6 ms·

One wonders: is there ANY point at which the Congress or even the Courts will step in and say that the abuse has been excessive? Is there really any threshold,

One wonders: is there ANY point at which the Congress or even the Courts will step in and say that the abuse has been excessive? Is there really any threshold, and they're just waiting to see if we reach it? I'm really starting to believe that there's no limit at all. It's the proverbial frog in hot water.

ypeterholmes 9y ago
This is what a broken system looks like- the people are no longer represented, and corruption has no check or balance. Question is, what do we do about it? Side note: it would be foolish to think that these two things are not related. The motivations for removing our civil rights dovetail with the goals for keeping us under control.
- matt4077 9y ago
  I really don't see how anybody is actually being kept under control, so far. Not disputing the overreach of many of these transgressions that have become public over the last years. But to suggest that they are actively used to influence US domestic politics and elections just doesn't seem plausible. Even if the theory is that the two parties act as a duopoly and protect their shared interests, which seems unlikely given they barely contain their mutual hatred in public–wouldn't they have used such subversion to avoid the current president?
  - _jal 9y ago
    > But to suggest that they are actively used to influence US domestic politics and elections just doesn't seem plausible Have you heard the name J. Edgar Hoover[1]? Have you read about the FBI's, ah, interactions, with MLK[2]? If so, on what grounds do you believe that such things don't happen today? With more subtlety, of course; things change, and the FBI has had a long time to refine technique. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#FBI_and_King.27s_personal_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#FBI_and...
  - moomin 9y ago
    I don't think you actually need a conspiracy for this behaviour to hold true. As different as the parties are, there's huge amounts they both agree on. (It's positively ridiculous how much time is spent presenting everyone's minor differences in approach on Terrorism and Syria, for instance) It's pretty ridiculous that America's idea of an anti-establishment candidate is pro-foreign intervention, pro-big business, anti-drugs and favours mass incarceration. I mean, seriously, how is this different from Bill Clinton's policies. TL;DR; Whilst there are genuine and important differences between the two parties and specific candidates, American policy in general is pretty damn stable.
philipov 9y ago
If I were in charge of an intelligence agency, I imagine the most interesting targets of surveillance would be congresspeople and judges.
- rhizome 9y ago
  The people most able to take your surveillance toys away.
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    But unlikely to do so when they're threatened e.g. by "someone" leaking evidence of "transgressions"... e.g. sexual encounters with affairs/prostitutes, excessive drinking, inappropriate conduct with minors, clandestine meetings with "sponsors" (aka corruption)... and Congressmen (or, politicians in general) are not exactly known for ethical behavior, which makes them all extortionable. A lot of this kind of "searching for evidence" can already be done using existing surveillance infrastructure, I believe it was called LOVEINT after the Snowden leaks.
- brandall10 9y ago
  Yeah, I think J Edgar Hoover figured this out early in his reign.
- 1001101 9y ago
  And, indeed, they are.
johngalt 9y ago
Yep. Congress and the courts regularly find it an excessive abuse of power whenever they are affected by it personally. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/12/feinstein-doesnt-like-the-cia-spying-on-her-committee-but-shes-fine-with-nsa-bulk-data-collection/?utm_term=.194f3fdb329a https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/12...
- rhizome 9y ago
  The systematic benefits in US society are dispersed from the top down, and its sacrifices emerge from the bottom up.
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    Are you quoting someone with that comment? Because it looks to be a great statement to quote. Only thing I could add is possibly turning the 'and' into a 'but.'
    - rhizome 9y ago
      AFAIK it's mine. 'But' could work, but it feels a little too mutually-exclusive in context.
CamperBob2 9y ago
One wonders: is there ANY point at which the Congress or even the Courts will step in and say that the abuse has been excessive? Yes, and it's happened before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee The LE and intelligence agencies just go back to doing exactly what they were doing, with zero accountability as usual, and nothing really changes. Except they get a little bit better at covering their tracks.
- rhizome 9y ago
  Now consider how bad it had to get before the Church Committee was convened.
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    MKULTRA. Iran-Contra. CIA supporting the drug trade. People threatening any of that getting assassinated. It's hard to tell if it was worse, though, given all the things exposed over past 10-20 years. If anything, public resistance seems to have gone down a lot.
- gozur88 9y ago
  The Church Committee really didn't have any effect beyond forcing the CIA to rely on electronic surveillance, putting them at a disadvantage vs the Soviets. That agency leaked sensitive information to embarrass Bush when he crossed them, and then did the same thing to Obama (for the same reason). This is what people are talking about when they mention the "deep state". The best thing that could happen is for the CIA to be defunded and disbanded completely, with a new agency staffed by entirely new people created in its place.

ypeterholmes 9y ago

This is what a broken system looks like- the people are no longer represented, and corruption has no check or balance. Question is, what do we do about it? Side note: it would be foolish to think that these two things are not related. The motivations for removing our civil rights dovetail with the goals for keeping us under control.

matt4077 9y ago
I really don't see how anybody is actually being kept under control, so far. Not disputing the overreach of many of these transgressions that have become public over the last years. But to suggest that they are actively used to influence US domestic politics and elections just doesn't seem plausible. Even if the theory is that the two parties act as a duopoly and protect their shared interests, which seems unlikely given they barely contain their mutual hatred in public–wouldn't they have used such subversion to avoid the current president?
- _jal 9y ago
  > But to suggest that they are actively used to influence US domestic politics and elections just doesn't seem plausible Have you heard the name J. Edgar Hoover[1]? Have you read about the FBI's, ah, interactions, with MLK[2]? If so, on what grounds do you believe that such things don't happen today? With more subtlety, of course; things change, and the FBI has had a long time to refine technique. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#FBI_and_King.27s_personal_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#FBI_and...
- moomin 9y ago
  I don't think you actually need a conspiracy for this behaviour to hold true. As different as the parties are, there's huge amounts they both agree on. (It's positively ridiculous how much time is spent presenting everyone's minor differences in approach on Terrorism and Syria, for instance) It's pretty ridiculous that America's idea of an anti-establishment candidate is pro-foreign intervention, pro-big business, anti-drugs and favours mass incarceration. I mean, seriously, how is this different from Bill Clinton's policies. TL;DR; Whilst there are genuine and important differences between the two parties and specific candidates, American policy in general is pretty damn stable.

philipov 9y ago

If I were in charge of an intelligence agency, I imagine the most interesting targets of surveillance would be congresspeople and judges.

rhizome 9y ago
The people most able to take your surveillance toys away.
- mschuster91 9y ago
  But unlikely to do so when they're threatened e.g. by "someone" leaking evidence of "transgressions"... e.g. sexual encounters with affairs/prostitutes, excessive drinking, inappropriate conduct with minors, clandestine meetings with "sponsors" (aka corruption)... and Congressmen (or, politicians in general) are not exactly known for ethical behavior, which makes them all extortionable. A lot of this kind of "searching for evidence" can already be done using existing surveillance infrastructure, I believe it was called LOVEINT after the Snowden leaks.
brandall10 9y ago
Yeah, I think J Edgar Hoover figured this out early in his reign.
1001101 9y ago
And, indeed, they are.

johngalt 9y ago

Yep. Congress and the courts regularly find it an excessive abuse of power whenever they are affected by it personally. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/12/feinstein-doesnt-like-the-cia-spying-on-her-committee-but-shes-fine-with-nsa-bulk-data-collection/?utm_term=.194f3fdb329a https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/12...

rhizome 9y ago
The systematic benefits in US society are dispersed from the top down, and its sacrifices emerge from the bottom up.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  Are you quoting someone with that comment? Because it looks to be a great statement to quote. Only thing I could add is possibly turning the 'and' into a 'but.'
  - rhizome 9y ago
    AFAIK it's mine. 'But' could work, but it feels a little too mutually-exclusive in context.

CamperBob2 9y ago

One wonders: is there ANY point at which the Congress or even the Courts will step in and say that the abuse has been excessive? Yes, and it's happened before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee The LE and intelligence agencies just go back to doing exactly what they were doing, with zero accountability as usual, and nothing really changes. Except they get a little bit better at covering their tracks.

rhizome 9y ago
Now consider how bad it had to get before the Church Committee was convened.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  MKULTRA. Iran-Contra. CIA supporting the drug trade. People threatening any of that getting assassinated. It's hard to tell if it was worse, though, given all the things exposed over past 10-20 years. If anything, public resistance seems to have gone down a lot.
gozur88 9y ago
The Church Committee really didn't have any effect beyond forcing the CIA to rely on electronic surveillance, putting them at a disadvantage vs the Soviets. That agency leaked sensitive information to embarrass Bush when he crossed them, and then did the same thing to Obama (for the same reason). This is what people are talking about when they mention the "deep state". The best thing that could happen is for the CIA to be defunded and disbanded completely, with a new agency staffed by entirely new people created in its place.