On 12 Jan 2006 15:16:07 -0500, Mike Given <asph...@gipco.org> wrote:
> * What club a SCOTUS nominee belonged to when he was a dumbass >teenager in the 1970s
Well it was a club whose aims were to keep Princeton pure. Free esp. from Blacks and women.
If that isn't enough ......
He was proud enough to remember in a job application in 1985, but now has apparently forgotten.
He was either lying then, or he is lying now, or his mental acuity is such that he can't remember something that is clearly an issue important enough for him to have included it on an app. for a Government job.
Any which way you cut it, his elevation to the Supreme Court is suspect.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, miguel wrote: > Look, somebody's back and he's stopped crying about the Pacific Life Neuter > Bowl!
Yes I dried my tears and went on with my life. The Oregon Ducks were a good team but ultimately the loss of their starting QB hurt them enough to lose the bowl game. That and the fact that Heisman candidate Adrian Petersen was back to being healthy for the Sooners. Pundits were predicting that the Ducks would lose all 3 regular season games after they lost Kellen Clemens to injury but they were gamers. Heck, football is a game of inches and if the pass at the end of the Holiday Bowl had been 6 inches higher it would have gone for a touchdown instead of being intercepted. Such is the nature of College Football which is why it's one of the greatest sports of all.
You'll be happy to know I'm actually rooting for the Seattle SeaChickens to get into the SuperBowl. Shaun Alexander's backup is Maurice Morris who played at U of O. He'd be a starter for many other teams.
-- Brock
"You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! God damn you all to hell!" -Taylor
In article <2l26s1dfghcje62vni383cekq3l52u1...@4ax.com>, Mike Given <asph...@gipco.org> wrote:
>Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>>A powerful organization that's operated by a group (or even >>>an individual) whose "agenda" is simply to enforce the notion >>>that a person's right to exist ends where the next person's >>>right to exist begins has got a damn good start. A bit of a >>>conservative ideal, I admit, but I do at least try to practice >>>what I preach. >>No, that is not a conservative ideal.
> Really? Why not?
I have never heard a "conservative" politician stand up for any individual liberty other than the right to bear arms. On occasion I have heard them claim to be fighting restrictions on "religious freedom", but these invariably turn out to be cases where they are fighting rules that prevent their group from inflicting their specific religion on others.
>>Maybe it was one of Barry Goldwater's ideals, but Barry >>Goldwater is dead.
> First I've heard of it; and to think - I didna even get invited to >the funeral. Bastards.
>>Nowadays, "conservative ideals" have more to do with >>funneling government money to religious organizations,
> That's "Neo-Conservative". > ObXXLTriteBromide: Nothing worse than a "born-again".
That is the kind of Conservative that is now running things. If you object to government surveilance of citizens, loss of individual liberty, or government spending boondogles (in the form of an expensive elective war and lots of no-bid contracts for Haliburton), then you are NOT a Conservative, you are an America-hating, Saddam-sympathizing LIBERAL.
>>making sure people do not have access to birth control,
> That's religious fundamentalism.
>>trashing the science curriculum in public schools, etc.
> Also religious fundamentalism. > Nothing to do with conservatism. Really. Look it up.
And the attrocities comitted by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. have nothing to do with Marxism. Really. Look it up. <Snerk!>
Actions speak louder than words. In *practice*, Marxists kill large numbers of people whenever they are allowed to run things, and arguing that those aren't *real* Marxists doesn't help anything. In *practice*, conservatives incorporate their religion into the laws, drive up deficite sending, and do away with individual rights and freedoms, and arguing that those aren't *real* conservatives doesn't help anything.
-- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled |
Seth Breidbart wrote: > In article <5eufs155craqu0h0knoehdhtsuhvafg...@4ax.com>, > steveb <twigg2...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> On 12 Jan 2006 15:16:07 -0500, Mike Given <asph...@gipco.org> wrote:
>>> * What club a SCOTUS nominee belonged to when he was a dumbass >>> teenager in the 1970s >> Well it was a club whose aims were to keep Princeton pure. Free esp. >>from Blacks and women.
> In the 1970's Princeton wasn't that kind of pure.
Hence the "Concerned Alumni".
Who knew the teenage years extended through one's twenties.
Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > In article <2l26s1dfghcje62vni383cekq3l52u1...@4ax.com>, > Mike Given <asph...@gipco.org> wrote: > >Paul Ciszek wrote: > >>>A powerful organization that's operated by a group (or even > >>>an individual) whose "agenda" is simply to enforce the notion > >>>that a person's right to exist ends where the next person's > >>>right to exist begins has got a damn good start. A bit of a > >>>conservative ideal, I admit, but I do at least try to practice > >>>what I preach. > >>No, that is not a conservative ideal. > > Really? Why not? > I have never heard a "conservative" politician stand up for > any individual liberty other than the right to bear arms.
> On occasion I have heard them claim to be fighting restrictions > on "religious freedom", but these invariably turn out to be > cases where they are fighting rules that prevent their group > from inflicting their specific religion on others. [...] > Actions speak louder than words. In *practice*, Marxists kill > large numbers of people whenever they are allowed to run > things, and arguing that those aren't *real* Marxists doesn't > help anything. In *practice*, conservatives incorporate their > religion into the laws, drive up deficite sending, and do away > with individual rights and freedoms, and arguing that those > aren't *real* conservatives doesn't help anything.
>>>First, it's illegal---and for very good reasons. >>I've seen two differing camps on that debate, both of which >>are far more intelligent than Bob Herbert and none of whom >>are concerned with selling newspapers. >Which arguments have you heard in support of legality that >you believe may be reasonable?
You mean aside from the argument made by a former associate AG of the US (which you, a non-former AGUS associate gave a totally unqualified, "read-this-blog" poo-poohing to), and some several of the blogs that you pointed me to? Hm. Dunno. The ACLU is bringing suit (which is probably a good thing) so there's at least some (perhaps forlorn) hope that the SCOTUS might have a go at this. The one good thing is that there will be some accountability to the motives behind the disputed wiretaps. Those motives will certainly determine whether or not the taps are in any way supportable.
Paul Ciszek wrote: >Mike Given wrote: >>Paul Ciszek wrote: >>>>A powerful organization that's operated by a group (or even >>>>an individual) whose "agenda" is simply to enforce the notion >>>>that a person's right to exist ends where the next person's >>>>right to exist begins has got a damn good start. A bit of a >>>>conservative ideal, I admit, but I do at least try to practice >>>>what I preach. >>>No, that is not a conservative ideal. >>Really? Why not? >I have never heard a "conservative" politician stand up for >any individual liberty other than the right to bear arms.
I have. Lots of 'em, in fact. Some were even US Presidents.
>On occasion I have heard them claim to be fighting restrictions >on "religious freedom", but these invariably turn out to be >cases where they are fighting rules that prevent their group >from inflicting their specific religion on others.
Nothing to do with conservatives; you're still talking about fundamentalists. Or, if you prefer, "talibanism".
>>>Maybe it was one of Barry Goldwater's ideals, but Barry >>>Goldwater is dead. >>First I've heard of it; and to think - I didna even get >>invited to the funeral. Bastards. >The funeral was back in 1998. Do try to keep in touch. >http://216.92.255.170/dps/1998.html
And the motto of this story is: If you want people to remember when you died, don't die right after Frank Sinatra.
>>>Nowadays, "conservative ideals" have more to do with >>>funneling government money to religious organizations, >>That's "Neo-Conservative". >>ObXXLTriteBromide: Nothing worse than a "born-again". >That is the kind of Conservative that is now running things.
No, that's the kind of religious fundamentalist masquerading as a conservative that's running things. ObNote: Now that you've capitalized the "C" in conservative, I can at least see from where your misunderstanding and consequent knee-jerking stems.
>If you object to government surveilance of citizens,
I don't. I do, however, *prefer* that it be done on some sort of pro forma rating. Conservative cynicism implies that's not an absolute possibility 100.00 percent of the time, but it's my preference nonetheless.
>loss of individual liberty,
Depends on whether or not you're a criminal or a volunteer.
>or government spending boondogles (in the form of an expensive >elective war and lots of no-bid contracts for Haliburton), >then you are NOT a Conservative,
So what you're saying is that to be a conservative is to be a criminal - as opposed to simply being a criminal.
>you are an America-hating, Saddam-sympathizing LIBERAL.
It's sad how breathtakingly bourgeois American "journalism" has become these past 120 years or so.
>>>making sure people do not have access to birth control, >>That's religious fundamentalism. >>>trashing the science curriculum in public schools, etc. >>Also religious fundamentalism. >>Nothing to do with conservatism. Really. Look it up. >And the attrocities comitted by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. >have nothing to do with Marxism. Really. Look it up. <Snerk!>
You just keep your damn oranges away from my apples.
>Actions speak louder than words.
A trite and often misleading aphorism if ever I heard one.
>In *practice*, Marxists kill large numbers of people whenever >they are allowed to run things, and arguing that those aren't >*real* Marxists doesn't help anything.
I wouldn't argue that at all. The ultimate goal of Marxism is to produce a "classless" society through use of totalitarian means; Marx saw that as the only method through which the exceedingly rich could be made to "share the wealth" with the balance of the (proletariat) population (that's a very basic analysis, BTW). The ultimate goal of a conservative is much different: To find a reasonable status quo and stick with it, keeping changes to a gradual and manageable pace. I tend to take a liberal lean on those gradual changes to afford that opportunity (not necessarily wealth) be spread as evenly as possible.
>In *practice*, conservatives incorporate their religion into the >laws,
No, they don't. I'm a conservative and I find religious law utterly abhorrent and oxymoronic. Religion is about faith, not law.
>drive up deficite sending,
Some sort of "postage due" thing, no doubt. But assuming for the moment you mean deficit spending, it has nothing to do with conservatives in particular - in fact, I find "conservative" an excellent modifier for "spending". "Liberal spending", OTOH, is often a bad thing. The *truth* of the matter is that there's plenty of pork in both respective barrels.
>and do away with individual rights and freedoms,
Sorry, but "no"; I've already explained the conservative stance on that and consequently rejected your ham-handed opposing interpretation on the matter; restated: My rights and freedom end where yours begin. If I were more liberal-leaning than I usually am, that would be ammended to include your "right" to take any excess bread from my table to feed you and vice-versa.
>and arguing that those aren't *real* conservatives doesn't help >anything.
I think you're quite wrong. For one, it helps me and some goodly number of other conservatives that believe in preservation of freedom for the largest number of people possible, banning religious superstition from becoming law, and moreover, educating people so that they don't mistake the polarized soundbytes used by (what passes for) journalists in this country for anything other than the marketing crap they usually are, ie. thinking that "liberal" and "conservative" are mutually exclusive. That sort of idiocy may sell newspapers and banner ads but it does so at the expense of putting liberals and conservatives at each other's throats instead of putting the JackBootsOfFreedom on the throats of religious fundamentalists who misuse conservatism as a means to preserve traditionalism and outright thieves who use liberalism to suckle at the public tit and thereby leech away the opportunity of those who bear far more merit.
But if you prefer to keep the media-bowdlerized definition of "conservative", by all means. The fun thing is that I don't have to take it, and won't. Neither will I accept the definition of "liberal" to mean "radical anarchist peacenik". It's not.
steveb wrote: >Mike Given wrote: >>(..I have *much* bigger fish to fry.) >judging by the length of this reply, apparently not.
Even I, in my abounding munificence, do sometimes take a moment to kick a useless little ankle-biter. But I see that it won't do you any good, so I'll adjust my priorities accordingly.
Mike Given wrote: > miguel wrote: >>Mike Given wrote: >>>steveb wrote: > [..blah, blah, blah..] >>>>First, it's illegal---and for very good reasons. >>>I've seen two differing camps on that debate, both of which >>>are far more intelligent than Bob Herbert and none of whom >>>are concerned with selling newspapers. >>Which arguments have you heard in support of legality that >>you believe may be reasonable? > You mean aside from the argument made by a former associate AG of > the US (which you, a non-former AGUS associate gave a totally > unqualified, "read-this-blog" poo-poohing to), and some several of the > blogs that you pointed me to?
I am asking you to articulate the argument you believe may reasonably support the Bush administration's decision to violate FISA.
As far as *me* being unqualified, be careful with that gun you be pointing at yo' foot, sucka.
> Hm. Dunno. The ACLU is bringing suit (which is probably a good > thing) so there's at least some (perhaps forlorn) hope that the SCOTUS > might have a go at this. The one good thing is that there will be > some accountability to the motives behind the disputed wiretaps. > Those motives will certainly determine whether or not the taps are in > any way supportable.
Motive is irrelevant to whether the administration violated FISA. When Cindy Sheehan is arrested for trespass during a war protest, she doesn't get to claim her motives were pure in order to escape punishment. If you point a gun at Steve Chaney's shoulder and pull the trigger, and accidentally shoot him in the heart and kill him, you might have a defense to murder 1 but you don't have a defense to anything below that.
Strangely enough, these same legal principles, at least in theory, apply to elected officials.
But since you brought up the Supreme Court, I suppose it's as a good a time as any to mention the concept of legal realism. At the USSC level almost all legal decisions are essentially political. The judges decide which way they want the case to go and then, usually with the help of their brilliant clerks, construct a legal argument to support their pre-ordained result. A recent case in point is the 6-3 decision upholding Oregon's physician assisted suicide law.
Don't hold your breath for anything more intellectually honest from this Supreme Court anytime soon.
> Mikey (..you giving odds?)
I haven't seen the ACLU's complaint and don't know what legal theories they may be pressing. Do you have a link?
miguel wrote: >Mike Given wrote: >>miguel wrote: [...] >>>Which arguments have you heard in support of legality that >>>you believe may be reasonable? >>You mean aside from the argument made by a former associate AG >>of the US (which you, a non-former AGUS associate gave a totally >>unqualified, "read-this-blog" poo-poohing to), and some several >>of the blogs that you pointed me to? >I am asking you to articulate the argument you believe may >reasonably support the Bush administration's decision to violate >FISA.
As I've said 'afore, support for letter-o-the-law legality will be a pretty thin margin if any. What I'm reading on both sides of the debate is that the FISA court itself is a largely rubberstamp affair to the point of being administratively sinecure. If that's (even close to) the case, then what we're talking about here amounts to nothing more than a clerical error and the White House walks away looking like the victim. For the record, I *don't* want to see that happen. Continuing on the notion that FISA is merely a 4th Ammendment shuffle, there's a matter of target legitimacy; were these (at least on paper) American citizens phoning-up known terrorists (..or desiganted "hot numbers" within our borders? And will such evidence even be presentable from either the standpoint of national security or privacy of the potential victims? Changing directions and going on the assumption that FISA is *not* just a blow-up doll, there's still war powers to muddy the issue. I've read *some* of the documentation on the AUMF and fully admit that I probably don't understand up to half of it. But I *do* have obvious historical references that suggest that war/defense execution affords some pretty broad-ranging powers, including suspension and outright violations of civil rights of anyone appearing less-than-patriotic, and those were in times when war was a much more "formal" affair. Then there's the ramifications of pushing this particular panic button too hard, one of which has been proposed in a op-ed by a certain Judge Richard Posner in the Washington Post: http://tinyurl.com/df5q2 ..which, to my ears, makes a solution far worse than the current problem. I would much, much, *much* rather make a pinhole exception to the current rule rather than see an ammended law enacted that would actually give the POTUS and DOD legal rights and funded mechanisms to run data mining operations on, well, pretty much everybody. That, to me, smacks more of totalitarianism and the unraveling of democracy. And yes, I realize that I'm being pessimistic (maybe even a little paranoid) with regard to this possible outcome, but again, given this administration's propensities, it's not a totally unfounded concern. Put another way, I don't wanna see Dubya get the power to put Arab Americans in an internment camp the way our WWII administration did with Japanese Americans. If you saw the original press briefing following the "bad news for Dubya" (link goes to transcript): http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html ...the AG is already posing the soundbytes for providing "..the speed and the agility that we need in all circumstances to deal with this new kind of threat." And the transcript isn't as scary without seeing our Latino-Ken-doll-look-alike AG's accompanying BlackOps general - compare the links: http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5746 http://www.dragongraphs.com/Actors/KurtwoodSmith.jpg Separated at birth..? If it wasn't on CSPAN, I might've wondered when a Peter Sellers look-alike in a wheelchair would come spinning in. And regrounding on letter-of-the-law for a second, there was even some (fringe..?) talk on whether or not satellite-assisted calls fall under territorial Constitutionality or FISA. A far-out (pun intended) notion, I'm sure, but then we're back to how much "wiggle" the White House is going to get away with.
>As far as *me* being unqualified, be careful with that gun >you be pointing at yo' foot, sucka.
Don't be silly - I didna mean "unqualified" *that* way, and even if I did you and I both know that any gun-waving I'd be doing would only be of suction-dart caliber. What I meant was that you simply said "nice essay but legally defective" with no other qualification other than "read this blog". And seeing as we both know I'm no Harvard Law grad, you could have at least been a bit more informative. For us legally-unwashed masses, that is.
>>Hm. Dunno. The ACLU is bringing suit (which is probably a good >>thing) so there's at least some (perhaps forlorn) hope that the >>SCOTUS might have a go at this. The one good thing is that there >>will be some accountability to the motives behind the disputed >>wiretaps. >>Those motives will certainly determine whether or not the taps >>are in any way supportable. >Motive is irrelevant to whether the administration violated FISA.
I don't see why that would be so. If newly-minted US citizen Habib Swamirama, having made his first Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America maybe as little as 6 months ago, is phoning the cell phones of non-citizen terrorist suspects or sympathetic succor thereto, then how much more do you need to put a clear-and-present danger to the matter? OTOH, if the tap was on Maureen Dowd because she was calling an out-of-country source for an interview, different can of worms altogether. And in that particular case both 4th *and* 1st Ammendments get to play and wiggle space shrinks a *lot*. And as I said above and you point out a little further on, this isn't just about what's legal; there's plenty of politics involved.
>When Cindy Sheehan is arrested for trespass during a war protest, >she doesn't get to claim her motives were pure in order to escape >punishment.
Non sequitur, legally speaking, though I can appreciate the moral outrage and bad karma.
>If you point a gun at Steve Chaney's shoulder
It's like having our very own Cliff Clavin.
>and pull the trigger, and accidentally shoot him in the heart >and kill him, you might have a defense to murder 1 but you >don't have a defense to anything below that.
I still say motive matters, say, if whether or not he was gonna hijack the plane I'm riding in (even given his propensity for not going to airports). I'd certainly get the self-defense option, and probably a medal pinned on me by Dubya hizzownself, interviewed by Larry King, and a lucrative book deal that I could probably retire on with "red state" sales alone.
>Strangely enough, these same legal principles, at least in >theory, apply to elected officials.
When I see Tom DeLay sporting some prison fatigues *then* I'll believe that nonsense. They don't even apply to retired pro sports stars guilty of brutal double murders. And I'm sure I didn't see Nixon's hound-dog jowls sqeezing out from in between prison bars either. Which is irrelevant anyway 'cuz them fuckers go to some country-club prison in Jersey with tennis courts and a work-release program on the Ivy League lecture circuit. "In theory", my pale arse.
>But since you brought up the Supreme Court, I suppose it's as a >good a time as any to mention the concept of legal realism. At >the USSC level almost all legal decisions are essentially political.
Political, interpretational, whatever. I get it.
>The judges decide which way they want the case to go and then, >usually with the help of their brilliant clerks, construct a >legal argument to support their pre-ordained result. A recent >case in point is the 6-3 decision upholding Oregon's physician >assisted suicide law.
I don't understand the particulars on how that applies here. Or I'm missing the parallel. Or something.
>Don't hold your breath for anything more intellectually honest >from this Supreme Court anytime soon.
I didn't disagree with the unanimous decision announced today on state abortion regulation, and even though I'm not a parent myself, I'm betting there's precious few parents who don't agree with it.
>>(..you giving odds?) >I haven't seen the ACLU's complaint and don't know what legal >theories they may be pressing. Do you have a link?
Other than just the initial media cannonade (complete with that wacky guy Al Gore playing at bullypulpit on MLK day), nope. Seems to be more about blocking any future abuse rather than punative anyways. One source even cited Greenpeace on the plaintiff list, which may make for some minor interest. Maybe even Paris Hilton will be called to testify; didn't the government steal her phone once and put all the numbers on the Internets?
Mikey (..wouldn't violate her privacy with a 10 foot pole, myself)
Mike Given wrote: > miguel wrote: >>Mike Given wrote: >>>miguel wrote: > [...] >>>>Which arguments have you heard in support of legality that >>>>you believe may be reasonable? >>>You mean aside from the argument made by a former associate AG >>>of the US (which you, a non-former AGUS associate gave a totally >>>unqualified, "read-this-blog" poo-poohing to), and some several >>>of the blogs that you pointed me to? >>I am asking you to articulate the argument you believe may >>reasonably support the Bush administration's decision to violate >>FISA. > As I've said 'afore, support for letter-o-the-law legality will be a > pretty thin margin if any. What I'm reading on both sides of the > debate is that the FISA court itself is a largely rubberstamp affair > to the point of being administratively sinecure. If that's (even > close to) the case, then what we're talking about here amounts to > nothing more than a clerical error and the White House walks away > looking like the victim. For the record, I *don't* want to see that > happen.
Prior to the GWB administration the FISA court never denied a warrant request. Reportedly they began denying a few of them after Bush took office. This suggests to me that the court was doing its job. The "probable cause" threshold is very low, so it's no surprise that no application prior to a GWB application was denied. This history suggests that the GWB applications that were denied must have been remarkably bereft of anything suggesting probable cause.
> Continuing on the notion that FISA is merely a 4th Ammendment > shuffle, there's a matter of target legitimacy; were these (at least > on paper) American citizens phoning-up known terrorists (..or > desiganted "hot numbers" within our borders? And will such evidence > even be presentable from either the standpoint of national security or > privacy of the potential victims?
At this point what I believe will be revealed, if the whole case comes out, is that NSA was capturing *every* communication crossing US borders and datamining for patterns. Upon detecting a pattern it would begin surveillance on specific persons implicated in that detection. This surveillance would include all telephonic communications, domestic and foreign.
> Changing directions and going on the assumption that FISA is *not* > just a blow-up doll, there's still war powers to muddy the issue. > I've read *some* of the documentation on the AUMF and fully admit that > I probably don't understand up to half of it. But I *do* have obvious > historical references that suggest that war/defense execution affords > some pretty broad-ranging powers, including suspension and outright > violations of civil rights of anyone appearing less-than-patriotic, > and those were in times when war was a much more "formal" affair.
The main problem with the AUMF argument is that Bush *specifically* requested legislation that would allow him to use NSA as it's being used. Congress rebuffed him. Thus, in order for the AUMF dog to hunt, Bush has to argue that Congress impliedly granted him through AUMF what it explicitly denied when it refused his request for legislation. That dog will not be hunting anytime soon.
> Then there's the ramifications of pushing this particular panic > button too hard, one of which has been proposed in a op-ed by a > certain Judge Richard Posner in the Washington Post: > http://tinyurl.com/df5q2
I have probably mentioned my opinion of Judge Posner at some point in the past. I am probably the only person posting on soc.singles.moderated who can claim to have won a legal debate with Judge Posner. At least, that was the vote of the vast majority of judges in the Seventh Circuit when asked to adopt either his majority opinion or the dissent I wrote for my judge when I was clerking and my judge sat on a panel with Posner and Easterbrook. So I have a certain familiarity with Judge Posner and I find his unsupported pronouncements that civil liberties are not threatened by the NSA regime of datamining and wiretapping to be particularly unpersuasive.
> ..which, to my ears, makes a solution far worse than the current > problem. I would much, much, *much* rather make a pinhole exception > to the current rule rather than see an ammended law enacted that would > actually give the POTUS and DOD legal rights and funded mechanisms to > run data mining operations on, well, pretty much everybody. That, to > me, smacks more of totalitarianism and the unraveling of democracy. > And yes, I realize that I'm being pessimistic (maybe even a little > paranoid) with regard to this possible outcome, but again, given this > administration's propensities, it's not a totally unfounded concern. > Put another way, I don't wanna see Dubya get the power to put Arab > Americans in an internment camp the way our WWII administration did > with Japanese Americans. If you saw the original press briefing > following the "bad news for Dubya" (link goes to transcript): > http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html > ...the AG is already posing the soundbytes for providing "..the > speed and the agility that we need in all circumstances to deal with > this new kind of threat." And the transcript isn't as scary without > seeing our Latino-Ken-doll-look-alike AG's accompanying BlackOps > general - compare the links: > http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5746 > http://www.dragongraphs.com/Actors/KurtwoodSmith.jpg > Separated at birth..? > If it wasn't on CSPAN, I might've wondered when a Peter Sellers > look-alike in a wheelchair would come spinning in.
Just as Congress fashioned a carefully balanced response with FISA, I expect Congress can do the same with datamining capabilities if, in its collective wisdom, it deems this an important source of intelligence. The capacity is relatively new. I agree with Posner to this extent. The datamining, by itself, does not violate privacy so long as (1) no humans see the information and (2) it is destroyed once examined and found benign. However, once it triggers human review, the propensity for abuse of civil rights and liberties is manifest. Thus, if datamining is going to be permitted, would I would like to see is some judicial control over the algorithms used to identify patterns, and once a pattern is identified, sell a judge or magistrate on the validity of the identification before further surveillance on an individual is permitted.
Look, I hate the thought that the NSA can record and analyze everything I say or write and send to the internets. Some of it might even make Meg Ryan blush. But I'm not so stubbornly libertarian that I can't see the value of datamining, with proper controls, emphasis on proper, in safeguarding people. I suspect what tripped up Bush was that nobody believed that FISA would permit evidence obtained from datamining to support an application for a warrant. Hence, its resort to lawlessness which, incidentally, should be a wee bit more impeachable offense than lying about a blow job.
> And regrounding on letter-of-the-law for a second, there was even > some (fringe..?) talk on whether or not satellite-assisted calls fall > under territorial Constitutionality or FISA. A far-out (pun intended) > notion, I'm sure, but then we're back to how much "wiggle" the White > House is going to get away with.
FISA was drafted pretty broadly. I reviewed its definitions a while ago. I don't see any wiggle room for interception of satellite communications.
>>As far as *me* being unqualified, be careful with that gun >>you be pointing at yo' foot, sucka. > Don't be silly - I didna mean "unqualified" *that* way, and even if > I did you and I both know that any gun-waving I'd be doing would only > be of suction-dart caliber. > What I meant was that you simply said "nice essay but legally > defective" with no other qualification other than "read this blog". > And seeing as we both know I'm no Harvard Law grad, you could have at > least been a bit more informative. For us legally-unwashed masses, > that is.
Yeah, you're right. If I recall correctly the USAG deputy you cited was discussing AUMF. My response to that argument is set out above.
>>>Hm. Dunno. The ACLU is bringing suit (which is probably a good >>>thing) so there's at least some (perhaps forlorn) hope that the >>>SCOTUS might have a go at this. The one good thing is that there >>>will be some accountability to the motives behind the disputed >>>wiretaps. >>>Those motives will certainly determine whether or not the taps >>>are in any way supportable. >>Motive is irrelevant to whether the administration violated FISA. > I don't see why that would be so. > If newly-minted US citizen Habib Swamirama, having made his first > Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America maybe > as little as 6 months ago, is phoning the cell phones of non-citizen > terrorist suspects or sympathetic succor thereto, then how much more > do you need to put a clear-and-present danger to the matter? > OTOH, if the tap was on Maureen Dowd because she was calling an > out-of-country source for an interview, different can of worms > altogether. And in that particular case both 4th *and* 1st > Ammendments get to play and wiggle space shrinks a *lot*. > And as I said above and you point out a little further on, this > isn't just about what's legal; there's plenty of politics involved.
You're confusing "motive" with "raghead." "Motive" is typically merely an element, along with "opportunity," used in building a circumstantial case pointing to guilt. There is no need to build any circumstantial case here. Bush has admitted violating FISA. In any event it's clear his stated "motive" will be to "protect americans from the people who hate us for our freedoms" or some such tripe. Sorry, but having a laudable motive is not an excuse for violating that
...
> Look, I hate the thought that the NSA can record and analyze everything > I say or write and send to the internets.
can they break tough encryption fast enough for it to be useful to them? if i were giving a shit enough i'd encrypt stuff. since i'm not particularly worried about anyone reading my notes it seems like a royal waste of effort (on my part and theirs).
> Some of it might even make Meg > Ryan blush.
did you see her in _the doors_?
> But I'm not so stubbornly libertarian that I can't see the > value of datamining, with proper controls, emphasis on proper, in > safeguarding people. I suspect what tripped up Bush was that nobody > believed that FISA would permit evidence obtained from datamining to > support an application for a warrant. Hence, its resort to lawlessness > which, incidentally, should be a wee bit more impeachable offense than > lying about a blow job.
songbird wrote: > miguel wrote: > .... >>Look, I hate the thought that the NSA can record and analyze everything >>I say or write and send to the internets. > can they break tough encryption fast enough for it to be useful > to them? if i were giving a shit enough i'd encrypt stuff. since i'm > not particularly worried about anyone reading my notes it seems > like a royal waste of effort (on my part and theirs).
The encryption question is a good one. I don't know. I recall the brouhaha about exporting 128 bit encryption technology a few years back, but that concern seems to have vanished. It makes me wonder whether the government now possesses the computational power to make such encryption obsolete. Seth?
>>Some of it might even make Meg >>Ryan blush. > did you see her in _the doors_?
No. I was thinking more about when Harry met Sally.
On 18 Jan 2006 20:45:02 -0500, Mike Given <asph...@gipco.org> wrote:
> Continuing on the notion that FISA is merely a 4th Ammendment >shuffle, there's a matter of target legitimacy; were these (at least >on paper) American citizens phoning-up known terrorists (..or >desiganted "hot numbers" within our borders? And will such evidence >even be presentable from either the standpoint of national security or >privacy of the potential victims?
Your belief in the ability of the various branches of government to *target* accurately is touching.
Here is the problem:
Law enforcement here, does what law enforcement everywhere does. They decide who their target is, then set about building a case against them. They only look for evidence that will convict, and they ignore everything else.
Guantanamo Bay has demonstrated this, with teachers and taxi-drivers being released years after they were detained on suspicion and rumour.
Let's just hope you are never in the sights of such an agency, eh?
Of course, if you are, there are laws in place to protect your rights, and prevent the Government harassing you, aren't there?
On 18 Jan 2006 23:11:59 -0500, miguel <mjc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The encryption question is a good one. I don't know. I recall the >brouhaha about exporting 128 bit encryption technology a few years back, >but that concern seems to have vanished. It makes me wonder whether the >government now possesses the computational power to make such encryption >obsolete. Seth?
It doesn't .... and encryption has gone way beyond 128 bit. The US (alone) attempted to restrict the export of 128 bit encryption by classifying it *weapons grade material* ... the rest of the planet has only just stopped laughing at the futility.
However, how do you think they would respond to regular *obviously encrypted* emails travelling in and out of the country, to IP ranges they were interested in.
That's the kind of intelligence that every court would support the gathering of. Me too, by the way ..... with a warrant.
On 19 Jan 2006 09:19:33 -0500, Diorite <dior...@wowway.com> wrote:
>I'd suspect decrypting individual targeted messages is trivial. Slap a >sufficient pile of computing power and a good algorithm on the message >and it is done.
You'd probably be surprised. Read this, and Google *256 bit encryption* :
It's more likely that routinely encrypting messages would raise concerns within the NSA. They can't break the encryption, but they can get very interested in you :)
steveb wrote: > On 18 Jan 2006 20:45:02 -0500, Mike Given <asph...@gipco.org> wrote:
>> Continuing on the notion that FISA is merely a 4th Ammendment >> shuffle, there's a matter of target legitimacy; were these (at least >> on paper) American citizens phoning-up known terrorists (..or >> desiganted "hot numbers" within our borders? And will such evidence >> even be presentable from either the standpoint of national security or >> privacy of the potential victims?
> Your belief in the ability of the various branches of government to > *target* accurately is touching.
> Here is the problem:
> Law enforcement here, does what law enforcement everywhere does. They > decide who their target is, then set about building a case against > them. They only look for evidence that will convict, and they ignore > everything else.
> Guantanamo Bay has demonstrated this, with teachers and taxi-drivers > being released years after they were detained on suspicion and rumour.
> Let's just hope you are never in the sights of such an agency, eh?
> Of course, if you are, there are laws in place to protect your rights, > and prevent the Government harassing you, aren't there?
<Cue Sir Thomas More> "And when the last law was down, and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide?"
steveb wrote: > On 19 Jan 2006 09:19:33 -0500, Diorite <dior...@wowway.com> wrote:
>> I'd suspect decrypting individual targeted messages is trivial. Slap a >> sufficient pile of computing power and a good algorithm on the message >> and it is done.
> You'd probably be surprised. Read this, and Google *256 bit > encryption* :
> It's more likely that routinely encrypting messages would raise > concerns within the NSA. They can't break the encryption, but they can > get very interested in you :)
Yep. As long as encryption is easily recognizable as such (see Wayner on mimic ciphers) and not a lot of people use it, those who do are effectively performing the NSA's traffic-analysis work for free.
Hmm, I wonder if you could set up a code with stores on cafepress or somewhere.
miguel <mjc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mike Given wrote: > > miguel wrote: > >>Mike Given wrote: > >>>miguel wrote: > The main problem with the AUMF argument is that Bush *specifically* > requested legislation that would allow him to use NSA as it's being > used.
As in, being used domestically, right? That's what was requested, and what was rebuffed?
> Congress rebuffed him. Thus, in order for the AUMF dog to hunt, > Bush has to argue that Congress impliedly granted him through AUMF what > it explicitly denied when it refused his request for legislation. That > dog will not be hunting anytime soon.
One would not think so, no.
> Just as Congress fashioned a carefully balanced response with FISA, I > expect Congress can do the same with datamining capabilities if, in its > collective wisdom, it deems this an important source of intelligence. > The capacity is relatively new. I agree with Posner to this extent. The > datamining, by itself, does not violate privacy so long as (1) no humans > see the information and (2) it is destroyed once examined and found > benign. However, once it triggers human review, the propensity for abuse > of civil rights and liberties is manifest. Thus, if datamining is going > to be permitted, would I would like to see is some judicial control over > the algorithms used to identify patterns, and once a pattern is > identified, sell a judge or magistrate on the validity of the > identification before further surveillance on an individual is permitted.
This seems like a reasonable approach. I don't think we'll just kiss datamining goodbye as an intelligence-gathering tool goodbye, much as the thought appeals to me emotionally. As you say below, there is recognizable value in datamining.
> Look, I hate the thought that the NSA can record and analyze everything > I say or write and send to the internets. Some of it might even make Meg > Ryan blush. But I'm not so stubbornly libertarian that I can't see the > value of datamining, with proper controls, emphasis on proper, in > safeguarding people.
Agreed on all of that.
> I suspect what tripped up Bush was that nobody > believed that FISA would permit evidence obtained from datamining to > support an application for a warrant. Hence, its resort to lawlessness > which, incidentally, should be a wee bit more impeachable offense than > lying about a blow job.
Yes.
> I brought it up because you mentioned a desire to see the NSA > wiretapping before the Supreme Court. I have no more desire to see that > case before the Supreme Court than I do seeing the Supreme Court decide > another presidential election by jurisprudence so bad that the Court > itself says it has no precedential value.
Other than my continuing outrage* over that, I don't remember a lot of SC decisions that have made me terribly unhappy over the last few years. Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention (but then, I can't do anything to affect their decisions, only call my elected officials about new candidates/confirmation hearings).
* heightened by a 2005 article that details that in Florida 2000 the votes thrown out were overwhelmingly overvotes for Gore -- his name checked *and* written in, unambiguous. Florida's election law says no vote ?shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the vote?. http://www.research.fsu.edu/researchr/winter2005/features/battlefield... "There were 175,000 votes overall that were so-called ?spoiled ballots.? About two-thirds of the spoiled ballots were over-votes; many or most of them would have been write-in over-votes, where people had punched and written in a candidate?s name. And nobody looked at this, not even the Florida Supreme Court in the last decision it made requiring a statewide recount. Nobody had thought about it except Judge Terry Lewis, who was overseeing the statewide recount when it was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court."
Mike Given <asph...@gipco.org> wrote: > Paul Ciszek wrote: > >In Denver, a public transit bus was stopped, and a security guard > >was asking everyone for ID. A woman refused, saying that there was > >no law that said she had to carry ID or present it when asked, and > >she was hauled off in handcuffs. > Ohfer Pete's sake. > One over-zealous, self-important fucking RENT-A-COP does NOT add up
The security guard called the cops. The cops were the ones who grabbed the woman (throwing her cell phone to the back of the bus and sending her purse flying), slapped cuffs on her (arms wrenched behind her back), and hauled her off. The other bus passengers did, indeed, just sit there (I over-trimmed the context above, sorry). This was at a bus stop on federal grounds (not exactly NORAD, though; the US Geo Svcs, VA, Archives). She was not trying to get off at that stop. The "charges" against her were later dropped, and she's still riding the bus.
Diorite <dior...@wowway.com> wrote: > In article <8j8vs159o4me6o7fj50bqi05jus7260...@4ax.com>, > steveb <m...@privacy.net> wrote: > > It's more likely that routinely encrypting messages would raise > > concerns within the NSA. They can't break the encryption, but they can > > get very interested in you :) > I wonder how much financial and commercial traffic is encrypted? I'd > suspect many folks consider it prudent to encrypt data considered > vulnerable to industrial espionage.
According to what I've read in Risks, SANS and Cryptograph, not nearly enough banks, credit card agencies, etc. do.
In article <WPSdnVtVyPFNq0zeRVn...@io.com>, Selki <se...@io.invalid> wrote: >Diorite <dior...@wowway.com> wrote:
>> I wonder how much financial and commercial traffic is encrypted? I'd >> suspect many folks consider it prudent to encrypt data considered >> vulnerable to industrial espionage.
>According to what I've read in Risks, SANS and Cryptograph, not nearly >enough banks, credit card agencies, etc. do.
"Crypto-Gram" (confirmed that this was correct spelling off-group) -- --- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2006 by a...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
Labor Department : Labor :: Fire Department : Fire.
|
