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

They'll ignore the court order... (4, Interesting)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523545)

They think they are above the law already.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (2, Interesting)

cecilgol (977329) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523585)

Im not sure if they can, given the atmosphere of lame duck surrounding the administration right now. Approval ratings in the 30s and a hellacious economy going into the xmas season, it would seem like a battle not worth fighting... for right now at least. But then again, the likelihood that any action will be taken before the end of the administration seems slim; I can see them just playing out the clock for 417 days...

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21523621)

Your honor, we respecfully ask the court to quash this subpoena on the grounds that complying with it would require the defendant to reveal State secrets.

Sincerely, the Government.

So ordered (gavel banging)

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (5, Interesting)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523773)

The Bush admin are masters of stonewalling and delaying tactics. I'd be pleasantly stunned if this happens.

You *know* they're going to appeal this to the federal appeals court, and if they lose that one the Supreme Court will take quite a while to make a ruling, and there's a certain chance that the Supremes will make some bullshit ruling about how the EFF doesn't have standing rather than rule on the actual crime.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (1, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524369)

Ah, I see some cowardly conservative mod has used the (-1, Overrated) ploy.

Taco, it'd sure be nice if you'd make overrated and underrated meta-moddable or just do away with them entirely.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21525943)

Repeat after me: Bush != conservative.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (1)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 6 years ago | (#21526771)

Ok... Bush != conservative. Frankly, calling Bush a conservative is an insult to conservatives I admire. I'm from a family of mostly Republicans. Lately, we're mostly Democrats, simply because of Bush Junior. Bush Senior is my favorite president during my lifetime. I've seen an interesting stratification... most conservatives I admire want someone other than Bush at this point. Some, however, are incapable of believing a Republican president could be in any way less than fantastic in every way. I call them "glass eaters". A "glass eater" is any Republican or Democrat who can't accept the possibility of a bad president from their party, someone who would rather eat glass than admit the truth.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... [OT] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21528835)

Just a humble suggestion... you should attribute that quote in your sig, which is "Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy." The quote is by none other than Benjamin Franklin.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (5, Interesting)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 6 years ago | (#21526991)

Repeat after me: Bush != conservative.

But he calls himself one, and so do all his fans.

I would consider myself a "conservative" because I'm generally comfortable with things working the way they did most of my life as I was growing up. Unfortunately the people now usually referred to as "conservatives" want to restore the world to the way it was a hundred years before any of us were born (according to a grotesque understanding of history which considers the Founding Fathers as Christian ayatollahs with beliefs that apparently contradicted all the writings they left behind). These people are "conservatives" in the same way that the "National Socialists" were "socialists". So I don't call myself a conservative, and I pay no attention to the "true" meaning of the word since it's commonly understood as meaning its antonym. The meanings of words change over time, and when the meaning of my self-description changes, I start describing myself differently.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (2, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 6 years ago | (#21529069)

So I don't call myself a conservative, and I pay no attention to the "true" meaning of the word since it's commonly understood as meaning its antonym.

Yes, and this is not an accident; it's an unusually good example of Newspeak. The word didn't just gradually evolve its meaning over time, but instead it took on its completely opposite meaning in less than a decade. This is what happens when masses of people identify with a term without knowing anything about its history. The people who identify with a party or a label simply because their parents did are not doing themselves or their parents any favor. You need neither a conspiracy nor a coincidence to explain this. As politicians and others with a media presence continued to call themselves "conservative" the former meaning simply became less and less true. So long as the change isn't too sudden, those who use the term will continue to receive the backing and political support of those to whom the term appeals. This works so well because party affiliation is best understood as a poor substitute for thinking for yourself.

The practical effect this has had is that there is no longer a choice about whether state power and size should continue to increase. You may elect either a Democrat or a Republican and in either case this will be the result; all of the arguments in the mainstream media are about how and why it should be done. Whether it's for the war effort, for senior citizen prescription drug entitlements, for a public health care system, or to bail out irresponsible home buyers who signed the dotted line on a loan they couldn't afford -- and of all of these, only the military action is a legitimate power of government -- there is always some justification being sold to us as to why government should be expanded with little attention paid to the full consequences of doing so.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (1)

Arapahoe Moe (665219) | more than 6 years ago | (#21529389)

Well put.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (5, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524061)

What does the lame duck atmosphere, approval ratings, or economy have to do with anything? This administration has already accomplished most of their goals and will suffer no consequences for any actions. The president doesn't care at all about his approval ratings or changing the economy. Everything has gone pretty much according to plan, so why would they not ignore this court order?

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (1)

pravuil (975319) | more than 6 years ago | (#21526763)

because if they can get away with doing it, their political enemies can do it as well if not better.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (1)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 6 years ago | (#21526825)

Ha ha!! So, what has Bush Junior accomplished according to plan? His approval rating is so low that he has nothing left to lose, so I totally get the indifference, but again, what has gone according to plan? And... remember, your post was moderated "informative", so please... inform.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (1)

causality (777677) | more than 6 years ago | (#21529109)

Ha ha!! So, what has Bush Junior accomplished according to plan? His approval rating is so low that he has nothing left to lose, so I totally get the indifference, but again, what has gone according to plan?

What has gone according to plan? The deliberate expansion of power of government, especially the executive branch, to a level never before seen in the history of this country. In the big picture this hurts the country far more than whether or not Iraq turns out the way we wanted it to. Bush is not nearly the only person who has done this, of course, and to think that one political party has enjoyed this trend any more than the other is to miss the point. It just happens that he has been more successful than most.

I have no idea what the GP's answer to this question would be, but that's mine.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21524095)

I can see them just playing out the clock for 417 days...

What happens in 417 days, other than continuation of the same-old-same-old? All of the leading candidates in the two major parties, have up to now, supported increased executive power, supported spending huge amounts of money on the war, supported increased surveillance of domestic citizens, etc.

The part about roaches scurrying for cover is particularly ridiculous. The roaches merely stare back, daring the American people to vote against them. And every time, American voters (the ones who bother to show up at the polls) vote overwhelmingly in favor of the status quo.

Nobody gives a fuck.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (1)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 6 years ago | (#21526889)

All of the leading candidates in the two major parties, have up to now, supported increased executive power, supported spending huge amounts of money on the war, supported increased surveillance of domestic citizens, etc.

I recommend that you read "The Audacity of Hope". There are a few good candidates.

And every time, American voters (the ones who bother to show up at the polls) vote overwhelmingly in favor of the status quo.

Arrrgh! You got me there. However, I do hereby declare that I "give a fuck". Many of us do, on both sides of the political spectrum.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524099)

What exactly do they have to lose? Bush isn't up for reelection and the court has no enforcement power. So why WOULDN'T he just ignore it?

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524497)

Im not sure if they can, given the atmosphere of lame duck surrounding the administration right now.

That's exactly why they will ignore it. It's a lame duck administration, it's not like they have to worry about getting re-elected. It's the last year or so of the Bush administration, there's nothing to lose.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (5, Insightful)

FatMacDaddy (878246) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523725)

My bet: They won't ignore it. They'll use the national security ploy to deny the order or delay compliance until they can get legislation passed to make it a non-issue. It's not like Congress has the guts to oppose anything that purports to protect us from terrorists.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (1)

SlipperHat (1185737) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524125)

How much guts does it take to say "Prove it". Isn't it within Congress's power to ask for proof?

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524299)

Of course it is, but the Bush Admin will dispute that, it'll have to work its way through the court system, and there's the question of whether Congress has the will to make them.

Executive Order #456632346 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21523899)


By the authoruty invested in my cocaine-snorting, I, "President" George W. Bush [whitehouse.org] , do hereby
declare you have NO rights.

Criminally yours,
W.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524083)

What happens when they do ignore the court order? Nothing? Does someone go to jail and then gets pardoned?

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (4, Interesting)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524449)

What happens when they do ignore the court order? Nothing?

Pretty much. Undoing things and removing people in power is incredibly difficult in Government, not necessarily because the procedures are long winded, but because its a representative democracy so the people can't do it themselves.

If someone commits a crime against you, you can't put them in jail yourself, you can't seek charges against them yourself, ect. You have to have the police arrest them, but there's no rule saying the police have to arrest someone, either. So you really have to find a cop who's willing to go to the trouble to arrest them, and a prosecutor who will attempt to prosecute them. Of course, these are these people's jobs, but the fact remains they don't always do them.

It's the same with government. Even if there's an overwhelming amount of evidence the president did this or did that, and those things are illegal, they don't automatically get in trouble for it. Congress has to agree that the action was serious enough to warrant them getting off their asses to do something. And with party politics you'll have a bunch of people who will agree with the president and therefore feel he's doing nothing wrong, even if law books say he is. So they wont want to do anything, and without the needed majority agreement nothing will.

And the crook gets away with it.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (1)

causality (777677) | more than 6 years ago | (#21529137)

but because its a representative democracy

Yeah, they call that "representative democracy" a republic, only it's deliberately designed to avoid democracy. If you think you disagree with that, I suggest you fight the urge to have a knee-jerk reaction, do a little reading up on what those two terms actually mean and then get back to me.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525655)

Can Bush order a pre-pardon for himself and the rest of the administration?? Some sort of political golden parachute?

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (1)

Drgnkght (449916) | more than 6 years ago | (#21526301)

IANAL, so I really don't know if he could or not, though I suspect not.

Regardless, he wouldn't do it. It would require that he list all the criminal acts he wanted to pardon. That might get him into trouble, especially since he'd effectively be admitting in a legal document that he knew about these acts before any investigation turned up evidence of wrong-doing.

That isn't to say he wouldn't write up a pardon after the investigation, as everyone here is no doubt aware.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21525793)

Your all wrong and right.

They will ignore or delay this until the new president is sworn in, the new president will do the same thing that every president since Ford took office has done. Pardon anything the previous president or his administration has done. And if the Judges and lawyers want to pursue this any farther they will be wasting there time.

Ford pardoned Nixon, Carter Pardoned Ford, Reagan Pardoned carter, Bush pardoned Reagan, Clinton Pardoned Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. Pardoned Clinton.

Clarification (3, Insightful)

AchiIIe (974900) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523563)

The article is a bit dense, but those documents don't relate to the spying, only the the telecom immunity bill which was proposed.

Re:Clarification (3, Insightful)

kat_skan (5219) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524193)

Specifically it seems to be records of lobbying activities. Does anyone know where the Administration's arguments for keeping this sort of thing from the public can be read? I would like to know why they think that the public shouldn't be allowed to know who is trying to sway the opinion of their representatives.

Re:Clarification (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#21526019)

The supreme court had already said that the Vice president could claim executive privilege over a meeting with oil execs before the drafting of an energy policy months after the administration first took office. The claims where that the ability to keep comments secrete were essential for getting truthful, honest as well as unpopular advice without the threat of retribution on those giving the advice.

It seems like a slam dunk under this line of arguments. And yes, the lower courts said he had to give up the info before it was overturned by appeals. It is likely that this will just be a duplicate.

The only difference is that this isn't congress asking for the documents. I don't know how it will play into things. and I don't know if this is the reasoning behind keeping them secrete now.

Re:Clarification (2, Insightful)

pluther (647209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21526665)

The supreme court had already said that the Vice president could claim executive privilege over a meeting with oil execs before the drafting of an energy policy months after the administration first took office.

The supreme court never ruled on that use. Congress demanded the documents, Cheney claimed executive privilege and Congress chose not to pursue the matter any further, as they didn't think at the time anything would be gained by doing so.

So far, this has been the case of all of the Bush administration's use of Executive privilege. None have (yet) made it to the Supreme court. In previous cases where the Supreme Court has ruled (Clinton and Nixon being the two most recent), they have ruled that it covers only cases of national security, directly involving either military details or discussions with foreign nations.

The claims where that the ability to keep comments secrete were essential for getting truthful, honest as well as unpopular advice without the threat of retribution on those giving the advice.

Which, it should be noted, is exactly the claim made by Nixon, which the supreme court rejected in ordering him to turn over his tapes. From which, of course, someone had accidentally deleted a completely inconsequential 14 minutes.

Re:Clarification (2, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#21527075)

The supreme court never ruled on that use. Congress demanded the documents, Cheney claimed executive privilege and Congress chose not to pursue the matter any further, as they didn't think at the time anything would be gained by doing so.
Are you sure we are talking about the samecase [csmonitor.com] ?

So far, this has been the case of all of the Bush administration's use of Executive privilege. None have (yet) made it to the Supreme court. In previous cases where the Supreme Court has ruled (Clinton and Nixon being the two most recent), they have ruled that it covers only cases of national security, directly involving either military details or discussions with foreign nations.
Wow, Am I reading this [washingtonpost.com] Wrong? IT might be that Bush's cases have never made it to the supreme court but it appears that the answer is more then national security and military. Actually the first links shows the intent better. But this one isn't really lacking.

Which, it should be noted, is exactly the claim made by Nixon, which the supreme court rejected in ordering him to turn over his tapes. From which, of course, someone had accidentally deleted a completely inconsequential 14 minutes.
Actually, the Supreme court said that private matters are not protected and that was why he had to give it up. there is some extensive discussion about it on the Washington post link above. Nixon couldn't claim executive privilege because it was about a private matter and criminal in nature. And after rereading it, I noticed that they forced two people to offer testimony and restricted 1 or two as noted by the redacted who did fall under the executive privilege. So it appears that the context of the discussions is what matters most.

Sudden outbreak of common sense... (5, Insightful)

Glowing Fish (155236) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523579)

Has anyone else noticed how much that tag is used?

If it is used every day on a different issue, it seems that common sense isn't as rare of an asset as was once believed.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense... (2, Insightful)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523723)

I was thinking the same thing. Not so much that it's a rare asset, but, that perhaps this is what my polisci prof. meant by a realignment of the system.

The people are getting more and more fed up with the system and it's beginning to show itself more and more with favorable laws and judicial decisions after minor elections and before major ones.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21523885)

People are realizing that there's only a year left for them to get an envelope of anthrax sent to them if they dare challenge the administration. The shorter the timeframe, the more people are willing to put up with that risk.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense... (1)

tmarthal (998456) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524079)

There are 10000 other things in the news that show that common sense is still as rare as once believed. they just aren't posted on /., since they are just the norm.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense... (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524111)

If it is used every day on a different issue, it seems that common sense isn't as rare of an asset as was once believed.

It's not much of an outbreak if it's a single isolated incident.

constituents (3, Interesting)

ryen (684684) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523589)

Once all the greed comes out, how will the EFF get that information into Joe-citizen's hands in time for elections and voting (and not just the tech-community and other usual suspects).

Re:constituents (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523861)

And what's more, the EFF would need to conjure up someone worth voting for. As it currently stands, the Democrats control both houses of Congress and are poised to pass a telecom-immunity bill. So voting to maintain Democratic control is not going to do anything there. Voting to switch control to the Republicans, meanwhile, will probably also not improve matters (if anything they'd pass the same telecom immunity bill, only with more enthusiasm).

Re:constituents (3, Interesting)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525649)

As it currently stands, the Democrats control both houses of Congress and are poised to pass a telecom-immunity bill. So voting to maintain Democratic control is not going to do anything there. Voting to switch control to the Republicans, meanwhile, will probably also not improve matters
You know, I was thinking about this the other day while researching the presidential candidates. None really fit what I want. Ron Paul seems like the most interesting one to me because he's big on smaller government and returning power back to the states. To bad he comes across as a bit of a nut job. Hilary is just too socialist. Obama doesn't seem to know what he wants to run on. The other Republicans and Democrats seems mostly interchangable with each other to me. I'm thinking what we need is a candidate that is not part of the current establishment. Someone like a Arnold who would show up and question everything instead of doing something because that's the way it's always been done. Why do we have a 'war on drugs'? What has it solved? Is it worth it? Does the tax code need to be so complicated that we have to spend billions of dollars to enforce it? What are the goals in Iraq? Where are we currently? Can they even be achieved?

I'm just totally fed up with both sides, and have no idea how to approach the problem of voting next year. I agree with something I heard once. "Anyone who wants to be President should automatically be disqualified from every becoming President."

Re:constituents (1)

entropiccanuck (854472) | more than 6 years ago | (#21526433)

Perhaps you're thinking of Douglas Adams' quote?

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

Re:constituents (4, Informative)

FunWithKnives (775464) | more than 6 years ago | (#21527177)

Hillary Clinton is about as far from a socialist as possible. I have no idea why people trumpet this baseless notion. She is part of the capitalist status-quo, just as the rest of the "popular" candidates are. Her proposed "health care" plan, which is the only part of her platform that I imagine one could even attempt to call "socialistic" (though all of the main candidates have or will have something similar), would do absolutely nothing to combat the broken private system. True socialist change would involve placing the health insurance and pharmaceutical giants under public ownership, where they would be conducted as a public trust under democratic control of the workers. That is socialism. Creating a "safety net" or a "welfare state" is not socialism. Those are simply policies meant to keep the populace complacent, nothing more.

Also, I believe that if she were truly socialist, she would receive much less than she does in "campaign contributions" (read: legalized bribes) from corporations. Anecdotally, regarding her "health care" plan, if it would really make any profound difference in the current system, then why is she currently the number one recipient of contributions from both the HMO Industry [opensecrets.org] and the Health Professionals Industry [opensecrets.org] for the 2007-2008 election cycle?

Re:constituents (2, Insightful)

mbius (890083) | more than 6 years ago | (#21529057)

At the risk of being read sockpuppetty, "nut job" is a hatchet job. From Bill Maher to Sean Hannity, everyone on TV is a jerk -- yes? -- supporting one party's lizard so the other party's lizard won't win. I don't hear crazy from Ron Paul. I hear it from them.

Drugs, taxes, and Iraq are all in the Ron Paul platform, aren't they? Questioning the system? Right? And from a guy genuinely more interested in policy than his political career?

Can I ask why your image of the ideal presidential candidate, then, is a guy who (1) found celebrity lifting weights, (2) has conventional ties to a "side you're fed up with," (3) isn't running and (4) legally can't?

Directly: which Republican candidate do you want on the ballot? It's not an abstract choice.

I did process of elimination, and once I crossed out guys who remind me of Bush and guys who deny evolution, the guy left was the one whose contrasts I like. That Fox News seems to hate him is gravy.

If I am not mistaken (4, Insightful)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523619)

The FCC and SEC are all filled with Bush Appointees.
He did this with knowledge and aforethought. Bush is
really a traitor to the American people.

Re:Bush is really a traitor to the American people (0, Troll)

begbiezen (1081757) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524129)

I wonder how the republicans (in this forum) will respond.
Will they still deny the obvious?
I'm guessing they will, loyalty before logic.

Re:If I am not mistaken (4, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524445)

Yes, but Bush didn't some chick a blowjob, so he's clearly still a good president.

Re:If I am not mistaken (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21526177)

Yes, but Bush didn't some chick a blowjob

We don't, actually, know that for a fact.

Re:If I am not mistaken (1)

s4m7 (519684) | more than 6 years ago | (#21529377)

Yes, but Bush didn't some chick a blowjob
In his defense, he thought it was a chick at the time.

What the fuck are you talking about? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21524499)

"He did this with knowledge and aforethought."

First, don't use the fucking word if you can't be bothered to use it correctly.

Second, what is "this" in your troll? Please define what "this" is, so we can proceed to discuss how little you know about that which your are running off at the mouth about.

And what idiot fucking mods thought a post like parent, devoid of ANY facts, logic, or insight of any kind wasted mod points on this nonsense? I don't care how bad Bush is, if the alternative is to side with you fuckers, I'll take rich and corrupt over young, delusional and retarded any day.

Re:What the fuck are you talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21525027)

Second, what is "this" in your troll? Please define what "this" is, so we can proceed to discuss how little you know about that which your are running off at the mouth about.
From parent:
"The FCC and SEC are all filled with Bush Appointees."

If you can't add two and two together then the

And what idiot fucking mods thought a post like parent, devoid of ANY facts, logic, or insight of any kind wasted mod points on this nonsense?
has better understanding of logic than you. You, Sir/Ma'am, is the troll.

Re:What the fuck are you talking about? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21526505)


"'The FCC and SEC are all filled with Bush Appointees.'"

Like I said, fucking retarded. That's SOP you mouthbreather.

Please don't breed.

Re:What the fuck are you talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21525789)

First, don't use the fucking word if you can't be bothered to use it correctly.


Oh please... this is slashdot; this is par for the course. Anyway, we all know grammar nazis have less to say than those with poor grammar.

Second, what is "this" in your troll? Please define what "this" is, so we can proceed to discuss how little you know about that which your are running off at the mouth about.


Oh, I dunno, maybe it refers directly to the action he described in the previous sentence? Dude... grammar aside, at least he can fucking read.

And what idiot fucking mods thought a post like parent, devoid of ANY facts, logic, or insight of any kind wasted mod points on this nonsense? I don't care how bad Bush is, if the alternative is to side with you fuckers, I'll take rich and corrupt over young, delusional and retarded any day.


hmm... devoid of any facts, logic, or insight? Sounds a lot more like your post to me. Anyone stupid enough to think that, in order to have an opinion, you must ally yourself with every member of one of two political parties is operating on half a brain cell. Oh, and if you honestly think that your side is the smart one, you should do a survey of the political beliefs of the most respected scientists, engineers, and college professors. You're in for a rude awakening.

No, you wont continue supporting Bush because he's smart. You'll continue to support Bush, no matter how corrupt, because, as you reason, some guy on slashdot had a grammatical error in an attack against him, and the rest of his post seemed confusing and offensive to you. Essentially, you'll continue to support him because he's on your team, and you'll support your team no matter what they have done or continue to do. That's what's scariest about idiots like you.

Re:What the fuck are you talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21526611)

"Oh, I dunno, maybe it refers directly to the action he described in the previous sentence? Dude... grammar aside, at least he can fucking read."

And maybe you're a god damned idiot. Why, tell me, you fucking pap smear, would someone be guilty of treason for doing EXACTLY WHAT EVERY PRESIDENT HAS DONE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE PRESIDENCY?

I guess that makes sense, if you have extra chromosomes.

You have, somehow, found a way to give Anonymous Cowards a bad name.

Stop posting. Then stop breathing. Then, if the world is very lucky, stop living.

Re:If I am not mistaken (4, Insightful)

Shadowlore (10860) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525617)

You know what is really funny. A group of people saying Bush is stupid, dumb as a box of rocks, and a dunce all while claiming he masterminded a grand conspiracy and is pulling it off.

Even funnier:
They don't see the contradiction.

If you s/funny/sad/ or s/funni/sadd/ it holds just as well.

But here is a newsflash for the poster:
a decade ago the SEC and FCC were filled with Clinton appointees. And *he* did that with knowledge and forethought.
a decade before that, the FCC and SEC were filled with Reagan appointees; *he* did that with knowledge and forethought.

Are we seeing a pattern here? G
uess what, 5 years from now the SEC and FCC will be filled with appointees of the next president who will do with knowledge and forethought.

Can you see the pattern yet?

Furthermore, do you want a President appointing people to the SEC and FCC without knowledge and forethought? Wouldn't you think about putting people into those posts? While it can be argued these posts should be eliminated, I hold it rational to assume that if they are going to exist that qualified individuals should hold those positions.

That's one of the differences, IMO, between a mere malcontent[1] and a genuine dissident. A malcontent will just make thing sup that sound important or impressive, and label his or her target with whatever epithet sounds denigrating at the time. If it suits a malcontent's argument to say the target (in this case the POTUS) is stupid, he or she will do so. The next day if it suits the malcontent to say the target is a criminal mastermind, he or she will do so. Why? The point is not discussion and resolution. It is about bitching, whining, or an agenda to make oneself (or political allies) feel or look better. And for some it is about blog ad revenue.

A dissident however, has no need to make such contradictory claims. A dissident doesn't care whether he or she likes the POTUS, he or she knows the POTUS gets neither blame nor credit for the economy by right (for example), or can see good and bad, agreeable and disagreeable in, for example, the POTUS regardless of party, state of origin, campaign contributor beliefs, sex, or whatever else.

And finally, there is no "The American People". We are a very diverse bunch. We do not all agree on pretty much any given political or social matter. Malcontents like to portray this fiction because it lets them imply or claim that their target is not among the group. It's a form of the logical fallacy known as appeal to popularity. It is particularly popular for nationalist malcontents to portray a country's population as a people; and for the same reasons.

1: malcontent (a person who is discontented or disgusted); not the Shakespearean/English theater Malcontent.

Re:If I am not mistaken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21526215)

You Democratic trolls and Democratic Fascist Moderators are FUCKING UP SLASHDOT. FUCK OFF!

This will be fun to watch... (1)

Starteck81 (917280) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523653)

...kinda like switching on the light in a run down crack house and seeing the rats and roaches scurry for cover to hide.

Re:This will be fun to watch... (2, Funny)

Bearpaw (13080) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523713)

This will be fun to watch...kinda like switching on the light in a run down crack house and seeing the rats and roaches scurry for cover to hide.

The risk is that the rats and roaches may attack rather than scurry for cover. Make sure your flamethrower is fully charged before turning the light on.

Re:This will be fun to watch... (2, Funny)

Karzz1 (306015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525193)

Why not just use the flamethrower for light?

Re:This will be fun to watch... (4, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523809)

Scurrying for cover isn't their style. More like, switching on the light in a run down crack house and seeing the rats and roaches invade Iran.

Re:This will be fun to watch... (3, Insightful)

morcego (260031) | more than 6 years ago | (#21526405)

I'm not sure if are joking or not, but this is a real issue.

In politics, what you describe is called "bullring tactics". It is a very well known and effective way to keep the population under control, by diverting their attention toward an outside "enemy". An enemy that threatens the very thing that makes us human, perhaps (Nazi). Or someone that threatens our way of life (Terrorists). Or someone who corrupts our children (Commies).

This happened and still happens on many countries, not just USA. The USA is just the more obvious one. Maybe because they have such much presence on the media. Actually, you can see it happening everywhere if you study the history of any country. Sometimes the enemy is fabricated. Sometimes the enemy is real (ie: the politics got lucky and didn't have to create one). The tactics is always the same.

This is so widely known and used that you can even read about it on books (1984, Chapterhouse Dune etc). You can see it in your own country (doesn't matter where you live). You can see it in your church (in case you belong to one).

The saddest thing of all, even if you and everybody else can see plainly what these leaders are doing, 99% of the population accept it. I don't know why. Maybe people just don't want the responsibility. Maybe they like to be tricked. Maybe it is because a leader is that makes us a people (don't laugh, it is a verifiable historical truth). Maybe they just don't care. It usually takes things getting pretty serious on a personal level (something like the great depression or even worst) for they to do something.

Enters Caesar. Bullrings tactics, add some breads and circus, and you have a very simple recipe for keeping the population under control. How simple ? Take a look at the presidents of countries like Venezuela and Brazil. I'm mentioning those just to take a bit of the "anti-Bush" flavor out of this post.

Let the USA government continue to waste the country's money on all these wars for a decade or two more, and suddenly Iran and North Korea are no longer the real problem anymore.

Even if you agree with what your government is doing, don't simply accept it. Ask yourself also WHY they are doing it. Do actions and words agree ?

This EFF court case is a very good way to find out real motivations. I, for one, praise them, and hope they can manage to get the information. If the government tries to hide it, thats ok too. That by itself is enough of a message, telling us, again, what the real motivations are.

Re:This will be fun to watch... (1)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21527143)

I wasn't joking, and I do not accept what my government is doing.

Well, if it's required by law (4, Funny)

roystgnr (4015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523665)

Then I'm sure the White House will get right on that.

Re:Well, if it's required by law (5, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524207)

As funny as that statement is, how scary is it that now the norm is for the White House to break laws with impunity?

Re:Well, if it's required by law (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#21526275)

That depends on if they actually broke the law.

I know they broke the statutory law but one of the key defenses for the action is that the law didn't apply to them because of constitutional obligations that congress has no right to restrict in any ways. I'm not going to claim it is correct or not, just that the issue is there and it will eventually need to be decided by the supreme court.

Congress won't want to take it to that level because it might be true and they might lose a perception of power. Currently one side it attempting to use this as a campaign strategy and that side seems to be the most likely to push the issue too. If they push it, they stand a chance of losing their so called advantage and issue. It would devastate them in the way campaigns are being run. So they don't really have a desire to do anything about it either.

Re:Well, if it's required by law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21527341)

Those arguments only make sense if you're such a ludicrously partisan hack that you're willing to buy any argument at all.

I hope you get cancer of the anus.

Re:Well, if it's required by law (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#21528517)

or if your not so biased and jaded that your willing to excuse the most prominent and workable defense they can put up if it ever goes to a trial.

You see, that was the one underpinning that excuses their disregard for a law in place. It is the same effect of someone not following a law because it is unconstitutional. First, they have to break it, then they have to get charged to challenge it. So either counter their argument or just the hell up.

I guess maybe your a troll. That would be why you posted AC instead of anything that could track your stupid comment back to you. and if your too stupid to understand what they are talking about, then you will be dumbfounded when they mount that defense and actually win. If I was you, I would stop hoping people got ass cancer and start thinking about where your head is right now. I hope your just checking yourself for cancer.

Re:Well, if it's required by law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21529303)

I guess maybe your a troll.

Gee, what was your first clue?
Apparently your username suits you.


nigger nigger nigger

I really wish that wasn't funny. (1)

Bearpaw (13080) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524783)

But it's hilarious.

Similar news. (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523733)

It's worth referencing this recent /. article [slashdot.org] on a similar topic. Wonder how many parallels or ideas we can draw from both...

creators suggest corepirate nazis leave us alone (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21523745)

as we know, that's not likely to happen right away.

meanwhile: consider becoming a member of the creators' wwwildly popular, newclear powered planet/population rescue initiative/mandate? there's really no contest/question/much choice?

we're intending for the nazis to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather'.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying [google.com]

micro management of populations has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster.

from previous post: many demand corepirate nazi execrable stop abusing US

we the peepoles?

how is it allowed? just like corn passing through a bird's butt eye gas.

all they (the felonious nazi execrable) want is... everything. at what cost to US?

for many of US, the only way out is up.

don't forget, for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way) there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/US as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile will not be available after the big flash occurs.

'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.

some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.

concern about the course of events that will occur should the corepirate nazi life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.

'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

Yeah Right! (3, Funny)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523805)

Greenwald goes on to argue that the order should be leveled against Senators as well, to get a sense of who else is in Ma Bell's pocket.

And I'd like a pony that floated on rainbows and candy and secreted money instead of sweat! Geez! Can't you learn to be content!

Joking aside, that would be the next logical step. Of course having all lobbying be completely transparent has always been the logical next step to cleaning house, but now Washington doesn't run on logic does it?

No, Washington runs on money. (3, Interesting)

xC0000005 (715810) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523997)

and logic says that if you are a congress man living on lobby money then you don't want a clear paper trail, because it will make it harder to get more of that wonderful pony sweat. Logic says that the man who makes the laws should work to protect his own interests as often as he can without completely alienating the plebes who vote him in based on his name recognition.

Here's your pony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21524027)

No problem. The pony you describe (pretty much) is here. [youtube.com] Enjoy!

Why isn't this done allready? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21523921)

Is there any reason that doesn't involve corruption we can't know what corporate/other representatives our elected officials are meeting with?

It seems like most of the time these meetings couldn't involve national security(I would go so far as to say most things don't, whatever they claim), so why are they secret to begin with?

Re:Why isn't this done allready? (4, Insightful)

Intron (870560) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524169)

The justification for not releasing the names of Cheney's Energy Policy group members was that the Administration didn't think they had to, even though the FACA [gsa.gov] has been on the books since 1972. However the court ruled that they did in April 2004, so we expect those names any day now.

Re:Why isn't this done allready? (1)

tomthegeek (1145233) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525073)

Whoops, inexperienced mod here. That's funny at all, pretty sad really.

Re:Why isn't this done allready? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#21526461)

Well, actually, the court said the reason was because they need to be able to take counsel and advice from a number of people without them having a fear of anything coming back from what they said or who and when they met. They said it was an integral part of the office he holds.

So it wasn't because he didn't want to. Even if you want to make it look that way. I tend to agree with the decisions as much as I did when Clinton used it.

Yeah! EFF Go For It! (0, Troll)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524019)

Some good news for a god-damn change. This is great. Hold the Bushies to the fire--make them sweat--let all their high crimes and misdemeanors come to light. Light the torches and throw the ropes over the trees--it's time to get jiggy with W.

Who orders who? (-1, Offtopic)

Besna (1175279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524059)

The court and the WH are different entities. Two. I will write about "two".

1. The self was the beginning. All things happen here, as long as they only involve one sentient.
2. The self became two, and there was love. All things happen here, as long as they only involve two sentients.
3. Time begins, a universe starts.
4. An infinite amount of sentients go along their threads.
a. They enter a universe.
b. They go back to the time of the self. Time is not unlimited, though.
c. They go back to the time of the two. Time is not unlimited, though.
e. Back to a universe.

Comments? Questions? Note the supreme importance of one and two. Are there any interactions between three or more that are interesting? In Quake, there's a lot of kill stealing.

Re:Who orders who? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524771)

Simplistic and incorrect. You forgot 0. There was something before all divisions and definitions, especially before the division between self and non self. And anything you can say about that is, all at the same time, incorrect, correct, neither correct nor incorrect, and both correct and incorrect. But this is all just philosophical masturbation. Not that I don't enjoy a good wank now and then, but here's a thought. Stop trying to define. The desire to define and categorize comes from fear of the unknown. Just stop. Be here now. ;-)

In the beginning was zero sentients? (1)

Besna (1175279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525065)

I don't think so. Zero is just a number. One can represent something meaningful. You might as well posit starting with negative one sentients. They are called whole numbers for a reason.

Re:In the beginning was zero sentients? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525291)

You are thoroughly confused, and will only get more so if you keep to this path.

Where does the definition of sentient come from? Where does the definition of definition come from? You haven't thought about this deeply enough. One cannot represent anything. The idea of representation must first be defined, the idea of reference. Where does reference come from, originally? Why did the undivided and undefined divide and become defined? It is because it is undivided. Thus is contains all divisions. Because it is undefined, it contains all definition. The undefined is your starting point, not something definite like one. Figure out how one came about from null, and you'll be on the right track. It has to do with reference, division, and definition, that's the only hint I'll give you.

Guess I fell for it (1)

Besna (1175279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525355)

I'm looking for real philosophical discussion, not wordplay. Reply to the original post if you have something meaningful to say.

Re:Guess I fell for it (1)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525515)

Your original post is only wordplay, signifying nothing. That's why I called it masturbatory. There are an infinite number of catchy little lists like yours, and none of them mean anything. I'm trying to show you something real. But as usual, it's like I'm pointing at the moon, and saying "moon," only for you to point at my finger and ask, "moon?" No, that's my damn finger. Look what I'm pointing at.

Infinity (1)

Besna (1175279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525673)

There are not an infinite number of catchy little lists. Given the reasonable requirements of English and size of list, there are a finite number.

Re:Infinity (1)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525775)

And English words mean exactly the same thing to every sentient being in all places and times. Just stop it. Stop thinking, you're never going to get it with all that thinking getting in the way. You are stuck in dualism. Subject and object are arbitrary. You are not an self-existing, separate and self-defined entity. You are not a soul. You are not a little man inside your head, looking out through your eyes and listening through your ears. The sense of self is only another sensory track, like sight or sound. It is not separate, it does not signify a thing-unto-itself. You are caught in the trap of symbolism, so caught you can't even see the real world, only your own symbols for it.

Re:In the beginning was zero sentients? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525631)

No, he's right, zero is transcendent. Zero is not just a number, it's the concept of nothing, of not having something. For anything one or any other number can represent, zero represents its absence. Before there was any sentient, there was zero sentients, and you cannot begin to count anything as but you have begun with not having counted any. And it took sentience to realize that nothing was a concept unto itself as important and critical to understanding as any something, that absence is in fact a something itself. Zero is the most critical value for understanding anything, and in many ways it is only by comparing ourselves to zero that we know that we are one or more.

Negative numbers are just positive numbers in the opposite direction. Whether reversing the polarity or enumerating debt or the loss of sentients, it still begins with the concept of not having any of those. Zero is the beginning of everything.

Checks and balances (1)

stormguard2099 (1177733) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524145)

I know washington hasn't heard those words in a while but it's glad to see they still exist somewhere every once in a while. This is why the founding fathers of the US made three branches instead of just 1 blunt club. I just wish we would see this sort of thing happen more often..

Re:Checks and balances (3, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#21526509)

You do realize that the founding fathers also said how the checks and balances were to be made right?

They didn't give all out authority of one branch to interfere or "express oversight" with the another. It has to be done within the context of the constitution. This is something that makes me believe this would be overturned in future appeals.

So what? (1)

He Who Waits (1102491) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524465)

Won't the administration simply issue copies of all the requested documents with all the relevant information "redacted in the interest of national security"? (I'm a Canadian. I don't know how crap like this works.)

Re:So what? (2, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524613)

That's a pretty good guess as to how the initial release will work. Then the EFF will have to file a lawsuit or something arguing that the documents are too redacted and don't fulfill the request. Then we're back in a long, protracted court case.

US Govt (4, Insightful)

youngone (975102) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524627)

Sorry guys. Your system of Government has been up for sale for a long time now. The highest bidders are just sorting themselves out now. Democracy has ended in the US, is it now an oligarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy [wikipedia.org] or a Plutocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy [wikipedia.org] ?

Lessons from Pakistan (0, Flamebait)

toddhisattva (127032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524667)

Obviously, Shakespeare was exaggerating. We do not need to kill all the lawyers.

But jailing the EFFluent for the duration of This Long War does seem like a good start.

Re:Lessons from Pakistan (1)

samwichse (1056268) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524899)

I hope this is sarcasm.

I really do.

Sam

Socky McSockpuppet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21526753)

Glenn Greenwald! [typepad.com]

Sockpuppet! [ace.mu.nu]

Can we expect another Watergate? (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 6 years ago | (#21527531)

00:00 [b]Bush:[/b] Hey, Cheney, get in here! I need you to help me figure something out here.
00:10 [B]Cheney:[/b] What is it now?
18:40 [B]Bush:[/b] That's brilliant! Get right on top of it!

Tell the EFF to Stuff It (0, Troll)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#21527583)

Just on general principal, Bush should not give into these people. It's a bunch of leftists looking to drag down a political rival, and one wonders, who exactly does the EFF lobby?

you FAIL 1t (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21528269)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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