4 ms·
OK, you want FISA to be stricter. But way up thread, someone made the point that it’s FISA itself that puts any meaningful balancing constraints at all on the C
by twoodfin 3y ago
OK, you want FISA to be stricter. But way up thread, someone made the point that it’s FISA itself that puts any meaningful balancing constraints at all on the Constitutional power of the executive. This includes the FISA court—made up of real, lifetime-tenured federal judges of the same robes you would like approving warrants—that is there by law to be watching out for just your parade of horribles.
The poster was roundly criticized for being correct.
- soraminazuki 3y agoNo, FISA should not be a thing. Wiretap warrants should be reasonably scoped and acquired on an individual basis. There shouldn't be a secret court issuing do-whatever-you-want warrants.
- twoodfin 3y agoTo get that you have two choices: Do your best to persuade your fellow citizens to elect a President who will choose to forego this part of his Constitutional powers—or get a Constitutional amendment passed. What I keep trying to explain is that this FISA vote can’t address your concerns one way or the other. If you disagree, I wish you’d explain how.
- soraminazuki 3y agoThe Constitution grants the president unlimited spying powers? That's news to me. Whether the FISA vote can fix all the problems isn't the point. The problem is that current surveillance practices looks illegal to begin with.
- twoodfin 3y agoIntercepting communications between US persons and foreign non-citizens isn’t “unlimited spying powers” and is not illegal. Do you disagree?
- soraminazuki 3y agoWe're running in circles now. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40100565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40100565
- int_19h 3y agoYes