Skip to main content

View Diary: Bush can hold US civilians indefinitely, court rules. UPDATED x2 (278 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tikkun

    Obama can hardly be counted on to stand up for the Constitution. Actions speak louder and all...

    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.

    by cybersaur on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:20:38 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  oh bull poo. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Krush

      That's garbage and you know it, or maybe you don't.

      What do you want us all to do?  Stay home?  Vote for McCain?  Vote for Nader?  

      •  get up off our asses (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DocGonzo, cybersaur

        and from behind our monitors and physically remove this buncha fascists from our midst?

        I've been searching for pitchforks since, oh, along about late '06. Know where I might find some?

        On second thought , let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place

        by o the umanity on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:41:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Your Poo (11+ / 0-)

        No, it's the fact. Obama clearly turned his back on the Constitution (and his "unequivocal" opposition to telco amnesty) by voting for the FISA with telco amnesty intact in it.

        What's "bull poo" is your equating our facing that fact to our voting for McCain, or even staying home, or some mumbo jumbo about Nader. A total straw man on every level.

        What they said was that what they want us to do is accept that Obama cannot be counted on to stand up for the Constitution. I think that goes too far, even given the evidence on FISA, because Obama does seem to value the rest of the Constitution. But I can't prove that. Nor can you. All we know for sure is that the 4th Amendment isn't a nonnegotiable requirement for Obama, as proven by his FISA vote.

        What I would like you to do is to stop the hysterical extreme partisanship that equates telling the ugly truth about Obama with voting for McCain, or for Nader, or for nobody. All it does is divide us, by demanding a denial that many of us will not sink to.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:46:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  and more poo (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Oy the Billybumbler, kingubu, Rogneid

          Dude, I was doing cryptology back in the day when people thought it meant studying the writing on the walls of Egyptian tombs (no shit, I got that remark more than once).  And I was promoting public key crypto for the masses TEN YEARS before PGP was developed.  I've done expert witness on illegal wiretap.  I'm a telephone systems engineer with 25+ years in the field.  If you work in an office of 40 - 60 people, and your company bought a new PBX in the last ten years, there's a 40% probability that your PBX has features in it that I designed.  

          I know more about NSA and its technical methods than 99.9% of the people around here who aren't alumni of Anagram Inn.  

          I've seen the inbound-only carrier maps too.  

          I have working relationships with people who are all over this issue like bees on a dumpster full of recycled soda bottles.

          And I can tell you with certainty that what Obama did was a tactical compromise on the way to a strategic victory.

          There are an awful lot of self-righteous types running around now talking like virgins who suddenly discovered that their Prince or Princess Charming occasionally farts and that his/her farts smell bad.  "Woe is me!  All is lost! What am I to do?!"

          I say cut it out.

          Language such as "the ugly truth about Obama" gives the game away.  The ugly truth is that nonsense of that sort only helps our enemies.  And I use that word enemy with deliberate intent, as in "domestic enemies of the Constitution."  That is what's going to get another 4 - 8 years in power unless certain people stop trying to score "righteous points" at the expense of our candidate.

          •  Yes, More Poo (6+ / 0-)

            So your crypto experience makes you an expert in how to vote in the Senate. Riiiight.

            You must have been some humdinger cryptologist if your logical skills can equate stating the fact of Obama's voting for FISA with its telco amnesty with voting for McCain, Nader or noone.

            Look, I studied Applied Cryptography on the job over a decade ago myself. I was cracking NSA systems in 1982. I own a telco right now, that I built from my own software, servers and negotiated contracts. I could go on and on, but it's all just poo.

            When I tell you that voting for FISA telco amnesty equates to throwing away the 4th Amendment, it doesn't matter that I've got some cryptography in my veins. All that matters is the most basic, elementary logic. Voting against the Constitution is voting against the Constitution. Even running that through elliptical ciphers and some QM superposition isn't going to change the simple fact. Or come up with any facts about voting for Nader, McCain or nobody. What you're offering is closer to line noise. Or to the "my candidate, right or wrong" that gave us George Bush.

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:43:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  To fight bears, you might need to go in their den (0+ / 0-)

              One of my grandmother's sayings.

              He may be planning on entering the bears's den on the FISA issue. That's why (why I dislike his vote) I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

              There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. -- Robert Benchley -5.75, -7.18

              by Rogneid on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:23:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  He May Be a Muslim (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ImpeachKingBushII

                No, he's not a Muslim. Nor is there any reason to take on similar faith that Obama is fighting the telcos on FISA. There is now evidence of only Obama's betrayal of the Constitution and of his supporters (and even opponents) who took his "unequivocal" opposition to telco amnesty at his word. There's no basis for doubt to benefit Obama. There's only some unjustifiable faith that's indistinguishable from the faith that put and kept Bush in office.

                "It takes an oilman to beat the oil industry." Just like "Only Nixon can go to China." Well, faith in Bush gave us Iraq, $150-200 oil barrels fueling 9MPG H2s marketed on Iraq Fever. And Nixon went to China, leaving behind Bush Sr as our ambassador, giving us everything else that's killing us. As our reward for that kind of faith. There is no reservoir of doubt or faith left for anyone, let alone a "champion of hope" who reverses his "unequivocal opposition" as soon as he doesn't need the primary votes anymore.

                "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                by DocGonzo on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:54:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  after a few more rounds of this, the poo (0+ / 0-)

              is going to turn into compost and be suitable for gardening.

              I routinely diagnose trouble cases correctly by listening to line noise, and one thing it ain't is a good source of random numbers.  

              My knowledge of how the intel universe operates, and the "corporate culture" in that world, tells me that Obama's vote was a calculated move.

              My knowledge of how US politics works, which is no more or less expert than most peoples' around here, tells me that Obama's vote was a calculated move.  

              The blunt fact is that he will win more votes with that one than he will lose.  And after he gets in, if he doesn't hop on this issue within the first hundred days, we can organize call-ins and email-ins to apply the necessary torque to get redress on this.  

              We can also force the issue at the techincal level, about which the less said now, the better, save for the fact that there would be no way to stop it except to shut down the internet.  

              Fact is, technology renders the arguement moot.  We won it the day that PGP crossed the border in the form of printed text, and that was only the beginning.  The horse is so far out of the barn that there is no finding it, much less putting it back.

              This is an issue where the people truly do lead, and government's only choices are to follow and go along with the inexorable tide, or to fight a battle they will lose faster and more completely than the war on some drugs.

              All of the pink noise (puns intended) about Obama being a badguy does no one any good.  The time to apply torque is after he's in office.  Otherwise we can start singing "Bomb Iran!" in three-part harmony.  

              •  Flowers of Evil (0+ / 0-)

                You just gave a good demonstration of how your faith is dominating your logic. Faith in Obama and technology, despite the logic that the evidence of your senses deliver to you.

                Just because there is technology for us to encrypt our communications doesn't mean that we're protected. For one, PGP has been available free and easy for over a decade (and free though not so easy for years before that) - but practically no one uses it (as a percentage of either Internet users or Internet traffic). For another, the NSA already has quantum decryption computers that can brute force crack PGP or any other properly implemented public key scrambling (including HTTPS/SSL, S/MIME, TLS, etc), to say nothing of any flawed implementation (which is the norm) which is easy pickings at the Puzzle Palace.

                But the main reason is that the government trumps technology. Try keeping your private key private when they ask you for it on your umpteenth week in Guantanamo, where they sent you for "using PGP without a warrant", or just kidnapped you. That's probably not Obama's style, but those dozens of $billions a year in CIA and NSA budgets are buying a lot of datamining of your data footprint. When the government is run by the spooks, which Obama's FISA vote (along with the Democratic majority and the Republicans) demonstrates is what's underway, PGP isn't "pretty good" enough.

                But really your political "expertise" is blown apart by claiming that Democrats opposing Obama's FISA flipflop is electing McCain. That's not just an excluded middle fallacy that discredits your claims to superior logical skills. That's politically wrong, as Obama retains a 9 point lead, and is headed to victory. While even people disappointed into lower enthusiasm, reduced support and pressure on Obama to change are still supporting him, clearly amply to get him victory.

                But even that kind of wrongness is more like a fast busy signal than the total disconnect of your idea that we should "keep our powder dry" (as Democrats have on every important Bush tyranny, including FISA), waiting until after Obama doesn't need our votes at all for 4 years (and secure to coast in a huge Democratic Congressional majority). Obama's FISA reversal itself demonstrates that when he needed our primary votes, he was "unequivocally opposed" to FISA telco amnesty. But once we'd given up that leverage by voting him into the nomination, he immediately reversed himself, because the accountability moment was past. He's broadcast a clear demonstration that the November election will be the same. Only pure faith, the deluded kind that ignores evidence, can tell you any different.

                Stick to line noise. You're not even really good with the puns, even if you really did want to call me either a "Commie" or gay with your "pink noise" comment. Your logic is demonstrably subverted by your need to believe that Obama didn't betray you. When all the actual facts and logic show how he did, and how you're setting yourself up for it again in November by adopting the Republican trademark "my candidate, right or wrong, so long as we get power, they'll use it for 'good', after they trick the other side but not me".

                If you've got some actual political logic, post it already. If all you've got is this "compost" that's been the exclusive content of your posts - covering fallacies from the excluded middle to the appeal to authority and points between, just hang it up already. That beeping isn't liberty on call waiting - it's a line tap that's so cheap because they've got you working for them against yourself anyway.

                "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                by DocGonzo on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:17:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  this is almost getting fun... (0+ / 0-)

                  I wasn't calling you gay.  I'm gay and I don't ask straight guys out, much less that way.  The pun was on "pink = pinkos (leftish-leaning liberals)" and "pink noise = constrained bandwidth compared to white noise."

                  Re. NSA using quantum cryptanalysis machines to break PGP keys: what's your source for that?

                  Re. giving up keys under torture, if they start disappearing & torturing American citizens in any significant numbers, that'll raise a shitstorm of large proportion.  Somehow I doubt they are that stupid.

                  Re. giving up keys under lesser degrees of duress, for example at Customs, we're working on a protocol for one-time use GPG keys and a few other things to deal with that issue.  

                  Re. Obama & FISA:  Surely you've heard "in the primary, run toward the base; in the general, run toward the center"?  He's following that pattern.  When in office I expect him to start out with a few items to strongly please the base, and then a few to please the center, and then we'll see what direction he takes from there.  

                  No need for faith when one can extrapolate from existing patterns.  

                  Re. psychoanalysis:  No "feeling of betrayal" if there's no "romance."  In my world this is pure pragmatics, and the core issue is the climate crisis.  If we don't deal with that issue starting yesterday, we're done for, and all the rest of this won't even matter ten years from now.  

                  Re. excluded middle:  There are two viable choices, an R and a D.  Find me a viable third party to put in the middle, and I'll see about excluding it:-)

                  Political party dynamics (inter and intra) tend to be scale-independent networks.  Changing the faces does not change the underlying dynamics.  However, systemic change is coming, and the climate crisis will assure that, one way or the other.  Unfortunately I think it's going to be "the other."  

                  Your turn...

                  •  No Fun (0+ / 0-)

                    No, this is no fun for me.

                    Because the bottom line is that there is another choice than just "R" or "D". It's "better D". As everyone keeps saying. As I keep saying in this thread. Your ignoring that pressuring Obama on FISA isn't costing him the election. If this were Kerry with a 3-point lead against an incumbent Bush, or Gore v Bush, that argument might have merit. But it doesn't. As amply demonstrated in the polls. And as Obama obviously calculated when he didn't just "run towards the base / center", but actually reversed an "unequivocal" opposition into both equivocation and binding support. Even though that FISA vote isn't scoring him any more votes, and perhaps even losing some (that he can afford).

                    So it doesn't matter that the NSA can crack a PGP that people don't use. It doesn't matter that the government's power trumps technology. Before all those actually disputable issues even matter, there's Obama trending worse for no good reason. And there's people like me pointing that out, for the good reason of making him worth the vote we're casting. To people like you who don't mind him being worse, and ignore those simple reasons why you should, and why we're right to try to stop it without the costs you're inventing.

                    There isn't another way to say it. Saying it again is merely tiresome. And better spent saying it to Obama, who might actually change. Which, it seems, is the only way to change your mind, anyway, just like his changing FISA position changed you.

                    So you have fun with your broken Obama and your (supposedly) unbroken PGP. While it lasts. I'm busy fixing both.

                    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                    by DocGonzo on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:59:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  nor is living in a decidership much fun either... (0+ / 0-)

                      BTW, I knew about FISA and FISC a couple of decades ago also, and in those days we thought it was bad enough that a court could operate in secret.  The resignation of a FISA judge last year, in protest against Bushism, seems to have  clarified the record on that somewhat.

                      Now in your previous post you said, unequivocally, that No Such Agency has quantum cryptanalysis and can brute-force PGP keys now.  That's the kind of claim that deserves further support, so I'm still asking: what's your source for that?  

                      Re. fixing PGP/GPG:  Elliptic curve cryptography by any chance?  If so, I know someone else working on that one.  Between now and then we're going to release an unlimited keylength patch for GPG (it's absurdly simple, but a standardized version of that would be helpful).  That should at least make the inbox at Meade take a little longer to empty.  

                      I wonder if we ever met at one of the early Cypherpunk meetings...?  Hmm... I won't speculate further in this medium...

                      Ultimately, a better FISA is like a hybrid powertrain SUV: it's a band aid on a major injury.  What's really needed is a comprehensive privacy amendment to the Constitution, with appropriate supporting legislation.   Someone here by the name of Thinking LIberally has proposed the idea of doing a major push on civil liberties across the board, and that's a damn good idea.  Full frontal attack, and let the righties go on the defensive for once.  Have people such as Kucinich and Dodd on the case and the netroots pushing hard.  

                      Ultimately we're both on the same side of this one; where I get off the boat is where people start talking as if Obama is the enemy or has betrayed them or some such; or they're going to stop making contributions or stay home on election day.  That sort of thing just discourages people from voting.  

                      Emotional states are contagious; we have to be exceptionally careful to not end up promoting a generalized state of depression or anger that resolves itself by going into apathy mode.  Today's 9-point lead has the potential to become tomorrow's cliffhanger with smaller coat-tails.  We cannot throw that 9-point lead away.  

                      The future will be measured in degrees Celsius of mean temperature rise, and in the ph of the oceans.  At this point the situation has gone so far that a multi-gigadeath dieoff is a foregone conclusion.  Whether it proceeds to a total collapse of economic and social systems, and a near-extinction event for humans, is what is ultimately at stake in this election.

    •  No Way to Know Anymore (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tikkun, marina, blueoasis

      I think you're going too far, even though we have conclusive evidence that he didn't keep his word to protect the 4th Amendment.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:47:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  More than once (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tikkun, catfood, DocGonzo, cybersaur, blueoasis

        Obama is not in favor of impeachment.  [That has always been my #1 "issue" so I found out how all the candidates stood on impeachment early on.  Kucinich is the only one I could support.  Kucinich also has a good not-for-profit healthcare plan and stated that if he were pres. he'd give the order to bring them ALL home as his first act after taking the oath of office.]

        Obama went back on his word regarding FISA and voted for it after he said he'd vote against it if it contained the immunity clause.

        Just about the same week he dissed the First Amendment by saying he'd adopt and expand Bush's funding to 'faith-based initiatives' - the last thing I'd expect a constitutional scholar to support, since it violates the separation of church and state and is one step away from opening the door to having a state-sponsored religion.

        (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

        by NonnyO on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:55:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not Quite (5+ / 0-)

          FISA is clearly Obama's Constitutional albatross. It's like Clinton's "Don't Ask/Tell surrender", but even before he's elected, and inside a Democratic Congress.

          On impeachment, he's adopting the strategy designed by Hillary Clinton with Pelosi and Reid to leave Bush "twisting in the wind" the way Clinton tried to do with Nixon for the 1976 elections. Not as proactive as the FISA Constitutional problem, but still no champion of the Constitution - though no senators, and only a handful of reps, are.

          However, Obama's faith initiatives policy was completely misrepresented by the media, though Obama is indeed pulling a fast one: on theocrats. His policy is merely to convert Bush's (underfunded) theocrat handouts programme into one that treats faith orgs exactly the same as non-faith orgs. Except that faith orgs have to jump through explicit hoops prohibiting them from proselytizing or other faithy activities that the non-faith orgs don't do anyway. He leaves it in a special faith orgs office because their Federal support requires those special constraints, and special experts in theocrat weasel tricks, to keep them from acting as faith orgs in the capacity that the Feds are supporting. All cloaked in the kind of "diplomatic" language about "special treatment" for faith orgs that the faithy crave even more than they crave the bucks. OK, not as much as the bucks, which they'll get, but more than actually practicing their purely faithy operations, which they demonstrate they'll abandon at the drop of a buck. And Obama's programme takes them up on that.

          I admire it. I don't even think his faith initiatives programme crosses any ethical line, as the faithy are ignoring its clear restrictions to get the cash, though it compromises some of their loudest, if evidently not dearest, values - but without compromising any virtuous ones.

          So Obama certainly is both more and less than meets the eye. I'd love to see him lead on an essential Constitutional issue (in the right direction this time), especially if he took a risk and some cost to do it anyway - just as he did to get FISA wrong. Until then, I look at his resume's Constitutional scholarship expertise as a a course in evasion, rather than "faithful execution" (as the Constitution requires of a president). But I also don't see a programme of sabotaging the Constitution, like, say, Cheney telegraphed to everyone his whole career.

          Which leaves me voting for Obama, and defending him where he's right (or even not wrong), but not enthusiastically.

          FWIW, I like Kucinich, but he's the nerd at the party: however right he is, he alienates people enough that he's an antibrand who weighs down the worthwhile causes he works so hard to bring to victory. I think anyone who tells the straight truth and works the Constitution is doomed to sit in the corner in the modern Democratic Party (nevermind the Republican Duncecrat Party). But Kucinich is not a worthwhile leader for these causes, as he's already been typecast as the loser for supporting them. He's a good supporter, but until a more gifted public figure leads on them, Kucinich makes it easy to reject the message for the messenger.

          Obama could have been that leader, but it's patently obvious that he wouldn't take that kind of risk or pay that kind of cost, regardless of the specific reasons why.

          On the third hand, pressuring Obama can make him better, so I will continue to do it when I can and must. Regardless of the cowardly, Republican-mirror partisan fallacies and attacks hurled at me for staying straight with my conscience and with reality.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:28:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site