Slashdot Log In
Subpoenas Issued Over NSA Warrantless Wiretapping
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Jun 22, 2007 08:10 PM
from the i-tell-you-nine-times dept.
from the i-tell-you-nine-times dept.
Spamicles writes "The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to subpoena documents from the Bush Administration related to the government's admitted eavesdropping on Americans' overseas emails and phone calls without getting court approval. In a 13-3 vote, the Committee decided to authorize its chairman to issue subpoenas for documents related to the NSA warrantless surveillance program. Nearly any request is going to be met with tough resistance from the White House, and the confrontation over the documents 'could set the stage for a constitutional showdown over the separation of powers.'"
Related Stories
[+]
DOJ Still Looks To Have Suit Against Verizon Tossed 79 comments
An anonymous reader writes "With Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell acknowledging that the 'private sector' had a hand in assisting the president's warrantless wiretapping initiative, the DOJ is ever more strenuously demanding that the suit against Verizon be dropped. 'The Justice Department attorneys argue McConnell's statements did nothing to change the fact that it hasn't ever confirmed any of the activities alleged by the class action plaintiffs--and has, in fact, denied the existence of any sort of "dragnet." The arguments made by the class action plaintiffs rest on nothing but "speculation," the attorneys wrote. In the Justice Department's view, litigating the case would still require exposing how the program actually does work--which, it says, would in turn endanger national security.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The defeatocrats are the terrorists best ally (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The defeatocrats are the terrorists best ally (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The defeatocrats are the terrorists best ally (Score:5, Funny)
Moderator: You may completely disagree with Anonymous Coward's point, but labeling his comment as funny is an insult to real debate. He wasn't trying to be funny and what was said should not be taken lightly.
Parent
Re:The defeatocrats are the terrorists best ally (Score:5, Informative)
If it's a Republican president, he can purposely ignore all threats and cancel current anti-terror operations [avatara.com] beforehand, and when the attack starts, he can ignore that it's happening in order to continue a PR event [about.com], and people will still consider him a great heroic leader as long as he ... well, does nothing, really.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If it's a Republican president, he can purposely ignore all threats and cancel current anti-terror operations beforehand,
Al Franken is not a credible source for content. You wouldn't accept a quote from Rush Limbaugh. The 911 Commission's Report is a better source and it was critical of both administrations.
when the attack starts, he can ignore that it's happening in order to continue a PR event
Bush has rightly been criticized by people on both sides for his first reaction during the attack. I wish he would have politely excused himself and left.
as long as he ... well, does nothing, really.
You may disagree with a lot that Bush has done in office, but to say he has done nothing is wrong. Iraq has been mishandled at times, but the war in Afghanistan was
Re:The defeatocrats are the terrorists best ally (Score:4, Informative)
Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the USA.
Parent
Re:The defeatocrats are the terrorists best ally (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh wait! I look at what wikipedia has to say about the factual innacuracies in _Lies..._:
In fact, it was not a Viet Cong grenade; instead the grenade had fallen from a fellow American soldier's flak jacket during a non-combat mission and accidentally detonated.
American officials say they have "convincing evidence" that bin Laden, who has been given shelter by Afghanistan's Islamic rulers, was involved in the bombings of the east African embassies.
At the time I wondered if this was wag the dog, to distract the American people from his troubles with the congress. Now I understand that the Republicans are more interested in using our terrorist enemies as a political tool, to win elections and gain power, rather than actually protecting us against them.
Parent
Re:The defeatocrats are the terrorists best ally (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, there haven't been any significant terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11, and George Bush deserves the same credit for that as he deserves for their having been no major cataclysmic meteor strikes or earthquakes. Of course, he can't take credit for preventing hurricanes, but he sure did his part in making the one big hurricane we did have cause maximum damage to human life.
The real shame of it all is that there may well be a terrorist threat in the world today, but the administration of George Bush has dealt with it so poorly that I find myself questioning the very existence of the threat. To so badly damage the confidence of the American people is a very difficult thing to do, considering how much Americans want to believe in their leaders. We're passing the two year mark during which George Bush has had the confidence and support of less than a third of Americans. Even Richard Nixon wasn't so universally discounted. Even though Nixon did manage to hit a low in the polls of 23 percent (only 3 points lower than Bush's most recent showing in Newsweek), and that was only for about 60 days, 7 months before he resigned in disgrace. Fortunately for Bush, his Vice President is so much less trusted that the Democratic majority dare not impeach him.
Today, the headlines included a story of how Vice President Cheney actually tried to shut down the government agency that is responsible for overseeing his use of classified information. According to the story in that notorious liberal rag the Wall Street Journal, Cheney obeyed the law regarding classified info for the first two years of his first term, but has ignored it ever since. His office went so far as to argue that the Vice President wasn't really part of the Executive Branch of government.
The number of presidential signing statements, which are the executive equivalent of making a promise with your fingers crossed behind your back, is not closing in on one thousand. During the eight years of the Clinton Administration AND the Reagan administration together, the number was about fifty.
As hard as George Bush and company have tried to get the American people to fear terrorism, the people of the USA are learning to fear the President and Vice President (along with a cast of characters worthy of a Columbian dictator, like Abu Gonzales) even more. This is the saddest result of all, because as I said, Americans WANT to believe in their President. I know I do.
NSA wiretapping? Since nobody but the Justice Department is going to know the full story, thanks to a level of secrecy not even known during the darkest days of World War II, we'll never know how far it's gone.
The good news, is that within one term of a President who is a decent human being, Americans will regain their confidence in the basic goodness of their leaders. I'm not sure Barack Obama can win, though.
Parent
correction (Score:3, Interesting)
The current Pres Bush had used the signing statement 800 times as of last Feb and interestingly, his pappy used it 232 times. In fact ALL of the presidents before GW Bush used signing statements only 600 times.
The interesting thing about this extraordinary measure is that usually these signing statements are used when the Congress passes a law that the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clinton pursued and convicted Ramzi Yousef [wikipedia.org], the mastermind behind the first WTC bombing.
Note that he didn't prevent the attack, he reacted to an attack that had already happened. Personally, that's all I would expect of a government, but people seem to think 9/11 was easily preventable. In that case, the original WTC attack should have been preventable as well.
Clinton launched cruise missile attacks against terrorist training camps in Sudan and Afghanistan
A lot of good that did. Do you think that made us safer? Within one year of those ineffectual attacks, Bin Laden had raised the Bojinka plot from the dead, and recruited enough people to carry it out. What event do you think he us
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course [slashdot.org] it was preventable.
A lot of good that did.
It would have done a lot more good if the Republicans hadn't been screaming that Clinton was "wagging the dog" while they were trying to invent a reason to impeach him. It also would have helped if Bush had negotiated [guardian.co.uk] with the Taliban when they offered to hand over Bin Laddin.
Yes, but
Re:The defeatocrats are the terrorists best ally (Score:5, Insightful)
As for being critical of both administrations: Good. But we're not talking about Clinton's failings here, we're talking about GWB's.
[Side note: To further address your obvious claims to my bias, consider the following: I hated Clinton. I think he was one of the worst presidents we've had. In fact, in the last 25 years, only George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were worse.]
No real decision he has made has been the right one - his entire presidency has been one of either doing the obvious, or fucking up. That is worse than nothing in my opinion.
Besides, I was talking about what he did to be considered heroic. People were saying he was being a great, heroic president standing in the face of opposition just days after 9/11. What had he done so far? Press conferences and photo ops. That is what I was talking about - he was being called a hero simply because he was President when a tragedy occurred.
Parent
Re:The defeatocrats are the terrorists best ally (Score:5, Insightful)
The right decision, yes. But fairly well done? Instead of going in full-force with as many military personnel as we could conjure up, we diddled around with the "Northern Alliance" for awhile, and then got sidetracked by a war in Iraq. Bin Laden still hasn't been captured, and Afghanistan's chief export is now opium. In what way has that war been handled well?
Parent
Re:The defeatocrats are the terrorists best ally (Score:4, Insightful)
The real problem came afterwards, when Bush and the administration set their sites on Iraq. Bin Laden had not been caught, and every story about Afghanistan reminded the American public of that fact, so of course Bush did everything he could to get it out of the news -- which for him effectively meant ignoring it completely and hoping it would go away. Mix that with Bush's insane hard-on for Sadam, and we suddenly have a media frenzy pointed elsewhere.
Meanwhile, the unfortunate US troops, and unfortunate Afghani population, had to make do as best they could in one of the most war-torn countries in the world with no real support. The fact that the entire country hasn't turned into pile of smoking rubble tells me that the people there really wanted this to work; if we had sent in the necessary troops to keep peace (a fraction of what we've sent to Iraq), and used the US's considerable power to build the country back up, we would probably have a working democracy there now, and it could be a near-first-world country.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, he has done a lot. Before 9/11, al qaeda was not trusted and HATED throughout most of the arab world. the shia's (iran) would have NOTHING to do
Re:The defeatocrats are the terrorists best ally (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I mean, I certainly did not expect this vote...
Did you?
Re:The defeatocrats are the terrorists best ally (Score:5, Insightful)
Time will tell just how well our government officials use the expanded powers they've arrogated to themselves since the original attack. My feeling is that they'll be just about as successful in preventing future acts of terrorism as they have been at stemming the tide of illicit drugs entering this country. In other words
Fears of terrorism aside, I don't much like the direction this country has taken. Mind you, I'm not just talking about the Bush Administration: we've been off the beam for decades.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The defeatocrats are the terrorists best ally (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, the real problem was our incompetent President. It was all laid out to him a silver platter in the form of two daily briefs: that Bin Laddin was going to attack the U.S., and that he might use planes to do it. He could have directed the FBI to watch passenger lists. He could have told the FAA to watch out for suspicious activity. He could have
Define "attacked". (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember the anthrax mailings?
Did those count as an attack?
What was done? Who was caught?
No surprise here (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Can anyone seriously believe that this warrantless wiretapping, an abuse in and of itself, isn't being used for political purposes?
Of course we can ... but would you rather read something like that or a half decent cheap shot at the expense CmdrTaco/Cowboy Neal/Zonk?
This was modded Funny because my posts are generally laden with humor or heavy sarcasm (meaning no one ever takes me seriously). You should worry when posters like myself are rated Insightful because it's at that point that the real thinkers (aka 'Da Brains') on this sight have fled.
Reasons the Da Brains might flee:
* NSA is wiretapping Da Brains' posts
* Da Brains ar
A request you can't ignore... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's certainly a request they can no longer ignore as much - but ultimately, what are the consequences if they don't comply? Will the president or any of his men be lead away in handcuffs, or will we have another 6 months of someone saying they have to do something, then they REALLY have to do something.
When Bush's team mentioned bringing 'ingegrity' back to the White House, they meant the kind of integrity that doesn't waver from their beliefs... at all costs, everyone else be damned. And they meant it.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Good luck america.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A request you can't ignore... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
At the end of the day... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The
Re:At the end of the day... (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if the resolution has teeth it won't matter. The Bush Administration will abuse their power to ensure that the information released will be useless. Hell, if they are using third party e-mail accounts to subvert regulations for other shit and Cheney's office refusing to allow the Information Security Oversight Office in [cnn.com], what the fuck do you think that they are doing for this?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps it's about time, then, that we did like the founding fathers and started fighting for ourselves.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
NEWS FLASH: The constitution crumbled long ago. As for the bill of rights, only one (Amendment 3) is not being abused.
For those not familiar with Amendment 3, it states "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Hell, I'd bet $5 that not more than a dozen Congressmen/Senators have even read th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Democrat or republican, it doesn't matter, they don't want the president to ever think they
Re:At the end of the day... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Has it really come to this point? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell ever happened to the government serving its people?
They still do. To the highest bidder, usually.
Can they honestly believe illegally wiretapping their own people serves the peoples best interests and freedom?
Oh, they don't believe any such thing. You said it yourself - it's all about the government's "members [using] it as a way to become personally more powerful". In spite of what is written in the Constitution, in spite of nobler ideals, never forget that the people in office are still just people, and people are selfish creatures.
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't argue that statement on face value, I do argue it's implications. Everyone, deep down, is selfish. They only do what they want to.
Where we diverge is in people's ability to do what's best for others to make themselves feel good. This is the traditional "selfless" definition, and I see this from people every day ( I work with cops and firefighters ).
It's this simple... (Score:4, Interesting)
While in past times these were some other ethnic group, some other nation, the devil, etc. we have today the modern political system. Someone else has wronged you, someone else got what should have been yours, you and yours have been held back by they and theirs. All these things are open to interpretation convenient to the subject audience to which the political/avaricious/power-hungry/self-deluded are preaching. They dress up with fun-house mirror magnifications of real issues mixed with non-sequitr reasoning and provide them to the people with the dual benefits to the seller of giving the audience the needed scapegoat du jour to avoid dealing with their fallibility and culpability, as well as providing an ultimately open-ended and thus never reachable hopeful land of opportunity to permanently right all of these probably non-existent wrongs against them.
We the people let this kind of thing happen because we the people buy into this kind of thing. They aren't selling us anything we didn't buy from them. If we didn't buy it, they'd have sold us something else, probably equally odious in the end whether or not it was as obvious as this or not.
While our collective modern intellectual and psychological exhaustion with trying to make sense of our truly warped world and the people who made it and the horrors of what that says about us may not always work well and probably will not, we can at least thankfully point to that and say it is thanks to this we have the modern sense of cynicism that gives us a chance to grab the reigns solidly, and pull back from disaster. Our collective history shows we won't, but perhaps a self-derived deceptive and deluded false hope is better than one sold to us by someone else. At least when it all falls apart, we can blame it on a conspiracy of one, headed by the person staring back at us in the mirror.
We have met the enemy, and probably wondered if we needed a shave when we looked at them.
Subpoenas Won't Matter (Score:2, Insightful)
Priorities (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Priorities (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
NSA warrantless surveillance program (Score:4, Insightful)
NSA: What NSA. There is no such office or department.
If there were, it's actions would be of the highest national security secret. Highly sensitive. Even admitting there were such a department would subject New York or Washington to a dirty bomb attack. So there is no such agency. Even if there were such an agency, I mean, after all, it's only charged with tracking terrorist. No true citizen worthy of the protections of the constitution is involved. After all, only CITIZENS are afforded the rights granted by the state. And only those we designate are citizens. We can't have just any old Tom, Dick, Harry, Iven, Shamus, Pedro, or Jamal covered by the same rights as some one that "belongs" here is granted. If you aren't white, Anglo-saxson, prodistant, you aren't shit, right? Why the hell do you expect to enjoy "one justice for all"?
You know what? I think America is strong enough to grant the same rights to evey person that is under our control the same rights of a citizen, except the right to vote and hold office. The prisoners at Gitmo and other sites not known should be affored the same rights and protections as someone whose grandparents were born here.
We are all illegal immigrants, unless we have native american blood. Just ask Chief Ten Bears. Oh, wait, we killed him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Write committee, wrong body. (Score:5, Interesting)
So start with Cheney. Move on to Gonzales. Repeat as necessary.
Heck, leave Bush alone for all I care. He's not driving this bus, he's just the guy with the hat.
Impeachment: It's not just for presidents.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Write committee, wrong body. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there honestly no method to simultaneously impeach them? Knock off both at once, and then the next guy in the line of succession takes their place. Or are you just worried that one will suceed and the other fail? Is the THIRD guy in line for the presidency ALSO an ass even bigger than Bush? It seems hard to believe that many despicable people would get elected
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)