National Security Letter Plaintiff Speaks 185
Panaqqa writes "On Monday, the US government appealed a September ruling striking down a controversial section of the Patriot Act as unconstitutional. The section permits the FBI to send secret demands to ISPs (called 'National Security Letters') for logs and email without first obtaining a judge's approval. The ACLU has quoted the president of the small Plaintiff ISP, identified only as John Doe because of a gag order under the law, saying that the gag provisions make it 'impossible for people... to discuss their specific concerns with the public, the press and Congress.'"
So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
So discuss away. Have sock puppets discuss away. Have your wife discuss away. Set up a blog to record all dealings with said 3 letter organizations. So what if they try to gag you. Leak stuff to the press. Hell even DRUDGEREPORT would cover it, if nobody else would. They can't hide if you speak out.
We have a right to remain silent, and the right to SPEAK.
The only question left is, what do you stand for? If you don't speak out, neither will the next guy and the guy after that. This is how tyranny wins.
freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Systemic problem (Score:5, Insightful)
So even after GWB leaves office, the DHS and all the subdepartments under it will still be there demanding to have more access with less oversight. Will the next President have the balls to dismantle DHS into its constituent parts? Hell, will the next President have balls at all?
The growth of government into a huge self-sustaining entity is the root cause of this type of abuse. Only by returning to a smaller government with a more focused raison detre can we expect to have the people running it rather than it running the people.
Of course, since that will never happen, I hope they provide lube.
Re:So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
You make light of this as if it is easy. When facing legal action, most people will succumb to pressure and retreat. The rare person who does is generally labelled a leftist lunatic who does not value nor deserve the 'freedom' and security of a 'democratic' nation.
We have a right to remain silent, and the right to SPEAK.
It seems from the article and the provisions of the patriot act, this person does not have the right to speak under threat of prosecution or jail.
The only question left is, what do you stand for? If you don't speak out, neither will the next guy and the guy after that. This is how tyranny wins.
You are telling the person to speak out, but the person can be prosecuted for doing it. Most people don't stand up to well in the face of tyranny which is why there are so many in the world and in history. I wonder how you would act in a similar circumstance.
Don't mod parent down. Contains kernel of truth (Score:4, Insightful)
But the problem with this law is that it requires private citizens to comply with demands that originate wholly from within a government agency without checks and balances. The judicial stamp of approval, even if it is really nothing more than a rubber stamp, at least preserves the appearance of checks and balances. Removing that requirement to grease the wheels of law enforcement removes a critical check on the powers of the executive branch of government. If we don't have checks against the executive branch, then we have, in essence, a dictatorship where the executive decides what the law is and executes it according to his own wishes (or according to the department's wishes in the case of FBI or DHS).
Re:So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem with Tyranny. It makes doing what is RIGHT, hard. That's how it wins.
Re:I HATE THE ACLU! (Score:4, Insightful)
Or are you ready for "Heil Bush!" followed by "Your papers." ?
Re:So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
The stupid Patriot act makes it illegal for the person to tell their wife! So, that's not really a work-around. It'd be better for them to just say whatever they're going to say.
For what it's worth, I think the ISP owner has done the right thing. They've done everything they can without getting arrested. They haven't said, "Ah, it's too much trouble to fight this." Instead, they've called in the ACLU and taken the government to court. The government, so far, is losing. There's not much point in risking what the ISP owner would risk by giving up their identity. The ACLU has already drawn a lot of attention to it, and it doesn't seem like they'd get that much publicity by shedding their anonymity.
By the way, if you appreciate the fact that the ACLU provided free lawyers and made it way easier for the guy to fight the government on this (thus decreasing the chances he'd blow it off), you might consider donating a little cash [aclu.org] to help them provide more lawyers in future situations like this.
absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of a long list now that together paints absurdity:
gag orders from the state like TFA
fake government news conferences
secret rules for companies offering travel
warrentless searches, warrentless wiretaps without oversight
executive officials declaring they aren't part of the executive branch
former AG and AG in the approval process both who think simulating death by drowing is OK
overt torture of dissidents by the state
political litmus tests for federal prosecutors
taking water and degrading people with "security theatre" before they can fly
secret prisons
history rewritten with medals of freedom
CIA IG hamstrung by OMB red tape preventing the investigation of illegal activity
police that require papers on demand, without reason
overtly funding terrorist dictators, then attacking them
being tazed and arrested for asking tough questions to Senators and acting up
the lead opposition party candidate supporting the war through 2012
somehow "not finding" the Saudi prince who was "responsible" for the 9/11 attack
spending fully 60% of the global military expenditures ($623 Billion, not counting Iraq)
a looming awful choice: a draft -or- mid-east civil war. Pick one.
a president beating war drums about WW III
an endless war on fear that causes fear
This is the United States today. Any memory or idealism of some other "land of the free" is completely gone.
Right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Systemic problem (Score:5, Insightful)
We even have checks and balances for when the people who are supposed to keep the three letter organizations in check get out of control. It's called voting. We even have the ability for third parties to run when everyone sucks. The problem we have is that the people on average don't care. They buy the line about how doing all this will save them from the terrorist threat which doesn't exist. They buy the idea that the terrorists hate American freedoms and the only way to save our freedoms is to let the government take them away.
Democracy is about getting the government you vote for, and when the people who vote are apathetic, ignorant, greedy, fearful, and bigotted, you get apathetic, ignorant, fearful, and bigotted government. In other words crap government.
Is this current state of affairs George Bush(or more accurately Dick Cheney)'s fault? Yes. Dick Cheney is an evil bastard and Bush seems for the most part to just do what he's told. We've established that, we've paid for it now comes the new question?
Why are none of the feebs running for the next election being held accountable for fixing it? Why are we letting both parties and most of the third party candidates get away with not promising to dismantle this crap?
It's called checks and balances (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not racist or bigoted or infringing on anyone's civil liberties - it's an accurate and reliable way to find out about possible terror attacks.
The ACLU isn't trying to eliminate all wiretapping. They're on record as saying that there are times when wiretapping is necessary. I think any but the most deluded would agree that sometimes in order to stop people from doing very bad things, you need to use wiretapping. But this is the part that many people (not just the ACLU) object to:
Organizations like the NSA perform valuable service in defense of the country. So does the U.S. Navy. But just as I don't want the U.S. Navy deciding to bomb dangerous countries whenever it likes, I don't want the NSA deciding when to wiretap without any judicial oversight. Our system of government was initiated by men who were very aware of the dangers of too much power concentrated in one arm of the government. That's why we divide power in our government.
In a society that values the rule of law, the involvement of an independent judiciary in anti-terrorism matters is a good thing, not something to route around out for the sake of temporary convenience.
EVERY product and service could be compromised. (Score:5, Insightful)
That means that EVERY product and service from the U.S. could be compromised. Those who don't want to risk U.S. surveillance and control won't want to risk buying from manufacturers in the United States.
If you are a U.S. citizen, are you ready to be poor? Are you ready to live in a poor country?
Re:So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the modern society an arrest may be more than that. You could be charged with a random offense just to justify your arrest; we probably all do a dozen of those offenses before breakfast, so many laws are on the books that it's not humanly possible to know them all.
An arrest record, not even mentioning a conviction, is a massive dark stain on your reputation. And you can not (at this time) point at British soldiers and earn karma; quite opposite, you instantly lose all the value, at least in the eyes of HR. Your career may be destroyed, and that means your family too. If things turn out really bad you can join the society of homeless.
So it would be unwise to treat an arrest today as a picnic. 200 years ago you would be risking your teeth, or your neck. But if you survive you'd be OK. Today an arrest may make you into a non-person, a member of the lowest caste that there is in the society. Besides, the society as a whole usually does not look at lawbreakers as heroes, and the media does not present them in the best possible light either. Remember the guy who was asking Kerry some inconvenient question and got tasered? The media described him as a troublemaker, and the police accused him in inciting a riot. The country meekly accepted all that and joked that maybe the guy should have been shot instead. Hardly encouraging to future challengers, just as intended.
Re:So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a little different when most of your neighbors and friends sympathize, and "the man" is a three week ocean trip away. And, if I recall correctly, the tea party gang did their bit in disguise so as to prevent reprisals and maintain plausible deniability who were willing to "do the right thing" so long as the right thing didn't tarnish their good name.
I certainly agree that "doing the right thing" is right even when it is not easy, but speaking as a person who has been arrested and charged for leading a protest, even winning a minor beat like a disorderly conduct charge can really toss a wrecking ball through an otherwise orderly life. The six of us involved won the case, but still failed nearly every class that semester just from missing class to be in court all the damn time. Now, instead of class, imagine it was work (supporting your family) and instead of disorderly conduct, it was some serious federal charges. Suddenly, doing the right thing isn't such a "no brainer" that you make it out to be; it's a hard choice I wouldn't expect even very principled people to make very often.
Re:So What? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Systemic problem (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this is exactly the reason why democracy just can not exist as a stable state; it can be seen briefly in popular revolts, for example, but after things settle down people abandon their duty to the state. There are very few countries in the world that can be even called democratic, for a certain, watered down meaning of democracy.
Most countries are ruled by people who came to power because of who they are themselves or who they know. If a country has a good ruler (previously known as King) the country is in luck. If a stupid King settles on the throne - bad news. And the more industrialized and advanced the country is, the less active the population becomes, and thus the country becomes less and less democratic, and elections hardly mean anything.
Re:freedom (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Look,
If taking one for the team is the *only* way then fine. If it's the *best* way then maybe. If there is a fairly equitable solution that does not involve martyring one's self then that is the correct course of action. I mean you're almost acting as if the ISP should line up like the Judean People's Front crack suicide squad from Life of Brian, pull aside the armor, and stab one's self in the heart. I mean really, this ISP has armor in the form of lawyers that will go to the press for it, with a media/propaganda devision that rivals the duopoly political party's media machines... Why not use it?
-nB
Re:Right... (Score:3, Insightful)
As a red-blood yank I have to agree though. Europe (as a whole) is rapidly becoming the role-model that the USA once was.
Sad really. I still love my country, just my governments breaks have melted and if you thought a run-away semi down hill was bad, try a trillion dollar ball of red tape, pencil pushers, and self-important lawyers (as most congress critters are).
Re:So What? (Score:3, Insightful)
All correct, but there's an interesting corollary - the more people who are convicted of crimes, the less effect this threat has. It doesn't even need to be conviction as simply the experience of being arrested and thinking that you may be sentenced is enough to open your eyes and disabuse people of the Us vs. Them stereotyping of criminals. When you or your friend or brother or your partner has a criminal record, the mark on a job candidate's history becomes much less of a instant trigger for dismissing them. Instead, you start to do what you should do all along which is assess it on the merits of the actual case - was it breaching a silence order from the government or was it murdering little old ladies? I personally have recommended that someone with a criminal record be hired. They appeared to be the best candidate.
The other effect of arresting someone, is that the ability to frighten them with arrest is often somewhat diminished thereafter. A senior British police officer here remarked in interview, that laws were for keeping the law-abiding law-abiding. I.e. people are afraid of being caught. Once you have been caught and your record marked, you usually care less about further marks. I might even go so far as to say that going out and getting yourself arrested (preferably for something minor and non prison-worthy) is quite a liberating experience.
Finally, is the very wrong law in the US that disenfranchises convicted felons from voting. As more and more people are convicted (and very predominantly from poor demographics), the US democracy becomes less and less representative. And we all know where that leads.
Re:So What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Defying unjust laws to defend your rights is admirable. Defying unjust laws when you were already defending your rights just fine without said defiance is idiotic.
Re:So What? (Score:3, Insightful)
And Rhode Island still almost didn't. The ratification convention, I shit you not, happened about a hundred yards from where I'm sitting now, in a surprisingly tiny meeting house in Kingston. The story goes that the federalists did not have the numbers to force the issue, and the convention was deadlocked, so they recessed the session, and took the anti-ratification contingent for a round of heavy drinking. While many of their opponents were heavily inebriated, the federalists rushed back to the meeting house, reconvened with a bare quorum, and passed the motion to ratify (and even then just barely).
No Sh*t Sherlock - (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the US society really doesn't. To a suprising extent.
I went on a tour of Alcatraz recently, I found it utterly amazing that when the tour guide told us about the indian/student occupation of the island that took place after the closure of the prison. She explained about the fact it was a protest against the taking of indian land and how they'd declared that at the time.
She went to great lengths to try and explain to the (mostly american) crowd how, sometimes, criminal activity has an intent other than just vandalism and damage, and how sometimes, decades later, you can even look back and see what motivated them, even if it didn't justify breking the law.
That staggered me. That these people have such an awe for laws and lawmakers that they don't even consider that some people, in some circumstances, break the law as legitimate protest. No, they just write it off in their heads as the work of "criminals", "lawbreakers" and "vandals" and let history sort them out.
It's incredible, given the origins of the nation, that US society has sunk so far into the "authority is always right" mindset.
(in no way do I mean to imply other societies have not, before I get blasted with mindless patriotism by a flag-worshipper)
Re:Systemic problem (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I can easily offer you such a reason. It is called motivation. Take two opposing examples - democratic Athens and tyrannical Iraq (under Saddam.) What drives the rulers (the collective ruler in Athens' case) to rule?
I think it can be universally postulated that people are lazy, and won't do things that do not seem to be necessary. If we take this issue and think of our examples, a Greek voter is only minimally interested in details of state; those details are often complex and politics is something that simply can't be done collectively. The voter in a democracy just does not have enough motivation to vote one way or another. On the other hand, the tyrant holds all the reins of power and intimately knows every important issue. He has only one vote, but this vote often means life or death to him, and the tyrant considers the implications very carefully. The tyrant usually optimizes his own goals, but often they coincide with the public goals. For example, in Saddam's Iraq all religious crazies (or criminals in general) had a good chance to be imprisoned or worse; the society was stable and safe for most of the people (and very unsafe for the political opposition.) So in terms of motivation the dictator is far more motivated than all the democratic voters combined; exceptions are known, as I mentioned, only during times of great social instability, when motivation of the population increases sharply. When millions of angry people go to the streets and demand something usually they get what they demand. (or they get killed, which is also possible.) On this scale of things modern Pakistan is more democratic than the USA because there are Pakistanis who are ready to die for the democracy; some do. But do we have such people in the USA?
It is also important to understand the value of voter's education in a democracy. If the voters are uneducated and vote randomly then they are irrelevant. Think of this as the year 2000 vote which elected Bush - the entire country voted as white noise and effectively averaged itself out; so one carefully selected locale decided the fate of the whole election.
In terms of education, a dictator also outperforms the mass of voters. He himself, or as a close circle of advisers, is a concentrated knowledge of issues. Often these issues are secret, or minimally known. This is common when diplomacy is involved. For example, Musharraf disclosed recently a plain and simple ultimatum given to him by the USA - bend over or be bombed. This is something that he could not publicize, and his motives at that time were unclear - until now. So the dictator has an advantage here as well.
I don't imply here that a dictatorial form of government is my ideal, I only indicate important factors that determine stability of various forms of control. I can also opine that socialism is even less stable than a democracy, for example, that's why in the USSR it devolved into a dictatorship of one party, of one collective tyrant. Most stable societies in history, however, were monarchies or semi-monarchies, where the same power group controlled the country even if the nominal head of the government was changing periodically. They were collective kings, called "king makers" at that time, more influential than the king himself (cardinal Richelieu vs. king Louis XIII.)
And the desire and hope for a perfect democracy, even if thwarted, can also raise us up to a more representative society...
I wish there was a way to instill this "desire and hope for a perfect democracy" into the brains of stupid voters. But you see, I do not find any reason to believe that humans naturally wish for a democracy. Psychologists researched many motivations, and they can enumerate by now probably every single desire a human can have - money, power, sex, food, etc. but a desire for democracy is just not there. I think it can be logically concluded that democracy is one of the w
Re:I'll take the bait (Score:3, Insightful)
As for people "allowing" Bush's election, I'm curious as to what you suggest they should have done. Are you faulting everyone who did not martyr themselves in some kind of armed insurrection? Do you think the aftermath of such an act would lead to more freedom rather than less? At what point should they have done it? When he was first elected? He only looked like a second-rate president, not a nascent tyrant; the erosion of freedom has come one grain of sand at a time. His second term? By then he was too entrenched for anything short of (and possibly including) the aforementioned armed insurrection to pry him out.
In addition, your statement is self-contradictory. You say that Americans got what they said they wanted -- but you also acknowledge that Bush was not elected by the majority of the popular vote. Which is it? More voters didn't want Bush in office than did want him, so at best the majority is getting what the minority deserves.
What concerns me is that the Bush administration is not acting like it is approaching the end of a term and contemplating the possible, even probable, transfer of power to the opposition party. Instead, it is taking steps that only seem logical if it, not any successor, intends to remain in office. Anyone want to start a betting pool on when the Reichstag fire will be?