3 ms·

Or an asteroid could hit the earth, destroying all of us, including Robers' Constitutional powers. If your argument is that Klein is wrong because the very rul

by crusso 13y ago

Or an asteroid could hit the earth, destroying all of us, including Robers' Constitutional powers. If your argument is that Klein is wrong because the very rules of the game could be changed by congress, then we have to consider the likelihood of such an event, probably based upon history. Has Congress intervened since the court was set up? Are they likely to? Could we just agree within the current rules of the game specified by Congress, Klein is correct?

tptacek 13y ago
I don't understand this comment. Congress set up the FISC to begin with, the last time signals intelligence was a national issue. What prevents it from revisiting that now? No, we cannot agree that Klein is correct. The gist of what he's saying is as wrong as the lede of his article.
- crusso 13y ago
  What prevents it from revisiting that now? 1. They have a great deal of trouble doing anything right now. This will blow over before that changes. 2. This is pretty much a solved problem as far as they're concerned. Congress tends to tack "solutions" on top of "solutions". They rarely refactor. gist of what he's saying is as wrong Unless Congress changes things, what he said is exactly correct. Within that context, he's right. Maybe you're arguing that he has the wrong context, but I'd argue that we should probably assume that congress isn't going to change those particular rules of the game at this point.
  - jivatmanx 13y ago
    >2. This is pretty much a solved problem as far as they're concerned. Congress tends to tack "solutions" on top of "solutions". They rarely refactor. Lack of simplicity in law is a serious problem, but not the main one, at least in this case. The problem is that laws increase the arbitrary powers of government, and rarely if every restrict them. In most cases, such as the patriot act, they will simply find that vaguest provision and interpret it in the broadest way possible, And, in this case, that interpretation is also secret. The rest of the text is basically filler.

by crusso 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

I don't understand this comment. Congress set up the FISC to begin with, the last time signals intelligence was a national issue. What prevents it from revisiting that now? No, we cannot agree that Klein is correct. The gist of what he's saying is as wrong as the lede of his article.

crusso 13y ago
What prevents it from revisiting that now? 1. They have a great deal of trouble doing anything right now. This will blow over before that changes. 2. This is pretty much a solved problem as far as they're concerned. Congress tends to tack "solutions" on top of "solutions". They rarely refactor. gist of what he's saying is as wrong Unless Congress changes things, what he said is exactly correct. Within that context, he's right. Maybe you're arguing that he has the wrong context, but I'd argue that we should probably assume that congress isn't going to change those particular rules of the game at this point.
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  >2. This is pretty much a solved problem as far as they're concerned. Congress tends to tack "solutions" on top of "solutions". They rarely refactor. Lack of simplicity in law is a serious problem, but not the main one, at least in this case. The problem is that laws increase the arbitrary powers of government, and rarely if every restrict them. In most cases, such as the patriot act, they will simply find that vaguest provision and interpret it in the broadest way possible, And, in this case, that interpretation is also secret. The rest of the text is basically filler.