8 ms·
Is it weird that anti-surveillance court rulings don't really make me feel better? If they'd not only lie to Congress, but ACTUALLY SPY ON Congress, what is a j
by rev_bird 11y ago
Is it weird that anti-surveillance court rulings don't really make me feel better? If they'd not only lie to Congress, but ACTUALLY SPY ON Congress, what is a judge going to do to stop them?
- kazazes 11y agoI have faith in the power of the judiciary, still. While putting illegal surveillance programs to bed may feel like a half century long game of wack-a-mole, precedent still has power in American courts.
- cryoshon 11y agoEh, cheer up. Sure, the intelligence agencies will do their best to lie and hide from Congress, but every time they do so, it is one step closer to the hammer coming down onto them and their funding being slashed.
- MrZongle2 11y agoSorry to add to the downer chorus, but I think that would require a majority in both houses to exhibit some integrity and a desire to wield Congressional power. I don't see that happening. Obstructionism, pandering, lobbying and abdication of responsibility? Oh, we've got that in spades.
- ericcumbee 11y agoNot to be a double downer, I don't see the current president signing anything that would limit executive power so it would take 2/3rds of both houses to override a veto.
- gknoy 11y agoI concur, with the slight modification: s/current/any/; Not only that, but any bill that successfully passed could, given past history by several presidents, be effectively ignored via executive order.
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoThat one's easy to get around. Congress does budgets. If Congress has backbone (but not 2/3 majority backbone), they can pass a budget that de-funds NSA to whatever degree desired. The president can veto it. But then there's no budget, so there's still no money for the NSA...
- ericcumbee 11y agoThe easy part is that would take only 1/2 of one chamber. the hard part is forcing a government shutdown is risky business, and maintaining the resolve of the caucus becomes more difficult the longer one drags on.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Karunamon 11y agoAnd whoever's opposed to it can easily spin the action as a reckless disregard for America's security. (Nevermind I think the NSA could disappear tomorrow in a puff of logic and nobody would be the worse..)
- maze-le 11y agoI wouldn't be so optimistic. A bit of fearmongering here and there. Some idiots from the middle east (or wherever) spreading fear and terror... et viola: New justification for more funds.
- gergles 11y agoI'm sure you heard that ISIS has suddenly appeared in the US coincidentally just a few days before the reauthorization of the worst parts of the "Patriot" act came due.
- im3w1l 11y agoIt's funny because the head of ISIS came from Saddam's intelligence services. I wonder if they have a man or two in NSA...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- lallysingh 11y agoWhen there's enough to prosecute, refer the case to DOJ for charging people with criminal violations. NSA officials in the past have been mirandized (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/02/the-nsa-and-me/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/02/the-nsa-and-me...) in expectation of criminal charges. But until the state secrets veil gets well pierced, it's unlikely that a prosecution can gather and show enough evidence to convict.
- pcrh 11y agoThe difference isn't so much whether they conduct surveillance, within or on the edges of the law, but whether they can use whatever information they find. If the information that is found cannot subsequently be used to (legally) further whatever agenda they have, then it is of very much diminished value, and its collection will receive less support. Small steps...
- patzerhacker 11y agoGood for each of us now, but what of the people that were convicted on evidence found through parallel construction in the past that might not even be aware of it or able to prove it? What exactly can the courts do to help those people?
- Pyxl101 11y agoThat's not the only issue. Parallel construction is also a concern - a process where the government "launders" information received unconstitutionally, such as lying and claiming it was from a confidential informant; or using the illegally received information to give them insight into how to pursue building a "clean" line of evidence that appears to be from scratch but isn't, such as "coincidentally" stopping a particular vehicle for a traffic violation, when investigators know the vehicle will be breaking the law from their dragnet surveillance (e.g., smuggling drugs). In some cases, these agencies have lied to the courts about how they obtained their evidence. > But instead of being truthful with criminal defendants, judges, and even prosecutors about where the information came from, DEA agents are reportedly obscuring the source of these tips. For example, a law enforcement agent could receive a tip from SOD—which SOD, in turn, got from the NSA—to look for a specific car at a certain place. But instead of relying solely on that tip, the agent would be instructed to find his or her own reason to stop and search the car. Agents are directed to keep SOD under wraps and not mention it in "investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony," according to Reuters. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intel...
- pcrh 11y agoSure, but its a small step in the right direction. Outright parallel construction is evidently illegal, and if is caught would be a major embarrassment. The other problems are age old and not specific to internet surveillance.
- skwirl 11y agoIt shouldn't make you really feel anything since it is only a three judge panel on an appeals court. Until it reaches the Supreme Court, it is all up in the air.
- task_queue 11y agoIt's okay. A good portion of the justice system is in cahoots with investigators' tactics because it puts people they believe are guilty behind bars.