d'oh! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

cheerios · 01-22-2004, 09:17 AM

republicans got their hand caught in the cookie jar...
Link to article[Boston Globe]

Quote:

Infiltration of files seen as extensive
Senate panel's GOP staff pried on Democrats

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff, 1/22/2004

WASHINGTON -- Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Commitee infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told The Globe.

From the spring of 2002 until at least April 2003, members of the GOP committee staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access restricted Democratic communications without a password. Trolling through hundreds of memos, they were able to read talking points and accounts of private meetings discussing which judicial nominees Democrats would fight -- and with what tactics.

The office of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle has already launched an investigation into how excerpts from 15 Democratic memos showed up in the pages of the conservative-leaning newspapers and were posted to a website last November.

With the help of forensic computer experts from General Dynamics and the US Secret Service, his office has interviewed about 120 people to date and seized more than half a dozen computers -- including four Judiciary servers, one server from the office of Senate majority leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, and several desktop hard drives.

But the scope of both the intrusions and the likely disclosures is now known to have been far more extensive than the November incident, staffers and others familiar with the investigation say.

The revelation comes as the battle of judicial nominees is reaching a new level of intensity. Last week, President Bush used his recess power to appoint Judge Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, bypassing a Democratic filibuster that blocked a vote on his nomination for a year because of concerns over his civil rights record.

Democrats now claim their private memos formed the basis for a February 2003 column by conservative pundit Robert Novak that revealed plans pushed by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, to filibuster certain judicial nominees. Novak is also at the center of an investigation into who leaked the identity of a CIA agent whose husband contradicted a Bush administration claim about Iraqi nuclear programs.

Citing "internal Senate sources," Novak's column described closed-door Democratic meetings about how to handle nominees.

Its details and direct quotes from Democrats -- characterizing former nominee Miguel Estrada as a "stealth right-wing zealot" and describing the GOP agenda as an "assembly line" for right-wing nominees -- are contained in talking points and meeting accounts from the Democratic files now known to have been compromised.

Novak declined to confirm or deny whether his column was based on these files.

"They're welcome to think anything they want," he said. "As has been demonstrated, I don't reveal my sources."

As the extent to which Democratic communications were monitored came into sharper focus, Republicans yesterday offered a new defense. They said that in the summer of 2002, their computer technician informed his Democratic counterpart of the glitch, but Democrats did nothing to fix the problem.

Other staffers, however, denied that the Democrats were told anything about it before November 2003.

The emerging scope of the GOP surveillance of confidential Democratic files represents a major escalation in partisan warfare over judicial appointments. The bitter fight traces back to 1987, when Democrats torpedoed Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court. In the 1990s, Republicans blocked many of President Clinton's nominees. Since President Bush took office, those roles have been reversed.

Against that backdrop, both sides have something to gain and lose from the investigation into the computer files. For Democrats, the scandal highlights GOP dirty tricks that could result in ethics complaints to the Senate and the Washington Bar -- or even criminal charges under computer intrusion laws.

"They had an obligation to tell each of the people whose files they were intruding upon -- assuming it was an accident -- that that was going on so those people could protect themselves," said one Senate staffer. "To keep on getting these files is just beyond the pale."

But for Republicans, the scandal also keeps attention on the memo contents, which demonstrate the influence of liberal interest groups in choosing which nominees Democratic senators would filibuster. Other revelations from the memos include Democrats' race-based characterization of Estrada as "especially dangerous, because . . . he is Latino," which they feared would make him difficult to block from a later promotion to the Supreme Court.

And, at the request of the NAACP, the Democrats delayed any hearings for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals until after it heard a landmark affirmative action case -- though a memo noted that staffers "are a little concerned about the propriety of scheduling hearings based on the resolution of a particular case."

After the contents of those memos were made public in The Wall Street Journal editorial pages and The Washington Times, Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, made a preliminary inquiry and described himself as "mortified that this improper, unethical and simply unacceptable breach of confidential files may have occurred on my watch."

Hatch also confirmed that "at least one current member of the Judiciary Committee staff had improperly accessed at least some of the documents referenced in media reports." He did not name the staffer, who he said was being placed on leave and who sources said has since resigned, although he had apparently already announced plans to return to school later this year.

Officials familiar with the investigation identified that person as a legislative staff assistant whose name was removed from a list of Judiciary Committee staff in the most recent update of a Capitol Hill directory. The staff member's home number has been disconnected and he could not be reached for comment.

Hatch also said that a "former member of the Judiciary staff may have been involved." Many news reports have subsequently identified that person as Manuel Miranda, who formerly worked in the Judiciary Committee office and now is the chief judicial nominee adviser in the Senate majority leader's office. His computer hard drive name was stamped on an e-mail from the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League that was posted along with the Democratic Senate staff communications.

Reached at home, Miranda said he is on paternity leave; Frist's office said he is on leave "pending the results of the investigation" -- he denied that any of the handwritten comments on the memos were by his hand and said he did not distribute the memos to the media. He also argued that the only wrongdoing was on the part of the Democrats -- both for the content of their memos, and for their negligence in placing them where they could be seen.

"There appears to have been no hacking, no stealing, and no violation of any Senate rule," Miranda said. "Stealing assumes a property right and there is no property right to a government document. . . . These documents are not covered under the Senate disclosure rule because they are not official business and, to the extent they were disclosed, they were disclosed inadvertently by negligent [Democratic] staff."

Whether the memos are ultimately deemed to be official business will be a central issue in any criminal case that could result. Unauthorized access of such material could be punishable by up to a year in prison -- or, at the least, sanction under a Senate non-disclosure rule.

The computer glitch dates to 2001, when Democrats took control of the Senate after the defection from the GOP of Senator Jim Jeffords, Independent of Vermont.

A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with the right password.

I knew politics was dirty, but this just seems a bit low, not to mention lame. They've got the power, and now they need to spy, and not only that release things to other sources as well?

numist · 01-22-2004, 09:31 AM

It may be low, and lame, but the fact that the computers were unsecured was kinda asking for it.

Having security like that, they deserved it, next time they'll be more careful.

Party politics is like industrial espionage, only higher profile. Its sad that we even have parties in the political system (many of the earliest presidents saw it coming, and gave warnings in speeches), and this is partially why.

How many public tax dollars are wasted in these pissing contests between the two parties every year?

We need more (major) parties to represent varied interests. It seems like the only way to stop this, since going back to having no parties is unlikely, given people's tendencies to group themselves.

Ustwo · 01-22-2004, 09:32 AM

And you have nothing to say about what was found in those files?

seretogis · 01-22-2004, 09:40 AM

I think it's funny how it's said that they "exploited a computer glitch", when in fact it was most likely as simple as having a hard-drive shared in Windows, but not setting a user/password. I really wonder how much of an "exploit" this is, compared to just a security failure on the side of the Democrats. I'm sure that nothing will come of this, except some Democrat aide getting fired.

Sparhawk · 01-22-2004, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
And you have nothing to say about what was found in those files?

politics is politics. the only high road republicans can point to is that their own internal memos weren't released.

Astrocloud · 01-22-2004, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
I think it's funny how it's said that they "exploited a computer glitch", when in fact it was most likely as simple as having a hard-drive shared in Windows, but not setting a user/password. I really wonder how much of an "exploit" this is, compared to just a security failure on the side of the Democrats. I'm sure that nothing will come of this, except some Democrat aide getting fired.

Yet that if this was done in the business world -where say an employee spied on another employee. The spying employee would be fired.

Of course your remarks on the nature of the glitch is complete speculation. Admit that you don't know how the exploitation was made. You automatically assume that the security of the US Senate isn't up to par with a small company. Thus your speculation is wrong.

This shows the complete lack of ethics on the part of the GOP. Thank Nixon for leading the way.

Conclamo Ludus · 01-22-2004, 10:14 AM

I don't know whats more disgusting, the exploitation of computer glitch to dig up dirt, or the dirt that is dug up. It all makes me want to wash myself of politics forever (yeah right). This shows a lack of ethics and a lack of competence. Secure your shit, so I don't have to hear about how smelly it is, or about the people that go around sniffing it.

Kadath · 01-22-2004, 10:17 AM

Honestly. This is ridiculously unethical, and the only response people come up with is "They were asking for it"? That's like saying that stealing money is okay if the safe is open, or has an easily guessed combination.

onetime2 · 01-22-2004, 10:20 AM

LOL, yeah it's only the Republicans who do this kind of crap. I seem to recall a mess of FBI files finding their way into the White House not that long ago.

Until voters actually get outraged at both sides for this kind of stuff they'll keep on doing it. Rather than saying look at the Republicans or look at the Democrats and their misdeeds how about saying "Look at the bull all our politicians continually pull, it needs to stop."?

Conclamo Ludus · 01-22-2004, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Honestly. This is ridiculously unethical, and the only response people come up with is "They were asking for it"? That's like saying that stealing money is okay if the safe is open, or has an easily guessed combination.

Its not okay, but its pretty stupid to leave your safe open.

Ustwo · 01-22-2004, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
politics is politics. the only high road republicans can point to is that their own internal memos weren't released.

Or maybe that they are not obstructionists beholden to special interests

The democrats like to claim 'special interests' run the republican party, but all the proof goes the other way around.

Astrocloud · 01-22-2004, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Or maybe that they are not obstructionists beholden to special interests

The democrats like to claim 'special interests' run the republican party, but all the proof goes the other way around.

Nice Red Herring fallacy -too bad it comes across as a non-sequitor.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-herring.html

Superbelt · 01-22-2004, 10:53 AM

Just turn it around and consider what you would think if it was the democrats taking confidential memos, transcripts and other information off of Republican servers.

I think this situation wills see many Republican Staffers sent to jail. This goes against the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and several other privacy laws, such as breaking and entering.

The democrats will invest in separate servers and better security because of this situation though. That's a good thing.

Kadath · 01-22-2004, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus
Its not okay, but its pretty stupid to leave your safe open.

Yeah, why would you expect the sanctity of your home to be comprimised? I guess a better comparison would be not locking up your money at night, but rather leaving it in your wallet, assuming the lock on your front door would be enough.

Sparhawk · 01-22-2004, 11:22 AM

How would everyone here like it if the receptionist working for their Insurance company looked through your medical files, found say, that you have AIDS, and let everyone you work with know you have it?

(comparisons are fun)

Conclamo Ludus · 01-22-2004, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
How would everyone here like it if the receptionist working for their Insurance company looked through your medical files, found say, that you have AIDS, and let everyone you work with know you have it?

(comparisons are fun)

I'd sue the shit out of whoever was supposed to keep my medical files secure.

Ustwo · 01-22-2004, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
How would everyone here like it if the receptionist working for their Insurance company looked through your medical files, found say, that you have AIDS, and let everyone you work with know you have it?

(comparisons are fun)

So you are comparing the information about the democrats obstructionism and obvious pandering to special interests as having AIDS?

Pretty good comparison if I say so myself.

Conclamo Ludus · 01-22-2004, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Yeah, why would you expect the sanctity of your home to be comprimised? I guess a better comparison would be not locking up your money at night, but rather leaving it in your wallet, assuming the lock on your front door would be enough.

To be fair I guess we aren't talking about sanctity of home, or leaving your safe open, or medical files. We are talking about leaving your political party's private communications wide open. Why you wouldn't want to keep this as secure as possible at all times, is beyond me. It should be as secure as any other data that you wouldn't want in the hands of strangers.

I hope people don't think that I am trying to excuse the GOP, exploiting this stuff is highly unethical and disgusting, but lets also recognize that it is careless if not negligent to keep your communications as secure as possible. With that said the GOP should be ashamed for playing dirty.

mml · 01-22-2004, 12:08 PM

Reality is that I am sure this is going on on both sides, it is just that the Republicans got caught this time. It doesn't do any good for either side to get high and mighty about this. Simply put it is unethical and possibly illegal. Whoever is responsible should be held accountable and the penalty should be as severe as it can be in order to prevent a continuing of this sort of Nixonian politics.
(Sorry, I had to make some sort of juvinile anti-GOP slam.)

Ustwo · 01-22-2004, 12:45 PM

Hehe this reminds me of the cops finding a bloody knife in the car of someone they pulled over and then having it thrown out of court because they didn't have a search warrent so the guy gets away with murder.

The dems got caught at some very dirty politics by some republican staffers and it was leaked to the public. You can argue about how wrong it was of them to look and leak the memo's but that doesn't make the memo's any less daming.

Kadath · 01-22-2004, 01:40 PM

Warrant. Memos. Damning.

That's done, then.

Ustwo · 01-22-2004, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Warrant. Memos. Damning.

That's done, then.

You sir are qualified to be my secretary.

European Son · 01-22-2004, 02:40 PM

Hehehe, love the spin here. "Damn dirty democrats forcing Republicans into spying at their secret memos". Just admit that this was unethical and wrong ffs! They knew what they were doing when they obtained the secret memos, no matter how easy it was to do so.

nanofever · 01-22-2004, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo

The dems got caught at some very dirty politics by some republican staffers and it was leaked to the public. You can argue about how wrong it was of them to look and leak the memo's but that doesn't make the memo's any less daming.

If Joe average did this he would already be in jail under computer crime laws.

Also, I'm going to steal the phrase "Cybergate" from /. and claim it as my own word.

Sparhawk · 01-22-2004, 03:22 PM

[nevermind]

Cybergate, I like that...

cheerios · 01-22-2004, 03:43 PM

so, as a 21 yr old college student how HATES following politics, what was the bad part about these memos, and why were there contents bad? They were strategising on how to stop judicial nominations, right? isn't that their job? to disagree w/ the other guy & represent our interests? Maybe I'm confused but it seems like it's about equivilent to someone putting a microphone next to the water cooler, and recording when someone calls the boss a fucktard, and going and tattling. I'm sure that, just as everyone calls their boss a fucktard once in a while, both parties are internally plotting how to thwart eachother. what's the big shock here???

Kadath · 01-22-2004, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
You sir are qualified to be my secretary.

No, your secretary would also be responsible for keeping you from making an ass of yourself. But I'm flattered.

Ustwo · 01-22-2004, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cheerios
Maybe I'm confused but it seems like it's about equivilent to someone putting a microphone next to the water cooler, and recording when someone calls the boss a fucktard, and going and tattling. I'm sure that, just as everyone calls their boss a fucktard once in a while, both parties are internally plotting how to thwart eachother. what's the big shock here???

I'm afraid the big problem here is it shows just how controlled the democrats are by their special interests and how they are willing to make their decisions. Judges are suppose to be appointed based on their merit as a judge, understanding and enforcing the law, not based on how they decide a case.

Now if they said 'I don't want him to be a judge because I think he is unqualified as a lawyer and untested.' That’s fine.

When they do 'Lets try to obstruct his nomination in any way possible because the NAACP is worried he might not decide a case the way we want him to', its proof of what their real motives are.

It is based around a deeper issue as well, which is judges basically deciding to ignore the law based on their own personal opinion, its a form a despotism that unfortunately is not handled well by the constitution. Since you are a liberal, I'll use an example you can get a feeling for. Lets say at some point abortion came up to a vote and was made legal (if you think it was voted on in such a way you are wrong). Now abortions are legal, period, its the law of the land and the will of the people. Now lets say this is challenged and goes to the supreme court, and they say something to the effect that abortion is murder and therefore can not be allowed under the law, effectively putting a ban on abortions. Now the will of the people, as clearly stated in the law has been thwarted, and there is very little you can do about it. This sort of thing happens quite often in our courts where judges decide what the law SHOULD be, not what the law is. If you don't see a problem with this, then there really isn't much to talk about.

Superbelt · 01-22-2004, 10:29 PM

That's not why they blocked judges. They are blocking judges because of very well known public stances that run counter to american law, and their track record of judging cases contrary to this nations law.
It's not simply blocking them because of "how they decide a case"

Lebell · 01-22-2004, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud

This shows the complete lack of ethics on the part of the GOP. Thank Nixon for leading the way.

Ironic of course that it pointed out the complete lack of ethics of the Democrats.

What I want to know is when well this country have had enough of these rascals?

nanofever · 01-22-2004, 10:39 PM

"In short, whatever hypothetical tyranny "change" might exercise over reluctant judges in hypothetical cases—in the real world, the real cases which have caused concern and controversy over judicial activism have seldom been of this nature. Social change created no cognitive difficulties in determining Brian Weber's race or that of his fellow employees, or made the language of Sections 703(a) or 703(d) of the Civil Rights Act shrouded in ambiguity defying all attempts to discern what Congress could possibly have meant. The changing technology of abortions raised neither administrative nor other barriers to the feasibility of its being either legal or illegal. Nor were any of the eighteenth-century methods of execution, which escaped the "cruel and unusual" prohibition of the Constitution at the time, lost as options through "change" in the intervening generations. In short, feasibility is not the central issue. What has changed most profoundly is what people, including judges, wish to do.

The proposition that publicly desired changes are thwarted for lack of institutional instruments, so that judges are the public's last resort, not only flies in the face of this evidence but is also inconsistent with the courts' plummeting prestige as they putatively carried out the public's otherwise thwarted desires for change. Not all advocates of judicial activism take on the formidable task of claiming that the public wants the changes imposed by judges. Some admit to speaking for a much narrower constituency among their contemporaries, however much they may anticipate vindication from later and presumably more enlightened generations. Justice Thurgood Marshall has made the test what the public would believe if properly informed.[71]

In principle, the fundamental justification for judicial activism is that what is imposed is morally preferable to what exists—or what the public wants. In Ronald Dworkin's words, "a more equal society is a better society even if its citizens prefer inequality."[72] This puts the issue at its clearest. What remains is to determine why judges are the proper instruments of changes counter to public desires and unauthorized by the source of their authority. The pragmatic answer is that they are appointed rather than elected and, with federal judges, appointed for life. Even so, different kinds of institutions have their own advantages and disadvantages,[73] so that even intellectually or morally superior individuals in a particular kind of institution need not make more socially beneficial decisions when over-riding the decisions of other institutions which have social advantages in the particular matters within their respective purviews. "

http://www.amatecon.com/etext/jar/jar.html

Brown vs. Board comes to mind as a big acomplishment for judical activism, but then again you neocons don't much like african-americans getting schooling.

/see we can all flamebait/troll so how about you stop too Utswo.

Ustwo · 01-23-2004, 11:59 AM

nanofever - You don't need to post a troll neocon line, your avatar is good enough. It only shows your lack of understanding and insensitivity to those who suffered and died due to Hitler.

I would recomend doing some reading.

nanofever · 01-23-2004, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
nanofever - You don't need to post a troll neocon line, your avatar is good enough. It only shows your lack of understanding and insensitivity to those who suffered and died due to Hitler.

I would recomend doing some reading.

Having jewish family I know exactly what happened in the holocaust and Ashcroft's round-up of arab men/muslims is one the line with Hitler rounding up jews. I read enough to know Ashcroft is just a bit to the right of Musaline on the facist scale and he shouldn't be in any position of power.

European Son · 01-23-2004, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Godwin's Law /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. Ah, so if I call you a Nazi, I lose, while if you are a Nazi, you win...

LINK

Seems like this might have been evoked. Sorry, I know this is Farkish, but it is useful.

Just thought it might be of use...

nanofever · 01-23-2004, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by European Son
LINK

Seems like this might have been evoked. Sorry, I know this is Farkish, but it is useful.

Just thought it might be of use...

I knew godwin's law was going to come up but since I didn't technically bring-up Nazis first...

cheerios · 01-23-2004, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
I'm afraid the big problem here is it shows just how controlled the democrats are by their special interests and how they are willing to make their decisions. Judges are suppose to be appointed based on their merit as a judge, understanding and enforcing the law, not based on how they decide a case.

Now if they said 'I don't want him to be a judge because I think he is unqualified as a lawyer and untested.' That’s fine.

When they do 'Lets try to obstruct his nomination in any way possible because the NAACP is worried he might not decide a case the way we want him to', its proof of what their real motives are.

It is based around a deeper issue as well, which is judges basically deciding to ignore the law based on their own personal opinion, its a form a despotism that unfortunately is not handled well by the constitution. Since you are a liberal, I'll use an example you can get a feeling for. Lets say at some point abortion came up to a vote and was made legal (if you think it was voted on in such a way you are wrong). Now abortions are legal, period, its the law of the land and the will of the people. Now lets say this is challenged and goes to the supreme court, and they say something to the effect that abortion is murder and therefore can not be allowed under the law, effectively putting a ban on abortions. Now the will of the people, as clearly stated in the law has been thwarted, and there is very little you can do about it. This sort of thing happens quite often in our courts where judges decide what the law SHOULD be, not what the law is. If you don't see a problem with this, then there really isn't much to talk about.

see this "thwarting the will of the people" thing bothers me... if it's the will of the people, then they need to get some new laws in place for judges to enforce. it's not a judges DUTY to bow to the will of the people, it's his job to enforce the laws as they are written and make decisions in the gray areas. Yes, there's a lot of room for political manuverings here, and it's dirty on both sides of the fence to try'n manipulate who's got what job based on what that person can do for you and your party, BUT. That seems to be the "way it goes"™, and we either suck it up and admit both sides do it, or we put our heads back under the sand.

Ustwo · 01-23-2004, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cheerios
it's not a judges DUTY to bow to the will of the people, it's his job to enforce the laws as they are written and make decisions in the gray areas.

Cheerios you are agreeing with me. The problem is when the judges ignore the LAW as written by the people.

cheerios · 01-23-2004, 02:00 PM

apologies, I mis-read. And really, it kinda brings us full circle. you lobbying for your ideals, and me lobbying for mine. and some honorless schmuck in a suit in the middle trying to make everyone else happy while still getting his own way. oye. no wonder politics are so messy.

prb · 01-24-2004, 07:54 AM

Spying on those who disagree with you is a traditional conservative practice. Goes back at least to Watergate.

Lebell · 01-24-2004, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by prb
Spying on those who disagree with you is a traditional conservative practice. Goes back at least to Watergate.

It isn't just conservatives and it predates Watergate by quite a few years.

01-22-2004, 09:32 AM	#3 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	And you have nothing to say about what was found in those files? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-22-2004, 09:40 AM	#4 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	I think it's funny how it's said that they "exploited a computer glitch", when in fact it was most likely as simple as having a hard-drive shared in Windows, but not setting a user/password. I really wonder how much of an "exploit" this is, compared to just a security failure on the side of the Democrats. I'm sure that nothing will come of this, except some Democrat aide getting fired. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

01-22-2004, 10:14 AM	#7 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	I don't know whats more disgusting, the exploitation of computer glitch to dig up dirt, or the dirt that is dug up. It all makes me want to wash myself of politics forever (yeah right). This shows a lack of ethics and a lack of competence. Secure your shit, so I don't have to hear about how smelly it is, or about the people that go around sniffing it. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

01-22-2004, 10:17 AM	#8 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Honestly. This is ridiculously unethical, and the only response people come up with is "They were asking for it"? That's like saying that stealing money is okay if the safe is open, or has an easily guessed combination. __________________ it's quiet in here

01-22-2004, 10:20 AM	#9 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	LOL, yeah it's only the Republicans who do this kind of crap. I seem to recall a mess of FBI files finding their way into the White House not that long ago. Until voters actually get outraged at both sides for this kind of stuff they'll keep on doing it. Rather than saying look at the Republicans or look at the Democrats and their misdeeds how about saying "Look at the bull all our politicians continually pull, it needs to stop."? __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

01-22-2004, 09:31 AM	#2 (permalink)
numist Banned Location: UCSD, 510.49 miles from my love	It may be low, and lame, but the fact that the computers were unsecured was kinda asking for it. Having security like that, they deserved it, next time they'll be more careful. Party politics is like industrial espionage, only higher profile. Its sad that we even have parties in the political system (many of the earliest presidents saw it coming, and gave warnings in speeches), and this is partially why. How many public tax dollars are wasted in these pissing contests between the two parties every year? We need more (major) parties to represent varied interests. It seems like the only way to stop this, since going back to having no parties is unlikely, given people's tendencies to group themselves.

01-22-2004, 10:53 AM	#13 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Just turn it around and consider what you would think if it was the democrats taking confidential memos, transcripts and other information off of Republican servers. I think this situation wills see many Republican Staffers sent to jail. This goes against the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and several other privacy laws, such as breaking and entering. The democrats will invest in separate servers and better security because of this situation though. That's a good thing.

01-22-2004, 11:22 AM	#15 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	How would everyone here like it if the receptionist working for their Insurance company looked through your medical files, found say, that you have AIDS, and let everyone you work with know you have it? (comparisons are fun) __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

01-22-2004, 12:08 PM	#19 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	Reality is that I am sure this is going on on both sides, it is just that the Republicans got caught this time. It doesn't do any good for either side to get high and mighty about this. Simply put it is unethical and possibly illegal. Whoever is responsible should be held accountable and the penalty should be as severe as it can be in order to prevent a continuing of this sort of Nixonian politics. (Sorry, I had to make some sort of juvinile anti-GOP slam.) __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

01-22-2004, 12:45 PM	#20 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Hehe this reminds me of the cops finding a bloody knife in the car of someone they pulled over and then having it thrown out of court because they didn't have a search warrent so the guy gets away with murder. The dems got caught at some very dirty politics by some republican staffers and it was leaked to the public. You can argue about how wrong it was of them to look and leak the memo's but that doesn't make the memo's any less daming. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-22-2004, 01:40 PM	#21 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Warrant. Memos. Damning. That's done, then. __________________ it's quiet in here

01-22-2004, 02:40 PM	#23 (permalink)
European Son Banned Location: Norway	Hehehe, love the spin here. "Damn dirty democrats forcing Republicans into spying at their secret memos". Just admit that this was unethical and wrong ffs! They knew what they were doing when they obtained the secret memos, no matter how easy it was to do so.

01-22-2004, 03:22 PM	#25 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	[nevermind] Cybergate, I like that... __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work." Last edited by Sparhawk; 01-22-2004 at 03:28 PM..

01-22-2004, 03:43 PM	#26 (permalink)
cheerios Banned Location: 'bout 2 feet from my iMac	so, as a 21 yr old college student how HATES following politics, what was the bad part about these memos, and why were there contents bad? They were strategising on how to stop judicial nominations, right? isn't that their job? to disagree w/ the other guy & represent our interests? Maybe I'm confused but it seems like it's about equivilent to someone putting a microphone next to the water cooler, and recording when someone calls the boss a fucktard, and going and tattling. I'm sure that, just as everyone calls their boss a fucktard once in a while, both parties are internally plotting how to thwart eachother. what's the big shock here???

01-22-2004, 10:29 PM	#29 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	That's not why they blocked judges. They are blocking judges because of very well known public stances that run counter to american law, and their track record of judging cases contrary to this nations law. It's not simply blocking them because of "how they decide a case"

01-22-2004, 10:39 PM	#31 (permalink)
nanofever Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe. Location: UCSB	"In short, whatever hypothetical tyranny "change" might exercise over reluctant judges in hypothetical cases—in the real world, the real cases which have caused concern and controversy over judicial activism have seldom been of this nature. Social change created no cognitive difficulties in determining Brian Weber's race or that of his fellow employees, or made the language of Sections 703(a) or 703(d) of the Civil Rights Act shrouded in ambiguity defying all attempts to discern what Congress could possibly have meant. The changing technology of abortions raised neither administrative nor other barriers to the feasibility of its being either legal or illegal. Nor were any of the eighteenth-century methods of execution, which escaped the "cruel and unusual" prohibition of the Constitution at the time, lost as options through "change" in the intervening generations. In short, feasibility is not the central issue. What has changed most profoundly is what people, including judges, wish to do. The proposition that publicly desired changes are thwarted for lack of institutional instruments, so that judges are the public's last resort, not only flies in the face of this evidence but is also inconsistent with the courts' plummeting prestige as they putatively carried out the public's otherwise thwarted desires for change. Not all advocates of judicial activism take on the formidable task of claiming that the public wants the changes imposed by judges. Some admit to speaking for a much narrower constituency among their contemporaries, however much they may anticipate vindication from later and presumably more enlightened generations. Justice Thurgood Marshall has made the test what the public would believe if properly informed.[71] In principle, the fundamental justification for judicial activism is that what is imposed is morally preferable to what exists—or what the public wants. In Ronald Dworkin's words, "a more equal society is a better society even if its citizens prefer inequality."[72] This puts the issue at its clearest. What remains is to determine why judges are the proper instruments of changes counter to public desires and unauthorized by the source of their authority. The pragmatic answer is that they are appointed rather than elected and, with federal judges, appointed for life. Even so, different kinds of institutions have their own advantages and disadvantages,[73] so that even intellectually or morally superior individuals in a particular kind of institution need not make more socially beneficial decisions when over-riding the decisions of other institutions which have social advantages in the particular matters within their respective purviews. " http://www.amatecon.com/etext/jar/jar.html Brown vs. Board comes to mind as a big acomplishment for judical activism, but then again you neocons don't much like african-americans getting schooling. /see we can all flamebait/troll so how about you stop too Utswo. __________________ I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect. Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum: "Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

01-23-2004, 11:59 AM	#32 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	nanofever - You don't need to post a troll neocon line, your avatar is good enough. It only shows your lack of understanding and insensitivity to those who suffered and died due to Hitler. I would recomend doing some reading. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-23-2004, 02:00 PM	#38 (permalink)
cheerios Banned Location: 'bout 2 feet from my iMac	apologies, I mis-read. And really, it kinda brings us full circle. you lobbying for your ideals, and me lobbying for mine. and some honorless schmuck in a suit in the middle trying to make everyone else happy while still getting his own way. oye. no wonder politics are so messy.

01-24-2004, 07:54 AM	#39 (permalink)
prb Psycho	Spying on those who disagree with you is a traditional conservative practice. Goes back at least to Watergate.