Saturday, December 31, 2005
And the debate goes on
And the debate goes on among the confused and with
those in the know. 850+ deep thread here
Here is a reply I gave to one spinning mirrors type this
week:
It's a good thing OJ didn't have you as a lawyer.
In cases of international intelligence foreign relations, and conduct of war, the coequal constitutional powers of the executive are not necessarily subject to laws written by congress. The president, as commander in chief, has full authority to intern whole groups of people to camps, nationalize the entire steel industry, drop bombs on people, even declare martial law if necessary. If you look at the constitution-
Article II makes the President Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As such he is preeminent in foreign policy, and especially in military affairs. This was no accident; as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 74, "Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand." The federal courts have long recognized that when it comes to waging war, the President, not Congress or the courts, is the supreme authority. In Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603, 615 (1850), the Supreme Court wrote that the President has the Constitutional power to "employ [the Nation's armed forces] in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy."
As for your Fourth Amendment argument that: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The key here is unreasonable. One of the many situations where warrantless searches have been approved is when the government is seeking foreign intelligence information, such as information relating to potential terrorist threats. Next to the Constitution itself, of course, the highest authority is the United States Supreme Court. At least three Supreme Court cases have discussed this subject.
In 1967, the Court decided Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347. Katz involved the warrantless interception of a conversation held by a criminal defendant in a phone booth.
U Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) nited States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)
This specific question was first addressed by the Fifth Circuit in United States v. [Cassius] Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970). "we do not read the section as forbidding the President, or his representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence in the national interest."
In 1974, the Third Circuit decided United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974) "prior judicial authorization was not required since the district court found that the surveillances of Ivanov were "conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information."
Three years later, the Ninth Circuit decided United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1977 "Foreign security wiretaps are a recognized exception to the general warrant requirement...."
1980, the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Truong For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], "unduly frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. "
United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (1984) "Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."
2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review decided Sealed Case No. 02-001 "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
And don't forget that the September 11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force reads: "use all necessary and appropriate force," covers intercepting communications, since intelligence gathering is just as much a "fundamental and accepted incident of war" as detaining enemy combatants.
all kudos go to John Hinderaker for his great work on this research. All the credit is his ----complete article is here --> http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php
If common sense were common everyone would have it.
those in the know. 850+ deep thread here
Here is a reply I gave to one spinning mirrors type this
week:
It's a good thing OJ didn't have you as a lawyer.
In cases of international intelligence foreign relations, and conduct of war, the coequal constitutional powers of the executive are not necessarily subject to laws written by congress. The president, as commander in chief, has full authority to intern whole groups of people to camps, nationalize the entire steel industry, drop bombs on people, even declare martial law if necessary. If you look at the constitution-
Article II makes the President Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As such he is preeminent in foreign policy, and especially in military affairs. This was no accident; as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 74, "Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand." The federal courts have long recognized that when it comes to waging war, the President, not Congress or the courts, is the supreme authority. In Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603, 615 (1850), the Supreme Court wrote that the President has the Constitutional power to "employ [the Nation's armed forces] in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy."
As for your Fourth Amendment argument that: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The key here is unreasonable. One of the many situations where warrantless searches have been approved is when the government is seeking foreign intelligence information, such as information relating to potential terrorist threats. Next to the Constitution itself, of course, the highest authority is the United States Supreme Court. At least three Supreme Court cases have discussed this subject.
In 1967, the Court decided Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347. Katz involved the warrantless interception of a conversation held by a criminal defendant in a phone booth.
U Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) nited States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)
This specific question was first addressed by the Fifth Circuit in United States v. [Cassius] Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970). "we do not read the section as forbidding the President, or his representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence in the national interest."
In 1974, the Third Circuit decided United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974) "prior judicial authorization was not required since the district court found that the surveillances of Ivanov were "conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information."
Three years later, the Ninth Circuit decided United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1977 "Foreign security wiretaps are a recognized exception to the general warrant requirement...."
1980, the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Truong For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], "unduly frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. "
United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (1984) "Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."
2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review decided Sealed Case No. 02-001 "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
And don't forget that the September 11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force reads: "use all necessary and appropriate force," covers intercepting communications, since intelligence gathering is just as much a "fundamental and accepted incident of war" as detaining enemy combatants.
all kudos go to John Hinderaker for his great work on this research. All the credit is his ----complete article is here --> http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php
If common sense were common everyone would have it.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Grand Challenge
I have been following this story for a couple of years now, and it looks like there is finally a winner.
In 2003, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency offered $1 million to anyone who could build a self-driving vehicle capable of navigating 300 miles of desert. Dubbed the Grand Challenge, the robot-vehicle race was hyped for months. It was going to be as important as the 1997 Kasparov-Deep Blue chess match. But on race day in March 2004, the cars performed like frightened animals.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.01/stanley.html
The natural progression of this science is for a future where robots fight the wars, that way the good guys don’t get hurt.
The UGV/S JPO has several systems under development: - Man-Portable Robotic Systems (MPRS.), - Standardized Robotic System (SRS), - Robotic Combat Support System (RCSS), and - USMC Gladiator Tactical Unmanned Ground Vehicle
(GLADIATOR)
To get involved, or help in this effort look here
The code 237 land based systems are going forward with
research, development, test and evaluation in command and control architectures, sensor data processing, wireless communications, operator machine interface and integration for robotic, physical security, torpedo fire control, coastal surveillance, law enforcement technology and deployable sensor systems.
The thing I often think about is that these independent platforms and software systems may act in ways not intended. This unintended behavior is often seen in complex system design. As I saw in the description of one program “Software that enables unmanned systems to autonomously determine its best course of military action”<snip>
Don’t want to get in the way of that nice little puppy.
In 2003, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency offered $1 million to anyone who could build a self-driving vehicle capable of navigating 300 miles of desert. Dubbed the Grand Challenge, the robot-vehicle race was hyped for months. It was going to be as important as the 1997 Kasparov-Deep Blue chess match. But on race day in March 2004, the cars performed like frightened animals.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.01/stanley.html
The natural progression of this science is for a future where robots fight the wars, that way the good guys don’t get hurt.
The UGV/S JPO has several systems under development: - Man-Portable Robotic Systems (MPRS.), - Standardized Robotic System (SRS), - Robotic Combat Support System (RCSS), and - USMC Gladiator Tactical Unmanned Ground Vehicle
(GLADIATOR)
To get involved, or help in this effort look here
The code 237 land based systems are going forward with
research, development, test and evaluation in command and control architectures, sensor data processing, wireless communications, operator machine interface and integration for robotic, physical security, torpedo fire control, coastal surveillance, law enforcement technology and deployable sensor systems.
The thing I often think about is that these independent platforms and software systems may act in ways not intended. This unintended behavior is often seen in complex system design. As I saw in the description of one program “Software that enables unmanned systems to autonomously determine its best course of military action”<snip>
Don’t want to get in the way of that nice little puppy.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Well the fight to get Contract
Well, the fight to get a contract for the class1 railroad workers is a year old. The Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen national contract expired Jan 1, 2005. That contract here . Unlike some other unions, these workers have a lot of hoops to jump thru before they can withhold their services. Section 6 Notice was served on the NCCC in Jan 2005 and several unions form Coalition.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 3 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, for the first time in two decades, seven major railroad unions have joined together in the creation of the "Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition" to coordinate upcoming contract negotiations with the rail carriers. The seven unions of the coalition represent nearly 85,000 rail workers from American railroad corporations. The Coalition will develop a coordinated contract negotiating strategy and each individual union will not sign off on any tentative agreements with the rail carriers until all the coalition members concur.
This is not working very well as it is a year later and I have found no news of progress, just posturing and stalling.
WASHINGTON, May 10 /PRNewswire/ -- The National Carriers' Conference Committee (NCCC) today announced that it had voluntarily withdrawn its applications for mediation with seven unions that comprise the Teamsters-led rail labor coalition, opening the way for negotiations to resume next week.
The NCCC, the bargaining agent for the nation's freight railroads, had filed the applications with the National Mediation Board in March after the seven unions belonging to the Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition (RLBC) refused to bargain pending agreement on various procedural issues.
And while the different sides in the issue bounce the ball hither and yon. The good men and women in this industry just keep on working without a contract, or should I say, under an expired agreement.
Mediation with Teamsters coalition has failed, say railroads Dec 16, 2005 link
The National Carriers Conference Committee has informed the National Mediation Board that “there is no reasonable expectation that further mediation will produce a voluntary agreement” with the seven member union coalition led by the Teamsters’ union. The NCCC asked the NMB to release the railroads from mediation so they can proceed to the next level–a Presidential Emergency Board
So now the federal government gets involved in private industry again.
National Negotiations Update: For Immediate Release
December 15, 2005 Story here
Rail Carriers Cut-off Negotiations
(Washington, DC) Yesterday, the National Carriers' Conference Committee (NCCC), representing the Class One carriers, refused to set new dates for bargaining with the Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition (RLBC). The RLBC represents seven rail labor unions (ATDA, NCFO-SEIU, IBB, SMWIA, BRS and the BLET and BMWED, divisions of the Teamsters Rail Conference) whose contracts cover nearly 85,000 rail workers or 65 percent of the carriers' employees. The NCCC represents the Class One carriers (Union Pacific, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Norfolk Southern, CSX, etc.) that transport most the rail freight in the country.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 3 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, for the first time in two decades, seven major railroad unions have joined together in the creation of the "Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition" to coordinate upcoming contract negotiations with the rail carriers. The seven unions of the coalition represent nearly 85,000 rail workers from American railroad corporations. The Coalition will develop a coordinated contract negotiating strategy and each individual union will not sign off on any tentative agreements with the rail carriers until all the coalition members concur.
This is not working very well as it is a year later and I have found no news of progress, just posturing and stalling.
WASHINGTON, May 10 /PRNewswire/ -- The National Carriers' Conference Committee (NCCC) today announced that it had voluntarily withdrawn its applications for mediation with seven unions that comprise the Teamsters-led rail labor coalition, opening the way for negotiations to resume next week.
The NCCC, the bargaining agent for the nation's freight railroads, had filed the applications with the National Mediation Board in March after the seven unions belonging to the Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition (RLBC) refused to bargain pending agreement on various procedural issues.
And while the different sides in the issue bounce the ball hither and yon. The good men and women in this industry just keep on working without a contract, or should I say, under an expired agreement.
Mediation with Teamsters coalition has failed, say railroads Dec 16, 2005 link
The National Carriers Conference Committee has informed the National Mediation Board that “there is no reasonable expectation that further mediation will produce a voluntary agreement” with the seven member union coalition led by the Teamsters’ union. The NCCC asked the NMB to release the railroads from mediation so they can proceed to the next level–a Presidential Emergency Board
So now the federal government gets involved in private industry again.
National Negotiations Update: For Immediate Release
December 15, 2005 Story here
Rail Carriers Cut-off Negotiations
(Washington, DC) Yesterday, the National Carriers' Conference Committee (NCCC), representing the Class One carriers, refused to set new dates for bargaining with the Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition (RLBC). The RLBC represents seven rail labor unions (ATDA, NCFO-SEIU, IBB, SMWIA, BRS and the BLET and BMWED, divisions of the Teamsters Rail Conference) whose contracts cover nearly 85,000 rail workers or 65 percent of the carriers' employees. The NCCC represents the Class One carriers (Union Pacific, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Norfolk Southern, CSX, etc.) that transport most the rail freight in the country.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Time to stand up
With so much disinformation and misdirection on the Net nowadays. It is time for some facts and objectivity to rise above the stream of low signal/noise horsepucky.
I will start with an issue dear to my heart, it is workplace safety. The first thing one must know is that accidents at home or work are not because of some danger or hazard, but instead are almost always caused by improper methods and tools. Even in the vacuum of space or the depths of the sea, work can be done safely. This little understood fact is demonstrated millions of times every day where the job is done safely, no one gets hurt. If the work is properly thought out and the correct equipment is used, any project can be completed without incident. That is almost true, but for example, take work that puts us out on the public highway system. It is easy to see that the number of variables to consider varies a lot depending where we are and what time it is. I found one company thinking “Isn’t It Mostly About the Driver’s Capability?” They are looking to technology and training for solutions in this area.
Dave
I will start with an issue dear to my heart, it is workplace safety. The first thing one must know is that accidents at home or work are not because of some danger or hazard, but instead are almost always caused by improper methods and tools. Even in the vacuum of space or the depths of the sea, work can be done safely. This little understood fact is demonstrated millions of times every day where the job is done safely, no one gets hurt. If the work is properly thought out and the correct equipment is used, any project can be completed without incident. That is almost true, but for example, take work that puts us out on the public highway system. It is easy to see that the number of variables to consider varies a lot depending where we are and what time it is. I found one company thinking “Isn’t It Mostly About the Driver’s Capability?” They are looking to technology and training for solutions in this area.
Dave
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
