4 ms·

No checks and balances here... at least any that aren't classified and are transparent to the public. A Tyranny, as Thomas Jefferson might refer to it.

by butner 13y ago

uvdiv 13y ago
Checks and balances are functioning perfectly. Congress voted for Patriot Act §215, President Bush signed it into law, President Obama and his congress reauthorized it, and the courts did not overturn it. The law has sat on the books, very publicly, for more than a decade, and has offered myriad opportunities for citizens to debate and challenge (an example: [1]). The broader issue of NSA dragnets is probably one of the top 20 political issues in the US, making regular headlines since 2005 (if you include foreign dragnets, 1995 [2] or earlier). Checks and balances aren't broken. This is democracy in action. [1] http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-liberty/reform-patriot-act-section-215 http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy
- nullc 13y ago
  Which section of the §215 authorizes this activity?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - Domenic_S 13y ago
    ACLU explains §215: http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-liberty/reform-patriot-act-section-215 http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology... (note: "§" means "section")
- mtgx 13y ago
  There's no real oversight, and they are using "secret Courts" and "secret interpretations" even of these obscure and very vague laws.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - _delirium 13y ago
    It isn't really particularly obscure or vague. The Patriot Act authorizes exactly this (and many other things), explicitly and openly.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  It doesn't sound like "balance" when all three branches are on the same side of the seesaw.
  - pekk 13y ago
    "checks and balances" does not mean "the Supreme Court is in a state of perpetual partisan war with the executive," for example.
declan 13y ago
If the checks and balances were functioning, we wouldn't have senators warning in 2011 of the Obama administration's "secret interpretation" of the Patriot Act: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20067005-281.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20067005-281.html Unfortunately the senators were on the Intelligence committee and viewed themselves as unable to disclose what they learned in secret briefings. Now we know at least part of what they were talking about.
- brown9-2 13y ago
  "viewed themselves as unable to disclose what they learned in secret briefings" That is because it is illegal to disclose classified intelligence, even for a Senator. The reason why these Senators could only warn about things, instead of passing legislation to change the law, is because the majority of Congress supports this type of legislation. The checks and balances are still there - the problem is that the body that passes the law agrees with this type of power.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    > the problem is that the body that passes the law agrees with this type of power You can see that in the initial comments on this leak: among the first official comments were both parties' ranking members on the Senate Intelligence Committee — Dianne Feinstein (D) and Saxby Chambliss (R) — defending the program. It's not a surprise to them or something they want to change.
  - declan 13y ago
    This is untrue. It is not "illegal" for a senator to disclose classified material. The Constitution's speech and debate clause trumps federal criminal law, meaning he or she could disclose the material on the floor of the Senate or in committee. (Doing so may not be wise, of course, but it would be legal.) The Supreme Court has ruled on this (Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606) after Senator Mike Gravel read a copy of the classified Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record.
pekk 13y ago
Why do we keep pretending that Thomas Jefferson wanted us to use military force to destroy the Constitution and overthrow democratically elected officials as soon as we were unhappy with politics?

No checks and balances here... at least any that aren't classified and are transparent to the public. A Tyranny, as Thomas Jefferson might refer to it.

by butner 13y ago

No checks and balances here... at least any that aren't classified and are transparent to the public. A Tyranny, as Thomas Jefferson might refer to it.

uvdiv 13y ago

Checks and balances are functioning perfectly. Congress voted for Patriot Act §215, President Bush signed it into law, President Obama and his congress reauthorized it, and the courts did not overturn it. The law has sat on the books, very publicly, for more than a decade, and has offered myriad opportunities for citizens to debate and challenge (an example: [1]). The broader issue of NSA dragnets is probably one of the top 20 political issues in the US, making regular headlines since 2005 (if you include foreign dragnets, 1995 [2] or earlier). Checks and balances aren't broken. This is democracy in action. [1] http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-liberty/reform-patriot-act-section-215 http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy

nullc 13y ago
Which section of the §215 authorizes this activity?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Domenic_S 13y ago
  ACLU explains §215: http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-liberty/reform-patriot-act-section-215 http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology... (note: "§" means "section")
mtgx 13y ago
There's no real oversight, and they are using "secret Courts" and "secret interpretations" even of these obscure and very vague laws.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- _delirium 13y ago
  It isn't really particularly obscure or vague. The Patriot Act authorizes exactly this (and many other things), explicitly and openly.
darkarmani 13y ago
It doesn't sound like "balance" when all three branches are on the same side of the seesaw.
- pekk 13y ago
  "checks and balances" does not mean "the Supreme Court is in a state of perpetual partisan war with the executive," for example.

declan 13y ago

If the checks and balances were functioning, we wouldn't have senators warning in 2011 of the Obama administration's "secret interpretation" of the Patriot Act: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20067005-281.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20067005-281.html Unfortunately the senators were on the Intelligence committee and viewed themselves as unable to disclose what they learned in secret briefings. Now we know at least part of what they were talking about.

brown9-2 13y ago
"viewed themselves as unable to disclose what they learned in secret briefings" That is because it is illegal to disclose classified intelligence, even for a Senator. The reason why these Senators could only warn about things, instead of passing legislation to change the law, is because the majority of Congress supports this type of legislation. The checks and balances are still there - the problem is that the body that passes the law agrees with this type of power.
- _delirium 13y ago
  > the problem is that the body that passes the law agrees with this type of power You can see that in the initial comments on this leak: among the first official comments were both parties' ranking members on the Senate Intelligence Committee — Dianne Feinstein (D) and Saxby Chambliss (R) — defending the program. It's not a surprise to them or something they want to change.
- declan 13y ago
  This is untrue. It is not "illegal" for a senator to disclose classified material. The Constitution's speech and debate clause trumps federal criminal law, meaning he or she could disclose the material on the floor of the Senate or in committee. (Doing so may not be wise, of course, but it would be legal.) The Supreme Court has ruled on this (Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606) after Senator Mike Gravel read a copy of the classified Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record.

pekk 13y ago

Why do we keep pretending that Thomas Jefferson wanted us to use military force to destroy the Constitution and overthrow democratically elected officials as soon as we were unhappy with politics?