5 ms·

Being held accountable is irrelevant. If what people want is someone to be accountable, people will get scapegoats. The key difference would be that when acts

Being held accountable is irrelevant. If what people want is someone to be accountable, people will get scapegoats. The key difference would be that when acts happen that defy the needs and expectations of society that those actions end. If Keith Alexander was blamed for acting without authorization and imprisoned for treason and then NSA operations went quietly on their way again, that wouldn't necessarily mean anything. If on the other hand, there was no punishment doled out, but instead any apology was given out and the PRISM program and similar were dismantled, and a new intelligence system were built in its place with support and approval from the public. Maybe something with proper auditable checks and balances, something with less risk to the public. If that was the case, even if nobody was punished, the situation would improve. Calling for punishment or vengeance will satisfy emotions. It doesn't do anything to change the status quo. I'm not in the US, but if I were, I wouldn't be calling for the President to be held accountable, or anyone else. I would be calling for change of the laws and processes that I felt were violating my rights. I think this is especially true in a system as complex as government. There is no one person truly responsible for these systems. So to focus on punishing a person is meaningless. People can be forced to do things despite the potential punishment. People can have decisions made by more powerful people attributed to them. In the end though, it is more important that bad behavior stops than it is that we exact retribution on some person for it happening. If the latter happens without the former, it's worse than meaningless.

wonderyak 13y ago
Many of us are calling for changes, many people thought electing Obama would facilitate this change. I think these people are the most upset of all; the man ran on a campaign of change ... There is a general concensus among people across the political parties that things are broken. Congress is not good, the President is not doing a good job and problems are mounting. The majority realizes that the system is broken (ish), things are bad, the government should be doing something about it instead of prolonging the status quo -- and yet we can't get any meaningful change going. I just don't understand it.
- mpyne 13y ago
  The election of Obama did facilitate a lot of change within NSA. It simply wasn't the type of change you all thought it would be, but it is an improvement in most respects compared to 2007's DoJ and DoD.
  - rdl 13y ago
    How so? At most he required they get explicit legislative authorization, which they did, rather than potentially being more easily struck down by the courts. Pretty much continued doing the same things as far as I can tell.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      A significant paring down of the "watch lists" used by NSA (and TSA too, it seems), the revocation of the previous definition of 'torture', scrapping some of the surveillance programs of no useful intelligence value, stuff like that. Certainly there is more that can be done, but I think if this whole affair is indicative of the reaction to be expected then I'm not surprised people avoided making oversight of these programs a loud and noisy public debate.
      - rdl 13y ago
        Ah. Those are things meaningful to those suffering directly but not to those designing security systems, which is what particularly concerns me. I still think a Gingrich or Tea Party level congressional revolution in 2014, bipartisan, focused on "re-establishing effective oversight of the military/intelligence apparatus", should have reasonable odds of going through. There are enough districts which don't financially benefit from this (and a lot which are going to be hurt by it, like Silicon Valley and Redmond), that a number of junior congressmen could probably get elected on it (assuming they're not otherwise psycho).
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
- oscargrouch 13y ago
jjh42 13y ago
I agree that it is important to reform the system, not just scapegoating. However, I think you minimize the importance of holding individuals accountable and the effect that has on the system. For example, suppose Clapper is imprisoned for 6 months and looses his job for contempt of congress (he is the one who falsely told congress that the NSA was not spying on millions of Americans). I imagine it will be awhile before the next NSA leader decides to tell congress a porkie. Done properly, individual accountability has a systemic effect.

wonderyak 13y ago

Many of us are calling for changes, many people thought electing Obama would facilitate this change. I think these people are the most upset of all; the man ran on a campaign of change ... There is a general concensus among people across the political parties that things are broken. Congress is not good, the President is not doing a good job and problems are mounting. The majority realizes that the system is broken (ish), things are bad, the government should be doing something about it instead of prolonging the status quo -- and yet we can't get any meaningful change going. I just don't understand it.

mpyne 13y ago
The election of Obama did facilitate a lot of change within NSA. It simply wasn't the type of change you all thought it would be, but it is an improvement in most respects compared to 2007's DoJ and DoD.
- rdl 13y ago
  How so? At most he required they get explicit legislative authorization, which they did, rather than potentially being more easily struck down by the courts. Pretty much continued doing the same things as far as I can tell.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    A significant paring down of the "watch lists" used by NSA (and TSA too, it seems), the revocation of the previous definition of 'torture', scrapping some of the surveillance programs of no useful intelligence value, stuff like that. Certainly there is more that can be done, but I think if this whole affair is indicative of the reaction to be expected then I'm not surprised people avoided making oversight of these programs a loud and noisy public debate.
    - rdl 13y ago
      Ah. Those are things meaningful to those suffering directly but not to those designing security systems, which is what particularly concerns me. I still think a Gingrich or Tea Party level congressional revolution in 2014, bipartisan, focused on "re-establishing effective oversight of the military/intelligence apparatus", should have reasonable odds of going through. There are enough districts which don't financially benefit from this (and a lot which are going to be hurt by it, like Silicon Valley and Redmond), that a number of junior congressmen could probably get elected on it (assuming they're not otherwise psycho).
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
oscargrouch 13y ago

jjh42 13y ago

I agree that it is important to reform the system, not just scapegoating. However, I think you minimize the importance of holding individuals accountable and the effect that has on the system. For example, suppose Clapper is imprisoned for 6 months and looses his job for contempt of congress (he is the one who falsely told congress that the NSA was not spying on millions of Americans). I imagine it will be awhile before the next NSA leader decides to tell congress a porkie. Done properly, individual accountability has a systemic effect.