| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/26 |
| 2005/1/12-13 [ERROR, uid:35682, category id '18005#9.54947' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35682 Activity:moderate 66%like:33439 |
1/12 Where did the wall love go?
\_ I have backups as of 12/17, but that's missing the last 3 weeks.
Maybe another root knows. Personally, I have no damned clue about
how all the wall stuff works (maybe the script borked itself).
*shrug* - jvarga
\_ If you could restore to /csua/lib/wall, with the owner as
someone other than aaron, it would be much appreciated. jon
has a log of the last couple months of wall in his home dir,
which could easily be split into logs for each day if anyone
is so inclined.
\_ Happy birthday. - jvarga
\_ Really? I don't see anything new at /csua/lib/wall
\_ backup is from 17 December.
\_ ask aaron
\_ aaron, where did the wall logs go?
\_ I don't think aaron logs on anymore
\_ why, did he have an aneurysm after realizing he's one of
the people he hates so much? -tom
\- he is fileld with recursive hate
\_ Did aaron wipe the wall log or something? -clueless
\_ He was probably embarrassed about his meltdown
(even by aaron standards) yesterday. So he is cleaning up
the tracks.
\_ Ooo! Details please!
\_ Wall-spamming.
\_ Has he been squished yet?
\_ This is the frist thing I've seen in a while that
might actually require squishing. He's been a
real bung hole.
\_ Awww. I miss 'squish ilyas' threads.
If we squish aaron, there would be one less person
to point and laugh at, at least for me. -- ilyas
\_ If anyone really tries to get you squished, I
think you might be suprised how many people that
would piss off. No one can say you don't
contribute to making the motd what it is.
\_ I am not entirely sure that's a compliment.
-- ilyas
\_ It is and it isn't. Let me put it this
way: I continue to disagree with you on
almost everything, and you've really pissed
me off with some of your posts, but they've
caused me to think quite a bit about things
I never would have thought about otherwise,
and to reconsider some things. What more
can someone who writes about ideas ask than
that they cause other people to re-think
their own ideas? That's what I read the
motd for.
\_ Hmmm.. I was going to say I had a
similar feeling about aaron, that
is, the motd just wouldn't be the
same without his mad ranting.
However, unlike ilyas, as far as I
know aaron has never actually
contributed anything other than
bile to a conversation.
\_ You know, I think you're confusing
motd with wall. I'm a total motd
addict, but I don't do wall, and I
still don't really know who this aaron
guy everyone keeps talking about is.
Can you point to a aaron/bile post
in the motd archives?
\_ I actually don't wall either.
I know aaron exclusively
through the motd. Just search
"--aaron" on KAIS motd.
Although, I have to admit,
after looking through the
archives, that aaron does
occasionaly post something
useful.
Some bile fresh from the archives _/
http://csua.com/?entry=33982
http://csua.com/?entry=33404
\_ I assumed this was a parody when I saw it.
http://csua.com/?entry=33330
http://csua.com/?entry=33214
It's not hard to find examples really.
\_ I was disappointed because I couldn't find any of aarons
enlightened postings on religion.
\_ I don't think he signed any of them on the motd. There are
plenty in wall.
\_ aaron ttyEJ 64.62.161.106 Mon Jan 10 15:14 - 15:25 (00:10)
drwxrwsr-t 9 root contrib 512 Jan 10 15:16 /csua/lib |
| 5/26 |
|
| csua.com/?entry=33982 I can fit an ipod or even a thin novel just above my belt with very little visibility, and that's not even wearing a jacket. This proves liberals are smarter: Kerry's magic cheat pen with wireless receiver and handwriting- recognizing transmitter had a wider operating range. let's suppose that Bush *was* secretly connected to some wireless device during the debate. Do you really think that they couldn't use something more compact? most cameras were pointed at his head, and that wire would surely be visible. Look at websites for spy stuff, we can assume that Bush has access to the best. Does that really include a bulky rectangular thing worn on the back under one's shirt? To top it off, they might not have wanted to bother with some custom design, and chose to go with something 'off the shelf' that may not have been optimized for size. htm I don't see any reason why spread spectrum or encryption would take more space or batteries. I'm positive that if Karl Rove really wanted to beam spread spectrum, encrypted signals into W's ear, no giant battery pack would be needed. One wonders how many kids are cheating their way through school with these things, though. Continuous transmission (to look like background) would up the power requirements a lot. Thing of a cell phone operating continuously, with more complicated signal processing and you get a sense of the power requirements. CDMA uses DSS but it's only spread over (I think) 15MHz You'd want a much wider spread for being sneaky. There was obviously no one feeding him lines through it. Their expert seems to be saying that this is both plausible and technically possible to do wirelessly. Given how poorly Bush did in the debate, however, I'd almost believe that someone hacked the feed. Probably that pearl handled revolver that they took off Saddam Hussein when he was captured. Making that info public just tells potential assassins to go for a head shot. You would see it much more clearly, and the Bush team would not be asking for 70 degree room temperatures. i find it instructive about your cognitive abilities that you make arguments which rely on the assumption that you know everything there is to know (about, for example, body armor). compare to "if bush had a bodyguard, you wouldn't know about it." Send some of that green my way, aaron, and I guarantee I'll have more fun with it. html And find out who Hackworth is before dismissing him. If you wear body armor that doesn't have bulky plates, it won't protect you against assault rifle rounds. html That's the latest rumor flooding the Inte rnet, unleashed last week in the wake of an image caught by a television camera during the Miami debate. The image shows a large solid object be tween Bush's shoulder blades as he leans over the lectern and faces mode rator Jim Lehrer. The president is not known to wear a back brace, and it's safe to say he wasn't packing. So was the bulge under his well-tailored jacket a hidden receiver, picking up transmissions from someone offstage feeding the pr esident answers through a hidden earpiece? Did the device explain why th e normally ramrod-straight president seemed hunched over during much of the debate? You have two options: Subscribe now, or w atch a brief ad and get a free day pass. htm The COMM-1's design simplicity allows for out-of-the-box use. htm XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN OCT 03, 2004 14:05:38 ET XXXXX DEBATE MYSTERY: DID KERRY HAVE CHEAT SHEET? Section 5, pages 4-5 of the binding "Memorandum of Understanding" that was negotiated and agreed upon by both political campaigns states: "No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.... Kerry appears to unfold some sort of paper seconds later, at his podium. A top Kerry campaign source explained to the DRUDGE REPORT late Sunday how Bush supporters were once again trying to distract. "This is more lies from Republicans, who are hoping for a quick change of subject away from the president's performance, and the new polls." When pressed on the fact that even brandishing a pen from his jacket would have violated debate rules, the Kerry staffer laughed, adding, "See you at the inauguration, Drudge". ARTICLE_ID=26143 Casey Joyce was shot in the back by an insurgent in Somalia i n 1993 and killed. Both of these deaths probably could have been prevented had the grunts be en wearing decent flak jackets. Joyce was wearing the Army's best at the time, the Ranger vest, but he'd removed the armor plates at the back to lighten the load. Chapman, like most of our Special Forces operators on dangerous missions, wasn't wearing any vest at all these warriors say they're too heavy, too cumbersome. Dave Hunt, who ran black ops in bad places li ke Cambodia, Iraq and Bosnia, says, "The stuff we had slowed you down an d cut your endurance." Body armor dates back to the 13th century, when metal plates were worn un der chain mail. But by the 14th century, the knights were decked out in so much armor from head to foot that their horses could barely trot. If a horse went down, that knight was as immobilized as a turtle on its back easy slicing for a swordsman. Because of the lack of mobility an d the subsequent introduction of gunpowder, the savvy knights eventually did what many of our defenders are doing today gave body armor a pass . Even though metallurgical skills and weaponry improved a thousandfold fro m the days of the Knights of the Round Table to World War II where the US Army took 823,483 casualties (80 percent infantry) our grunts st ill went into battle much like the Johnnies and Rebs in our Civil War, t otally unprotected. The same was true in the early part of the Korean Wa r where the Army took 109,958 casualties (84 percent infantry). By the end of that conflict, flak jackets were available, but they were heavy, made for warriors sitting behind a weapon, not for grunts slipping thro ugh the bush. While these jackets were greatly improved during the Vietn am War where the Army took 230,398 casualties (80 percent infantry) they were shunned by most grunts in the field because of weight, unwield iness and the fact that they became sweat suits in tropical conditions. Today's technology can produce a lightweight jacket that will stop most b ullets. The concealed body armor currently worn by George W Bush, the S ecret Service and many law-enforcement folks does the trick. Sure, the president should have the best vest that money can buy, but I h ave a hard time understanding why guys and gals in the Secret Service ge t priority over our grunts, especially our Special Warfare operators. Co mpare the casualty stats and ask yourself who needs the jackets more. The Army has been spending serious money and too many years in search of the right flak jacket when it's already on the shelf. With just a fracti on of the dough spent on research and development since Casey Joyce died , our Special Ops guys could already have been wearing the finest body a rmor available. It costs a minimum of $1 million to train a Special Forces operator. News week spent $700 to buy a high-quality, lightweight vest for my trip to S omalia without having a nickel invested in my education. After 56 years around conflicts, I've seen generals up front where the dy ing occurs no more than a dozen times. You can bet your old boots that i f they were the ones hanging out in Death Valley, the Army would have th e lightest, most up-to-date body armor going. If the members of Congress would allocate just 1 percent of the energy th ey spent trying to zap Clinton over Monica or they're about to spend goi ng after Bush over Enron and put it toward looking after our boys in the trenches, you better believe decent body armor would be made in every s tate in the Union. And, for a change, the porkers would be doing something patriotic. Just a sk widows Chapman, Joyce and scores more women in black. David H Hackworth, author of his new best-selling "Steel My Sol diers' Hearts," "Price of Honor" and "About Face," has seen duty or repo rted as a sailor, soldier and military correspondent in nearly a dozen w ars and conflicts from ... |
| csua.com/?entry=33404 htm \_ a waste of a great gun :( \_ MacGyver wised up and became Colonel O'Neal \_ pistol grips on shotguns are way less accurate then regular grips, they should let the twinks keep them \_ it could help in close, urban situations where accuracy of one shot isn't the primary concern. There's not really enough "stfu, u teh gay" in US politics right now; in addition to agreeing wholeheartedly with Mr Smith, I welcome this move to introduce better form into the political debating process. Let me tell you my impression \_ you really should stop posting this "quip" unless you're trying to sound totally inane. He was asked what books he was reading or would recommend. He stammered on for 3-4 minutes and effectively said nothing. He stated one childrens book he had read and something about the importance of the Bible. The rest of his response was nuanced evasive nonsense about what types of books, how many... He could of named 5 books in 30 seconds and been done with it; Someone with this type of personality does not make an effective executive, especially during national crises. I was watching him read _My Pet Goat_ for seven minutes after he learned of the 2nd tower being attacked. He knows how to delegate authority -- someone else was taking care of it, so he doesn't have to worry about it himself. This thing about strong leadership is some kind of folklore. Simple folks love to think that down home backwoods wisdom always beats fancy book learnin'. If something can't be stated in a simple sentence they don't want to hear it. The real world isn't black and white and involves nuanced decision-making. People base the whole image of Bush on "he invaded Iraq => strong!" That decision had many consequences and many of us think it was wrong at that time, and inadequately planned. His economic policy is sustained by record-busting deficit spending. Bush's only other executive experience was the company he ran into the ground. NCLB act a funding disaster, and a bizarre thing in principle from a traditional conservative standpoint (taxing billions from the states, then handing it back to them on a restricted and problematic basis). Industry-coddling energy, environmental, and medicare policies. org/specialreports/specialinterests You guys keep saying "Kerry is nothing but not Bush". The reason this is somewhat true is that's pretty much what we want. Bush on the other hand is nothing but "invade the middle east". You are speaking of people you have no familiarity with. You think you are smarter than everyone else, and thus, entitled to tell them how they should live and what they should believe. So are so vain you can't even see yourself for what you are. I can't even respond to this because you don't even make an argument here. My point with that was to criticize the idea, which certainly exists, that intelligence and nuanced thinking is unneeded and even undesirable in leaders. It should only offend people who consider themselves simple, but then they wouldn't think it's derogatory. Or maybe they hold the "dumb is wise" view, in which case I I heartily belittle them. No such policy was ever proposed, all you and left could offer was appeasement. Letting countries run their own business is not "appeasement." You can even look it up and read about it, if you choose. I can't objectively prove such alternatives could be as cogent as "invade". It would be pointless to go into that whole argument right now, I think we both know what's been said. Here is concise explanation of that which you speak: appeasement, cede sovreignty to the UN. and the saddam <=> terrorism relevance is primarily a concoction. You believe you have a ordained right to a job, free health care and other free gov't services? I'm not a libertarian though, so basically the gist of that is true for most people. Here's another case where a little "nuance" might let you acknowledge that there are more possibilities than pure libertarian versus full-on communism. I don't know anybody talking about "right to a job" and you use that as a straw man because you have no argument. grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip" \_ That shotgun still does not have a pistol grip, even by that definition. htm \_ Yes, it's not 'really' a pistol grip As guy above says, the language of the bill was stupid enough where yes, it was considered a pistol grip. I have yet to hear an effective argument from the gun control crowd about how these regulations involving pistol grips and 'assault-looking' weapons do anything other than piss off gun owners. If you want to ban automatics, I could see the argument for that (I don't agree, but I understand it). If you want to ban scary looking weapons you are an idiot or a fretting soccer mommy. Note that the bill is for a renewal of an assault weapons ban on AK-47s, AR-15s, and military sniper rifles, and is not only for aforementioned shotguns, as some might infer. Very few people hunt with handguns, they are generally for 'killing people' (and going to the range, but no one seems to bring that up). Also, what's a 'military sniper rifle' and how is it different from a hunting rifle with a scope? For many conservatives, it's "How many guns can I leave legal?" BTW, a Dragunov is one of the named illegal sniper rifles, and is obviously military- grade; a hunting rifle with a scope is a hunting rifle with a scope (with less penetrating rounds, less accuracy when you take your run of the mill hunting rifle, and not necessarily semi-automatic or automatic). Pistols are for "killing people", but are strongly associated with self-defense, unlike assault rifles. Semi-auto shotguns with pistol grip make you think of semi-auto shotguns used by police, except they use them to take out bad guys. I believe that this is more consistent with the pinciples of liberalism than being pro-gun control. Personally, I find hunting to be excruciatingly dull and I suck at target shooting and live in a safe area, so I have no guns, but I support the rights of others to have whatever guns they want. A run of the mill remington 700 with a 'decent' scope will have: more penetration than the dragunov (308 is a bigger round) larger effective range (900 yards vs 400 yards) better accuracy than the dragunov (dragunov is semiauto, and not that well made, the remington uses the nice mauser bolt-action). I realize you may not necessarily hold the position you are presenting -- I am attacking it, not you. I dunno, I think it's reasonable to think the Dragunov can be deadlier vs. Pistol grips are on military rifles because they are comfy. htm XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE SEPT 07, 2004 11:46:05 ET XXXXX KERRY COSPONSORED BILL BANNING GUN HE WAVES Was Dem presidential hopeful John Kerry seen this weekend waving a gun which would have been banned if legislation he co-sponsored became law? Kerry co-sponsored S 1431 last year (The Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003) which would have banned a "semiautomatic shotgun that has a pistol grip. Opponents of the bill successfully argued how nearly all guns have "pistol grips," inluding millions of Browning Auto-5 shotguns produced since 1903. with the semiautomatic shotgun during a Labor Day stop in Racine, West Virginia. "I thank you for the gift, but I can't take it to the debate with me," Kerry told a cheering crowd as he held up the device. But Kerry's gun bill would have also banned any "gift" transaction! It is not clear if Kerry completed the required paperwork (Form 4473) before he claimed the gun. org/specialreports/top10_lies/ The Bush Record: Top 10 Bush Lies Bush on Iraq 1 "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, thesmoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Fact:Saddam Did not Have Chief Requirements for Nuclear Weapons The Washington Post reported, "What Hussein did not have was the principal requirement for a nuclear weapon, a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium or plutonium. And the US government, authoritative intelligence officials said, had only circumstantial evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain those materials." Inspect... |
| csua.com/?entry=33330 Bush listed a dozen Great Society programs last night that he intends to implement. Now that the Republicans are in power, have they discovered that they like government after all? Sometimes it's to get votes (medical stuff), sometimes it's to appear they are doing something to respond to a threat, or perhaps for will-to-power reasons (homeland security), sometimes it's collusion between business and government (subsidies, etc). Republican big government policies are the corrupting delta (the difference between what they say and what they do) given our form of government. The problem is, democrats will do all these things, but they also believe in big government as some sort of principle, so they will also do many MORE things. Fixing things here does not involve \_ What a bunch of rank bullshit. I am beginning to think our problems are mostly cultural. I can't imagine the swiss implementing something like homeland security, because they have a long and deep tradition of decentralized solutions. Then the SoCons get their "Big Government" style agenda items passed. These big ticket items (plus the increase in defense spending) drop the money available in the general pool. So the \_ not in the general economy but in the federal budget which is just fine with me, since its already bloated with crap. the less money the feds have for crap spending, the better. i object to your mixing and hazing out the difference beween the general economy and the gederal budget. However, they aim at removing gov regs to pay for SoCon BG items. Plus those "BG" items are not always properly funded by the Feds. They become unfunded mandates and the states/locals pick up the tab, which raises taxes, which brings out new FiCons, who vote in more Republicans. The rule has always been unspent money is a politician's curse. you have a very fundamentally flawed understanding of where federal money comes from. Costs $29B to fund, but feds put little money behind it. States must follow Fed regs so the cost comes from state pockets. State has no money, so it takes it from Counties, who have to raise taxes. what you are saying is that Republicans increase the size of government, though they don't belive in doing that, whereas Democrats also increase the size of government, but they do believe in it. And how exactly does one differentiate between an action that one repeatedly does, though does not believe in, with an action that one repeatedly does and does believe in? Oh, and BTW, the size of government increased during the Reagan and Bush II (so far) administrations but decreased during the Clinton administration. org/u/8x1 but don't let the facts get in the way of your belief in platitudes. If you do nothing, there will be less of a safety net for you, other than people's and state/local governments' (not the federal government's) own charity. He promised more money for K-12, more money for community colleges, more money for pell grants and other higher education funding, more money to help seniors pay for drug benefits, more money for the military, more money for .... say, it's really just a giant piece of corporate welfare. It is impossible for most people today to save enough money during their normal life times to pay for their medical expenses post-retirement. You can thank trial lawyers like John Edwards for a big part of that. You know the numbers show you to be completely uninformed about this issue, yes? If this were the case, then yes, effort and hard work would out; the Republican model of believing that anyone who works hard can succeed to the highest levels would be true. In reality, however, there are already x number of people at the top who exert a disproportional effect on who gets to advance and who is passed over. As long as we have old boy networks and corrupt politicians, the Republican meritocratic dream will remain a fantasy. html But when we look at the growth of the Reagan government, we find his dedication was to lip service, not real results. It is odd that so many people today still suffer under the delusion that Reagan actually stood for the things he promoted. The size of a government can be measured in two ways: How much it costs and how many people it employs. Over the eight years of Reagan's two terms as president, federal outlays increased by 17 percent - after factoring out inflation. When Reagan was elected president in 1980 the federal government (less Post Office and Military) employed 2,215,500 people. By the time he left office that figure was 2,297,800, an increase of 82,300 bureaucrats. It is instructive to compare this to the Clinton Administration. At the end of the Bush I Administration, the federal government was bloated with 2,315,200 employees, the most ever. By the time Clinton left office, that number had been trimmed down to 1,887,900, a reduction of 427,300 bureaucrats. And how much did government spending increase during the Clinton administration? Again, after factoring out inflation, federal outlays rose by a modest 7 percent, in sharp contrast to the 17 percent surge during the Reagan Administration. Bush II has hewed to the GOP big-government path, adding 66,000 new civilian bureaucrats to the government payrolls since taking office. All the misty-eyed hoopla we will see this week about Reagan's legacy will include the shtick about smaller government. It annoys me that the shitstream media just pass this crap along so uncritically. It is fine to say that Reagan was devoted to smaller government all his life, but honesty and fair dealing require that it is pointed out that when he governed in Washington DC (and in Sacramento) the size of the government greatly expanded. |
| csua.com/?entry=33214 You will be added to President Ashcroft's Official Post-Coup Blacklist! Civil liberties are unequivocally the most extensive that they have ever been in this country. There's a secret travel blacklist that prevents some citizens from travelling without being subjected to humiliating searches and questioning, and the FBI has been questioning people on what they've been seen reading in public. See, I seem to remember not having this situation in, say, 1994. Why don't you ask the civil liberties watchdogs before mouthing off about how free we are. A store is a private place that can remove you for any reason at all. US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan) \_ Was it really from the court or was it a summary? htm This, we're told, is for legitimate reasons, such as "national security" or "protecting intelligence sources and methods." But now we have absolute, incontrovertible proof that the government also censors completely innocuous material simply because they don't like it. The Justice Department tipped its hand in its ongoing legal war with the ACLU over the Patriot Act. Because the matter is so sensitive, the Justice Dept is allowed to black out those passages in the ACLU's court filings that it feels should not be publicly released. Ostensibly, they would use their powers of censorship only to remove material that truly could jeopardize US operations. The mind reels at such a blatant abuse of power (and at the sheer chutzpah of using national security as an excuse to censor a quotation about using national security as an excuse to stifle dissent). It's hard to imagine a more public, open document than a decision written by the Supreme Court. It is incontestably public property: widely reprinted online and on paper; poured over by generations of judges, attorneys, prosecutors, and law students; quoted for centuries to come in court cases and political essays. Yet the Justice Department had the incomprehensible arrogance and gall to strip this quotation from a court document, as if it represented a grave threat to the republic. Luckily, the court slapped down this redaction and several others. If it hadn't, we would've been left with the impression that this was a legitimate redaction, that whatever was underneath the thick black ink was something so incredibly sensitive and damaging that it must be kept from our eyes. Think about this the next time you see a black mark on a public document. The image at top shows a portion of the ACLU's court filing after the Justice Dept was allowed to censor it. court=US&vol=407&invol=297 Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts US Supreme Court UNITED STATES v UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 US 297 (1972) 407 US 297 UNITED STATES v UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ET AL. Argued February 24, 1972 Decided June 19, 1972 The United States charged three defendants with conspiring to destroy, and one of them with destroying, Government property. intelligence information deemed necessary to protect the nation from attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the existing structure of the Government." On the basis of the affidavit and surveillance logs (filed in a sealed exhibit), the Government claimed that the surveillances, though warrantless, were lawful as a reasonable exercise of presidential power to protect the national security. The District Court, holding the surveillances violative of the Fourth Amendment, issued an order for disclosure of the overheard conversations, which the Court of Appeals upheld. Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, which authorizes court-approved electronic surveillance for specified crimes, contains a provision in 18 USC 2511 that nothing in that law limits the President's constitutional power to protect against the overthrow of the Government or against "any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government." The Government relies on 2511 in support of its contention that "in excepting national security surveillances from the Act's warrant requirement, Congress recognized the President's authority to conduct such surveillances without prior judicial approval." Held: 1 Section 2511 is merely a disclaimer of congressional intent to define presidential powers in matters affecting national security, and is not a grant of authority to conduct warrantless national security surveillances. The Government's duty to safeguard domestic security must be weighed against the potential danger that unreasonable surveillances pose to individual privacy and free expression. The freedoms of the Fourth Amendment cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances are conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch without the detached judgment of a neutral magistrate. Resort to appropriate warrant procedure would not frustrate the legitimate purposes of domestic security searches. WHITE, J, filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p 335. REHNQUIST, J, took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Assistant Attorney General Mardian argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Griswold and Robert L Keuch. William T Gossett argued the cause for respondents the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan et al. Arthur Kinoy argued the cause for respondents Sinclair et al. With him on the brief were William J Bender and William Kunstler. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Stephen I Schlossberg for the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), and by Benjamin Dreyfus for the Black Panther Party et al. The issue before us is an important one for the people of our country and their Government. It involves the delicate question of the President's power, acting through the Attorney General, to authorize electronic surveillance in internal security matters without prior judicial approval. Its resolution is a matter of national concern, requiring sensitivity both to the Government's right to protect itself from unlawful subversion and attack and to the citizen's right to be secure in his privacy against unreasonable Government intrusion. This case arises from a criminal proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, in which the United States charged three defendants with conspiracy to destroy Government property in violation of 18 USC 371. One of the defendants, Plamondon, was charged with the dynamite bombing of an office of the Central Intelligence Agency in Ann Arbor, Michigan. surveillance information and to conduct a hearing to determine whether this information "tainted" the evidence on which the indictment was based or which the Government intended to offer at trial. In response, the Government filed an affidavit of the Attorney General, acknowledging that its agents had overheard conversations in which Plamondon had participated. The affidavit also stated that the Attorney General approved the wiretaps "to gather intelligence information deemed necessary to protect the nation from attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the existing structure of the Government." were filed in a sealed exhibit for in camera inspection by the District Court. On the basis of the Attorney General's affidavit and the sealed exhibit, the Government asserted that the surveillance was lawful, though conducted without prior judicial approval, as a reasonable exercise of the President's power (exercised through the Attorney General) to protect the national security. The District Court held that the surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment, and ordered the Government to make full disclosure to Plamondon of his overheard conversations. The Government then filed in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit a petition for a writ of mandamus to set aside the District Court order, which was stayed pending final disposition of the case. Section 2518 sets forth the detailed and particularized application necessary to obtain such an order as well as carefully circu... |