5 ms·

I think you're focusing on the wrong thing. It doesn't really matter if it's legal or constitutional, because if it's not then they'll change the laws or reinte

by bhayden 12y ago

I think you're focusing on the wrong thing. It doesn't really matter if it's legal or constitutional, because if it's not then they'll change the laws or reinterpret them in a new way or write a new Patriot Act. What we should focus on is whether a government should be allowed to operate in secrecy, without any public oversight or knowledge, and whether the government can be morally justified in surveilling citizens without probable cause.

judemelancon 12y ago
It matters to me, at least, that the law be followed as written. Rule by whim and secret dictate does not seem like a good system of government.
- bhayden 12y ago
  It matters to me too, but it's not the root of the problem.
- EGreg 12y ago
  What if the law says that secret courts can decide using secret proceedings?
  - ethbro 12y ago
    > What if the law says that secret courts can decide using secret proceedings? Then at least it's on the books as a choice our society has made. OP's issue is there's currently no clear legal chain of certain programs back to a democratic decision.
    - EGreg 12y ago
      The FISA courts have been authorized by an Act of Congress. That's what the checks and balances are for, though, and the courts can overturn it. I wonder if the system will stand uo though. The addiction to bigbdata is strong once tasted, and spy agencies actually enjoy getting away with stuff.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - drzaiusapelord 12y ago
      >Then at least it's on the books as a choice our society has made. A handful of elites handing responsibility to a handful of FISA judges in closed/secret court is far, far a choice "society" has made. From the norms and practices of the USG, I imagine almost everything the NSA does is perfectly legal. SCOTUS will respect the Executive in terms of its state secrets argument and Congress's leadership in handing responsibility to managing these things to FISA will also be deemed lawful.
arca_vorago 12y ago
"What we should focus on is whether a government should be allowed to operate in secrecy, without any public oversight or knowledge, and whether the government can be morally justified in surveilling citizens without probable cause." Actually, it is the problem for precisely that reason. What it boils down to is the Rule of Law. If the people at the top can do anything they want and never face any sort of prosecution, it not only sets precedent for the rest of the big wigs to act the same way (banking crisis anyone?) but it also reveals the farce in a more public way than has been true in the past. The rule of law has never been perfect, and certainly so in America, but I feel like before the internet only the most egregious violations came to light, whereas now the farcical nature of the system is being revealed across the board. When there is an undermining of the rule of law, people will begin to completely disrespect it, and society will actually become more lawless (in the sense that people break laws willingly). This is beyond the three felonies a day rhetoric. I think the inner city is a perfect microcosm of this. Clapper lied to congress bluntly. He should be facing prosecution. Why isn't he? Because DOJ or whatever DA doesn't have the balls. Why don't they have the balls? Good ol boy system? Corruption? Blackmail? (you know NSA has the dirt on the entire SCOTUS and DOJ) Take your pick, the point is that the branches of government are compromised. (including the fourth estate). If you want things to change, the very first thing that we need to do is prosecute and jail those who are undermining the Constitution and doing so in blatantly illegal ways. Without justice there can be no peace.
- bhayden 12y ago
  Really the problem is the people we are electing. The voting public has the effectiveness of their vote diminished by a forced two party system and lack of campaign reform. We also have a large voting base that are single issue voters and don't care about anything except a single social issue like reproductive rights or marriage equality. Getting the right people in office would solve this problem but Americans aren't informed or interested enough to make this happen.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by bhayden 12y ago

judemelancon 12y ago

It matters to me, at least, that the law be followed as written. Rule by whim and secret dictate does not seem like a good system of government.

bhayden 12y ago
It matters to me too, but it's not the root of the problem.
EGreg 12y ago
What if the law says that secret courts can decide using secret proceedings?
- ethbro 12y ago
  > What if the law says that secret courts can decide using secret proceedings? Then at least it's on the books as a choice our society has made. OP's issue is there's currently no clear legal chain of certain programs back to a democratic decision.
  - EGreg 12y ago
    The FISA courts have been authorized by an Act of Congress. That's what the checks and balances are for, though, and the courts can overturn it. I wonder if the system will stand uo though. The addiction to bigbdata is strong once tasted, and spy agencies actually enjoy getting away with stuff.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - drzaiusapelord 12y ago
    >Then at least it's on the books as a choice our society has made. A handful of elites handing responsibility to a handful of FISA judges in closed/secret court is far, far a choice "society" has made. From the norms and practices of the USG, I imagine almost everything the NSA does is perfectly legal. SCOTUS will respect the Executive in terms of its state secrets argument and Congress's leadership in handing responsibility to managing these things to FISA will also be deemed lawful.

arca_vorago 12y ago

"What we should focus on is whether a government should be allowed to operate in secrecy, without any public oversight or knowledge, and whether the government can be morally justified in surveilling citizens without probable cause." Actually, it is the problem for precisely that reason. What it boils down to is the Rule of Law. If the people at the top can do anything they want and never face any sort of prosecution, it not only sets precedent for the rest of the big wigs to act the same way (banking crisis anyone?) but it also reveals the farce in a more public way than has been true in the past. The rule of law has never been perfect, and certainly so in America, but I feel like before the internet only the most egregious violations came to light, whereas now the farcical nature of the system is being revealed across the board. When there is an undermining of the rule of law, people will begin to completely disrespect it, and society will actually become more lawless (in the sense that people break laws willingly). This is beyond the three felonies a day rhetoric. I think the inner city is a perfect microcosm of this. Clapper lied to congress bluntly. He should be facing prosecution. Why isn't he? Because DOJ or whatever DA doesn't have the balls. Why don't they have the balls? Good ol boy system? Corruption? Blackmail? (you know NSA has the dirt on the entire SCOTUS and DOJ) Take your pick, the point is that the branches of government are compromised. (including the fourth estate). If you want things to change, the very first thing that we need to do is prosecute and jail those who are undermining the Constitution and doing so in blatantly illegal ways. Without justice there can be no peace.

bhayden 12y ago
Really the problem is the people we are electing. The voting public has the effectiveness of their vote diminished by a forced two party system and lack of campaign reform. We also have a large voting base that are single issue voters and don't care about anything except a single social issue like reproductive rights or marriage equality. Getting the right people in office would solve this problem but Americans aren't informed or interested enough to make this happen.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]