What is Digg?76 Comments
- desertDenizen, on 11/24/2007, -9/+154"activist judge" = a judge who is guilty of doing his/her f*cking job: upholding the United States Constitution
- OBKenobi, on 11/24/2007, -4/+80The CIA is staffed by way too many misguided, warmongering "patriots" that criminals like Dick Cheney are easily able to exploit. I have lost all respect for the CIA ever since no one came forward and disproved Bush's false WMD claims that THEY KNEW were lies. They thought they were being patriotic by following along with the president -- one whose father happened to be CIA director at one point. That is not patriotism. It is treason.
- hiphoc, on 11/24/2007, -3/+56Dont forget calling her a "Leftie" yea, those wacky constitution lovers.
- inactive, on 11/24/2007, -4/+48"said she can no longer trust the CIA"
That is some funny stuff right there! No LONGER trust the CIA?!?!? - Zenas, on 11/24/2007, -2/+42Since the Patriot Act was enacted, how many 'terror' suspects have been convicted by a jury when evidence has been presented in a court of law?
Yep, not a single one. Not only can the CIA not be trusted, neither can the Congress or the president. They aren't fighting a 'war on terror' they're waging a war against the Constitution. And we the people are losing. - AriaStar, on 11/24/2007, -5/+39Don't these agents ever stop for a moment and think about what kind of country they are creating for their kids? Sure, they themselves are damned near immune, but their own kids and grandkids.... Shows they have no heart for their own, much less for the rest of us.
- inactive, on 11/24/2007, -3/+33Oh, a secretive organisation that can't be trusted.
How unexpected. - hiphoc, on 11/24/2007, -0/+29No they dont, many think they are part of the Elite structure because they are doing the bidding of the political elite and being rewarded for it at the moment. Useful idiots Stalin called them.
- spyd3rweb, on 11/24/2007, -2/+27No organization that keeps secrets from the American people should ever be trusted.
- heystoopid, on 11/24/2007, -2/+25Sounds like the defendant is about to catch a sudden unscheduled flight out of the country to one of the following countries such as Ethiopia , Somalia , Afghanistan , Romania , Poland ?(recent change of government could affect this one) , Romania , Egypt or Syria !
- DestroyFascism, on 11/24/2007, -2/+24CIA = Worlds largest terrorist organization...period! No other group has assassinated more presidents, leaders, witnesses, innocent people. No other organization has run a drug trade, arms trade and created a planet of fear, hatred, resentment better and more profoundly than the CIA. Its written history, its actions / inactions make it exactly that, a terrorist organization. Its what they do, it's their core business. Intelligence is simply the feedback from actions being considered or targets being explored. They are the scapegoat and militant hand of the right wingers, the corporations and the bankers.
- tb0n3r, on 11/24/2007, -1/+22There were at least a few CIA analysts that resigned shortly after Cheney steamrolled them into the WMD claims, and did come out as saying it was all *****. It's just that they didn't get airtime, and nobody heard them.
- mllawso, on 11/24/2007, -1/+22"Don't argue with idiots. They'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
- spyd3rweb, on 11/24/2007, -1/+22LoneRanger is a career troll, don't feed him.
- buckrogers1965, on 11/24/2007, -1/+19I fear that the only people convicted under the patriot act are going to be patriots.
- numbered, on 11/24/2007, -2/+20If I ever did have respect for the cia, it was when I still believed in Santa Claus
The CIA has been misrepresented since it's creation in the 40s.
It has been involved with terrorist activities such as assassinating democratically elected leaders and installing dictators, corrupting the democratic elections in Greece, Italy and dozens of other nations, helped to launch military coups in various democratic nations (ex Mossadegh (Iran, 1953), Arbenz (Guatemala, 1954), Velasco and Arosemena (Ecuador, 1961, 1963), Bosch (Dominican Republic, 1963), Goulart (Brazil, 1964), Sukarno (Indonesia, 1965), Papandreou (Greece, 1965-67), Allende (Chile, 1973)), supporting dictators like pinochet and noriega and many others, propagandizing to an immense degree in the U.S. and many parts of the world (creating fake news stories and radio stations like "Voice of America" and "Radio Free Europe")... guys this list could go on all day. The CIA has NEVER had a positive direction although the storytellers would have you believe that it functions like Mi6 with an honorable yet cunning jamesbondesque attitude whose ends justify the means. Not to mention how many times have they tried to assassinate Castro. That guy just won't die. - ZenMojo, on 11/24/2007, -3/+17"Judge: CIA Can No Longer Be Trusted."
Fixed. - skews13, on 11/24/2007, -2/+14abolish the department of homeland security,for the safety,and freedom of americans everywhere
- spyd3rweb, on 11/24/2007, -0/+12They aren't immune from anything, they'll mysteriously die of a heart attack, jump off a building, be in a small plane crash, drown in a bathtub if they become useless to their masters.
- Qeveren, on 11/24/2007, -2/+13Too bad they're almost extinct in your country.
- buckrogers1965, on 11/24/2007, -1/+12Is not any single judge the equivalent to the rest of the government within the case that they are hearing? Does not the judge merely have to order that the government present evidence and if they fail, then the judge can jail as many people as the judge needs to for as long as they refuse to give the judge what is being asked for? Isn't this how contempt works?
Certainly if the defense treated the judge this way, lying and concealing evidence, then the defendant and the defendants lawyers would be in jail cells for contempt until they complied. - meed, on 11/24/2007, -2/+12I hate how some people are more than willing to trade everyone's freedom for what they perceive as security and safety. Every time a right or freedom is taken away from the American people the terrorists win. If these terrorist ***** are more than willing to kill themselves while trying to harm America or it's people, we should be more than willing to lay down our lives in the name of freedom, atleast that is what we demand of our armed services.
- buckrogers1965, on 11/24/2007, -2/+12Blaugh blaugh blaugh Clinton blaugh blaugh.
- johnnick, on 11/24/2007, -1/+10Emo, to respond to your question about LoneRanger's post, rather than addressing the essence of the judge's comments or decisions, or any discussion of the government's actions in the case, LoneRanger has instead brought up unrelated decisions by the judge, and hopes to tarnish her with the label "Clinton appointee" and a "rating" from the religiously conservative Family Research Council. To make your own decision about the FRC, see FRC's own deshttp://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=ABOUT_FRC. If you agree with their mission, you'll probably agree with them regarding the judge. If you don't, then you probably won't.
Evaluating a judge based on an obviously biased brief description of the results of a few selected decisions doesn't really do much good, and even in the cases referenced by LoneRanger, you need to look at the decisions themselves. To address LoneRanger's points takes the discussion on an irrelevant tangent, which is why no one has bothered.
However, since you asked a reasonable question, I'll go further to address the points raised in LoneRanger's post, both of the internet cases are 9 years old. For a brief blurb on the porn at work case, see http://www.techlawjournal.com/censor/80227uro.htm. In that case, six college professors employed by public schools in Virginia brought a suit challenging the constitutionality of a Virginia law restricting state employees from accessing sexually explicit material on computers that are owned or leased by the state. For a discussion of the appeals court's reversal of the judge's decision, see http://www.techlawjournal.com/censor/19990212.htm.
The Library internet filtering case was decided on 1st Amendment grounds. Basically, the judge said that the policy was over-inclusive (ie it limited adult access to material as well as children). See http://www.techlawjournal.com/censor/19981124.htm for a discussion of the judge's decisions. For a fairly well-written position statement by the National Organization for Women see http://www.vanow.org/InternetFiltering, and for an academic discussion of how the judge reached her decision, see http://www.mlaforum.org/volumeII/issue3/article1.h ... - PHiZ187, on 11/24/2007, -4/+11Yeah, we should go back to the "orginalist" "strict constructionist" view of the constitution. You know, the one where Blacks were 2/3rds of a person, women couldn't vote, seperate but equal was constitutionally valid, and Brown v. Board of Education was the result of "activist judges" impinging upon "states rights."
Our understanding of everything has grown over time: medecine, economics, liberty and tolerance. The constitution IS a living document, in that it is ASPIRATIONAL. You can't believe that a 200 year old document could have anticipated the mega-corporation, the Internet, stem-cell research or cloning? No, we have to INTERPRET the constitution, with fidelity to its principles. But it is foolish to say that we cannot go beyond the text, and give meaning to it's prescriptions for the modern era. - Richandler, on 11/24/2007, -3/+8I've said this before, the CIA are the real bastards in the government. They have never had oversight as much as you believe what the TV or Wikipedia tells you it's all bullcrap. The CIA has been around screwing up way to many things getting us into way too much trouble.
- JoeVet, on 11/24/2007, -0/+5There ya go....using facts again. When will you people ever learn that facts have no relevance in a discussion forum? /s Good post JohnNick!
- obliviousfool, on 11/24/2007, -0/+4You had respect for the CIA?
http://www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_time.htm
Here is a brief list of their crimes. It's amazing to me that people don't know what these criminals do, but if you just recently lost respect for the CIA, you haven't been paying attention! - carpespasm, on 11/24/2007, -1/+5ahh, so that's what the name was for. if it were for imprisoning and rooting out terrorists it would have been called the terrorist act.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 11/24/2007, -0/+4You must have missed what he did there.
- zanzzz, on 11/24/2007, -0/+4You should not forget the FBI. They have a long and sordid history of every form of abuse and outrage against the American people and the Constitution.
- mrurc, on 11/24/2007, -0/+4The ACLU is a secretive organization? Which parallel universe did you get here from and how?
- mrurc, on 11/24/2007, -0/+4No, he wants a new trial because the CIA illegally withheld evidence in his trial and refused to allow his attorney to review the evidence or refute it in court in any way. Since the defense attorneys were not allowed access to possible exculpatory evidence, that is unconstitutional in the US. Thanks for not reading the f-ing article.
Also, insulting the people that you are arguing against doesn't help your case, especially when your case is off-topic to begin with. - wakananda, on 11/24/2007, -0/+3I would add that "porn- and profanity-blocking" shuts out a hell of a lot of great art and literature, as well as blogs and commentary. But the Family Research Council probably believes all art and literature should be biblically sound, anyway. Also, allowing unrestricted access to content doesn't mean the library can't make and enforce it's own rules about obscene and harmful content for minors, or in a place where minors can see it. It's a simple matter of weighing what is lost vs. what is gained in a decision, and taking into account the establishment of a precedent of censorship. And this IS all tangential to the matter of our once-proud intelligence agencies being coopted - purged, and stacked with loyal political hacks.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 11/24/2007, -0/+3And a woman. Damn those tricksy CIA agents......
- zanzzz, on 11/24/2007, -1/+4The Bush Administration would easily fit that description.
- Herostratus, on 11/24/2007, -0/+3I heard em
- toetagger, on 11/24/2007, -2/+5Beautiful.
- mrurc, on 11/24/2007, -0/+3Since many people are insulting the judge and everyone who thinks the judge might be right, let's go over some facts covered in the article.
The CIA brought evidence to trial. They did not bring *all* evidence to trial and some of that evidence may have been exculpatory, or for those with small brains, it may have shown that the defendant was innocent. It is illegal for the prosecution to withhold evidence that may prove the defendant innocent and the judge in this case found that evidence was hidden in multiple instances.
Hiding evidence that would show the innocence of the defendant is unconstitutional. It is contrary to the bill of rights and the right to a fair trial. This is not a case of a Clinton-appointed activist judge. This is a case of a judge *discovering* that the prosecution repeatedly withheld exculpatory evidence. - chaosium, on 11/24/2007, -1/+3"Yeah, we should go back to the "orginalist" "strict constructionist" view of the constitution. You know, the one where Blacks were 2/3rds of a person, women couldn't vote, seperate but equal was constitutionally valid, and Brown v. Board of Education was the result of "activist judges" impinging upon "states rights."
The problem here is that all the Paleocons on digg think that's a benefit. - johnnick, on 11/25/2007, -0/+2At first glance, IMJGalt's response and those that are similar to it seem reasonable. It does seem ridiculous that someone who was convicted of treason should be able to argue that the evidence against him was collected illegally. However, IMJGalt's position lacks a fundamental understanding of the reasons why our justice system is set up the way it is, and how the concepts of secret evidence, unlawfully gathered evidence, and a failure to provide evidence to the defense subvert and are anathema to the basic foundation of what our justice system is supposed to be.
Prior to the Revolution, legal abuses by the English Crown and its representatives in the Colonies were fairly rampant. Parts of the Constitution and the creation of the justice system in the US were a reaction to those abuses. The US justice system is set up in recognition of the fact that the government has tremendous power, and if that power were brought to bear against an individual, the individual would almost always lose. Therefore, the Constitution places significant restrictions on what the government can do in the application of its prosecutorial powers. The basic points are that a person is presumed innocent until _proven_ guilty, and that the government must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. These restrictions on the government are intended to protect individuals from abuses of government power.
Much of what is being done by the government in the name of fighting terrorism and allegedly making us safer it eroding many of those limitations on government power. (Note, I am not arguing whether or not these actions by the government against specific terrorists are making us safer or not. That's an entirely separate debate. My point here is _only_ to discuss how these actions are contrary to the intentions of the Framers.)
The essence of the requirement to share information with the defense is to prevent the government from abusing its powers and using secret evidence to lock up political opponents or dissidents. A fundamental tenet of our justice system is that you have the right to face your accuser and see the evidence against you so that everyone can see and have faith that the government is not abusing its prosecutorial power. In the words of Ronald Regan, "Trust but verify." That's why we have open trials, published transcripts, etc. - it enables the public to verify that their government is trustworthy and not abusing its power. The concept of secret evidence that the defense is not permitted to see runs completely contrary to this fundamental tenet.
The government has argued that its information is so secret and so sensitive that it cannot be disclosed to the defense. I have no way of evaluating that claim, but I’m willing to admit that some of the information could be sensitive and that disclosure to the defendant himself could create a security threat. Under those circumstances, however, there are still ways that the information could be protected. For example, as the judge required, the government could provide defense attorneys with sufficient security clearances that they would be permitted to see the information. That way, the defense can prepare for the government’s arguments and provide an adequate defense for the accused. The issues can be argued in a closed court with only the prosecution, the judge and the defense attorneys present so that no one who is not cleared to know the information is ever exposed to it.
The government is also limited in the ways that it can gather evidence. Basically, if the government wants to intrude on someone’s privacy – either enter their home or do other things that invade the expectation of privacy – the government has to convince a judge that the intrusion is reasonable (ie there is evidence to support the government’s claim of need) and will be limited to achieving only specific ends (ie the government isn’t allowed to go on a fishing expedition). If the judge believes the government needs to intrude on a person’s privacy and that the intrusion will be appropriately limited, the judge will issue a warrant permitting the intrusion. This is another limitation on government abuse, and there is a significant body of 4th Amendment law addressing what the government can and can’t do to produce evidence at trial. The government frequently argues that certain search activities had to happen so quickly that they couldn’t get a warrant, and in some circumstances the courts have agreed and admitted evidence despite the lack of a warrant, but the government has to prove its claim to the judge’s satisfaction. Wiretapping is one of those things that the government needs to get a warrant to do. One of the frustrating issues about the whole NSA wiretapping thing is that the FISA law recognized the need to act quickly despite the lack of a warrant and provided for retroactive approval of wiretaps by the FISA court. Despite the ability to gets its actions approved retroactively, the administration has still claimed that getting warrants for its wiretapping was too great a burden and would have prevented it from gathering evidence in a legally approved (and Constitutionally permissible) manner. Regardless of whether the wiretap evidence supported the government’s case against Al-Timini, if it was gathered in an illegal manner, the use of such evidence is an abuse of the government’s powers and undercuts the protections provided to everyone else.
Finally, it has become clear that in the Moussaoui case, the government withheld evidence from review. From the article, “In a letter made public Nov. 13, prosecutors in the Moussaoui case admitted to Brinkema that the CIA had wrongly assured her that no videotapes or audiotapes existed of interrogations of certain high-profile terrorism detainees. In fact, two such videotapes and one audio tape existed.” This essentially sets the government up as prosecution and judge by allowing the government to present certain evidence and censor what is seen by the defense without having to justify such censorship to an independent party (the judge). By deceiving both the judge and the defense, the government abused its power and created a situation where if Moussaoui hadn’t confessed he would certainly get a retrial.
Regardless of whether you believe the government’s prosecution of terrorists is making everyone safer, the government is subverting the justice system and creating a slippery slope that makes it easier to violate the protections set in place by the Founders in response to the abuses of the Colonial era. To accept this, you have to accept that the ends justify the means, which has been the philosophy of the current administration. The problem with the Constitution is that protecting what it stands for is really hard, and it creates a lot of situations where its easier to do what feels right at the time rather than what is actually right in the long run. - kalleanka, on 11/24/2007, -1/+3Actual article without blogspam:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_re_us/te ... - DestroyFascism, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2He's a dead man.....
- PHiZ187, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2We wouldn't have this problem if Conservatives wern't such pants-pissing cowards. You don't see progressives or democrats honestly entertaining the idea that "Islamo-fascists" are going to take over the US. Yes, that is what Rush-Limbaugh ditto-heads actually believe. That some ***** running around in caves are going to overthrow and occupy the United States. Can you comprehend how ASININE that is? This is honestly what they believe and are mouthing off about. It boggles the mind how anybody can take that position in public without being laughed at and ridiculed. But hey, no-one ever accused Conservatives of being independent thinkers, so there is plenty of an audience for these regressive profit-chasers (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck)
- mrurc, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2I heard them but the point is, in order to have a chance at being heard, they had to quit. Thus their good influence in the CIA was lost.
- mrurc, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2Here. Some facts:
In a letter made public Nov. 13, prosecutors in the Moussaoui case admitted to Brinkema that the CIA had wrongly assured her that no videotapes or audiotapes existed of interrogations of certain high-profile terrorism detainees. In fact, two such videotapes and one audio tape existed.
Sorry for the second post but the comment editing keeps breaking and disallowing me to edit comments. - strafefire, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2"CIA = Worlds largest terrorist organization...period! No other group has assassinated more presidents, leaders, witnesses, innocent people. No other organization has run a drug trade, arms trade and created a planet of fear, hatred, resentment better and more profoundly than the CIA...."
Except Israeli Mossad... - williamdyer, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1It seems even ex-DCIs interrupt their dinner to "fall out of a canoe" if necessary.
- johnnick, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1You're right, of course, since the "moonbats" are the ones who keep saying to the administration, "You're violating the Constitution and doing things that are contrary to the principles on which this country was founded." Perhaps those of you who claim to be so patriotic that you're willing to destroy the very thing you claim to love in order to save it could consider creating your secure, privacy-free, religiously monolithic society somewhere else.
- johnnick, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1Congratulations on adding to the intellectual value of the conversation. Your powers of rhetoric and your ability to provide intelligent political discourse give me such hope for the future.
-
Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is