US Senators: NSA Lies In Fact Sheets 295
Bruce66423 writes "The Guardian reports that two U.S. senators have written to the NSA telling it to amend its 702 provisions fact sheet (PDF) which, they claim, contains inaccuracies. However they can't actually say HOW they are inaccurate, because they would be compromising classified information. So the U.S. government uses taxpayer money to lie to the people... there's a surprise!"
From the letter: "In our judgment, this inaccuracy is significant, as it portrays protections for Americans' privacy as being significantly stronger than they actually are." But they go on to say "We appreciate your attention to this matter. We believe that the U.S. government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage, and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans. Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings, but on informed public debate as well."
Since when (Score:5, Insightful)
Good to see senators at least doing their job (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather they actually put a stop to it, but I guess we have to be happy that at least some senators are willing to address lies by the government.
FTFY (Score:4, Insightful)
"NSA Lies"
FTFY
Re:Reactions to this (Score:5, Insightful)
How about instead of creating new legislation, they repeal some old bills. Like the National Security Act of 1947.
Re:Since when (Score:5, Insightful)
let me fix that for you (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Since when (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when does the NSA ever tell the truth? Basically all this letter says is "Your lies have been exposed, so make up some new ones." Meanwhile they're trying to throw the leaker of said lies into a prison for the rest of his life in hopes of discouraging anyone else from exposing the *next* set of lies.
Secret courts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings
What's the goal -- having a police state? There NO place for secret courts and secret Congressional hearings in a free society.
Re:Since when (Score:5, Insightful)
Even though Obama is a fucking Constitutional lawyer, I believe.
The purpose of being a Constitutional lawyer is to perform mental gymnastics creating exceptions to clearly-stated language such as "shall not infringe" and "shall make no law".
Re:Who is in charge? (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as Congress controls the budget, Congress is in charge. That won't change any time soon.
The question is, do enough of their colleagues agree with them to take action? Their view may be poorly justified.
National Security Trumps Constitution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Congress upset someone is lying to them? (Score:5, Insightful)
So you really mean breaking the constitution, which they are sworn to uphold. Constitutional rights are binary, you have them or you do not.
Not that I disagree with the main point of your post, but in practice constitutional rights are rarely as black and white as you seem to think.
You have the right to free speech, but not the right to yell "fire" in a crowded room. You have the right to bear arms but not the right to own a suitcase nuke.
Personally I don't think anyone should be aspiring to a justice system that rigidly enforces the letter of law without any regards to the spirit of the law. All that does is encourage people to go searching for loopholes in the language, since you'll never be able to codify the law so perfectly that it won't require any interpretation.
Re:Since when (Score:5, Insightful)
"Is it legal" - Trade Federation
"I will make it legal" - Darth Sidious
This is the lie of the big government proponents. They love to cloak themselves in "legality", and skirt around the issue of whether or not something is right (correct, moral). Is Snowden a traitor or a hero? Well that depends upon whether you look at what he did as being legal or moral, because those questions result in two different outcomes.
Next time you here someone say "but they broke the law" ask them if Rosa Parks broke the law.
Not all laws are just laws.
Re:Who is in charge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even though they're "in charge," they might not set the rules due to a lack of political will (standing up to someone who wants to do something "to fight terrorists" or "in the name of national security" for fear of being portrayed as weak next election cycle) or due to money flow from lobbyists telling them what laws to write ("we're not bribing you, we're just giving you this expensive trip and a cushy position when you retire if you get this bill we wrote passed"). Having the authority to be in charge and actually being in charge are two very different things.
Re:Since when (Score:5, Insightful)
Tea Partiers are just gullible Republicans who've been tricked by Koch brothers money into thinking they AREN'T just supporting the rich and powerful.
Re:Half right (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be a very positive step if the US government would just admit that and move on.
Re:Good to see senators at least doing their job (Score:5, Insightful)
They did little more than slap the NSA in it's fingers saying "naughty boy!" while at the same time condoning the appalling concept of secret courts.
"We appreciate your attention to this matter. We believe that the U.S. government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage, and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans. Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings, but on informed public debate as well."
Re:Since when (Score:2, Insightful)
Tea Partiers...tricked by Koch brothers
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken
Re:Since when (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not immoral. He swore an oath for his security clearance. An oath like the president or any soldier. Its first clause to to protect and defend the constitution of the united states of America. The last is to perform the duties of his position.
He was placed in the position where he could not simultaneously fulfill both parts of the oath. No matter what he did, he would be breaking part of it. So he sided with the constitution and the American people, and I think that makes him a hero.