5 ms·

"identify, remove from office and bring to justice those officials who have abused power" This, here, is the crux of the matter. Drag into the light the parasi

"identify, remove from office and bring to justice those officials who have abused power" This, here, is the crux of the matter. Drag into the light the parasites that consume the living flesh of this society.

igravious 13y ago
"Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." Could this be a website/forum? Wherein we compile the evidence on the people in abstentia because the regular system aint doing it. I'm not saying mob rule. I'm just kind of saying let's identify the really bad apples and kind of do what Groklaw did for IBM v. SCO - except this would be global citizen's privacy expectations versus spooks. Edit: or this: http://www.securityweek.com/19-groups-sue-nsa-over-data-collection http://www.securityweek.com/19-groups-sue-nsa-over-data-coll... (But it needs to be global - as in, massive and mass surveillance by any state or non-state actor though now feasibly possibly must be well outside international norms and laws)
SolarNet 13y ago
I hope people, and indeed the senator, realizes that the people he is talking about are senators and congressmen, not the president who did his duty and executed the 20 million dollar PRISM budget forced on him by congress.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Huh? There's no law or budget that requires PRISM. Any of these programs could be shut down with one phone call from the Oval Office, and Congress couldn't say boo. That's sort of the reason they're Constitutional in the first place: The executive has broad national security powers.
  - SolarNet 13y ago
    Not since nixon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974#Impoundment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoun... Also, he must execute the law faithfully, if the Congress gives him the power to use secret courts to wire-tap people he is expected to use it to it's fullest extent, to do otherwise would be illegal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Caring_for_the_faithful_execution_of_the_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_State... PRISM is the president faithfully executing the laws set by congress, between the 8 billion dollar NSA budget and the Patriot Act, they are responsible.
    - declan 13y ago
      Um, the above is the Sunday School version of U.S. politics. In reality, the executive has a tremendous amount of discretion. Just look at the Obama admin unilaterally extending an Obamacare deadline that was set by Congress -- and which did not give the executive branch the ability to alter. Didn't matter. It's true that Congress is also responsible for NSA domestic surveillance. But every branch of government has a duty to ensure their conduct is constitutional.
      - SolarNet 13y ago
        First, where is your evidence of this opinion, I provided links to two sources describing the modern state of Executive powers and you basically call me naive without specifically refuting my evidence or points. Second, the ACA (AKA Obamacare) does not specify specific deadlines except when reports to congress must be made. I googled for the deadline extension you were referring too, there were many, so please be more specific. Here is the text of the bill to read it for yourself (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text). In general it says the the secretary of HHS shall set deadlines as reasonable, and hence giving the Administration the power to change their own deadline. Third, I generally base my opinion off of personal anecdote since I have a family member serving as an elected politician in an executive office. Their job requires them to execute laws very specifically, often requiring them to consult lawyers regularly (even though they are a lawyer!). Laws can be tricky, and while I am not knowledgeable of government law I would be willing to bet the President is basically required to use section 702 of FISA whenever he can in regards to terrorism. But then again, my personal anecdote is from a county position. Finally, it isn't a question of constitutionality. Congress said it was legal, therefore it's legal until the supreme court (or a lesser court that doesn't get appealed) says it is unconstitutional. I agree that the law is unconstitutional, but the executive branch does not get the luxury to exercise their opinions on laws like that.

igravious 13y ago

"Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." Could this be a website/forum? Wherein we compile the evidence on the people in abstentia because the regular system aint doing it. I'm not saying mob rule. I'm just kind of saying let's identify the really bad apples and kind of do what Groklaw did for IBM v. SCO - except this would be global citizen's privacy expectations versus spooks. Edit: or this: http://www.securityweek.com/19-groups-sue-nsa-over-data-collection http://www.securityweek.com/19-groups-sue-nsa-over-data-coll... (But it needs to be global - as in, massive and mass surveillance by any state or non-state actor though now feasibly possibly must be well outside international norms and laws)

SolarNet 13y ago

I hope people, and indeed the senator, realizes that the people he is talking about are senators and congressmen, not the president who did his duty and executed the 20 million dollar PRISM budget forced on him by congress.

twoodfin 13y ago
Huh? There's no law or budget that requires PRISM. Any of these programs could be shut down with one phone call from the Oval Office, and Congress couldn't say boo. That's sort of the reason they're Constitutional in the first place: The executive has broad national security powers.
- SolarNet 13y ago
  Not since nixon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974#Impoundment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoun... Also, he must execute the law faithfully, if the Congress gives him the power to use secret courts to wire-tap people he is expected to use it to it's fullest extent, to do otherwise would be illegal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Caring_for_the_faithful_execution_of_the_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_State... PRISM is the president faithfully executing the laws set by congress, between the 8 billion dollar NSA budget and the Patriot Act, they are responsible.
  - declan 13y ago
    Um, the above is the Sunday School version of U.S. politics. In reality, the executive has a tremendous amount of discretion. Just look at the Obama admin unilaterally extending an Obamacare deadline that was set by Congress -- and which did not give the executive branch the ability to alter. Didn't matter. It's true that Congress is also responsible for NSA domestic surveillance. But every branch of government has a duty to ensure their conduct is constitutional.
    - SolarNet 13y ago
      First, where is your evidence of this opinion, I provided links to two sources describing the modern state of Executive powers and you basically call me naive without specifically refuting my evidence or points. Second, the ACA (AKA Obamacare) does not specify specific deadlines except when reports to congress must be made. I googled for the deadline extension you were referring too, there were many, so please be more specific. Here is the text of the bill to read it for yourself (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text). In general it says the the secretary of HHS shall set deadlines as reasonable, and hence giving the Administration the power to change their own deadline. Third, I generally base my opinion off of personal anecdote since I have a family member serving as an elected politician in an executive office. Their job requires them to execute laws very specifically, often requiring them to consult lawyers regularly (even though they are a lawyer!). Laws can be tricky, and while I am not knowledgeable of government law I would be willing to bet the President is basically required to use section 702 of FISA whenever he can in regards to terrorism. But then again, my personal anecdote is from a county position. Finally, it isn't a question of constitutionality. Congress said it was legal, therefore it's legal until the supreme court (or a lesser court that doesn't get appealed) says it is unconstitutional. I agree that the law is unconstitutional, but the executive branch does not get the luxury to exercise their opinions on laws like that.