7 ms·

Honestly, the idea that the NSA is going to go after senators and congressmen for doing their jobs with broad popular support is just a pure and obvious bluff.

Honestly, the idea that the NSA is going to go after senators and congressmen for doing their jobs with broad popular support is just a pure and obvious bluff. This would just increase the intensity of the controversy and spotlight, which is clearly the last thing the NSA and the Obama administration want right now. These folks need to suck it up and go out on just a bit of a limb for the sake of our democracy. That is the oath they took and they bear much of the responsibility for allowing things to reach this point in the first place. If a 29 year old can risk his life and give up any chance of seeing home again to do the right thing, these supposed representatives of our interests can take a much, much smaller risk and do the same.

future_grad 13y ago
> is just a pure and obvious bluff. Provide proof?
sb057 13y ago
Well, the NSA allegedly wiretapped Obama when he was running for senator. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama_n_3473538.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama...
ihsw 13y ago
And what are we to do when their bluffs are revealed to be truthful, and the NSA's sway over all levels of government to be absolute? What if we were to learn that the Constitution is simply a feeble veneer meant to conceal the fact that there is certain legislation we're powerless to exert pressure over? What happens when the sea of democracy recedes and all that's left are naked, stinking husks that were once called "congressional oversight" and "judicial oversight"? My comment may the height of hyperbole and scaremongering, but it's difficult to ignore the opportunity to express myself in such a colorful manner.
- ohyes 13y ago
  Vote the bums out and defund the NSA. It's clear no one on the intelligence committee has been doing their job, so let's start there. http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html http://intelligence.house.gov/about/hpsci-majority-members http://intelligence.house.gov/about/hpsci-majority-members
  - arh68 13y ago
    Even Udall & Wyden? I understand the clean-house sentiment, but do you deny them credit?
  - ganeumann 13y ago
    I'm curious how Californians feel about Dianne Feinstein (Chair of the intelligence committee.) I'm not in CA; do people there plan to vote her back in when she's up for reelection or has the NSA scandal hurt her?
    - fsckin 13y ago
      She effectively has a lifelong term.
      - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
        I don't buy it. Obviously a Republican is not going to beat her in California, but someone with enough money and popular support could primary her. And you don't even have to win -- just force her to stop being complacent and change her outrageous positions in order to mitigate the risk of losing.
        anigbrowl 13y ago
        A primary challenge is unlikely, since the person's career within the Democratic party would come to a swift end. Schwarznegger could possibly have beaten her, but a) he had a sleazy sex scandal and b) CA Republicans seem to dislike him even more than democrats because he has the temerity to take things like global warming seriously.
        AnthonyMouse 13y ago
        >A primary challenge is unlikely, since the person's career within the Democratic party would come to a swift end. Not if they win. And I don't see why you need a party insider in any event. What you need is someone who can fund their own primary campaign, or who can get enough donations from real people to do it, i.e. someone who is famous or rich or both. >Schwarznegger could possibly have beaten her, but a) he had a sleazy sex scandal and b) CA Republicans seem to dislike him even more than democrats because he has the temerity to take things like global warming seriously. Schwarzenneger could possibly have beaten her because he's rich and famous, but he's not the only one with those characteristics.
- hga 13y ago
  "What happens when the sea of democracy recedes...." We become very glad that, outside of the fortunately rare hellholes of NYC and D.C., and to a lessor extent Massachusetts and New Jersey, we've retained the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Puts a ceiling on the tyranny the state can exercise, and any attempt to confiscate the people's arms is a clear signal to turn our cold civil war into a hot one. ADDED: various formulations list the following "boxes", soap box, ballot box, jury box, and bullet box. We still retain the other 3 even if the ballot box becomes an effective nullity, and in our Federal system it won't likely be so at the state level. Much can be done in our system there, including calling a constitutional convention and ratifying new amendments to the Constitution. Which is essentially what happened the last time we had a impossible central government.
  - omgsean 13y ago
    Good luck with that. There are basically two scenarios here to consider in a popular violent revolution: 1) The army sides with the people. In this case, the right to keep and bear arms is basically irrelevant as you have the backing of the world's most powerful army. 2) The army sides with the government. In this case, even the militia types with huge munitions caches don't stand a chance against the world's most powerful army. This is not 1776, it wouldn't be musket vs. musket.
    - hga 13y ago
      "Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics."
    - jivatmanx 13y ago
      False dichotomy, it's not likely that every single regiment of every single branch of the armed forces and police are all going to choose a single side.
      - hga 13y ago
        One thing that's quite unusual about our system is that policing power is smeared across the local, state and Federal levels, with the vast majority of it at the first. This imposes massive constraints on a would be Federal level tyranny.
dreamfactory 13y ago
You can 'go after' in any number of non-public ways.
a3n 13y ago
I think the danger that members of Congress would be concerned with at the moment is being sanctioned by Congress itself. If you lose your collegial relationship with Congress then it's probably difficult to get your bills and amendments heard, and campaign funds from the general party coffers and specific itelligence lobbyists probably dry up too. They're worried about incumbency. Blatant, open direct manipulation and punishment by the NSA is probably not here yet. Probably soon.

future_grad 13y ago

> is just a pure and obvious bluff. Provide proof?

sb057 13y ago

Well, the NSA allegedly wiretapped Obama when he was running for senator. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama_n_3473538.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama...

ihsw 13y ago

And what are we to do when their bluffs are revealed to be truthful, and the NSA's sway over all levels of government to be absolute? What if we were to learn that the Constitution is simply a feeble veneer meant to conceal the fact that there is certain legislation we're powerless to exert pressure over? What happens when the sea of democracy recedes and all that's left are naked, stinking husks that were once called "congressional oversight" and "judicial oversight"? My comment may the height of hyperbole and scaremongering, but it's difficult to ignore the opportunity to express myself in such a colorful manner.

ohyes 13y ago
Vote the bums out and defund the NSA. It's clear no one on the intelligence committee has been doing their job, so let's start there. http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html http://intelligence.house.gov/about/hpsci-majority-members http://intelligence.house.gov/about/hpsci-majority-members
- arh68 13y ago
  Even Udall & Wyden? I understand the clean-house sentiment, but do you deny them credit?
- ganeumann 13y ago
  I'm curious how Californians feel about Dianne Feinstein (Chair of the intelligence committee.) I'm not in CA; do people there plan to vote her back in when she's up for reelection or has the NSA scandal hurt her?
  - fsckin 13y ago
    She effectively has a lifelong term.
    - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
      I don't buy it. Obviously a Republican is not going to beat her in California, but someone with enough money and popular support could primary her. And you don't even have to win -- just force her to stop being complacent and change her outrageous positions in order to mitigate the risk of losing.
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
        A primary challenge is unlikely, since the person's career within the Democratic party would come to a swift end. Schwarznegger could possibly have beaten her, but a) he had a sleazy sex scandal and b) CA Republicans seem to dislike him even more than democrats because he has the temerity to take things like global warming seriously.
        AnthonyMouse 13y ago
        >A primary challenge is unlikely, since the person's career within the Democratic party would come to a swift end. Not if they win. And I don't see why you need a party insider in any event. What you need is someone who can fund their own primary campaign, or who can get enough donations from real people to do it, i.e. someone who is famous or rich or both. >Schwarznegger could possibly have beaten her, but a) he had a sleazy sex scandal and b) CA Republicans seem to dislike him even more than democrats because he has the temerity to take things like global warming seriously. Schwarzenneger could possibly have beaten her because he's rich and famous, but he's not the only one with those characteristics.
hga 13y ago
"What happens when the sea of democracy recedes...." We become very glad that, outside of the fortunately rare hellholes of NYC and D.C., and to a lessor extent Massachusetts and New Jersey, we've retained the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Puts a ceiling on the tyranny the state can exercise, and any attempt to confiscate the people's arms is a clear signal to turn our cold civil war into a hot one. ADDED: various formulations list the following "boxes", soap box, ballot box, jury box, and bullet box. We still retain the other 3 even if the ballot box becomes an effective nullity, and in our Federal system it won't likely be so at the state level. Much can be done in our system there, including calling a constitutional convention and ratifying new amendments to the Constitution. Which is essentially what happened the last time we had a impossible central government.
- omgsean 13y ago
  Good luck with that. There are basically two scenarios here to consider in a popular violent revolution: 1) The army sides with the people. In this case, the right to keep and bear arms is basically irrelevant as you have the backing of the world's most powerful army. 2) The army sides with the government. In this case, even the militia types with huge munitions caches don't stand a chance against the world's most powerful army. This is not 1776, it wouldn't be musket vs. musket.
  - hga 13y ago
    "Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics."
  - jivatmanx 13y ago
    False dichotomy, it's not likely that every single regiment of every single branch of the armed forces and police are all going to choose a single side.
    - hga 13y ago
      One thing that's quite unusual about our system is that policing power is smeared across the local, state and Federal levels, with the vast majority of it at the first. This imposes massive constraints on a would be Federal level tyranny.

dreamfactory 13y ago

You can 'go after' in any number of non-public ways.

a3n 13y ago

I think the danger that members of Congress would be concerned with at the moment is being sanctioned by Congress itself. If you lose your collegial relationship with Congress then it's probably difficult to get your bills and amendments heard, and campaign funds from the general party coffers and specific itelligence lobbyists probably dry up too. They're worried about incumbency. Blatant, open direct manipulation and punishment by the NSA is probably not here yet. Probably soon.