3 ms·

If the state wants it to be so, it will be legal. The holocaust was legal. Segregation was legal. Stop mentioning legality of the NSA spying; the government wri

If the state wants it to be so, it will be legal. The holocaust was legal. Segregation was legal. Stop mentioning legality of the NSA spying; the government writes the laws for their own benefit, of course what they do is legal. Legality of government actions is utterly, brutally, critically, inhospitably irrelevant when compared to what is ethical. A dragnet isn't ethical. A police state isn't ethical. Furthermore, there wasn't ever a public debate over whether people wanted the dragnet or not-- it was done in secret, then exposed, then legalized after it was exposed to the public, regardless of any public comment for or against it. As far as "political problems" go, I'd say we all should have major political problems with the government of the US, which hasn't thought twice about breaking all of its own "rules" about the privacy, civil, or human rights of citizens.

rhino369 12y ago
I agree morality and legality aren't the same thing. But we cannot have a personal morality exception to classified materials. I'm sure many people who work for the Department of Defense think the Iranian Nuclear deal is wrong. Should they be able to leak a bunch of classified information to sour it? I'm sure they'd believe making peace with, in their minds, genocidal maniacs with nukes is completely immoral. >Furthermore, there wasn't ever a public debate over whether people wanted the dragnet or not-- it was done in secret, then exposed, then legalized after it was exposed to the public, regardless of any public comment for or against it. Were you born the day before Snowden leaked? We've been having §215 arguments since the day the Patriot Act passed. It's been debated in Congress every time the Patriot Act comes up for re-approval. Congress has a large debate about FISA and warrent-less wiretaps every year from 2006-2008, with amendments to the FISA act ever time. Congress is a manifestation of the will of the people on the United States. You might be pissed off about what they do on our behalf but we elect them. You may think it was moral to leak, but that isn't germane.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  > Were you born the day before Snowden leaked? We've been having §215 arguments since the day the Patriot Act passed. It's been debated in Congress every time the Patriot Act comes up for re-approval. Congress is a manifestation of the will of the people on the United States. You might be pissed off about what they do on our behalf but we elect them. The Snowden leaks made it clear that statements given to Congress by James Clapper were false. If we want Congress to act on our behalf, they must be able to regulate these agencies. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/james-clappers-testimony-one-year-later/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/...
- cryoshon 12y ago
  We can, should, do, and must continue to have a strong and overriding sense of personal morality when dealing with government-- "just following orders" is not, has not, should not, and will never be an acceptable response to government wrongdoing as committed by the people who make up the organs of the government. Without Snowden, Ellsberg, Drake, Binney, Manning, and the other leakers, we would still be completely and utterly in the dark about most of the malicious things our government is doing. It is solely by these people's sense of moral agency that the wrongdoings came to light! If we left it up to the government to regulate itself within the rules, we would absolutely never have any kind of citizens oversight specifically because they make their own set of rules, and those rules include keeping us in the dark for the purposes of making things run smoother. As far as claiming there was some kind of debate over the dragnet-- no, some representatives quibbling about the wording from time to time does not count as citizen oversight. The representatives didn't even know how deep the NSA rabbit hole went. They didn't even understand the interpretations of the Patriot act that were being used to justify the spying. They were almost as clueless as we were. So no, there was no debate, no oversight, no way for the citizenry to say "stop" before the fact, and so far, no listening to their cries after the fact. You may bring up the FISA and warrantless wiretaps, but it's kind of a stupid thing to say: the FISA court is a rubber stamp body, approving well in excess of 95% of requests that come before it. Nevermind that the citizens have no oversight over the court, since it's held in secret, with unelected members. Nevermind that a democracy shouldn't have a secret court system. It was a moral necessity to leak, it isn't germane to talk about legality in the context of morality. We either have leakers, or we're passengers to the system, which doesn't sound like a democracy to me.
  - rhino369 12y ago
    There is a vast difference between not accepting "just following orders" as a defense for crimes against humanity and allowing people to spill state secrets when it is against their politics. If Snowden didn't want to be involved in the NSA, he could have quit. But like I said, you can't let individuals determine government policy by themselves. Otherwise we'd have no ability to keep information classified. You can come up with a hypothetical that would justify leaking confidential materials, but I would strongly disagree that Snowden or Manning meet that standard. If Snowden leaked that the US had an extermination camp, yea I'd support him. But the NSA surveillance programs are nothing like that. The NSA isn't doing something that completely shocks the worlds conscience. The are following the laws Congress wrote for them. Snowden and other civil libertarians are outraged, but so what. You don't get to declassify stuff because it is against your politics. The law shouldn't and doesn't give you cover for that sort of political action. How could it? Can a pro-peace activist leak military plans? Can a pro-Palestine activist leak Israeli diplomatic cables? The standard can't just be "one guys thinks this is immoral." >You may bring up the FISA and warrantless wiretaps, but it's kind of a stupid thing to say: the FISA court is a rubber stamp body, approving well in excess of 95% of requests that come before it. Nevermind that the citizens have no oversight over the court, since it's held in secret, with unelected members. Nevermind that a democracy shouldn't have a secret court system. Nobody ever has oversight over courts, directly. They are unelected on purpose to protect them from political bias. The People have oversight by writing the laws. If the People don't want FISA courts, ban them. No warrant proceeding is in open court. You get a magistrate judge to issue you one in private. As to 95%, that could just as easily be evidence that the DOJ is only requesting warrants in situations that are legitimate. Recall that they are only handing out ~3000 a year (probably many against the same person and many against foreigners). So it isn't like the DOJ is doing this in a dragnet fashion. Also, the FISA court requires substantive revisions of about 25% of those it approves. The 95% rate is easily just proof that the government isn't abusing the system.
- csandreasen 12y ago
  The PATRIOT Act and Section 215 has been controversial since way before 2006. You might remember the whole argument that the FBI could collect everyone's library records and look for people reading subversive books. This article is dated February 15th, 2002, and one of its references is a now dead link to an article entitled "Library computers targeted in terrorism investigation" from the Sun Sentinel dated September 18, 2001.
  - csandreasen 12y ago
    My post would make a lot more sense had I not forgot to include the link: http://www.llrx.com/features/usapatriotact.htm http://www.llrx.com/features/usapatriotact.htm

rhino369 12y ago

I agree morality and legality aren't the same thing. But we cannot have a personal morality exception to classified materials. I'm sure many people who work for the Department of Defense think the Iranian Nuclear deal is wrong. Should they be able to leak a bunch of classified information to sour it? I'm sure they'd believe making peace with, in their minds, genocidal maniacs with nukes is completely immoral. >Furthermore, there wasn't ever a public debate over whether people wanted the dragnet or not-- it was done in secret, then exposed, then legalized after it was exposed to the public, regardless of any public comment for or against it. Were you born the day before Snowden leaked? We've been having §215 arguments since the day the Patriot Act passed. It's been debated in Congress every time the Patriot Act comes up for re-approval. Congress has a large debate about FISA and warrent-less wiretaps every year from 2006-2008, with amendments to the FISA act ever time. Congress is a manifestation of the will of the people on the United States. You might be pissed off about what they do on our behalf but we elect them. You may think it was moral to leak, but that isn't germane.

ceejayoz 12y ago
> Were you born the day before Snowden leaked? We've been having §215 arguments since the day the Patriot Act passed. It's been debated in Congress every time the Patriot Act comes up for re-approval. Congress is a manifestation of the will of the people on the United States. You might be pissed off about what they do on our behalf but we elect them. The Snowden leaks made it clear that statements given to Congress by James Clapper were false. If we want Congress to act on our behalf, they must be able to regulate these agencies. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/james-clappers-testimony-one-year-later/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/...
cryoshon 12y ago
We can, should, do, and must continue to have a strong and overriding sense of personal morality when dealing with government-- "just following orders" is not, has not, should not, and will never be an acceptable response to government wrongdoing as committed by the people who make up the organs of the government. Without Snowden, Ellsberg, Drake, Binney, Manning, and the other leakers, we would still be completely and utterly in the dark about most of the malicious things our government is doing. It is solely by these people's sense of moral agency that the wrongdoings came to light! If we left it up to the government to regulate itself within the rules, we would absolutely never have any kind of citizens oversight specifically because they make their own set of rules, and those rules include keeping us in the dark for the purposes of making things run smoother. As far as claiming there was some kind of debate over the dragnet-- no, some representatives quibbling about the wording from time to time does not count as citizen oversight. The representatives didn't even know how deep the NSA rabbit hole went. They didn't even understand the interpretations of the Patriot act that were being used to justify the spying. They were almost as clueless as we were. So no, there was no debate, no oversight, no way for the citizenry to say "stop" before the fact, and so far, no listening to their cries after the fact. You may bring up the FISA and warrantless wiretaps, but it's kind of a stupid thing to say: the FISA court is a rubber stamp body, approving well in excess of 95% of requests that come before it. Nevermind that the citizens have no oversight over the court, since it's held in secret, with unelected members. Nevermind that a democracy shouldn't have a secret court system. It was a moral necessity to leak, it isn't germane to talk about legality in the context of morality. We either have leakers, or we're passengers to the system, which doesn't sound like a democracy to me.
- rhino369 12y ago
  There is a vast difference between not accepting "just following orders" as a defense for crimes against humanity and allowing people to spill state secrets when it is against their politics. If Snowden didn't want to be involved in the NSA, he could have quit. But like I said, you can't let individuals determine government policy by themselves. Otherwise we'd have no ability to keep information classified. You can come up with a hypothetical that would justify leaking confidential materials, but I would strongly disagree that Snowden or Manning meet that standard. If Snowden leaked that the US had an extermination camp, yea I'd support him. But the NSA surveillance programs are nothing like that. The NSA isn't doing something that completely shocks the worlds conscience. The are following the laws Congress wrote for them. Snowden and other civil libertarians are outraged, but so what. You don't get to declassify stuff because it is against your politics. The law shouldn't and doesn't give you cover for that sort of political action. How could it? Can a pro-peace activist leak military plans? Can a pro-Palestine activist leak Israeli diplomatic cables? The standard can't just be "one guys thinks this is immoral." >You may bring up the FISA and warrantless wiretaps, but it's kind of a stupid thing to say: the FISA court is a rubber stamp body, approving well in excess of 95% of requests that come before it. Nevermind that the citizens have no oversight over the court, since it's held in secret, with unelected members. Nevermind that a democracy shouldn't have a secret court system. Nobody ever has oversight over courts, directly. They are unelected on purpose to protect them from political bias. The People have oversight by writing the laws. If the People don't want FISA courts, ban them. No warrant proceeding is in open court. You get a magistrate judge to issue you one in private. As to 95%, that could just as easily be evidence that the DOJ is only requesting warrants in situations that are legitimate. Recall that they are only handing out ~3000 a year (probably many against the same person and many against foreigners). So it isn't like the DOJ is doing this in a dragnet fashion. Also, the FISA court requires substantive revisions of about 25% of those it approves. The 95% rate is easily just proof that the government isn't abusing the system.
csandreasen 12y ago
The PATRIOT Act and Section 215 has been controversial since way before 2006. You might remember the whole argument that the FBI could collect everyone's library records and look for people reading subversive books. This article is dated February 15th, 2002, and one of its references is a now dead link to an article entitled "Library computers targeted in terrorism investigation" from the Sun Sentinel dated September 18, 2001.
- csandreasen 12y ago
  My post would make a lot more sense had I not forgot to include the link: http://www.llrx.com/features/usapatriotact.htm http://www.llrx.com/features/usapatriotact.htm