"In Secret, Court Vastly Broadens Powers of NSA"

Originally posted by superannoyingreality
reply to post by justwokeup

 

You're conflating things.

It's not above the Supreme Court and MANY courts intentionally take on constitutional issues, which eventually end up in front of the Supremes.

But the way, Ben Franklin personally opened private mail and took part in secret courts - I'm pretty sure he had a grasp on what was "American".

edit on 7-7-2013 by superannoyingreality because: (no reason given)

Benjamin Franklin was also a slave owner. Referring to the practices of historical figures to justify current policy rapidly falls apart when you do it. By that argument slavery is a wholesome good american practise. Its an unhelpful rabbit hole to go down.

A thing is either justifiable on its own merits or it isn't.

I dont believe that any group unaccountable to the public should be able to make judgements altering the balance of power between the people and the state. In its post 9/11 role that appears to be what it has been doing, regardless of the original good intentions.

Making judgements whether to approve the wiretapping of a particular individual is one thing. Making judgements authorising the routine collections of masses of data is something else.

reply to post by justwokeup


You've missed my points again.

Points:

1. Something that's been going on, initiated by founding fathers, for the entire countries history, isn't by any definition, "un-American". It obviously can't be. It's also not likely to be uncoonstituional if it was created by a founding father and formalised and updated by many successive congresses and courts.

So not "un-American" and broadly, not "unconstituional".

2. It's not even clear it's demonstrably worse than what's come before it. The FISA court was a step in the right direction. More oversight and transparency and accountability are needed, obviously, but history shows us that this is not the worst assault on civil liberties or freedom we've endured. It's also not the precursor to any fascist attack.

Originally posted by superannoyingreality
reply to post by justwokeup

 

You've missed my points again.

Points:

1. Something that's been going on, initiated by founding fathers, for the entire countries history, isn't by any definition, "un-American". It obviously can't be. It's also not likely to be uncoonstituional if it was created by a founding father and formalised and updated by many successive congresses and courts.

So not "un-American" and broadly, not "unconstituional".

2. It's not even clear it's demonstrably worse than what's come before it. The FISA court was a step in the right direction. More oversight and transparency and accountability are needed, obviously, but history shows us that this is not the worst assault on civil liberties or freedom we've endured. It's also not the precursor to any fascist attack.

The fact its not the worst incursion into cvil liberties is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure putting all the Japanese americans in concentration camps wins that dubious prize. I understand your points, I simply don't buy them.

In centuries past the ability to create a surveillance state we are capable of now was unimagined. If not already the facility will exist to record everything everybody does and store it permanently for use as and when required. As it stands how far the state goes towards doing that is decided in secret by a small group of men unaccountable to the public. What they decide is secret.

In the long run I don't believe any democracy (american or otherwise) will be able to survive that.

Its pretty plain we don't agree and wont. Thank you for the civil discussion though.

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by superannoyingreality
reply to post by justwokeup

 

You've missed my points again.

Points:

1. Something that's been going on, initiated by founding fathers, for the entire countries history, isn't by any definition, "un-American". It obviously can't be. It's also not likely to be uncoonstituional if it was created by a founding father and formalised and updated by many successive congresses and courts.

So not "un-American" and broadly, not "unconstituional".

2. It's not even clear it's demonstrably worse than what's come before it. The FISA court was a step in the right direction. More oversight and transparency and accountability are needed, obviously, but history shows us that this is not the worst assault on civil liberties or freedom we've endured. It's also not the precursor to any fascist attack.

The fact its not the worst incursion into cvil liberties is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure putting all the Japanese americans in concentration camps wins that dubious prize. I understand your points, I simply don't buy them.

In centuries past the ability to create a surveillance state we are capable of now was unimagined. If not already the facility will exist to record everything everybody does and store it permanently for use as and when required. As it stands how far the state goes towards doing that is decided in secret by a small group of men unaccountable to the public. What they decide is secret.

In the long run I don't believe any democracy (american or otherwise) will be able to survive that.

Its pretty plain we don't agree and wont. Thank you for the civil discussion though.

The only thing different between now and the rest of US history is the scope.

If your contention is that America can't survive the same thing it's survived for over two centuries, because of the scope (bearing in mind there's more oversight and transparency than at any time in the past) we will disagree.

As I've repeatedly reminded you as well - the founding fathers also engaged in secret decisions. It's not unAmerican and its never yet destroyed America. Not is it likely to destroy America in the future.

Ah, guys.. quit arguing with superannoyingreality.

I've figured it all out. He must understand the direness of all this. It is impossible to not recognize the harm to democracy all of this is causing. You have to be blind to not see our constitution burning before our eyes.

THEREFORE;

He is simply 'covering his tracks'. In 5, 10, 20, years from now, when he's being Judged, and they pull up his 'Profile' they will plainly see:

That Superannoyingreality was a 'friend to the state'. He was supporting all these unconstitutional programs! Therefore they will never convict him!

Good strategy superannoyingreality!! I might have to work on doing some of that, I'm sure my profile looks pretty 'enemy of the state'-ish

Originally posted by introV
Ah, guys.. quit arguing with superannoyingreality.

I've figured it all out. He must understand the direness of all this. It is impossible to not recognize the harm to democracy all of this is causing. You have to be blind to not see our constitution burning before our eyes.

THEREFORE;

He is simply 'covering his tracks'. In 5, 10, 20, years from now, when he's being Judged, and they pull up his 'Profile' they will plainly see:

That Superannoyingreality was a 'friend to the state'. He was supporting all these unconstitutional programs! Therefore they will never convict him!

Good strategy superannoyingreality!! I might have to work on doing some of that, I'm sure my profile looks pretty 'enemy of the state'-ish

edit on 7-7-2013 by introV because: (no reason given)

Hardly.

I just happen to know that in six months you guys will all be up in arms about something else.

This is a flash in the pan outrage at something that's close to 250 years old.

You can IGNORE reality and PRETEND that this is a MODERN problem, but it's simply not.

The beloved Founding Fathers engaged in this exact same behaviour. The found it both necessary AND legal and constitutional.

You can try and pretend that's not true, but you'll have to discount the endless examples of domestic spying throughout the countries history.

reply to post by superannoyingreality


You speak of a 250 year era of domestic spying.

Did the government have the ability to store the contents of every personal phone call even 50 years ago? 250 years ago, the modes of personal communication were speaking face to face and letters. Many letters were sealed with wax to allow the recipient of the correspondence to be aware if the letter had been tampered with.

Today, we can't be certain that we are not being listened to in our own homes through our cell phones, gaming consoles, cable/satellite boxes and household appliances.

It is worse today than ever. The government has capabilities that they never had before.

reply to post by justwokeup

The only reason you need a Secret Supreme Court is if you plan on using the power of the state against the interests of the people and you need trappings of legality to get people to participate.

Come on people... The whole reason WHY there is a court is so that there are checks and balances. If you are a NSA guy and you have proof that someone in Pakistan tribal area is talking to someone in the US, you want to be able to get more information about that person in the United States. If you go to a normal Federal court there is NO SECRECY, therefore the person you are trying to get information on could, theoretically, learn of it. No sane person would think this is wrong. I want the Government to do their damn job, find bad guys and stop them.

If this was a police state they would not need a court would they? Now, you can argue that this power could be abused, and that is why we elect people to watch over them. Since when did Obama and Pelosi become right wing shills? It boggles the mind. There are many things citizens do not know nor need to know. This is fine.

Don't you think there are covert raids by SEALS and Delta going on all over the World right now? Where do they get information to do their raids? Does Sally Smith in Portland need to know Who, What, When, Where and Why these guys do their thing? Hell no. Similarly, do you think if information led to groups inside the US, they couldn't be raided by FBI guys? Because it is in the US, Sally needs to know?

We don't have any information that says what they are doing is impacting US citizens. It's all theorizing and pontificating by arm chair quarterbacks. We should all be leery of our Government having to much power. That's a given. But we need to be rational about it.


V

reply to post by superannoyingreality


Hoover might have cataloged a lot of profiles on people, but it's unprecedented compared to what's going on today. UNPRECEDENTED.

250 years ago they didn't have internet. They also didn't have multi-billion dollar, multi-million square foot facilities AUTONOMOUSLY harvesting data from people all across the world.

250 years ago they didn't have the capabilities to record;

Every phone call (Impossible for them to keep tabs on EVERY single phone call ever made)
Every text (didn't have text)
E-mail (They might have had slow mail back in the day, but no means of recording every letter sent, or it's contents AUTOMATICALLY)
Every movement you make (They didn't have GPS)
Every link you click, every thought you post (THEY DIDN'T HAVE INTERNET)

The fact you think all of this has precedence means you probably don't fully understand the severity of what's going on here. This is unlike anything history has ever seen. Orwell couldn't even have predicted this

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by superannoyingreality

 

You speak of a 250 year era of domestic spying.

Did the government have the ability to store the contents of every personal phone call even 50 years ago? 250 years ago, the modes of personal communication were speaking face to face and letters. Many letters were sealed with wax to allow the recipient of the correspondence to be aware if the letter had been tampered with.

Today, we can't be certain that we are not being listened to in our own homes through our cell phones, gaming consoles, cable/satellite boxes and household appliances.

It is worse today than ever. The government has capabilities that they never had before.

Again, it doesn't matter.

The scope is different, but the legal theory is exactly the same.

Go on and call Ben Franklin a constitution hating fascist if you want, as he's the one (along with a supreme court justice and a governor) that started this, but I doubt you'll find anyone that'll agree with you.

Every time a disruptive technology emerges the rules all change... when the internet basically decimated media companies, new rules were needed... said the media companies, but the people, by and large, just expected the companies to run a better business... now that disruptive technology is staring down the barrel at you... well... you might suddenly understand how freaked out record labels were in 2001-02.

The scope is what's different (i.e. copying a cd with a cassette to downloading a perfect copy with a click of a button), but the basic idea is ancient.

Your best bet is to accept the truth and FIGHT to have the people in charge of this tech follow rules to protect you... trying to stop it, like completely stop it... is absurd and infeasible.

Ah, life inside of the open air prison. Nothing like it eh?

Originally posted by introV
reply to post by superannoyingreality

 

Hoover might have cataloged a lot of profiles on people, but it's unprecedented compared to what's going on today. UNPRECEDENTED.

250 years ago they didn't have internet. They also didn't have multi-billion dollar, multi-million square foot facilities AUTONOMOUSLY harvesting data from people all across the world.

250 years ago they didn't have the capabilities to record;

Every phone call (Impossible for them to keep tabs on EVERY single phone call ever made)
Every text (didn't have text)
E-mail (They might have had slow mail back in the day, but no means of recording every letter sent, or it's contents AUTOMATICALLY)
Every movement you make (They didn't have GPS)
Every link you click, every thought you post (THEY DIDN'T HAVE INTERNET)

The fact you think all of this has precedence means you probably don't fully understand the severity of what's going on here. This is unlike anything history has ever seen. Orwell couldn't even have predicted this

Again, the scope is completely meaningless.

The basic idea has been agreed to be legal and justified for over 230 years.

Do you believe that? Really?

The scope is irrelevant?

So you'd consent to 24hr video observation of everything you say and do from birth to death? An idea that still sounds like a Philip K Dick story now but will not very soon.

You are severely misguided sir, scope is EVERYTHING.

As I have stated in my OP
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There are both good units and bad factions to both the NSA/CSS.
The role that they play, is detrimental to the future of the USA.
However, because of the attorneys in the bad factions (Holder et al, ect. ), the laws
have been manipulated to decay the Constitution, and the Republic for which she stands. IMHO

crimes associated with postal service

Opening Mail Not Addressed to You?
Answer
Opening mail that is not addressed to you is covered under USC Section 1702, Chapter 83 of Title 18, called Obstruction of Correspondence, and involves crimes associated with the US Postal Service. You are not allowed to open someones else's mail with design to obstruct the correspondence, pry into the business or secrets of another. Opening, secreting, embezzling, or destroying the same shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

yellow rain

My question to Superannoyingreality is..

Why the hell do you keep throwing around this "250 year" old precedence.

FBI 1908
CIA 1947
NSA 1952
FISA 1978
Patriot Act 2001
PRISM 2007


Our founding fathers were long gone before any of this started getting kicked into motion. Our founding fathers made the fourth amendment, which you clearly don't care about being kicked to the curb.

Just as you said, "I just happen to know that in six months you guys will all be up in arms about something else. " So about 6 months is how long we should care about having the Fourth Amendment?

It lasted about 250 years before our 4th amendment got ripped away, you jackass

Originally posted by introV
My question to Superannoyingreality is..

Why the hell do you keep throwing around this "250 year" old precedence.

FBI 1908
CIA 1947
NSA 1952
FISA 1978
Patriot Act 2001
PRISM 2007


Our founding fathers were long gone before any of this started getting kicked into motion. Our founding fathers made the fourth amendment, which you clearly don't care about being kicked to the curb.

Just as you said, "I just happen to know that in six months you guys will all be up in arms about something else. " So about 6 months is how long we should care about having the Fourth Amendment?

It lasted about 250 years before our 4th amendment got ripped away, you jackass

Oh really?

So this never happened then?

The committee employed secret agents abroad, conducted covert operations, devised codes and ciphers, funded propaganda activities, authorized the opening of private mail, acquired foreign publications for use in analysis, established a courier system, and developed a maritime capability apart from that of the Continental Navy, and engaged in regular communications with Britons and Scots who sympathized with the American cause. It met secretly in December 1775 with a French intelligence agent who visited Philadelphia under cover as a Flemish merchant.

Whaaa???

en.wikipedia.org...

And that was Benjamin Franklin opening private mail, at the behest of many of the Founding Fathers.

That was 250 years ago.

Also in the 1800s Thomas Jefferson used a secret intelligence slush fund to fund the overthrow of a foreign nation's government...

Same as it ever was...

In fact if you google the Alien and Sedition act you'll see just how rife it was at one point... the US has a long history of spying on it's citizens, of using war as a justification for removing civil liberties and of secret court and laws...

And btw goofball, FISA was made to REIGN IN the use of spying on US citizens, because of watergate.... it didn't start spying...

I really am tired of seeing everyone sitting around and bitching about this.

What are you gonna do?

There is a massive difference between opening a piece of mail here or there of someone you suspect is corresponding on the grounds of malice, and collecting every bit of data and correspondence of every single person because they are now potential 'enemies of the state' (for lack of a better term) EVEN THOUGH they are in fact innocent of any crimes.

Comparing the two is a complete distortion, and we've been trying to explain this to you. However, you turn around and say "it's a different scope, but same thing". NO, it is not the same thing.

Ben Franklin wasn't opening up Every piece of mail, replicating the contents, and storing it until said person raised a flag. He suspected someone, aka following the 4th amendment, and then read their mail. Not the other way around. Do you understand this? Or is this just a different scope in your eyes?

There is a complete difference. You might think it is the same, but it is not. What youre saying to me is basically "Doing an investigation has always been the way they've conducted these things". I agree. But you're still waaaay off point here.

Originally posted by justwokeup
I dont believe that any group unaccountable to the public should be able to make judgements altering the balance of power between the people and the state.

That rules out the entire idea of Constitutional republicanism. We have an Executive precisely because we sometimes need the government to act in secret (Federalist 70). The public cannot have direct knowledge of what the Executive does in secret, but the Legislative Branch exercises oversight, and represents the public in this matter. The Executive, in these matters, is not accountable to the public, just to a handful of people in Congress. We have a Judicial Branch because we need someone, not subject to popular pressure, who can decide what the law is. If the people decide the law ought to be something else, they can act through the Legislature to change it, as the Legislature is accountable to the public. The Judicial Branch is not. You can argue that they should be more open, but Constitutionally, they cannot be made accountable to the public.