8 ms·

Brand also worried that declaring that counterterrorism officials “have been operating this program unlawfully for years” could damage morale and make agencies

by sigil 13y ago

Brand also worried that declaring that counterterrorism officials “have been operating this program unlawfully for years” could damage morale and make agencies overly cautious in taking steps to protect the country. It's great to have another voice speaking up against mass surveillance. Still -- you're telling me these agencies are in all likelihood committing crimes against the American people, but we need to be careful not to hurt their feelings?

dragonwriter 13y ago
> But you're telling me these agencies are committing a crime against the American people, and we need to be careful not to hurt their feelings? Its worse than that: we have to be careful to avoid making them cautious about committing crimes against the American people, the rule of law, and the Constitutional order of government.
gareim 13y ago
Well, it makes sense that she'd say that since she's one of the two that rejected that the program is illegal. I've been reading Tim Weiner's Enemies, a history of the FBI and one thing stuck with me. That was that there was a period of time when the FBI was incredibly useless because of a previous Supreme Court ruling that wiretapping was illegal and then FBI agents all began to misunderstand what they could and couldn't do. That lead to a breakdown in communication and procedure between different offices and several terrorists that could have been caught slipped by. I'm not saying that Brand is right, but there is reason to worry that this could happen again. What needs to be done is a clear declaration of our fundamental rights and a watchdog court that won't let the agencies overstep in their pursuit of justice. The agents have to know their boundaries, we have to know their boundaries, and we have to know that they know their boundaries. The whole FISA court stuff is ridiculous.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  It would be wonderful if all wiretaps were ruled illegal. It would also be wonderful if all law enforcement officers were required to wear uniforms or identify themselves when in the course of their duties.
  - meowface 13y ago
    Just for a purely hypothetical scenario: If the FBI identified an organized crime hitman who killed 20+ people and left no evidence other than making incriminating phone calls, is it wrong for them to place a tap on his phone line once they have probable cause that he is a hitman?
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      Your hypothetical makes no sense. If they have "probable cause" before tapping his phone, that means that the "left no evidence other than incriminating phone calls" must be false.
      - gareim 13y ago
        No, probable cause is not the same thing as evidence. His hypothetical is actually how warrants are supposed to work. Law enforcement have probable cause to suspect someone of being guilty. If they can make a strong argument about why the person is probably guilty, they then get a warrant to search for evidence in homes, phone calls, emails, whatever. His hypothetical literally described the standard for getting a warrant.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > No, probable cause is not the same thing as evidence. Probable cause is based on evidence. > His hypothetical is actually how warrants are supposed to work. No, its not. > Law enforcement have probable cause to suspect someone of being guilty. If they can make a strong argument about why the person is probably guilty, they then get a warrant to search for evidence in homes, phone calls, emails, whatever. And that "strong argument" is based on factual evidence that was either received through mechanism other than search and seizure, was the product of prior search and seizure in conditions that do not require a warrant, or was the product of prior warrant-based searches and seizures. If there was no evidence left other than what was sought in the warrant, there would be no basis for probable cause to support the warrant.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Well, it makes sense that she'd say that since she's one of the two that rejected that the program is illegal. Per the article, what the dissenters appeared to have done is reject the inquiry into legality as beyond the proper scope of the board's review. Its a fine distinction, to be sure, but there's a difference between a 3-2 split with three finding the program illegal and 2 finding it legal and a 3-2 split with 3 finding it illegal and 2 finding "we shouldn't be looking at legality at all".
- angersock 13y ago
  several terrorists that could have been caught slipped by. To what effect? Was it really that big a deal?
  - gareim 13y ago
    It really was. At least once, known al-Qaeda terrorists did a trial run prior to 9/11. And for a month up to the day before 9/11, Agent Samit was desperately trying to stop Moussaoui by getting a warrant to search his laptop, but a breakdown in communication at the FBI let Moussaoui pretty much get away with it. Then we all know what happened 9/11. This really presents an interesting problem, I think. Reading the effect of secret government surveillance from the past century, it's hard to not believe that that surveillance won't be abused. It's been abused in so many other countries and so often in this country (where we hold ourselves in such high regard). At the same time, the power to terrify and commit mass murder has become much easier as technology advances. So what to do?
    - DanBC 13y ago
      I think I would prefer to spend some of that security money on making transport safer or on Mental health programmes or on better energy use or etc etc. All of those things cause far more problems than terrorism has.
      - gareim 13y ago
        Yes, I completely agree with you that security spending can be trimmed if we make it more efficient. And yes, that money definitely should go to public programs that improve on our well-being (less attacks then!). However, I just want to state that we can't completely ignore security either. If bombs are going to go off around us (we cannot make 100% of people non-violent), it's not as if we could stand still and take no action either.
- malandrew 13y ago
  It's not hard to fix this problem without hurting morale. Change the primary thing that they should have morale about from protecting the security of the nation to protecting the values upon which this nation was founded, namely the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Every single agent should know the Constitution back to front, inside and out, and see it as their job to protect it over all other objectives, including catching criminals (imho, we should substitute criminal for terrorist, whenever that person is within the borders of the United States and subject to its laws.). The atmosphere at the agency should be such that any subversion of the Constitution by colleagues and superiors should hurt morale among agency employees. If you catch a criminal, but do so by subverting the Constitution, you should feel shame, not pride. When you have the power the agency has, it is of utmost importance that values be palpable in the air among staff. Power without obligation to something higher like the Constitution and Bill of Rights will always be debased in favor of achieving concrete objectives. If we're worrying about hurting their feelings, we're having the wrong debate.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  I'm not saying that Brand is right, but there is reason to worry that this could happen again There is reason to worry that a great many things could happen again. An increase in the number of Zoloft prescriptions in the greater Washington, DC area is pretty far from the top of my list of concerns.
  - a3n 13y ago
    Morale in this context is not about being happy or depressed. It's more of a technical term. It's about doing your job diligently and effectively. Low morale then would be shirking, dragging your feet, not following through, etc. "Because why bother, they don't like what we do" and then doing nothing, rather than less or different. But, point taken.
codex 13y ago
They're not committing crimes against the American people. Not one American has been found who has been demonstrably harmed by any NSA program. Without harm, there no criminal act. That said, something can be unlawful without being criminal.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- dchichkov 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden
  - ewoodrich 13y ago
    How was Snowden harmed by an NSA program? He's admitted to committing a federal offense and therefore cannot return to the US or countries with an extradition treaty without appearing in federal court. That's pretty "standard" judicial proceedings, no need for NSA powers.
    - dchichkov 13y ago
      If not for NSA program Snowden would very likely still be living happily and productively, with his family, here in the US.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > They're not committing crimes against the American people. Not one American has been found who has been demonstrably harmed by any NSA program. Without harm, there no criminal act. Criminal acts, in general, don't require harm (some specific crimes may involve a harm as a required element, but that is not generally the case -- generally, crimes exist to prevent harm, but that does not mean a harm must be realized for a crime to occur), and, in any case, depriving the American people of the popular sovereignty by exercising the power of government inconsistent with the constraints in which it is granted by the people through the Constitution is, in and of itself, a harm.
Shivetya 13y ago
Well, yes. Think about it. Your doing what your told over and over is good for the country. You really don't understand all the ins and outs but suddenly what you have putting all your effort into is declared criminal by some. If your a mid/low level worker how are you supposed to feel? Brush it off and blame those above you? Hang your head in shame? There certainly are enough people out there; if not posting here; who would excoriate you for not knowing what any one one with a brain should have known/etc/etc
- aragot 13y ago
  This is what happens for all wars after reddition: Suddently all local soldiers who did lawful things can be charged for having done illegal crimes. Humans are responsible for their actions, perhaps in the limit of the constraints they were held under. Blame the US for using the vocabulary "war on terrorism" and the NSA for being a military branch. If power turns over and it is deemed illegal, there can be a mixed between penalty and pardon for those involved until the country heals. The upside is, it's most probably democracy which is winning today.
rayiner 13y ago
Constitutional violations aren't "crimes." E.g. Nobody went to jail for attempting to enforce the unconstitutional election law in citizens united.
- bediger4000 13y ago
  By which "touchstone", "Three-pronged Test" or "Most Holy Doctrine" are we supposed to know this? That is, you just wrote a very lawyerly thing that doesn't translate well to what everybody knows and feels. Mass surveillance is a crime, dude. Somebody needs to be punished to set an example so that civil servants don't overstep their bounds again. Somebody needs to be punished to stop what will certainly turn into an instrument of repression.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    It's not a "very lawyerly thing" nor is there any problem translating to what "everybody knows and feels." People have a pretty intuitive grasp on the idea that the recourse for Constitutional violations is almost always for the government to stop doing whatever was unconstitutional. When Brown v. Board ruled segregated schools unconstitutional, nobody was thrown in jail. When California unconstitutionally suppressed free speech through its violent video games legislation, nobody was thrown in jail. When limitations on the use of birth control were declared unconstitutional, nobody was thrown in jail. The line between constitutional action and unconstitutional action can be quite subtle in ways only lawyers can appreciate, and because of that we don't punish constitutional violations (on their own). And normal people grasp that reality, and the percentage of people who think a crime has been committed that warrants jail time for anyone is a polling margin of error.

by sigil 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> But you're telling me these agencies are committing a crime against the American people, and we need to be careful not to hurt their feelings? Its worse than that: we have to be careful to avoid making them cautious about committing crimes against the American people, the rule of law, and the Constitutional order of government.

gareim 13y ago

Well, it makes sense that she'd say that since she's one of the two that rejected that the program is illegal. I've been reading Tim Weiner's Enemies, a history of the FBI and one thing stuck with me. That was that there was a period of time when the FBI was incredibly useless because of a previous Supreme Court ruling that wiretapping was illegal and then FBI agents all began to misunderstand what they could and couldn't do. That lead to a breakdown in communication and procedure between different offices and several terrorists that could have been caught slipped by. I'm not saying that Brand is right, but there is reason to worry that this could happen again. What needs to be done is a clear declaration of our fundamental rights and a watchdog court that won't let the agencies overstep in their pursuit of justice. The agents have to know their boundaries, we have to know their boundaries, and we have to know that they know their boundaries. The whole FISA court stuff is ridiculous.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
It would be wonderful if all wiretaps were ruled illegal. It would also be wonderful if all law enforcement officers were required to wear uniforms or identify themselves when in the course of their duties.
- meowface 13y ago
  Just for a purely hypothetical scenario: If the FBI identified an organized crime hitman who killed 20+ people and left no evidence other than making incriminating phone calls, is it wrong for them to place a tap on his phone line once they have probable cause that he is a hitman?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    Your hypothetical makes no sense. If they have "probable cause" before tapping his phone, that means that the "left no evidence other than incriminating phone calls" must be false.
    - gareim 13y ago
      No, probable cause is not the same thing as evidence. His hypothetical is actually how warrants are supposed to work. Law enforcement have probable cause to suspect someone of being guilty. If they can make a strong argument about why the person is probably guilty, they then get a warrant to search for evidence in homes, phone calls, emails, whatever. His hypothetical literally described the standard for getting a warrant.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > No, probable cause is not the same thing as evidence. Probable cause is based on evidence. > His hypothetical is actually how warrants are supposed to work. No, its not. > Law enforcement have probable cause to suspect someone of being guilty. If they can make a strong argument about why the person is probably guilty, they then get a warrant to search for evidence in homes, phone calls, emails, whatever. And that "strong argument" is based on factual evidence that was either received through mechanism other than search and seizure, was the product of prior search and seizure in conditions that do not require a warrant, or was the product of prior warrant-based searches and seizures. If there was no evidence left other than what was sought in the warrant, there would be no basis for probable cause to support the warrant.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Well, it makes sense that she'd say that since she's one of the two that rejected that the program is illegal. Per the article, what the dissenters appeared to have done is reject the inquiry into legality as beyond the proper scope of the board's review. Its a fine distinction, to be sure, but there's a difference between a 3-2 split with three finding the program illegal and 2 finding it legal and a 3-2 split with 3 finding it illegal and 2 finding "we shouldn't be looking at legality at all".
angersock 13y ago
several terrorists that could have been caught slipped by. To what effect? Was it really that big a deal?
- gareim 13y ago
  It really was. At least once, known al-Qaeda terrorists did a trial run prior to 9/11. And for a month up to the day before 9/11, Agent Samit was desperately trying to stop Moussaoui by getting a warrant to search his laptop, but a breakdown in communication at the FBI let Moussaoui pretty much get away with it. Then we all know what happened 9/11. This really presents an interesting problem, I think. Reading the effect of secret government surveillance from the past century, it's hard to not believe that that surveillance won't be abused. It's been abused in so many other countries and so often in this country (where we hold ourselves in such high regard). At the same time, the power to terrify and commit mass murder has become much easier as technology advances. So what to do?
  - DanBC 13y ago
    I think I would prefer to spend some of that security money on making transport safer or on Mental health programmes or on better energy use or etc etc. All of those things cause far more problems than terrorism has.
    - gareim 13y ago
      Yes, I completely agree with you that security spending can be trimmed if we make it more efficient. And yes, that money definitely should go to public programs that improve on our well-being (less attacks then!). However, I just want to state that we can't completely ignore security either. If bombs are going to go off around us (we cannot make 100% of people non-violent), it's not as if we could stand still and take no action either.
malandrew 13y ago
It's not hard to fix this problem without hurting morale. Change the primary thing that they should have morale about from protecting the security of the nation to protecting the values upon which this nation was founded, namely the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Every single agent should know the Constitution back to front, inside and out, and see it as their job to protect it over all other objectives, including catching criminals (imho, we should substitute criminal for terrorist, whenever that person is within the borders of the United States and subject to its laws.). The atmosphere at the agency should be such that any subversion of the Constitution by colleagues and superiors should hurt morale among agency employees. If you catch a criminal, but do so by subverting the Constitution, you should feel shame, not pride. When you have the power the agency has, it is of utmost importance that values be palpable in the air among staff. Power without obligation to something higher like the Constitution and Bill of Rights will always be debased in favor of achieving concrete objectives. If we're worrying about hurting their feelings, we're having the wrong debate.
CamperBob2 13y ago
I'm not saying that Brand is right, but there is reason to worry that this could happen again There is reason to worry that a great many things could happen again. An increase in the number of Zoloft prescriptions in the greater Washington, DC area is pretty far from the top of my list of concerns.
- a3n 13y ago
  Morale in this context is not about being happy or depressed. It's more of a technical term. It's about doing your job diligently and effectively. Low morale then would be shirking, dragging your feet, not following through, etc. "Because why bother, they don't like what we do" and then doing nothing, rather than less or different. But, point taken.

codex 13y ago

They're not committing crimes against the American people. Not one American has been found who has been demonstrably harmed by any NSA program. Without harm, there no criminal act. That said, something can be unlawful without being criminal.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dchichkov 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden
- ewoodrich 13y ago
  How was Snowden harmed by an NSA program? He's admitted to committing a federal offense and therefore cannot return to the US or countries with an extradition treaty without appearing in federal court. That's pretty "standard" judicial proceedings, no need for NSA powers.
  - dchichkov 13y ago
    If not for NSA program Snowden would very likely still be living happily and productively, with his family, here in the US.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> They're not committing crimes against the American people. Not one American has been found who has been demonstrably harmed by any NSA program. Without harm, there no criminal act. Criminal acts, in general, don't require harm (some specific crimes may involve a harm as a required element, but that is not generally the case -- generally, crimes exist to prevent harm, but that does not mean a harm must be realized for a crime to occur), and, in any case, depriving the American people of the popular sovereignty by exercising the power of government inconsistent with the constraints in which it is granted by the people through the Constitution is, in and of itself, a harm.

Shivetya 13y ago

Well, yes. Think about it. Your doing what your told over and over is good for the country. You really don't understand all the ins and outs but suddenly what you have putting all your effort into is declared criminal by some. If your a mid/low level worker how are you supposed to feel? Brush it off and blame those above you? Hang your head in shame? There certainly are enough people out there; if not posting here; who would excoriate you for not knowing what any one one with a brain should have known/etc/etc

aragot 13y ago
This is what happens for all wars after reddition: Suddently all local soldiers who did lawful things can be charged for having done illegal crimes. Humans are responsible for their actions, perhaps in the limit of the constraints they were held under. Blame the US for using the vocabulary "war on terrorism" and the NSA for being a military branch. If power turns over and it is deemed illegal, there can be a mixed between penalty and pardon for those involved until the country heals. The upside is, it's most probably democracy which is winning today.

rayiner 13y ago

Constitutional violations aren't "crimes." E.g. Nobody went to jail for attempting to enforce the unconstitutional election law in citizens united.

bediger4000 13y ago
By which "touchstone", "Three-pronged Test" or "Most Holy Doctrine" are we supposed to know this? That is, you just wrote a very lawyerly thing that doesn't translate well to what everybody knows and feels. Mass surveillance is a crime, dude. Somebody needs to be punished to set an example so that civil servants don't overstep their bounds again. Somebody needs to be punished to stop what will certainly turn into an instrument of repression.
- rayiner 13y ago
  It's not a "very lawyerly thing" nor is there any problem translating to what "everybody knows and feels." People have a pretty intuitive grasp on the idea that the recourse for Constitutional violations is almost always for the government to stop doing whatever was unconstitutional. When Brown v. Board ruled segregated schools unconstitutional, nobody was thrown in jail. When California unconstitutionally suppressed free speech through its violent video games legislation, nobody was thrown in jail. When limitations on the use of birth control were declared unconstitutional, nobody was thrown in jail. The line between constitutional action and unconstitutional action can be quite subtle in ways only lawyers can appreciate, and because of that we don't punish constitutional violations (on their own). And normal people grasp that reality, and the percentage of people who think a crime has been committed that warrants jail time for anyone is a polling margin of error.