5 ms·

Does anyone want to suggest some reasons why, the one thing that D+R always, always, always agree on is this: US Gov/LEO/IC must be gifted the most power possi

Does anyone want to suggest some reasons why, the one thing that D+R always, always, always agree on is this: US Gov/LEO/IC must be gifted the most power possible to surveil Americans who are not suspected of a crime

kolanos 3y ago
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
outlore 3y ago
horseshoe theory. D+R are not so different. D in US is more right than other countries' left leaning parties
- dexwiz 3y ago
  Both sides are mostly rich or put there by the rich. A few populist reps get outsized airtime, but that isn’t the majority of people running the show.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    There are a lot more similarities between "both sides" than that. They make a big show out of arguing over a small number of things they disagree on. But for many important things, they don't significantly differ. The two parties do not significantly differ on indefinite detention of American citizens on US soil. The two parties do not significantly differ on domestic spying, dragnet-style data collection and warrantless wiretapping. The two parties do not significantly differ on allowing extra-judicial targeted killings. The two parties do not significantly differ on the use of unmanned drones, either for combat or domestic surveillance. The two parties both support pre-emptive "cyber" war and non-defensive hacking. The two parties do not significantly differ on their support for continuing the War On Terror. The two parties both support maintaining US military bases around the world. The two parties do not significantly differ on favoring Keynesian economics. The two parties support delegating monetary policy decisions to the Federal Reserve, including support for quantitative easing. The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of earmarks and pork barrel spending. Neither of the two parties have (recently) proposed plans for balancing the budget. Neither of the two parties plans to significantly cut defense spending. The two parties both favor taxpayer-funded foreign aid. The two parties are largely backed by the same corporate sponsors and special interest groups, with a few key differences. The two parties both backed TARP and in general favor bailing out companies too big to fail. The two parties do not significantly differ on their general support of "economic stimulus" as a tool to prop up the economy. The two parties do not significantly differ on their support for and allegiance to Israel. The two parties both favor and continue sanctions on Iran. The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of super PAC funding and their support of unlimited spending from corporations and special interest groups. The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of gerrymandering to gain political advantage. The two parties oppose any measures that would strengthen the viability of a third party.
    - golergka 3y ago
      Many of these points are just common sense. Does America really need a major party that's insane on one of the important issues?
      - int_19h 3y ago
        I guarantee you that whichever points you think are "common sense" on this list, there's millions of people in this country who will disagree with you on every single one of them.
        golergka 3y ago
        There are also millions of people who think that Earth's flat.
        int_19h 3y ago
        So then be more specific: whose "common sense" do you have in mind?
        golergka 3y ago
        People who are professionals in international relations, monetary policy, administering a country and other areas that these statements relate to.
        int_19h 3y ago
        Given the present state of international relations, monetary policy, or the country in general, I'm no longer sure such people even exist. There are certainly many people who would like the proles to think so, and to vote them into power on that basis. But it doesn't appear to be translating to policies that are actually good for most of us, somehow.
    - Jerrrry 3y ago
      emergent behavior from a self-interested system, which doesn't necessarily preclude collusion, directly or less so. the best capitalist simply had their competition shot.
- avianlyric 3y ago
  Minor correction > D in US is more right than other countries' left leaning parties D in US is more right than other countries' right leaning parties
- SSJPython 3y ago
  > D in US is more right than other countries' left leaning parties I don't think this is accurate. Maybe on healthcare and welfare, sure. But on many social issues, the Democrats are much further to the left than the European left. On issues such as abortion, gender/sexuality, migration, and race, the Democrats are more extreme compared to Labour in the UK, SPD in Germany, and the PSOE in Spain. Even the left in France isn't as socially extremist as the Democrats.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Larrikin 3y ago
    It's a boring take from more than 30 years ago that was kinda true in the Regan years when the dominant voting groups could pretend that elected officials and government didn't actually matter because they all voted similarly and discrimination against groups that disagreed had been publicly accepted for decades. Historical electoral maps were not usually competitive at all like they are now. The both parties are the same is such a lazy take, except in super limited circumstances like this naked power grab in the article. Both are going to use it in wildly different ways
  - mamonster 3y ago
    >Even the left in France isn't as socially extremist as the Democrats. Depends which left which you are talking about. LFI is certainly on that level in their way, PS/Place Publique are not(given that "printemps républicain" was part of what killed popular support for the party).
  - monocasa 3y ago
    I mean, those countries have other further left parties with held seats in their legislatures up to and including outright explicit communist parties. Those parties you listed are known for being center to center left in Europe, sometimes explicitly escuing the left as UK Labour and SPD have done. Excpet PSOE which is farther left than the Democrats, having all of the identity politics of the Democratic party while being explicitly and empathetically pro union. Heads would have rolled if PSOE had broken the rail workers strike that like Biden did. The also tried to legalize abortion in the Spanish constitution in the 1970s, and haven't wavered on their view of abortion since. They passed same sex marriage when they got their first chance to (and before the US did), and used the same opportunity to expand transgender rights.
- dukeyukey 3y ago
  Left and right are different in different countries. In the US, the Republicans are generally pro-building (see where new homes and factories are being built). But in the UK, the left party (Labour) is the one pushing for less onerous planning.
hamhock666 3y ago
Because it gives them more power, and nobody cares to organize or do anything about it in terms of voting out said politicians.
dotnet00 3y ago
They're ultimately the same, the partisanship is mostly a farce as they both know that they're the only realistic options, so as long as neither side goes out of its way to seriously be better than the other, they can both enjoy the perks of being in power eventually, and therefore increased power is always good from their pov as regardless of party, they'll eventually have access to that power too.
- coolbreezetft24 3y ago
  > the partisanship is mostly a farce This was noticeably on display for me in 2020 right after it was determined that Biden had won the election. Lindsey Graham, a Republican Senator, was caught on video in the Senate chamber warmly congratulating and hugging Kamala Harris, a D senator and VP-elect. It was as if they both knew Graham's hyper-partisan antics during the preceding months before the vote was all just an act - a part of the game. I'd bet that he secretly voted for Biden/Harris as well and will do so again.
  - Cacti 3y ago
    This is basic human empathy from a very small group of insiders. I mean, this is their job. Do you think they all go around work being dicks to each other all day every day? Besides, it cost him nothing.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      Their job is to represent us, supposedly. And they keep trying to whip their own supporters into frenzy against each other (quite successfully, I should note - so much so that it's already getting violent at times). The fact that the people doing so are themselves chum buddies tells volumes.
bugglebeetle 3y ago
I would imagine because the IC already uses those same surveillance powers to get dirt on enough politicians to make sure this happens.
- stufffer 3y ago
  They had to add a rule about not using it to spy on Congress. That tells you all you need to know about how often fisa is abused.
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    This may turn out to be the most true thing ever uttered on the internet.
- vkou 3y ago
  [flagged]
kbolino 3y ago
The bureaucrats regularly present scary information to the politicians to justify their actions and powers. The juiciest bits of intelligence are intentionally selected for escalation up the chain, with many being presented ASAP at the highest levels (SECDEF, President) and/or retained for later demonstration to oversight authorities (FISA court, Congressional committees). While much of "raw" intelligence is not reliable, the agencies can curate the best (most believable/most sensational/most verified) intelligence reports over time. Given recent events in the Middle East and the fact that both parties' senior politicians mostly lean the same way in terms of which sides they support, this result is unsurprising if disappointing.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Tarq0n 3y ago
I suspect in the incentives, the downside risk weighs much heavier for these people. If they block surveillance powers and another 9/11 happened they'd be dragged over the coals, whereas approving them is pretty risk free.
api 3y ago
If anything happens any politician who voted no can be accused of being responsible for “missing the next 9/11” or being “soft on terror.” If nothing happens most people don’t understand or care either way.
Nifty3929 3y ago
Because politicians want power and control over the citizens. They might use it for different things, but power is power.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  I'm pretty damn sure you have it backwards. The intelligence crapmunity wants power, and politicians are merely the means to an end. See what happens when a politician of any stature dares to defy them.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - greenavocado 3y ago
    Chuck Schumer: "Six ways from Sunday"
memish 3y ago
“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-trump-being-really-dumb-by-going-after-intelligence-community/ https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-t...
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  If that were true, Trump would have been carried out of Helsinki feet-first.
  - pas 3y ago
    why, what was/happened in Helsinki?
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      Trump announced that he believed Putin over his own intelligence. But then there was the time Biden installed Hunter on the White House staff and ordered that he be given a security clearance, despite dozens of discrepancies, undisclosed foreign contacts, and other red flags on the paperwork. Oh, wait, no, that was Trump, too.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  The only person willing to take them on is Trump. Look at all of the fake cases and mainstream media attacking that followed. I don't think anyone can stop them now. When America is replaced as a world power that day will come.
  - tophi 3y ago
    [flagged]
- webninja 3y ago
  One way some people suggest is at least one of the 3-letter intelligence communities will send/drop CP on their computer or phone if that congressmen doesn’t vote their way. If that’s even partially true, then it makes them more powerful than all of the elected bodies. https://open.spotify.com/episode/2ThIfbGXWTxBITTsj18aBw https://open.spotify.com/episode/2ThIfbGXWTxBITTsj18aBw
verdverm 3y ago
I think you have things a bit backwards. Without FISA, the intelligence agencies have less oversight and fewer restrictions. > The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon's usage of federal resources, including law enforcement agencies, to spy on political and activist groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...
- hypothesis 3y ago
  > Without FISA, the intelligence agencies have less oversight and fewer restrictions. What restrictions are you talking about? Constitutional warrant requirement was sidestepped using this law and you are still cheering here.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    Well, before FISA, constitutional warrant requirements were not sidestepped, they were simply ignored. So now we're acknowledging that the constitutional requirements are still there, but now we use this weird dodge to get around it. So is that better or worse?
    - hypothesis 3y ago
      Are you really asking if being unconstitutional is worse than being codified and legal? I’m not the one here cheering for demise of constitutional republic…
      - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        Neither am I cheering for it. Don't put words in my mouth. I am seriously asking whether being flat-out unconstitutional is worse than building a (legislated and approved) backdoor around the constitution, yes. I mean, better than both would be to just follow the constitution, but that wasn't the question.
akira2501 3y ago
Corruption of our intelligence agencies to the point they've been weaponized against our own elected officials.
- int_19h 3y ago
  Have there ever been a point where our law enforcement and intelligence agencies haven't been weaponized by our politicians against their opposition? FBI under Hoover, COINTELPRO, Watergate...
ComposedPattern 3y ago
I would guess that Democratic and Republican politicians want to give more power to the USA government because they are the USA government.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
The F in FISA stands for foreign.

kolanos 3y ago

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

outlore 3y ago

horseshoe theory. D+R are not so different. D in US is more right than other countries' left leaning parties

dexwiz 3y ago
Both sides are mostly rich or put there by the rich. A few populist reps get outsized airtime, but that isn’t the majority of people running the show.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  There are a lot more similarities between "both sides" than that. They make a big show out of arguing over a small number of things they disagree on. But for many important things, they don't significantly differ. The two parties do not significantly differ on indefinite detention of American citizens on US soil. The two parties do not significantly differ on domestic spying, dragnet-style data collection and warrantless wiretapping. The two parties do not significantly differ on allowing extra-judicial targeted killings. The two parties do not significantly differ on the use of unmanned drones, either for combat or domestic surveillance. The two parties both support pre-emptive "cyber" war and non-defensive hacking. The two parties do not significantly differ on their support for continuing the War On Terror. The two parties both support maintaining US military bases around the world. The two parties do not significantly differ on favoring Keynesian economics. The two parties support delegating monetary policy decisions to the Federal Reserve, including support for quantitative easing. The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of earmarks and pork barrel spending. Neither of the two parties have (recently) proposed plans for balancing the budget. Neither of the two parties plans to significantly cut defense spending. The two parties both favor taxpayer-funded foreign aid. The two parties are largely backed by the same corporate sponsors and special interest groups, with a few key differences. The two parties both backed TARP and in general favor bailing out companies too big to fail. The two parties do not significantly differ on their general support of "economic stimulus" as a tool to prop up the economy. The two parties do not significantly differ on their support for and allegiance to Israel. The two parties both favor and continue sanctions on Iran. The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of super PAC funding and their support of unlimited spending from corporations and special interest groups. The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of gerrymandering to gain political advantage. The two parties oppose any measures that would strengthen the viability of a third party.
  - golergka 3y ago
    Many of these points are just common sense. Does America really need a major party that's insane on one of the important issues?
    - int_19h 3y ago
      I guarantee you that whichever points you think are "common sense" on this list, there's millions of people in this country who will disagree with you on every single one of them.
      - golergka 3y ago
        There are also millions of people who think that Earth's flat.
        int_19h 3y ago
        So then be more specific: whose "common sense" do you have in mind?
        golergka 3y ago
        People who are professionals in international relations, monetary policy, administering a country and other areas that these statements relate to.
        int_19h 3y ago
        Given the present state of international relations, monetary policy, or the country in general, I'm no longer sure such people even exist. There are certainly many people who would like the proles to think so, and to vote them into power on that basis. But it doesn't appear to be translating to policies that are actually good for most of us, somehow.
  - Jerrrry 3y ago
    emergent behavior from a self-interested system, which doesn't necessarily preclude collusion, directly or less so. the best capitalist simply had their competition shot.
avianlyric 3y ago
Minor correction > D in US is more right than other countries' left leaning parties D in US is more right than other countries' right leaning parties
SSJPython 3y ago
> D in US is more right than other countries' left leaning parties I don't think this is accurate. Maybe on healthcare and welfare, sure. But on many social issues, the Democrats are much further to the left than the European left. On issues such as abortion, gender/sexuality, migration, and race, the Democrats are more extreme compared to Labour in the UK, SPD in Germany, and the PSOE in Spain. Even the left in France isn't as socially extremist as the Democrats.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Larrikin 3y ago
  It's a boring take from more than 30 years ago that was kinda true in the Regan years when the dominant voting groups could pretend that elected officials and government didn't actually matter because they all voted similarly and discrimination against groups that disagreed had been publicly accepted for decades. Historical electoral maps were not usually competitive at all like they are now. The both parties are the same is such a lazy take, except in super limited circumstances like this naked power grab in the article. Both are going to use it in wildly different ways
- mamonster 3y ago
  >Even the left in France isn't as socially extremist as the Democrats. Depends which left which you are talking about. LFI is certainly on that level in their way, PS/Place Publique are not(given that "printemps républicain" was part of what killed popular support for the party).
- monocasa 3y ago
  I mean, those countries have other further left parties with held seats in their legislatures up to and including outright explicit communist parties. Those parties you listed are known for being center to center left in Europe, sometimes explicitly escuing the left as UK Labour and SPD have done. Excpet PSOE which is farther left than the Democrats, having all of the identity politics of the Democratic party while being explicitly and empathetically pro union. Heads would have rolled if PSOE had broken the rail workers strike that like Biden did. The also tried to legalize abortion in the Spanish constitution in the 1970s, and haven't wavered on their view of abortion since. They passed same sex marriage when they got their first chance to (and before the US did), and used the same opportunity to expand transgender rights.
dukeyukey 3y ago
Left and right are different in different countries. In the US, the Republicans are generally pro-building (see where new homes and factories are being built). But in the UK, the left party (Labour) is the one pushing for less onerous planning.

hamhock666 3y ago

Because it gives them more power, and nobody cares to organize or do anything about it in terms of voting out said politicians.

dotnet00 3y ago

They're ultimately the same, the partisanship is mostly a farce as they both know that they're the only realistic options, so as long as neither side goes out of its way to seriously be better than the other, they can both enjoy the perks of being in power eventually, and therefore increased power is always good from their pov as regardless of party, they'll eventually have access to that power too.

coolbreezetft24 3y ago
> the partisanship is mostly a farce This was noticeably on display for me in 2020 right after it was determined that Biden had won the election. Lindsey Graham, a Republican Senator, was caught on video in the Senate chamber warmly congratulating and hugging Kamala Harris, a D senator and VP-elect. It was as if they both knew Graham's hyper-partisan antics during the preceding months before the vote was all just an act - a part of the game. I'd bet that he secretly voted for Biden/Harris as well and will do so again.
- Cacti 3y ago
  This is basic human empathy from a very small group of insiders. I mean, this is their job. Do you think they all go around work being dicks to each other all day every day? Besides, it cost him nothing.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    Their job is to represent us, supposedly. And they keep trying to whip their own supporters into frenzy against each other (quite successfully, I should note - so much so that it's already getting violent at times). The fact that the people doing so are themselves chum buddies tells volumes.

bugglebeetle 3y ago

I would imagine because the IC already uses those same surveillance powers to get dirt on enough politicians to make sure this happens.

stufffer 3y ago
They had to add a rule about not using it to spy on Congress. That tells you all you need to know about how often fisa is abused.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  This may turn out to be the most true thing ever uttered on the internet.
vkou 3y ago
[flagged]

kbolino 3y ago

The bureaucrats regularly present scary information to the politicians to justify their actions and powers. The juiciest bits of intelligence are intentionally selected for escalation up the chain, with many being presented ASAP at the highest levels (SECDEF, President) and/or retained for later demonstration to oversight authorities (FISA court, Congressional committees). While much of "raw" intelligence is not reliable, the agencies can curate the best (most believable/most sensational/most verified) intelligence reports over time. Given recent events in the Middle East and the fact that both parties' senior politicians mostly lean the same way in terms of which sides they support, this result is unsurprising if disappointing.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Tarq0n 3y ago

I suspect in the incentives, the downside risk weighs much heavier for these people. If they block surveillance powers and another 9/11 happened they'd be dragged over the coals, whereas approving them is pretty risk free.

api 3y ago

If anything happens any politician who voted no can be accused of being responsible for “missing the next 9/11” or being “soft on terror.” If nothing happens most people don’t understand or care either way.

Nifty3929 3y ago

Because politicians want power and control over the citizens. They might use it for different things, but power is power.

Dalewyn 3y ago
I'm pretty damn sure you have it backwards. The intelligence crapmunity wants power, and politicians are merely the means to an end. See what happens when a politician of any stature dares to defy them.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- greenavocado 3y ago
  Chuck Schumer: "Six ways from Sunday"

memish 3y ago

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-trump-being-really-dumb-by-going-after-intelligence-community/ https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-t...

CamperBob2 3y ago
If that were true, Trump would have been carried out of Helsinki feet-first.
- pas 3y ago
  why, what was/happened in Helsinki?
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    Trump announced that he believed Putin over his own intelligence. But then there was the time Biden installed Hunter on the White House staff and ordered that he be given a security clearance, despite dozens of discrepancies, undisclosed foreign contacts, and other red flags on the paperwork. Oh, wait, no, that was Trump, too.
ipaddr 3y ago
The only person willing to take them on is Trump. Look at all of the fake cases and mainstream media attacking that followed. I don't think anyone can stop them now. When America is replaced as a world power that day will come.
- tophi 3y ago
  [flagged]
webninja 3y ago
One way some people suggest is at least one of the 3-letter intelligence communities will send/drop CP on their computer or phone if that congressmen doesn’t vote their way. If that’s even partially true, then it makes them more powerful than all of the elected bodies. https://open.spotify.com/episode/2ThIfbGXWTxBITTsj18aBw https://open.spotify.com/episode/2ThIfbGXWTxBITTsj18aBw

verdverm 3y ago

I think you have things a bit backwards. Without FISA, the intelligence agencies have less oversight and fewer restrictions. > The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon's usage of federal resources, including law enforcement agencies, to spy on political and activist groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...

hypothesis 3y ago
> Without FISA, the intelligence agencies have less oversight and fewer restrictions. What restrictions are you talking about? Constitutional warrant requirement was sidestepped using this law and you are still cheering here.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Well, before FISA, constitutional warrant requirements were not sidestepped, they were simply ignored. So now we're acknowledging that the constitutional requirements are still there, but now we use this weird dodge to get around it. So is that better or worse?
  - hypothesis 3y ago
    Are you really asking if being unconstitutional is worse than being codified and legal? I’m not the one here cheering for demise of constitutional republic…
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      Neither am I cheering for it. Don't put words in my mouth. I am seriously asking whether being flat-out unconstitutional is worse than building a (legislated and approved) backdoor around the constitution, yes. I mean, better than both would be to just follow the constitution, but that wasn't the question.

akira2501 3y ago

Corruption of our intelligence agencies to the point they've been weaponized against our own elected officials.

int_19h 3y ago
Have there ever been a point where our law enforcement and intelligence agencies haven't been weaponized by our politicians against their opposition? FBI under Hoover, COINTELPRO, Watergate...

ComposedPattern 3y ago

I would guess that Democratic and Republican politicians want to give more power to the USA government because they are the USA government.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

The F in FISA stands for foreign.