Join 3,561 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Secret Warrants Granted Without Probable Cause
November 22, 2007 11:32 PM   Subscribe

Secret Warrants Granted Without Probable Cause
posted by rxrfrx (79 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
Well this will certainly .... !!!111

Yeah, no one cares. Roll over and get fucked by the man.
posted by blacklite at 11:36 PM on November 22, 2007


The thought police would get him just the same. He had committed—would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper—the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you.
posted by four panels at 11:37 PM on November 22, 2007 [3 favorites]


Clicked on the link and got an ad for AT&T "Now you can do your banking on your cellphone..." EEP.
posted by wendell at 11:40 PM on November 22, 2007 [3 favorites]


Such warrants are all well and nice, until it comes time to convict someone and all the evidence obtained based on the inadequate warrant is excluded.
posted by caddis at 12:02 AM on November 23, 2007


LOLZCONSTITUTION
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:02 AM on November 23, 2007 [2 favorites]


In other news: Court rejects challenge to wiretap program: The Bush administration's warrantless spy effort is protected by the 'state secrets' privilege, federal judges rule.
posted by homunculus at 12:27 AM on November 23, 2007


"We are all suspects now."
posted by homunculus at 12:31 AM on November 23, 2007


I take back what I said before. This is not a slippery slope. You couldn't manage a more determined descent with crampons.
posted by dreamsign at 12:34 AM on November 23, 2007 [3 favorites]


you get the privacy you deserve. you became partially complicit when you embraced connectivity, when you equated the faux life of cyberspace with real life. because you are so important, you had to be reachable all the time, and guess what?

i'm losing my capacity for outrage. if the government used this tracking ability to loose squads of orangutans trained to rape people on the unsuspecting users, that...might...do it. i make six or seven calls a year on my cell and have never received one. it's in my glove box turned off when i'm not using it, because i don't like to be disturbed when i'm driving. track this!
posted by bruce at 12:39 AM on November 23, 2007 [5 favorites]


Checks? Nope. Balances? Nuh-uh.

USA! USA! USA!
posted by Reggie Digest at 12:39 AM on November 23, 2007


Here are some cute bunnies. They love you bunny much. Forget about search warrants, forget about the constitution. Bunnies are forever.
posted by stavrogin at 12:46 AM on November 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


What I fail to understand is how the government is entitled to know everything it wants yet it can conceal every damn thing it does.
posted by srboisvert at 1:00 AM on November 23, 2007 [9 favorites]


They have cameras.
posted by stavrogin at 1:21 AM on November 23, 2007 [4 favorites]


Such warrants are all well and nice, until it comes time to convict someone and all the evidence obtained based on the inadequate warrant is excluded.

That's a joke, right? Trials and convictions went out with actual declarations of war.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:31 AM on November 23, 2007


I love this paragraph:

"Law enforcement has absolutely no interest in tracking the locations of law-abiding citizens. None whatsoever," Boyd said. "What we're doing is going through the courts to lawfully obtain data that will help us locate criminal targets, sometimes in cases where lives are literally hanging in the balance, such as a child abduction or serial murderer on the loose."

How do we make sure they don't track the locations of law-abiding citizens? By requiring them to establish probable cau---oh.
posted by honest knave at 1:36 AM on November 23, 2007 [3 favorites]


Secret Warrants Granted Without Probable Cause

You don't say.
posted by Avenger at 1:53 AM on November 23, 2007


Probable cause:

"Do you have reason to believe this person has broken the law?"

"I'm sure they probably did something bad!"
posted by blacklite at 2:02 AM on November 23, 2007


Well, in all fairness, if they get to use cellphones this way, without probable cause, then they should be providing the cellphones and paying the monthly service fees too. That'd actually seem pretty reasonable to me. But accessing data I am paying for, transmitted by a device I paid for, well, the courts need to tell them they can eat shit unless they have probable cause.
posted by jamstigator at 3:09 AM on November 23, 2007


bruce wrote: you get the privacy you deserve. you became partially complicit when you embraced [cell phones].

Wait, are you saying landlines are harder to track down than cell phones? Or maybe I should have anticipated the wholesale destruction of our civil rights? Obviously no one gives a shit about your own particular telephone, so what are you getting at here?
posted by ryanrs at 3:15 AM on November 23, 2007


you get the privacy you deserve...

No, we get the privacy (or health care, or leaders, etc.), that we demand. Unfortunately, the majority of sheeple have bought into the idea that demanding stuff is unAmerican. Only the French and Germans and other socialist and commie pukes take to the streets when they have grievances. The people have the ability and, according to many of our founders, the responsibility, to shut the whole fucking program down if it works against us.

Bowing and scraping to power is the antithesis of everything this country is supposed to stand for, regardless of what Rush and BillO and Cheney say.

(My personal feeling is that many,many more people would become more willing to be civilly disobedient if health insurance was no longer tied to jobs. As well as being a gold mine for insurers, employer-based insurance is a strong and effective means of political control.)
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:22 AM on November 23, 2007 [8 favorites]


The worst part is that the debate is false. People are trying to argue whether we should give up liberty for security, which might be an interesting debate if it were meaningful, but its a bit like debating phlogiston physics.

You *can't* exchange liberty for security. It doesn't work. Its like saying "well, I'd give up a little sex to get a couple million bucks", you can give up all the sex you want to, but it won't get you lots of money. Similarly you can give up all the liberty you want to but it won't get you any secuity.

It seems, at first glance, that giving up liberty ought to produce security. Free the cops, let 'em search anything without a warrant, torture confessions of of suspects, abandon trials because they're messy and don't always get convictions, etc. It *seems* like it ought to work, until you actually think for a moment, and take a look at history.

Take, for example, the Soviet Union. There were no civil liberties, everything I listed above, and more, was done. Did it produce a USSR free from crime? Nope. In fact now that the USSR has fallen, and some records have come to light we see that crime was rampant in the USSR, the Russian Mafia didn't magically appear when the Soviet Union fell apart, it had been there all the time.

Or look at Israel. Again, everything I mentioned above, and more, is done routinely in Israel. Has it stopped terrorism?

My point is that we need to stop the false debate, the "freedom vs. security" debate. You can't exchange one for the other, and acceping that false premise hurts us. It sounds nice and macho to quote Franklin, to talk about how you're such a freedomist that you're willing to take a little risk for freedom, and all that jazz. But it doesn't convince people who are scared.

You can't trade freedom for security. Nevermind whether its moral, or proper, or anything else, it just plain isn't possible. Not only is it true, but it'll probably have more impact on people who are frightened than all the macho talk you can muster.
posted by sotonohito at 6:14 AM on November 23, 2007 [27 favorites]


Innocent people have nothing to hide right? They're welcome to listen to me and my friends chat about football.
posted by triv at 6:24 AM on November 23, 2007


Everything sotonohito said.
posted by Devils Rancher at 6:26 AM on November 23, 2007


Innocent people have nothing to hide right? They're welcome to listen to me and my friends chat about football.

I have a friend with this attitude, but he's a heavy pot smoker. He's not putting 2 and 2 together that one of these days, they'll listen in on one of his drug buys, and then away he goes.

Worse, you've gotta consider all the mistaken identity cases, like the cops who busted into the wrong home ("No knock" warrant) in Fla. and shot up a little old lady who was exercising her constitutional right to protect herself from intruders. Just hope real hard that there's no turrsts going by the nickname triv anywhere, or that you soc. sec. number doesn't get stolen, or that your license plate number doesn't get incorrectly entered into a database or... well, you've still got nothing to hide, right? Never mind the "secret" evidence they'll have that you or your lawyer won't even be able to access -- you're innocent, and the system works!
posted by Devils Rancher at 6:33 AM on November 23, 2007


My personal feeling is that many,many more people would become more willing to be civilly disobedient if health insurance was no longer tied to jobs.

The same problem would exist if we had single-payer. I can't imagine it would be that hard to flag "troublemakers" if the gov't ever got around to tying its databases together.

People need to get angry enough about this shredding of the Constitution to demand a change. But I think most people are simply exhausted by the constant revelations of just how badly this Administration has screwed things up and how effective they've been at installing the mechanisms of the authoritarian state that they lack the energy (I know I am). And much more importantly, they know that they have no practical avenues to effect real changes until the next election. WIthout a veto-proof majority the Democrats can do very little to rein in Bush (this is assuming they would roll back Bush's policies - I think some of them would, but I'm not sure if it's a majority. And then there's always the problem of entrenched bureaucracies - does anyone think that DHS will ever go away?). And the Courts are emasculated by yes-men and the state secrets defense. Taking to the streets will do nothing, given a media that only wants to push a certain spin on events.

Right now, I'm just hunkering down and counting out the days. Too bad there's not an Bush advent calendar of some sort - every new day you'd open a window on some intentional gutting of the Constitution or unintentional policy fuck-up. There's more than enough of these to cover the 423 days until we're freed of these fools.
posted by longdaysjourney at 6:40 AM on November 23, 2007


But I think most people are simply exhausted by the constant revelations of just how badly this Administration has screwed things up and how effective they've been at installing the mechanisms of the authoritarian state that they lack the energy (I know I am).

With all due respect, that's the problem; you're playing their hand for them.

Taking to the streets will do nothing...

Funny, it works many other places - and it used to work here.

The same problem would exist if we had single-payer.


Not true - with employer-based insurance you are subservient. With government-based insurance, you (collectively) are the boss. Big difference.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:50 AM on November 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


they know that they have no practical avenues to effect real changes until the next election.

If they let you vote, and if they accept the election results, and if they actually step down, the next guy in line is going to want these same powers, and won't do a damn thing to roll them back.
posted by Balisong at 7:10 AM on November 23, 2007


E911 tracking systems read signals sent to satellites from a phone's Global Positioning System (GPS) chip or triangulated radio signals sent from phones to cell towers.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand correctly?
posted by odinsdream at 7:20 AM on November 23, 2007


I take back what I said before. This is not a slippery slope. You couldn't manage a more determined descent with crampons.

Crampons? WA HA HA HA HA HA!

Try You couldn't manage a more determined descent if you pitched yourself head-long into the chasm.
posted by From Bklyn at 7:23 AM on November 23, 2007


Thank you, Godwin, for inventing a law that has accidentally made it impossible to discuss fascism even when there is a real reason to compare something to fascism.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:59 AM on November 23, 2007


ryanrs asks me upthread:

wait, are you saying landlines are harder to track down than cell phones?

landlines are easier to locate because they're usually at a fixed address in the phone book. however, you are easier to locate on a cell phone after you've left your house. unless you have the world's longest phone cord and drive around with your landline on the seat next to you, your landline is of no use whatsoever in locating you when you're out. does this help?
posted by bruce at 8:18 AM on November 23, 2007


Owsley? Funky name for a magistrate.

Sorry, there’s a lack of a consistent legal standard so I guess we can do whatever we want. Tenth amendwho?

“until it comes time to convict someone and all the evidence obtained based on the inadequate warrant is excluded.”

Interesting theory. Tell that to Padillia. More to the point -the pen register statute doesn’t have an exclusionary rule.

“it's in my glove box turned off when i'm not using it, because i don't like to be disturbed when i'm driving. track this!”

Bruce, no offense, but you’re probably not important enough to be considered an enemy, which is why no one’s tracking you.

And I agree with sotonohito, liberty for security is a false tradeoff, but you don’t even really need history. Just basic logic will tell you if - to quote the Dean Boyd from the JD (in the main post) - lives are literally in the balance and a child has been abducted or a serial murder is on the loose - that’d be, y’know, probable cause. And why not have oversight? Not even for the big brother stuff (well, ok mostly for that) but some rogue agent stalking somebody or something similar. Far too much unchecked power in anyone’s hands can overwhelm their character, even if they’re basically decent.

This all sux because the pen register statute, in theory, is supposed to protect your privacy in that the feds could, before the act, check out web and cell communications themselves. But it also allows them to compel the companies to do it for them. And there’s all kinds of vagueness there, because is it technically “information” if they track your physical location through the network? (I’d argue it is. They wouldn’t) And are the companies civilly liable? (given there’s no exclusionary rule - the argument is no - which sux)

“Right now, I'm just hunkering down and counting out the days”
Me too.
Oh, and stockpiling ammo.

(suprising there’s no “where you at?” “WE KNOW WHERE YOU ARE AT” type (parody of the commercial) jokes)
posted by Smedleyman at 8:34 AM on November 23, 2007


until it comes time to convict someone

Time to what? Is that what happens after the torture?
posted by rxrfrx at 8:37 AM on November 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


I still can't figure out how in a country where everyone can go out and buy themselves a fucking AK-47 you don't have more armed uprisings. Seriously people. You can do better.
posted by chunking express at 8:40 AM on November 23, 2007


bruce, no offense, but you're probably not important enough to be considered an enemy, which is why no one's tracking you.

no offense taken. you're probably right that i'm insufficiently important and nobody's tracking me, however:

your comment is a non-sequitur, and it is comparable to the old "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide." there is a gulf between probability and certainty, and your statement applies with equal force to yourself and all other mefites...

(except maybe mathowie and one or two others, i expect to see him any day on "lifestyles of the rich and famous web entrepreneurs")

and yet, unimportant as we are, we are still troubled by these developments enough to bitch about them on the internet. you and me both, pawns in the post-constitutional chess game, but remember one thing smedleyman, if you can reach the eighth rank, you get to be a queen!
posted by bruce at 8:53 AM on November 23, 2007


The story fails to make one thing clear: are the DOJ agents in question admitting that they have no probable cause and getting warrants anyway, or is this a controversy over whether some judges are being overly liberal in how they interpret the facts adduced by the agents as evidence that they do have probable cause. The former would be pretty surprising, the latter is one of the most common controversies in all law enforcement.
posted by MattD at 8:58 AM on November 23, 2007


If we just outlawed education, we could completely eliminate all this outrage.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:18 AM on November 23, 2007


I still can't figure out how in a country where everyone can go out and buy themselves a fucking AK-47 you don't have more armed uprisings.

What does Iraq have to do with this?
posted by ryoshu at 9:20 AM on November 23, 2007


i make six or seven calls a year on my cell and have never received one. it's in my glove box turned off when i'm not using it, because i don't like to be disturbed when i'm driving. track this!

Hahahaha

So naive...

link

OK. More seriously, keeping it in the glove compartment likely prevents them from being able to listen in. But if they can activate the microphone when it's turned off, then I would gues that they can track you when it's off as well.
posted by BigSky at 9:42 AM on November 23, 2007


Innocent people have nothing to hide right? Right? Right?
posted by EarBucket at 9:53 AM on November 23, 2007


“I still can't figure out how in a country where everyone can go out and buy themselves a fucking AK-47 you don't have more armed uprisings.”

Well, revolt requires a good deal of planning first of all. Secondly, shooting up your local police station isn’t going to do much good. Other than bring down the heavyweights and with it a whole slew of laws banning/mandating all kinds of stuff. There is a time and place for open mayhem from the populace with assault rifles. Mob rule though is just as oppressive as the worst fascist state, and more bloody. And not killing all kinds of people for no good reason other than they voted differently than you, probably a bad thing.
Hell, 99% of the country wouldn’t know who to shoot if they really wanted to change anything in the first place.

“your comment is a non-sequitur, and it is comparable to the old "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide." there is a gulf between probability and certainty,”

You missed my point completely - #1, speak for yourself. #2, it is troubling to me, but quite the opposite of “if you’re not doing anything wrong...” in fact, if you’re not on someone’s list somewhere I’d suspect you (generally speaking “you” not you specifically) aren’t doing enough. That’s not a slight, doing something ‘wrong’ in opposition to this administration is doing something right (blowing up humvees or some such is just stupid tho). But ‘enough’ is debatable. And I’m not looking to quantify anyone’s cred here. (As for most of us, most folks either don’t have the power, influence, money or, having that, will )
The point being - anyone is up for grabs and the ultimate aim of surveillance programs (particularly like this) are widespread suppression of dissent coupled with outright harrassment of those folks important enough to the administration to be a pain in their ass (Nixon’s enemies list comes to mind). With the implication you could be on the list for a screwjob if you don’t mind your own business. So, no, if you’re not getting tracked it’s only because you’re not a big enough pain in the keister to the administration. Implicitly - if they wanted to screw with you, some agent doesn’t like the way you looked at him or something, they could quite easily.
So, yes, to be plain, bad situation. Mostly over most people’s heads and not interfering with their everyday lives, plus a convincing (albeit completely bullshit) cover story as to why it’s needed - hence the lack of outrage.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:57 AM on November 23, 2007


If you didn't have anything to hide, then why didn't God make you float when we tied a rock to you and threw you in the river?
posted by Flunkie at 10:21 AM on November 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


I still can't figure out how in a country where everyone can go out and buy themselves a fucking AK-47 you don't have more armed uprisings. Seriously people. You can do better.

Have you ever seen Red Dawn? The only people that Americans are supposed to rebel against are Commies. That or Muslims. Rebelling against the US Government would mean that some Flag-wavin', Bible-totin', Gun-ownin' Americans would have to open fire on fellow Americans (soldiers, cops, etc.). I really don't see that happening anytime soon.

Also, we've talked about this before, but the people who have huge stashes of arms in their basement would be, by and large, perfectly happy with a right-wing dictatorship.

There is no "Armed Left" in America. There is no "left" in America. Our current struggle is between a wealthy and heavily armed corporatist-religious alliance versus a few hundred million moderates, most of whom can't take to the streets, because it would mean loosing their jobs, health insurance and probably their houses as well.
posted by Avenger at 11:49 AM on November 23, 2007


Taking to the streets will do nothing...

Funny, it works many other places - and it used to work here.


The words "used to" should be bold. But if thousands of people march against something and there's hardly any coverage (and what coverage there is exists dismisses them as dirty liberal hippies) it's as if their protest never existed.

The same problem would exist if we had single-payer.

Not true - with employer-based insurance you are subservient. With government-based insurance, you (collectively) are the boss. Big difference.


Please. The same government that gives me the health care can take it away. (I'm still pro single-payer, because I think it's much more efficient than the mess we have now, but what makes you think a protester couldn't be denied health care services if he or she ends up on a list of undesirables?)
posted by longdaysjourney at 12:34 PM on November 23, 2007


Please. The same government that gives me the health care can take it away. (I'm still pro single-payer, because I think it's much more efficient than the mess we have now, but what makes you think a protester couldn't be denied health care services if he or she ends up on a list of undesirables?)

The government is, or is supposed to be, us. The politicians are our employees, and accountable to us. They can't take away anything we don't allow them to take away. Properly operating government doesn't give us anything; it accedes to our wishes.

Corporations, on the other hand, are monoliths unaccountable to noone without a financial stake. They can, and do, take away insurance.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:14 PM on November 23, 2007


Oh, and if you're waiting for the revolution to be televised, you'll be waiting a long time. If you think the mainstream media is necessary to get our country right, you've already given up.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:17 PM on November 23, 2007


They can't take away anything we don't allow them to take away.

With all due respect, you sound like you're about 13? 14?

If you think the mainstream media is necessary to get our country right, you've already given up.

Yes, I do think the support of the mainstream media is necessary for any mass protest movement to succeed. If the media hate you, they will go out of their way to destroy you and they'll do a great job of if (e.g., Gore 2000, Dean 2004, Edwards 2008, the 2003 war protests). This is why it's so important that we get more liberal voices in the mass media that's out there. Blogs are not a push medium, and that's what progressives need for their agenda to have any valid chance at success.
posted by longdaysjourney at 1:28 PM on November 23, 2007


With all due respect, you sound like you're about 13? 14?

47, thanks. With a business degree and experience in labor relations. Go back and study our revolution. Read the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution. Educate yourself about the rise of American labor unions. The media can be an ally or an enemy, but in the end, it makes no difference - the people who need to know and want to know will know.

And I stand by my statement. If people took to the streets - as they do in most other advanced democracies- when the government threatened to take something away, the government would back down in a hurry. They only get away with shit because we allow them to get away with shit.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:41 PM on November 23, 2007 [2 favorites]


Badger looks at the emperor and concludes that indeed he has no clothes.


The Treasure of the Sierra Madre book by B Traven (who was…well we are not sure but let’s make a movie anyway.)

"All right," Curtain shouted back. "If you are the police, where are your badges? Let's see them."
"Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don't need badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabrón and ching' tu madre! Come out from that shit-hole of yours. I have to speak to you."

Ubiquity, volume; that is the answer to overwhelming the will to power of the state; which by its very structure is corrupt. The state dies by a 1000 cuts, the revolution (note will not be televised) begins with me paying an extra $5 on a bill which cause that company to keep sending me a statement ever month, dial that 800 number ever so often, monkey warfare. Bannas not Guns! Buying multiple disposable cell phones, coding, jamming, phreaking, switching providers….fuck the state I will not go willingly into this new world. Of course traffic analysis is wide open, I wonder if there is sufficient probable cause..."he kept calling Washington Square Park and we knew he was up to no good, your honor"

Try putting a radio collier on me; I get a hold of your hand and it is coming with me!
posted by Rancid Badger at 2:42 PM on November 23, 2007


The point being - anyone is up for grabs

I agree. I think that if they believe they have the right to assume that I'm doing something wrong, I have the same right to believe that they are too.

I want the location of any politician who is currently receiving a salary based on US taxes to have their phone disclose it's location whenever anyone queries it.

After all, we are paying for both their employment and their cellphone, right?
posted by quin at 3:27 PM on November 23, 2007


If people took to the streets - as they do in most other advanced democracies- when the government threatened to take something away, the government would back down in a hurry.

Only if they were better-armed than the thugs the government hired to put them down.

And remember, that's your brother on the other side of the wall of SWAT shields. Your poor, under-employed, under-educated brother. And any good Lefty is a sympathetic lefty, which means a weak Lefty, which means when the time comes to bash in your brother's skull with a rock for the greater good, you'll falter, and think about how they're only against you because they don't know any better but they can be saved if you just talk some reason to them.

And in that second of compassion, you'll get a teargas canister pumped into your skull.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:28 PM on November 23, 2007


"There is no "Armed Left" in America."

Bullshit.
The three of us had a beer together last night.
posted by Seamus at 3:50 PM on November 23, 2007 [3 favorites]


And remember, that's your brother on the other side of the wall of SWAT shields. Your poor, under-employed, under-educated brother. And any good Lefty is a sympathetic lefty, which means a weak Lefty, which means when the time comes to bash in your brother's skull with a rock for the greater good, you'll falter, and think about how they're only against you because they don't know any better but they can be saved if you just talk some reason to them.

Almost
true. Those people are already counted for in the Lefty lexicon, however. Scabs and goons, brother, scabs and goons.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 4:35 PM on November 23, 2007


Read the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution. Educate yourself about the rise of American labor unions.

Poli sci and U.S. history degrees, so yeah, been there.

The media can be an ally or an enemy, but in the end, it makes no difference - the people who need to know and want to know will know.

I don't know how you can look at the last 15 years or so of American history and say that the media doesn't make a difference. If there's one thing this Administration has proven is that perception can be made to trump reality for as long as the media play along. The problem we face is getting the media to stop playing along. Without a media that is at least neutral toward your position, if not sympathetic, you can march till the cows come home and nothing will happen.
posted by longdaysjourney at 6:25 PM on November 23, 2007


"After all, we are paying for both their employment and their cellphone, right?" -posted by quin

Absolutely. Plus, it's better than guns. I'm about as pro-gun as it's possible to be. But the pen is most certainly mightier. As is the buttinski. (Seen "Enemy of the State"? Boy politicians get jumpy when you spy on them)
posted by Smedleyman at 7:08 PM on November 24, 2007


We deserve this.
posted by darkstar at 10:44 PM on November 24, 2007


Resurrecting the Star Chamber
posted by homunculus at 12:47 PM on November 25, 2007


DHS to firefighters: snoop on emergency victims for evidence of terrorism
posted by homunculus at 9:39 AM on November 26, 2007


'State Secrets' Doctrine Draws Scrutiny From Congress, Courts
posted by homunculus at 1:16 AM on November 27, 2007


Turley: “It Is Rather Clear That What The President Ordered Was A Federal Crime”
posted by homunculus at 9:33 AM on November 28, 2007


If the president can't commit a federal crime then the terrorists have already one.
posted by chunking express at 10:15 AM on November 28, 2007


Bush Legal Docs Declare Him King, Senator Says
posted by homunculus at 12:53 PM on December 9, 2007


Mike McConnell Is Flat Wrong
posted by homunculus at 1:35 PM on December 10, 2007


FISA Court to ACLU, Public: Buzz Off
posted by homunculus at 1:52 PM on December 11, 2007


Surveillance Doesn't Mean What You Think It Means
posted by homunculus at 11:50 PM on December 11, 2007


MeTa
posted by grouse at 6:06 AM on December 12, 2007


Fuck that MetaTalk shit: Fight the power homunculus!
posted by chunking express at 7:11 AM on December 12, 2007


2007 Lawyer of the Year - Alberto Gonzalez
posted by caddis at 2:04 PM on December 12, 2007


US Intelligence Tapping Phones of Indonesian Civilians
posted by homunculus at 12:21 PM on December 13, 2007


Activists see Senate Dems backing down to Bush, ready to give immunity to phone companies
posted by homunculus at 1:15 PM on December 14, 2007


Reid Chooses Admin-Friendly Measure as Basis for Surveillance Bill
posted by homunculus at 3:56 PM on December 14, 2007


The Lawless Surveillance State
posted by homunculus at 9:37 AM on December 16, 2007


Sad.
posted by grouse at 9:54 AM on December 16, 2007


Dodd filibuster threat causes Reid to withdraw FISA bill
posted by homunculus at 6:34 PM on December 17, 2007


see, not quite so sad. Good for Dodd.
posted by caddis at 9:28 PM on December 17, 2007


Why Did Reid Pull the Telecom Bill?
posted by homunculus at 11:18 AM on December 18, 2007


Time for Democrats to Lead on FISA: The Republicans are scaremongring, but the Democrats are cowering
posted by homunculus at 2:31 PM on December 20, 2007


OMFG: FBI Recorded 27 Million FISA 'Sessions' in 2006

(just in 2006, and that's only one agency out of the many now spying on us)
posted by amberglow at 3:04 PM on December 20, 2007


FBI Prepares Vast Database Of Biometrics
posted by homunculus at 9:54 AM on December 22, 2007


« Older During the 70s and 80s a new phenomenon appeared. ...  |  Billions of jellyfish destroy ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments