EFF Wins Release of Secret Court Opinion: NSA Surveillance Unconstitutional 524
mspohr writes "For over a year, EFF has been fighting the government in federal court to force the public release of an 86-page opinion of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). Issued in October 2011, the secret court's opinion found that surveillance conducted by the NSA under the FISA Amendments Act was unconstitutional and violated 'the spirit of' federal law."
Shut it down (Score:5, Interesting)
Shut it down......Shut it all down NOW!!!
Re:Shut it down (Score:5, Funny)
Shut down all the garbage mashers on the detention level!
Re:Shut it down (Score:5, Funny)
Farce royale (Score:5, Interesting)
You at the other side of the pond have generated a farce beyond fantasy. Create secret court, abuse powers, secret court says "non", ignore, expand and repeat.
As a tech I'd say your system has found a resonance point where the loop-gain is so much greater than one that it might cause the earth's rotation to change....
Re:Farce royale (Score:5, Insightful)
You at the other side of the pond have generated a farce beyond fantasy
An amazing statement considering recent events in the UK with respect to the Snowden story. Hubris.
Re:Farce royale (Score:4, Informative)
You at the other side of the pond have generated a farce beyond fantasy
An amazing statement considering recent events in the UK with respect to the Snowden story. Hubris.
Nice deflection attempt. Knee-jerk "you're no better!" defensiveness, and it wasn't even aimed at "you" but at USA the country.
The US claims to be better than the rest, including its western allies, yet it can't even set the proper standard for itself nor own up to its obvious current failures.
Re:Farce royale (Score:5, Insightful)
For people in main land europe the UK is also on the other side of the pond.
Re:Farce royale (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry we don't have the same level of privacy and freedom from surveillance as Great Britain, where people are allowed to travel unmolested by the prying eyes of big government.
From TFA (Score:5, Informative)
The documents showed that the problems were relatively small when compared with the vast scale of N.S.A. surveillance conducted from the United States on noncitizens abroad. The ruling estimated that the agency intercepts more than 250 million communications that way each year. And the N.S.A. fixed the problems to the courtâ(TM)s satisfaction, the documents showed.
Interesting...
I should have finished reading before posting (Score:5, Informative)
But the documents also revealed further problems. In particular, Judge Bates portrayed the issue, which the N.S.A. had brought to the secret surveillance courtâ(TM)s attention after discovering that it had been happening for several years, as part of a broader pattern of misleading the oversight court about its domestic spying activities.
âoeThe Court is troubled that the governmentâ(TM)s revelations regarding N.S.A.â(TM)s acquisition of Internet transactions mark the third instance in less than three years in which the government has disclosed a substantial misrepresentation regarding the scope of a major collection program,â he wrote.
There need to be penalties. Someone should be brought up on charges.
Re:I should have finished reading before posting (Score:5, Funny)
There need to be penalties. Someone should be brought up on charges.
Yeah well, he's in Russia, or so we are told :-)
Re:I should have finished reading before posting (Score:5, Interesting)
If that's what you want, then sign the petition [whitehouse.gov]!
Re:I should have finished reading before posting (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I should have finished reading before posting (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously?! Obama could have abolished this nonsense on Day One if he'd wanted to; the fact that he didn't means he's just as evil!
Re:I should have finished reading before posting (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever -- Day Two, then. The guy's been in office for five years now -- in fact, the "last administration" that you blamed in your previous post was also the Obama administration (term 1) -- so he's had plenty of fucking time to get rid of the bullshit.
The fact that he hasn't means he is complicit -- no, scratch that, he endorses it -- and has zero excuses.
The goddamn worthless lying piece of shit even campaigned on closing Gitmo (which is why I voted for him in 2008)... we see how that worked out (which is why I voted against him in 2012)!
Re:I should have finished reading before posting (Score:5, Insightful)
Exempt it expired during his term and he signed the renewal into law. What now are you going to claim the senate could have found the votes to over ride a veto if he had said before hand that was his intent, you really think his own party would do that to him?
You are just an Obama apologist pure and simple, 6 years in he owns this, no matter wether it started under Bush or FDR for that matter
Re:I should have finished reading before posting (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Re:I should have finished reading before posting (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah sorry dude but there hasn't been a judge, founding father, legislator or even constitutional clause since foundation thats actually said this. This is a fantasy of the tea party whackys.
Does Chief Justice Marshall count? He once said, "This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted." I'm pretty sure he's not a tea party whacky. How about Chief Justice William Rehnquist? He's the one who wrote the majority opinion when striking down the Gun Free School Zone Act in United States v. Lopez.
~Loyal
Accountability (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The President. He's the Executive in Chief and the NSA reports to him as does the FBI and the CIA.
So with a Republican majority in the House, a barely tenable majority in the Senate and members of his own party calling BS. How long before you hear impeachment?
I can't wait to see the Sunday morning pundit shows. Damn too bad I'm not working in DC this summer it would be great to hang out in the gallery and watch.
Re:Accountability (Score:4, Interesting)
How about right now [whitehouse.gov]?
(By the way, you do realize the Republican pundit shows are just going to continue whining about Obamacare and other partisan but unimportant bullshit, right? Dealing with an issue like this is really up to us, the Actual Citizens, not the idiots on the radio.)
Re:Accountability (Score:5, Insightful)
But correcting government wrongdoing always has to climb the ladder.
Clapper, etc need to be brought up on charges first. Then let's see what shakes loose.
I'm not sure impeachment is even anything like a solution. The next guy and the guy after that are absolutely going to use the secret laws in the same ways.
We have to start by electing a Congress of people who reject the police state. Right now, there's only a handful, and they're not the ones you think. Someone who thinks hospitals and doctors need to turn over their records of women having abortion are not exactly the model of "small government".
There are some real civil libertarians in Congress, but they're mostly not the ones who are claiming they believe in "small, limited government". It's not civil liberties when all of the snooping is being turned over to private enterprise, you know.
Re:Accountability (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Accountability (Score:5, Insightful)
and both are 100% ineffective.
the only way to get influence is to BUY it. this is how corp america has bought our congress.
we can't seem to follow that model, and so we lose. big business learned the secret and so they have all the influence they want.
writing letters used to work - before business became the new first-class citizen. the rest of us got demoted down at least one level.
sure wish people would stop thinking that the system works. it does not work. and asking the system to fix itself is a bad joke.
Re:Accountability (Score:5, Informative)
Did you read the decision? It sounds like you based your comment on a quick read of the summary. The decision focused on a very specific issue:
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah Okay... (Score:3, Interesting)
So now what?
Okay so the Chief FISA judge called BS but.. (Score:5, Funny)
How exactly does it get out of the FISA court into the Supreme Court and would Roberts have to recuse himself because he appointed most of the FISA judges?
Time for more popcorn.
Re: (Score:3)
Supreme Court Justices don't have to recuse themselves. They should, but the normal rules that govern other judges don't apply. Ultimately for better or for worse, they're appointed for life, so until they die or resign, there's basically nothing that can be done about them.
Which is why douches like Roberts, Scalia and Thomas are such a problem, none of them have any particularly firm commitment to the rule of law, only to continuing their ideologies, regardless of constitutionality.
Re:Okay so the Chief FISA judge called BS but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Kissinger Doctrine (Score:5, Interesting)
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
Tipping point (Score:4, Insightful)
This is legitimate prejudice for starting a revolution.
Your government and leading class has to learn how democracy gets done.
Everyone shall have this very definition of democracy hardwired in their brains for the centuries to come.
The evil doers will have to admit it painfully for best results, fear has to change sides.
The world is watching you USA.
Re:Tipping point (Score:5, Insightful)
Revolution isn't the answer. The answer is to stop voting for candidates that are promising to destroy the government and fail to even pretend to have plans to improve the situation. Ultimately, unless Grover Norquist is tried for sedition, along with the various GOP candidates that signed his fealty pledge, there's going to be no particular legitimacy for a large number of legislators.
Re: (Score:3)
Wide swaths of your government from top to bottom is repeatedly ignoring your constitution in order to act against the people of your country. Revolution is most certainly an acceptable answer.
Re:Tipping point (Score:4, Insightful)
We have 2 political parties in this country.
They dictate the issues.
The write the rules governing how you create a party, how you get on a ballet.
Nearly everyone in the media belongs to one of the two parties. The parties control the message.
You basically can not vote for anyone if they do not belong to one of the parties. You can write in a name, but the fact of the matter is it's nearly impossible to co-ordinate a write-in voting effort.
Our government is controlled by a single party. They appear to be 2 parties, but in reality they both act the same. They have slightly differing goals but they trade and make deals to get what they want in every bill. They are effectively the same party with 2 differing internal factions that argue over details. The Patriot act DID get passed after all... So did Obamacare... It's all a show.
Prison for praise is not worth thinking
Sin is still in and our ballots are shrinking
So unleash the dogs - the only solution
Forgive and forget, fuck no
I'm talking about a revolution
Prison for praise - the obvious answer
Once had power mad - living disaster
Don't fuck with me 'cos I'm on a freedom train
That bears no name - this time
I'm voting with a bullet
Bonus points if you know who wrote that without using Google ;-)
Re:Tipping point (Score:5, Informative)
We have 2 political parties in this country. They dictate the issues. The write the rules governing how you create a party, how you get on a ballet. Nearly everyone in the media belongs to one of the two parties. The parties control the message. You basically can not vote for anyone if they do not belong to one of the parties. You can write in a name, but the fact of the matter is it's nearly impossible to co-ordinate a write-in voting effort.
I'm not from the US, but given all that's happened in the past 15 years it seems to me that at this point voting either Republican or Democrat in any federal election should be considered treason. A vote for either of these parties is a vote for a government of the people, by the elite, for the corporations, and as I understand it, that wasn't quite the idea of your country. Perhaps a write-in or third party vote is a wasted vote, but at least you're not actively voting for this abomination.
As for alternatives besides your current third parties, in the most recent elections in Italy (which had similar issues) the Five Star Movement [wikipedia.org] got almost a third of the vote in what was previously a two-party (or two-coalition) system, with a strictly online and on-the-streets campaign (they're boycotting the Berlusconi-controlled mainstream media). They're promoting amongst others more direct (e-)democracy, limited terms in both houses of congress filled by ordinary people who take a few years out of their lives to serve the country, and reduction in campaign spending.
It's certainly not perfect: they are having issues with disagreements within the party, it turns out online voting doesn't work too well technically, and some of their other policy ideas probably wouldn't work in the US. You'd need your own version of such a party for sure, fix some things, and then it still will be a struggle to make it work. But it shows that it's not impossible to break a two-party system even if it controls the mainstream media, and it's worth a try. Even inexperienced and/or somewhat incompetent representatives would be an improvement over what you currently have as long as they're at least honestly trying to represent the people.
Constitution-worship (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.
We're slipping towards a police state and he says this nonsense? Yes, just ignore the damn thing; we've done so in the past, so it's okay!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What a load of BS. A NYT writer makes an opinion that the government should IGNORE the parts of the Constitution he doesn't like and uphold the parts he does like. You either agree with him, or his new rules allow him to take all your possessions and toss you in jail forever without trial.
This is your typical liberal thinking. They KNOW their ideas are failures and will never pass the general public, especially as amendments to the Constitution. So instead of that tedious debating ideas and winning supp
Re: (Score:3)
A NYT writer makes an opinion that the government should IGNORE the parts of the Constitution he doesn't like and uphold the parts he does like. ... This is your typical liberal thinking.
The author of that op-ed is a conservative. You were saying?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Be grateful.
Conservative constitution-worship helps protect you from them.
On the other hand liberals are open-minded enough that they can interpret the constitution as a living document so they're free to pretty much do as they please, like assassinating American citizens without due process, using the NSA to spy on Americans, targeting political opponents with the IRS, etc.
Because hey, the constitution is just
Re: (Score:3)
Whenever these stories come out, I am uncomfortably reminded of conservative constitution-worship.
Why? The point here is that the Constitution has been ignored. With more genuine fealty to it, we wouldn't have this problem. If ever there was an example of why the Constitution should be obeyed, and the dangers of conveniently ignoring the parts someone doesn't like, this is it.
Re:Constitution-worship (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever these stories come out, I am uncomfortably reminded of conservative constitution-worship. "As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions." [nytimes.com]
Sure... throw the constitution over board to gain "fiscal stability". Somehow reminds me Hitler's ascension to power.
Accountability (Score:3, Interesting)
There appears to be no accountability is the US Government any more.
Laws are only for the “little people” Taxes are only for the “little people”. Profits are only for the “real people”
Private profit, public bailouts. Money is free speech.
The question is, “What can we do?” Gerrymandering has made even our votes almost useless.
Any ideas?
Re:Accountability (Score:4, Insightful)
No, IIRC Gandhi said you reason with a man; you don't reason with a tiger. You shoot a tiger. Thus he would not have used civil disobedience with the Germans. Our Heros (*) are far more tiger than man.
But here, the tiger has all the firepower. So that one's out too.
I'm still open to suggestions, but my idea is to get in aboat and wait it out..
Violated the Spirit (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry, they didn't actually violate a law. It was the 'spirit' of the law that was violated.
Move along people, nothing to see here.
Hypothetical (Score:4, Interesting)
The shit is about to hit the fan (Score:5, Interesting)
To quote one of my favorite movie characters, "The shit is about to hit the fan and I want to be here to see it." (Dr. Lazarus in "Outland" in case you're curious.)
The publication of this court ruling is going to make it much easier for a federal judge and subsequent appellate judges to slam the NSA down hard. I'm not certain about the law on this but it might also make it possible to send certain NSA officials to prison. My prediction: Heads at the NSA are about to roll and I will not be surprised if one of them is Gen. Alexander. Because he is a serving general and this shit happened on active duty, he could be courtmartialed, be stripped of rank, and lose his pension, a just punishment I believe for such a grave violation of the people's civil rights.
Unfortunately, the heads will not be literally be rolling on the floor, and perhaps that's a good thing. It's nice to contemplate, however. It would have made one hell of a great game of pool on a diabolical billiard table. General Alexander's head would be the cue ball. Some people more evil than myself might possess the belief that a certain other person's [wikipedia.org] head should be the 8-ball but I'm not one of them. But it's hilarious to visualize!
EFF (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:EFF (Score:4, Insightful)
Donate to the EFF right now. Do not wait. Donate this very minute.
How long before we have a story about how the EFF is shutting down since it can no longer maintain its integrity due to the NSA demanding all documents and correspondences? I'll give it a month. A year ago I'd call it paranoid fantasy. Right now, I'll put money on it.
Released text of the opinion: (Score:5, Funny)
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, Plaintiff.
versus
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, Defendant.
[Redacted] [redacted] of the [redacted]. [Redacted] [redacted] and [100 pages of completely blacked out text].
We rule, therefore that [redacted] [redacted] [redacted].
What is the public's recourse? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just want to make sure I have the right series of events here, from the public perspective:
1. A previous elected official and congress enact some overreaching laws in response to a terrorist attack
2. A politician who makes a bunch of promises against these programs is elected the new President
3. The now-elected politician strengthens and enforces those programs rather than shuttering them
4. There is some kind of a court decision but it is sealed/secret. FOIA requests are made by EFF.
5. A whistle blower comes forward and exposes the illegal activities to the public because his bosses and the elected official have continued said operations. Since his bosses are the Executive Branch and responsible for enforcing the law, he has nobody to report his findings to other than the public.
6. The elected official and members of congress declare said whistle blower a traitor for exposing their methods.
7. It is revealed that the court had previously, as in years ago, ruled that the activities reported on by the whistle blower are illegal. Meaning the whistle blower is not just reporting the activities, but he is reporting that the President of the United States, the heads of major departments, the Attorney General, and a bunch of other People In Power have been knowingly breaking the law to empower the government. Not only, in fact, are they doing something that the court already ruled is illegal, but they sealed the court's decision so that the public would not know about it.
Did I miss anything?
Oh yeah,
8. Snowden is probably still fucked.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:4, Funny)
Surprise, surprise. Obummer lies.
Racist!
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we impeach brain dead idiots like yourself? I'm not a fan of Obama at this point, but this isn't all on him. Your boyscout Bush, and both major political parties have deep rooted ties to all of this shit.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Interesting)
Who's going to impeach him? Congress and the Senate are complicit in this, and they're the ones who have to impeach. Remember, they don't give two shits about the constitution or they'd never had passed the Bono Act or the PATRIOT Act.
Lets impeach congress next election. I want my country back.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not called impeachment when you're removing the entire ruling body. That's more of a revolution.
I'd wait until the military starts grumbling about it, or is deployed against us on our own soil (which will cause major strife within the lower ranks, at least). Right now, a revolution would be seen as undemocratic, too violent for what they've done. Which means they get to launch a military crackdown that the public will see as at least kind of justified.
Let's give the peaceful solutions some more time, o
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:4, Insightful)
The U.S. military will never be deployed against the U.S. citizenry. That would cause serious civil unrest problems immediately, and they know it. Also, they don't need to. They've been selling surplus military equipment to the police for years, who are licensed to operate on U.S. soil. The police are already here, and they're not grumbling about it - if anything, they tend to see ordinary citizens like the enemy already.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Funny)
Fact: Obama was more responsible for Katrina response than Bush:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-louisiana-gopers-unsure-if-katrina-response-was [talkingpointsmemo.com]
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:4, Insightful)
We're never getting off this planet, are we?
Fuck.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
People just like blaming Obama for apparatus that was setup under Bush's watch. That been he Repub's MO since they lost the election before the last.
Before you all get whipped in to a frenzy: Consider that Obama (Or rather his entire administration) gets his information from the NSA. That's their job. That's how the system works. Do you think that the NSA is going to supply him information that makes them look like out of control corrupt goons? Are they going to say "Hi Mr.President. We wiped our ass with the Constitution 548 times last month" No. They're going to portray their operation in a positive light, and insist that they are legally doing everything necessary to keep America safe.
Recent information says, though, that the situation is bad. Their secret courts make them immune to oversight. We all know this is bad, but realistically it's very political problem that's going to to take a long time to fix. You all should know how long it will take to dig out an entrenched government institution, let alone one with near unlimited power and a secret budget.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
People just like blaming Obama for apparatus that was setup under Bush's watch.
Well, if Obama ever wants to change that impression, he can start by firing people involved in unconstitutional activities.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed.
However, the problem I have with a lot of Obama critics is not that the content of their criticism is actually wrong, but rather feels disingenuous. Had Mitt won the presidency, I feel like a lot of these guys bitching about Obama would be standing right in line behind Mitt, who I believe would be doing basically the exact same thing as Obama*, charging that anyone who dared criticize that "great patriot Mitt Romney" was a terrorist-sympathizing traitor who should be rounded up and executed. I don't see Mitt having a fundamentally different stance on NSA wiretapping, the Patriot Act, or drone strikes (and I bet Benghazi would still have happened under his watch, too).
For those of you (us) who have managed to remain consistent with our criticisms of both parties, bravo.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, while I won't share who I voted for (immaterial, and really, what's the point of a secret ballot if you tell everyone who you voted for?), I will say that when Obama was elected, I went along with it. People said "oh, he's going to bring Chicago rough-and-tumble bullying politics into the Presidency!" and I was thinking "Good!" Maybe Chicago style politics would have gotten us out of Iraq and Afghanistan sooner. Maybe Chicago-style politics would have closed Guantanomo, or repealed the Patriot Act. I'd love to see some of these career politicians dragged out by their proverbial short-and-curlies in front of everyone and dressed down for their selling-out-of-america. But no, we got just another Washington style politician, bought and paid for by moneyed interests.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:4, Interesting)
Forget moneyed interests. Money is just a version of power.
And get it through your head that regardless of form, the powerlees are not going to use power to take power from the powerful.
It doesn't have to be moneyed interests. It could be the CIA using George HW Bush to overthrow Carter's October surprise in an act of high treason, in revenge for shaking up the CIA. It could be the Russian mafia masters using their spies to compromise NSA leaders, and use them to compromise politicans, and seize contol. It could be the masterminds behind the Nazi regime trying again through means of an occult Yale club.
It could be anything, including moneyed interests. But that's less important than the fact of where are we today?
And where we are today is a very bad place to be. The economy deliberately overthrown; the King Of Terror having us in two wars, The rule of law vanished, reporters suddenly dying in weird ways, and those who talk about doing something wanting to take us into an even worse place. Because you can't just commit a few attrocities and seize power and restore goodnes and call it a day.
There is no way back from here. I don't know what through is, or where it goes, but through is the only way.
factually incorrect. I very publicly called out re (Score:5, Insightful)
You are mistaken. For example, I very publicly called out my Congressman for failing to support the amendment to end this shit. That's a Republican congressman whom I voted for. Then, I made sure that for two weeks his Facebook page featured me blasting his excuses for not doing something about this.
On this very page, I've called Bush, who I voted for based on his success as governor, "one of the worst presidents in history".
There are two ways you can support your "team". You can either support them in becoming the best, doing the best, or you can mindlessly pretend whatever they do is best. If my football team has a crappy quarterback, I say it. I say "let's figure out what we need in a replacement QB". Pretending that your QB is awesome as he fumbles every snap doesn't get you anywhere. All it does is make youlook stupid and your team continue to lose. The Democrats made a bad draft pick. The sooner they admit that the sooner they can improve.
Re: Impeach Obummer! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Interesting)
The various terror groups know Obama is full of hot air and does not follow up on attacks.
I'm sure that Osama bin Laden agrees, as do the targets of all those drone strikes.
The Syrian army crossed the red line again and nothing from Barry.
The 15-minute response you seem to be asking for with regard to Syria would be about the only action that might be considered even less civilised than gassing your own civilians. Is that really what you'd like to see?
This is not some film where you hear someone shout, "Do something!" then see 30 seconds of Barry sweating as he slowly but surely remembers and inputs the Abort code that stops the timer and keeps Dr Madguy's giant laser from lighting up and cooking Los Angeles.
I've got a brilliant idea: Let's impeach Obama and replace him with you.
This is a complex scenario with a great many players--Israel, Lebanon/Hezbollah, Turkey/NATO/EU, Iraq/Kurdistan, and Russia, amongst others--having an interest in the outcome of a civil war between the militarist fascists who've held power for decades and the militant religious whackos that seek to take their place. You've also got the UN and the norms of international law to consider. At home you've got legislators to keep happy, and there is a good chance that, no matter what your response is, at least some of them will take issue with it--and of these, some of them will be doing so merely to score points against you in the media, regardless of what might really be best for the US (or for the Syrians, for that matter).
What do you propose to do, Mr President? Go ahead--the whole world is watching and waiting.
Isn't this fun?
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:4, Insightful)
It gets better when you realize when Obama said he wanted to create more oversight and then put the entire oversight under the NSA's leadership.
What most people don't realize is Obama is as much a republican as Reagan, Nixon, and both Bushes. His policies are in direct line with theirs.
What we need are term limits for congress critters so they can't become as corrupted, and for Congress to start revoking executive powers back out of the executive branch.
We didn't need the cabinets before World War II Why don't we eliminate them?
The last scary thought I shall leave with. What if J Edgar Hoover had the NSA's ability to spy on people?
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Interesting)
Nixon wasn't so bad. At least he had enough respect for the law and the citizens to break in at night.
And enough sense of shame to resign. The more recent politicians are quite literally shameless.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
But at least back then there was a threat of prosecution.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:4, Informative)
Well, he was impeached for Contempt of Conservative, they just managed to find a different excuse to make it look legal.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm afraid that I'm old enough to remember campaigning against Nixon, and wearing "I voted for McGovern" buttons as Nixon's behavior became more criminal and more power mad.. His resignation wasn't due to "sense of shame". His resignation prevented impeachment, and the immediate pardon after his resignation prevented criminal prosecution after his resignation.
The situation is not very comparable: enough personally criminal behavior, rather than unconstitutional policy, was exposed to leave Richard Nixon open to personal prosecution as soon as he lost his sovereign immunity. The NSA's behavior has been much more difficult to expose as individuals doing criminal acts.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:4, Funny)
-Richard M. Nixon('s head)
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Interesting)
The last scary thought I shall leave with. What if J Edgar Hoover had the NSA's ability to spy on people?
I'm not sure why you're assuming that Robert Mueller is any better. Maybe because he's better at secrecy and intimidation? Think about this for a minute: After Hoover's death, when all the stuff he did came out, Congress passed a law limiting the term of any FBI director to 10 years. Yet, recently, the law was ignored and Mueller's term extended [nytimes.com] Why? Well the excuse was that it was required for "continuity", but, is that really credible coming from a Democratically-controlled Senate debating the illegal extension of term for a Bush appointee. How?
During one of the recent hearings on spying, Holder was asked if the NSA was also tapping into private phone calls and emails of members of Congress. He basically refused to answer the question, offering to "address that in a different forum." In secret, in other words. And one NSA whistle blower mentioned how the program even targeted a certain senate candidate from Illinois [youtube.com] (yep, that one).
So we may now be in an even worse position, with a J. Edgar Hoover type leading the FBI, and with much better technology and a greatly expanded police and surveillance state.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the "result of ageneral political consensus among the President and Congress that allowing terrorists to kill large numbers of American citizens is a bad thing."
It was a huge power grab and has done nothing to improve American safety.
It *has* significantly eroded our constitution.
And yes, some of us question the gross increase in executive power and public surveillance in return for an undemonstrated and unrealized threat.
If any significant plot had been prevented we could have a public debate on the merits, but no such plot has ever been brought to the table. We're supposed to just trust them, and with the current administration and prior adminstrations' track records!
They can go fuck themselves.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
People just like blaming Obama for apparatus that was setup under Bush's watch.
Oh, come on, this is not his first month in the Oval Office. People blame Obama for expanding on the apparatus established under Bush (and he did so quite actively).
When does he become responsible, anyway? After he leaves the office at the end of 8 years? It must be DURING his tenure as a president, and that's more than half over.
Do you think that the NSA is going to supply him information that makes them look like out of control corrupt goons?
No, but it'd be nice if he responded once the information comes to light. Ignoring incriminating revelations is same as supporting them.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that at the end of the day the point is that it's becoming increasingly obvious that both Bush and Obama (not to mention many others) have been answering to somebody else rather than acting entirely on their own initiative. And once you realize that the guy in office is a puppet, trying to place the blame on him just plays into the hands of the puppet masters. They'll be glad to give you a completely fresh new puppet the next time around, and I'm sure HE won't keep doing the exact same thing under a new guise. Hope and Change anybody?
Should we impeach him over his support for this? Sure, why not, always good to have a good public roasting from time to time, keeps the yokels entertained. While we're at it lets throw most of Congress on the fire too, they're the ones who actually passed the bills that created and funded this $#@!. And hey, how about all them there millionaires too - not quite sure what they have to do with anything, but it's just unseemly how they flash their money around. Whooh, that was a mighty pretty fire. Very cathartic. Now, did anybody happen to spot the puppeteers fleeing the fire? Nobody? Ah well, they probably didn't make it and I'm pretty wore out now anyway. What say we have a few beers and decide who should run things now? I hear Puppet R is a hell of a guy, and you can barely see the strings...
Not that we shouldn't go after the politicians betraying us, but if we don't have at least some plan to catch the puppet masters we most certainly won't. And if you do have a plan, for Deity's sake don't talk about it online or anywhere near a phone.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
People just like blaming Obama for apparatus that was setup under Bush's watch.
How about blaming him for criticizing that apparatus during his campaign, promising to dismantle it, and then embracing and expanding it all after he was elected.
Getting really tired of the It's Okay When My Side Does It crowd.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:4, Interesting)
I completely agree.
I would have voted Obama based on his campaign... now I'm incredibly disappointed. In fact, I almost believe he's been forced to change... almost...
Was he always disingenuous?
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
People just like blaming Obama for apparatus that was setup under Bush's watch. That been he Repub's MO since they lost the election before the last.
If you are President, especially for 5 years heading towards 8, and it is still going on during your administration under leadership you appointed, you own it. That includes even programs that started before you came into power.
If you disagree with that, maybe you can tell us when it will be appropriate to hold President Obama responsible for events occurring during his administration? Will that be the day after he leaves office?
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
People just like blaming Obama for apparatus that was setup under Bush's watch.
No. People like blaming Obama for not doing anything about the apparatus that was setup under Bush's watch, and for not doing what he said he would do. We blamed Bush when he was in office, now he isn't. So we blame the person who is in charge, who isn't doing anything to fix the situation.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me try to predict your reply:
Wah Wah Bush is a war criminal don't bully Obama you stupid republican piece of shit!
Don't give me that fucking garbage, shove your partisan bullshit right up your ass.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want Congress to impeach Obama over this, you should sign this [whitehouse.gov].
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a fan of Obama at this point, but this isn't all on him.
Yes it is all on him.
He could have ended this with one stroke of the pen. He's had 6 years. How many time does he have to get re-elected before he owns this mess?
How many times do you intend to repeat that soggy old mantra of it being Bush's fault?
He could have gone public, shut it all down with an executive order. Instead He lied. Then he lied about lying. Now he welcomes a "dialog" where in he will tell us polity and sympathetically to shut up, sit down, and watch tv like good little kids.
And useful idiots like you will lap it all up again just like you did the first time and the second time.
You lapped it up when he closed the embassies because of huge terror plots.
You just keep buying the same sack of horseshit over and over again.
You tell me: What will it take!???
When do you stop defending him?
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm afraid that the President does have this kind of power. The behavior of the NSA is a matter of policy. The President and his officers present the budgets for the NSA to Congress, and set the policies that are not a matter of already existing law. NSA practices like the monitoring of domestic, civilian communications with the excuse that it had a "50% or better chance of involving foreign communications" is a matter of policy, not law. And the policy for Guantanamo Bay prisoners to lack legal representation, for the names to be kept secret, and to review the cases of only those whom allied governments discover and raise concerns about, are all in the President's hands.
I'm afraid that Mr. Obama tries to seek consensus, full agreement from all concerned, in cases like these where a clear moral stance would show leadership and earn far more respect for his most important goals, such as health care plans or economic recovery work. It's left America without the much promised "change"" of his first campaign.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Informative)
Candidate Obama said that The Bush administration puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide.
That is quite different than what President Obama is saying now.
This is very much like George Bush Sr.'s "Read my lips: no new taxes" line.
Nowhere did Candidate Bush nor President Bush vow to end illegal wiretapping. But Obama did.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
You've just arrived on the internet, and you've never heard of Predator, or Echelon, of any other data gathering programs and softwares.
Well, since you are so new here, your ignorance can be forgiven. Prism is just the latest version of data mining programs. And, Prism isn't the only program. A number of articles have suggested that Prism is just one of the many facets of NSA spying.
It is GOVERNMENT that is at fault here. It isn't one administration - it is GOVERNMENT. Our government is so damned big, even congress has little idea what any part of government is doing. Only after Snowden forced Prism into the spotlight did members of congress begin to demand answers. Normally, the intelligence network is "monitored" by a select committee of congress critters, who generally don't report much of anything back to the main body of congress.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent post speaks the truth.
Fact: Obama has come out swinging in support of the surveillance programs. He should be held responsible for it.
Also fact: Politicians from both parties, GOP and Dems created and voted in the laws that allowed the surveillance programs. They supported the surveillance programs and continue to support it. They should also be held accountable for it.
My point is that Obama is just a figurehead. Don't focus all your anger on him and lose sight of the fact that there is a whole bunch of politicians of all stripes behind him cheering him on. Im sure they would love it if you scapegoat Obama and let them walk free.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. People that blame D or R are just continuing the fiction that there is any significant difference.
Re:Impeach Obummer! (Score:5, Interesting)
Bush was upfront about his support for these programs. Obama specifically ran against them, but defends them publically now.
In any case, today Obama's the boss - it's his ship to steer, and we should blame him for the course he sets, even if previous leaders are bad too. Gah, if there's one thing I hate at work, it's people who say "yes, this sucks, and we could fix it easily, but we're used to the pain so just deal with it".
Re:okay so how is snowden NOT a whistleblower then (Score:5, Interesting)
The same way he "hasn't" been all along. When the lies are coming from the highest levels of the government, they can brand anybody they want as anything they like. One can only hope that the EFF is large and influential enough to cope with any fallout from this.
Looks like it might be time to donate again. There's something ridiculous about the need to buy decent government by donating to a charitable organization, but hey, they're doing better than most, and most of "us" (Slashdot readers) can probably afford it. Normally I'd suggest the option of doing it by way of the Humble Bundle, but currently they don't include that option...
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody has ruled on if he is a whisleblower or not. The executive branch does not have the authority to determine that. Snowden undeniably released classified information. That makes it the Executive Branch's job to change him with releasing classified information, which they have done. The next step in the process is for Snowden to present his case to the Judicial Branch that the protections reserved for whistleblowers apply to him. We will see if that ever happens.