DNI Admits FISA Surveillance Violated the 4th Amendment 132
colinneagle writes, quoting Ms. Smith: "It's official; the government's spying efforts exceeded the legal limits at least once (PDF), meaning it is also officially 'unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.' The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) sent a letter to Sen. Ron Wyden giving permission to admit that much. This started with Sen. Wyden requesting that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) declassify some statements regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act enacted by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Although this FISA power is supposed to sunset in December 2012, in May a new Senate bill extended the warrantless wiretapping program for five more years. That vote was regarded as the first step 'toward what the Obama administration hopes will be a speedy renewal of an expanded authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to monitor the U.S. e-mails and phone calls of overseas targets in an effort to prevent international terrorist attacks on the country.'"
Too late (Score:5, Insightful)
The US has already lost it's war on terror - its government and its citizens live in terror every moment of every day.
The worst part is the government fears its citizens and the citizens fear their government.
Re:Too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Watching the war strategy... (Score:5, Insightful)
The 9/11 terrorists were very far-sighted, and seem to have been winning ever since they died.
America has been continually digging a grave for itself from that moment....
Re:Too late (Score:3, Insightful)
The very problem is that the government does not fear it's citizens.
And when you step back and ask, "Who ARE they afraid of?", I just think about where the politicians' money is coming from.
And I keep coming up with one answer: very wealthy business men hiding behind their corporations and Super PACs.
Re:Write you Senators and Congress people (Score:5, Insightful)
What you do is you write to them, and you tell them that you voted for them. Once.
Then you tell them that what they did was immoral, abhorrent, and you consider what they did a violation of their oath of office, and of the trust you put into them as your representative.
Telling them isn't enough. They have to be convinced that it could be fatal to their career.
You enumerate for them just how much you are going to work to see someone else that you do believe in is put into office. Tell the legislator the money that you gave their campaign will now be donated five fold to your new champion. Tell this person that you will be providing X hours a month of volunteer time working for another candidate. Then tell them that you will find no less than 5 friends who listen to you and trust your opinion, and they will do the same, and bring their friends along as well.
Then, email the letter to their Congressional office, with a cc to their campaign manager.
Then, go make good on your promise. Because, ultimately, if you want something to change, you will need to unfuck it yourself. Chances are, if it is a contested district, you might get a phone call back. If not, at least you know you are doing something to fix the problem created by voting for someone who would sell you out. This isn't about fighting and beating the current candidate- it is about the journey it will take *you* to become involved enough to become a good gatekeeper for the governmental process in your district.
Re:Write you Senators and Congress people (Score:4, Insightful)
Look folks - I know there are some memes on
Re:Too late (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the worst part is that OUR OWN LAWMAKERS are being restrained in what they can talk about.
This is a direct affront to the principle of congressional oversight.
Re:What effect will this have on the elections? (Score:4, Insightful)
How do I say this delicately?.... Obama is the most left leaning president you've ever had. You're getting exactly what you should have expected based off countless examples all over world history. Pawning this off of "he's doing bad stuff - ergo he's right wing" is not based in any rational thinking with any basis in fact, but rather knee-jerk emotion and plain desire to maintain your current flawed world view (one in which you have your team -"go team! rah rah!", and thus the other must be "bad guys").
As you've probably gathered, I'm right leaning (yeah yeah - boo hiss, I know). It may surprise you, that I mostly agree with your conclusions. You see the policies we're opposing are not right leaning, or left leaning per-se, but anti-democratic. That which you call "evil right wing policies", I call "evil socialist policies" and dislike them for many of the very same reasons you do. There's a reason congress has a sub 15% approval rating. When "our guy" was in power, he set up idiotic stuff the patriot act and the TSA with broad bipartisan support. When "your guy" gets in and expands those policies it doesn't make him right wing because the policy was never right wing to begin with. Don't believe me? Right wing ideology is centered around a very simple concept - a small limited government (essential services only type thing - as spelled out in the constitution). What part of this boondoggle is limited and/or constitutional?
The current bastards in Washington are not left wing or right wing - they're power oriented and only interested in themselves. They are drunk on the idea that they can and should change the world to accomplish their goals (either left or right goals) and lost all principles along the way. Does wiretapping the population help them do this? Absolutely! (Don't you think that if an honest good politician ever showed up, it would not be convenient for them to have phone records with some dirt?) The TSA are obnoxious jerks? "Elect me, and I'll make sure we (the government) help you! How would you ever get along without me?".
So why am I right wing? Well the last 12 years are a good example (and no - I don't consider Bust to be conservative - he often lacked the core principles that allowed him to implement some of these idiotic solutions). A government that is big and powerful enough to take care of all of your needs, is large enough to take everything you have. In left wing (socialist) governments, the government tries to expand to do more things for more people. As government grows, this kind of garbage inevitably happens "for the greater good". Very few seem to realize those good intentions are just paving the road to hell.
Re:What effect will this have on the elections? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Right Wing" aka conservatism is not and has never been about small government, despite the protestations of those who have fallen for that line. It is about restoring the old order. The order that was shaken to its core by the French and American revolutions. It is about returning to an age of absolute authoritarianism where a select few gentry have absolute power over the masses by legal, economic and superstitious means. The free market ideology as it exists today is merely a means to that end. In America, for a time, the government stood against that tyranny, and that is why they now want to neuter it. The abstract free market concept has been corrupted as a means to pursue that goal, you can't put a corporation under the guillotine, and the plutocratic class are shielded from the repercussions of the abuse they meet out to the peasants begging for scraps.
The free market ideal was an abstract model that can never truly exist because it assumes that:
A: all parties start from a level playing field.
B: all parties are rational actors
C: all parties are fully informed and knowledgeable.
D: and that monopolies never form.
A moderately (and properly) regulated market is closer to this ideal than a laissez faire system that doesn't attempt to restrict corruption, deceit and other harmful practices.
Re:Too late (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the worst part is that OUR OWN LAWMAKERS are being restrained in what they can talk about.
This is a direct affront to the principle of congressional oversight.
In this case I agree. This is complete crap. A Congressman having to GET PERMISSION from the Executive Branch to inform those he represents that the 4th Amendment has been breached by the Executive Branch makes one wonder about what he wasn't allowed to say, and why the hell he had to get permission in the first place. However, there are somethings I believe that politicians, no matter the branch, should shut up about, such as information that gives away a source, or puts the lives of those who have helped us in jeopardy. But even that has to take a backseat to the Constitution.
Go ahead, mod me down.
Re:What effect will this have on the elections? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd not put him in the top 5 most left leaning presidents the country has ever had. I'm not even sure he's to the left of Nixon.
If you want a left leaning president, try FDR.