Federal Judge: NSA Mass Surveillance Is Legal

[Skripka]

What a cop out, it's the job of Congress to supervise the NSA, not some judge.

And where in the Constitution does it say that?

Not saying you're necessarily wrong in theory...but the spy branches are only very loosely policed by anyone...and most Congresspeople are nowhere near high enough a pay grade to know what they are doing. We've setup a system where our own elected officers are not considered "need to know" over the very bureacracies they budget for.

 

[AudiTuner]

Personally, I don't see an issue with this. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about!

 

[Stiletto]

Personally, I don't see an issue with this. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about!

And I guess you've never broken a law.

 

[RealityCrunch]

Personally, I don't see an issue with this. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about!

My sarcasm-o-meter just kasploded.

 

[dochmbi]

Who cares whether it's legal or not, if they can do it they will. Justice is the advantage of the stronger.

 

[mullet]

Serious question, what if the NSA was spying on corporate/personal emails and was using that info to:

To sell to other competitors.
To blackmail a CEO to change the way they do business.
To use this for inside trading in the stock market.

I am sure others could come up with more/better ones then I mentioned. This is just off the top of my head.

 

[daglesj]

Personally, I don't see an issue with this. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about!

Its not about what is right or wrong now.

Its about what we are told is wrong in say 15 or 20 years time.

It could be that simply being critical of the government is deemed wrong. An off-hand email or remark suddenly gets you hauled off to the 'Corrective Thought Centre'.

You've never heard of scope creep then?

What seems harmless now, gets built on, changed, modified and then all of a sudden laws you thought were there to protect you or you would never fall foul of bite you hard.

These are not laws to protect the masses they are laws to protect the powers that be.....from us!

 

[reb00tin]

And where in the Constitution does it say that?

Not saying you're necessarily wrong in theory...but the spy branches are only very loosely policed by anyone...and most Congresspeople are nowhere near high enough a pay grade to know what they are doing. We've setup a system where our own elected officers are not considered "need to know" over the very bureacracies they budget for.

If there exists democracy in the US, then its your job to replace Congress with honest people. And if US Congress are just employees of corporations & special interests, you put them there, and you can kick them out. But I doubt you can.

 

[daglesj]

If there exists democracy in the US, then its your job to replace Congress with honest people. And if US Congress are just employees of corporations & special interests, you put them there, and you can kick them out. But I doubt you can.

You can bet any campaign to try to change things by getting people to vote in a certain way (no matter if it is truly democratic) would also be claimed as crackpot by the paid for and controlled media.

They just want you to stay at home and let their buddies vote them in.

 

[Skripka]

If there exists democracy in the US, then its your job to replace Congress with honest people. And if US Congress are just employees of corporations & special interests, you put them there, and you can kick them out. But I doubt you can.

I've voted in every election it was legal for me to do so. I did my part over the years so far.

Despite my efforts Congress has done nothing but get more corrupt and self absorbed. As exampled by their repealing their own ethics rules that used to forbid Congressional insider trading.

 

[reb00tin]

Well, there is one honest federal judge, but who's listening?

 

[reb00tin]

I've voted in every election it was legal for me to do so. I did my part over the years so far.

Despite my efforts Congress has done nothing but get more corrupt and self absorbed. As exampled by their repealing their own ethics rules that used to forbid Congressional insider trading.

Voting is not enough. You’re responsible for knowing who you’re voting for, that’s how democracy works, a damn good Greek invention, but it makes you responsible for picking honest people. If democracy fails, it’s your fault, and you’ve no right to complain.

 

[Skripka]

Voting is not enough. You’re responsible for knowing who you’re voting for, that’s how democracy works, a damn good Greek invention, but it makes you responsible for picking honest people. If democracy fails, it’s your fault, and you’ve no right to complain.

The USA is not a democracy, it is a republic. Hell, most national governments I can think of are actually republics and not democracies.

Are you almost done trolling?

 

[Stiletto]

If democracy fails, it’s your fault, and you’ve no right to complain.

Thanks for the middle-school deontological analysis. You get a gift card to ITunes.

 

[c3141hf]

Voting is not enough. You’re responsible for knowing who you’re voting for, that’s how democracy works, a damn good Greek invention, but it makes you responsible for picking honest people. If democracy fails, it’s your fault, and you’ve no right to complain.

Democracy (or a Republic) does not give one the right to oppress another person or to violate their rights. There are higher laws than those of the state.

 

[NoOther]

The People of the US have 400 million guns. Just sayin'.

The Constitution has the second amendment in place "just in case" the government gets too big for it's britches. Just sayin'.

Obama is constantly changing the meaning of the second amendment. Or have you not been paying attention to all the new gun laws going around now? Soon the nation will be disarmed, for the safety of the nation....how ironic.

Oh... I'm rusty on my gov't checking system information... what checks the judges? Or is it just the fact that they are appointed by another section of the gov't?

I think there should seriously be a way to overturn a decision or at least make it invalid so it'll have to go through the process again with another judge. And not with the current appeal process. What it may be though, I don't know.

The check balancing system goes as follows:

Congress checks the President.

Supreme Court checks Congress.

President checks Supreme Court.

In practice, the President issues Executive Orders now that pretty much overpowers both Congress and the Supreme Court. Many of the NSA charters and missions come from Executive Orders which is why there is so much legal mumbo jumbo surrounding them. No one has really tried in earnest to combat an Executive Order to date.

Tell me...when is the last time you heard any news about Iceland? Remember a few years ago when they were at the center of the global economic crisis?

Go read. See what happened.

My point was twofold:

1. Iceland had a revolution, though apparently not an armed one.

2. The corporate media has kept the fact of this buried.

I personally believe the reason this story has been kept quiet is because they don't want more Western countries doing the same.

First off, you cannot compare what happens in nations like Iceland to the United States. The US is far bigger, far more populated and spread out than Iceland. There is also a far largely mixing bowl of people and ideas in the US.

Secondly, there was actually a lot of news about what happened in Iceland. I read about it as it was happening and saw tons of sites post information about it. Also Iceland wasn't the only country to go through something like this. I have seen people over and over try to post this same conspiracy like theory about corporate media burying the story. While I am sure there was some of that, there was certainly quite a bit of news around what happened in Iceland. However, a lot of it was an internal matter and Iceland was not quite trying to herald it around the entire world.

Thirdly, it was a small country that didn't have much political impact in the larger world. There are many countries that go through revolutions and processes like this, tons of them in Africa alone, you don't see them all over the news either. It is because its just not big news because it doesn't have as much impact on the world at large. Whereas places with far more strategic and political impact such as Egypt get tons of news coverage. That is just the way it is.

 

[NoOther]

Btw, I gave a very rudimentary form for the checks and balances, there is a lot more to it than that and you can see a breakdown here:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cnb.html

But it doesn't include all of the checks and balances either, like the Executive Order power granted the President.

 

[Stiletto]

First off, you cannot compare what happens in nations like Iceland to the United States. The US is far bigger, far more populated and spread out than Iceland. There is also a far largely mixing bowl of people and ideas in the US.

I hear this all the time, on everything from economic systems to gun policies to speech laws...and it continues to be a nonsequitur. Yes, you can compare them. We certainly can't compare the US to Middle Eastern or African nations, nor really to Asian nations. If we can't compare ourselves to the European countries in closest proximity, then are any countries valid for comparison?

Secondly, there was actually a lot of news about what happened in Iceland. I read about it as it was happening and saw tons of sites post information about it. Also Iceland wasn't the only country to go through something like this. I have seen people over and over try to post this same conspiracy like theory about corporate media burying the story. While I am sure there was some of that, there was certainly quite a bit of news around what happened in Iceland. However, a lot of it was an internal matter and Iceland was not quite trying to herald it around the entire world.

In other words, no, there was not a lot of news about what happened in Iceland. I don't care what you read on blogs or Iceland-centered news websites. We've heard about revolutions in half the world over the last few years from Reuters, AP, CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, Al Jazeera, AFP, BBC, etc...but not about Iceland with frequency even remotely comparable. When those "conspiracy theorists" talk about corporate media, they're talking about corporate media, and your quip that "Iceland was not quite trying to herald it around the world" is simply confirmation of that. There are no more "internal matters" in geopolitics. You speak like it's still the 1920s, foreign policy-wise. The coverage of the Iceland revolution was Walter Duranty-level.

Thirdly, it was a small country that didn't have much political impact in the larger world. There are many countries that go through revolutions and processes like this, tons of them in Africa alone, you don't see them all over the news either. It is because its just not big news because it doesn't have as much impact on the world at large. Whereas places with far more strategic and political impact such as Egypt get tons of news coverage. That is just the way it is.

It did have political impact during the 2008 crisis when Iceland was repeatedly brought up as a country that did not engage in bailouts...and then vanished from the headlines when they continued to resist the "solution" adopted by so many Western nations. This really isn't hard math. While we're busy learning about how the US government, in collusion with so many tech companies, has been monitoring our every waking thought, you're still sitting here debating that Iceland's transformation had any significance geopolitically despite being one of the few bloodless transfers of power and state demolitions in modern times. African coups tend to involve quite a bit more murder, if not ethnic cleansing.

 

[NoOther]

I hear this all the time, on everything from economic systems to gun policies to speech laws...and it continues to be a nonsequitur. Yes, you can compare them. We certainly can't compare the US to Middle Eastern or African nations, nor really to Asian nations. If we can't compare ourselves to the European countries in closest proximity, then are any countries valid for comparison?

No you cannot. The economics and demographics of scale, density, and diversity have a huge impact. You can compare many things, but an overthrow of the government and banking institution is astronomically more difficult to pull off in a country like the US. Just look at the whole "Occupy" movement. What has it succeeded in doing?

In other words, no, there was not a lot of news about what happened in Iceland. I don't care what you read on blogs or Iceland-centered news websites. We've heard about revolutions in half the world over the last few years from Reuters, AP, CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, Al Jazeera, AFP, BBC, etc...but not about Iceland with frequency even remotely comparable. When those "conspiracy theorists" talk about corporate media, they're talking about corporate media, and your quip that "Iceland was not quite trying to herald it around the world" is simply confirmation of that. There are no more "internal matters" in geopolitics. You speak like it's still the 1920s, foreign policy-wise. The coverage of the Iceland revolution was Walter Duranty-level.

Funny, I got the news on Iceland from the AP Reuters, CNN, NY Times, etc. But your right...no major news organizations would carry it....

It did have political impact during the 2008 crisis when Iceland was repeatedly brought up as a country that did not engage in bailouts...and then vanished from the headlines when they continued to resist the "solution" adopted by so many Western nations. This really isn't hard math. While we're busy learning about how the US government, in collusion with so many tech companies, has been monitoring our every waking thought, you're still sitting here debating that Iceland's transformation had any significance geopolitically despite being one of the few bloodless transfers of power and state demolitions in modern times. African coups tend to involve quite a bit more murder, if not ethnic cleansing.

Now you are contradicting yourself. First you say there was no news about Iceland, then you try to say it had a important impact. It actually had little to no impact, which is why it wasn't news.

Again here is what you are trying to compare:

Iceland, population of 320,000. 1/10 the size of the US in population.
Iceland, 40,000 square miles. Roughly 1/100th the size of the US in land mass. And most of that is large centralized city density.
Iceland GDP 14 Billion, comprised mostly of renewable energy. US GDP 15 Trillion, comprised mostly of machines and electronics.
Also interesting to note that comparisons of GDP are all in USD, based on the US banking system, something that is used around the entire world.

So no, you cannot in fact fairly compare the two nations for this situation.

 

[Stiletto]

No you cannot.

Well then, I guess every future government/nation will be brand new and based on new ideas never before thought of.

Funny, I got the news on Iceland from the AP Reuters, CNN, NY Times, etc. But your right...no major news organizations would carry it....

Yeah, CNN's a bounty of coverage of Icelandic handball, geysers, and juggling. Perhaps just googling would be a better option. Yeah...when the Daily Kos is the most high-profile website coming up in the first page of results, it's difficult to claim that mainstream media paid much attention.

Now you are contradicting yourself. First you say there was no news about Iceland, then you try to say it had a important impact. It actually had little to no impact, which is why it wasn't news.

Now you're obfuscating. I have maintained that in 2008, Iceland was news as it was one of the only countries not to rely on bailouts as their primary solution to the financial crisis...and that after that, the news disappeared. Which it did. Please don't play semantics games.

 

[NoOther]

Well then, I guess every future government/nation will be brand new and based on new ideas never before thought of.


Now you're obfuscating. I have maintained that in 2008, Iceland was news as it was one of the only countries not to rely on bailouts as their primary solution to the financial crisis...and that after that, the news disappeared. Which it did. Please don't play semantics games.

So you can "obfuscate" my posts, but I am not allowed the same courtesy? I didn't say anything about government/nations being brand new. I didn't even compared the governments. So where the heck are you even getting that? I compared the countries, by demographics and statistics. Also Iceland is not even comparable to many other European nations, so I don't see where you are going with that. If you want to compare Russia, China, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Brazil, those are at least better comparisons. Iceland is simply not a good comparison.

I also noted that the World's current banking system is based off of the US. So a major change in US banking would affect the whole world on a massive scale. So making any kind of change with all those facts (demographics, statistics, world impact) make the kind of change in Iceland almost nearly impossible in the United States. So yes, it is very much an unfair comparison.

And yes the "talking point" about Iceland and bailouts was there, but it really had no impact whatsoever. It was a completely ridiculous talking point to begin with. The comparison is just not adequate.

 

[Stiletto]

So you can "obfuscate" my posts, but I am not allowed the same courtesy?

When you're saying "no, you can't compare nations because x", I'm not obfuscating anything. I'm inferring a mind-melting implication of your assertion.

And yes the "talking point" about Iceland and bailouts was there, but it really had no impact whatsoever. It was a completely ridiculous talking point to begin with. The comparison is just not adequate.

Oh, it was just a "talking point"? It wasn't an overthrow of corrupt government? Your view is fascinating.

 

[NoOther]

When you're saying "no, you can't compare nations because x", I'm not obfuscating anything. I'm inferring a mind-melting implication of your assertion.

You are, because I said you cannot compare Iceland's overthrow with that of the United States. I did not say you cannot compare any country. I gave a limited situation and scope, not a broad one.

Oh, it was just a "talking point"? It wasn't an overthrow of corrupt government? Your view is fascinating.

Here you go obfuscating again. You specifically mentioned Iceland's refusal to use bailouts as an example, not the overthrow. Those are separate things, and if you actually read the news in Iceland, the initial refusal to do bailouts was what sparked the revolution. Or are you trying to say that the revolution was such big news that it was used in American politics, which again, would be contradicting everything you have said.

You like to keep twisting everything, but you keep making it worse for yourself.

 

[Stiletto]

You are, because I said you cannot compare Iceland's overthrow with that of the United States. I did not say you cannot compare any country. I gave a limited situation and scope, not a broad one.

My question: "If we can't compare ourselves to the European countries in closest proximity, then are any countries valid for comparison?"

Your answer: "No you cannot."

Amazing how you attempt to find discord in the words of others but fail to apply the same standard to yourself.

Here you go obfuscating again.

Petulance is tiresome and boring.

 

[NoOther]

My question: "If we can't compare ourselves to the European countries in closest proximity, then are any countries valid for comparison?"

Your answer: "No you cannot."

Amazing how you attempt to find discord in the words of others but fail to apply the same standard to yourself.

That wasn't my answer. Again you try to twist things. My answer was you cannot compare Iceland. And closest proximity is a totally invalid argument anyway. What does proximity have to do with anything? Amazing how you try to use the most obscure things to try and draw conclusions from without reading and analyzing all the information.

Petulance is tiresome and boring.

Yes, your petulance is both tiresome and boring. Glad you realize it.

 

[Stiletto]

That wasn't my answer.

Nothing is how you don't want it to be. What a wonderful world in which you live.

 

[NoOther]

Nothing is how you don't want it to be. What a wonderful world in which you live.

Really? Show me where this actually occurred as you typed it:

My question: "If we can't compare ourselves to the European countries in closest proximity, then are any countries valid for comparison?"

Your answer: "No you cannot."

Go on, provide the full quote and not just pieces like you keep doing. I think the problem is nothing is as you want it to be. After all that is exactly what we are discussing here, what you want things to be. I am talking about the way things are.

 

[AudiTuner]

Personally, I don't see an issue with this. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about!

Maybe this wasn't phrased in the best manner. My point is just that it seems like a lot of paranoia and the issue is being blown out of hand.

I've seen plenty of rational arguments and points of view on this thread. My only issue with this being a hot-button topic is the "malcontents" and people who generally dislike the US government (or any authority for that matter) who are trying to spin this to fit their own social/political views.

 

[FearTheCow]

LOL term limits are worse. Term limits ensure that people who know how to write a law well without unintended consequences due to poor grammar/wording never remain in office.

Nebraska's Child Abandonment law? Written by newb legislators

Nebraska's screwed up employee liability law? Written by newb legislators.


Be careful what you wish for. The one thing worse than corrupt lawmakers? Corrupt lawmakers who don't know how to write laws that say what they're supposed to mean.

And yet Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are both very "non-noob" legislators that passed Obamacare, a law they didn't even read. Lets not get into Pelosi not knowing a damn thing about guns and yet she loves to try to make laws about them.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Maybe this wasn't phrased in the best manner. My point is just that it seems like a lot of paranoia and the issue is being blown out of hand.

I've seen plenty of rational arguments and points of view on this thread. My only issue with this being a hot-button topic is the "malcontents" and people who generally dislike the US government (or any authority for that matter) who are trying to spin this to fit their own social/political views.

We can't seem to decide what "wrong" is. Also, what's right one day could very well become "wrong" the next.

If we can't decide who is wrong and why they are wrong, giving more power to those that punish the wrong doesn't seem all that logical.

 

[Stiletto]

Maybe this wasn't phrased in the best manner. My point is just that it seems like a lot of paranoia and the issue is being blown out of hand.

I've seen plenty of rational arguments and points of view on this thread. My only issue with this being a hot-button topic is the "malcontents" and people who generally dislike the US government (or any authority for that matter) who are trying to spin this to fit their own social/political views.

So there's no analog to those "anti-government malcontents"?

 

[Serpent]

The check balancing system goes as follows:

Congress checks the President.

Supreme Court checks Congress.

President checks Supreme Court.

In practice, the President issues Executive Orders now that pretty much overpowers both Congress and the Supreme Court. Many of the NSA charters and missions come from Executive Orders which is why there is so much legal mumbo jumbo surrounding them. No one has really tried in earnest to combat an Executive Order to date.

Actually that's what I wanted to inquire about. What methods does anyone, president or otherwise, have to check the courts? Is it just that he elects the. I know that EOs overrule them all, but that's outside of the checks and balances. I guess one is the pardoning system, but that hardly applies to the NSA bs that goes on, right?

 

[Technikal]

Actually that's what I wanted to inquire about. What methods does anyone, president or otherwise, have to check the courts? Is it just that he elects the. I know that EOs overrule them all, but that's outside of the checks and balances. I guess one is the pardoning system, but that hardly applies to the NSA bs that goes on, right?

Bureaucrats and non-elected officials laugh at the courts.

 

[Kueller]

Personally, I don't see an issue with this. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about!

Issues arise when a secret court makes secret legal interpretations of statutes that have little/no resemblance to the intent of the legislators that wrote said statutes in the first place. Then you get hauled in for violating secret laws you didn't and couldn't know you were violating, tried in a secret court and shipped off to a secret prison. But don't worry, we're still a good 3-5 years from this becoming commonplace.

I think Egypt is on the right track, just officially define any demonstrations opposing the ruling party to be terrorist acts and round up all those darn terrorists!

 

[scheherazade]

that is where the US isn't really a democracy. there are only two political parties and with the "winner takes all" system per state there is no way another party could emerge with significant influence. effectively, the only choice is two sides of the same coin. both parties are funded by corporations which have very similar goals no matter what business they are actually in thus you get similar politics by both parties. choice is an illusion in this system.

That's not even salient.

Democracy is 'people's rule'.
Representative democracy is 'people's rule via an intermediary party that does as the people would do, in the people's stead'.

How you come up with a representative is irrelevant.
They could be elected, appointed, born, whatever.
The fact that an election itself may (or may not be) democratic, is strictly a matter of the kind of election - and not a matter of the kind of government in which those elected subsequently operate.

So long as the person in the role of representation, is governing in the manner that the people want things governed, you have democracy.
If the representative does not obey the will of the people, and instead does his own thing, you have no democracy.

-scheherazade

 

[Technikal]

Personally, I don't see an issue with this. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about!

Goddamn how many of these types of idiots are out there..

 

[daglesj]

That's not even salient.

Democracy is 'people's rule'.
Representative democracy is 'people's rule via an intermediary party that does as the people would do, in the people's stead'.

How you come up with a representative is irrelevant.
They could be elected, appointed, born, whatever.
The fact that an election itself may (or may not be) democratic, is strictly a matter of the kind of election - and not a matter of the kind of government in which those elected subsequently operate.

So long as the person in the role of representation, is governing in the manner that the people want things governed, you have democracy.
If the representative does not obey the will of the people, and instead does his own thing, you have no democracy.

-scheherazade

So you in your opinion is the US govt (and for that matter several other Western 'democracies' ) governing in a way that is in harmony with how the population would like to be governed?

 

[NoOther]

Maybe this wasn't phrased in the best manner. My point is just that it seems like a lot of paranoia and the issue is being blown out of hand.

I've seen plenty of rational arguments and points of view on this thread. My only issue with this being a hot-button topic is the "malcontents" and people who generally dislike the US government (or any authority for that matter) who are trying to spin this to fit their own social/political views.

People are generally outraged and paranoid about too many things, but there is much to be outraged about. The problem comes when they take programs like this one and try to make it some morale battle. But this program was designed for specific targets, not the general public.

See the problem comes when you have a major abuse of power, like the general collection of all data leading to spying on American citizens, gets everyone in an outrage. And for that, they should, the program should be more defined and have limits, not be as broad and overarching as it is. But then people see every program after that as having the same scope and goals, which they don't. They let their outrage and paranoia cloud their rational thinking.

This program from this article and the TAO specifically are tasked to create devices and methods for surveilling specific targets. They are small scale operations on singular individuals, not the general public.

 

[scheherazade]

So you in your opinion is the US govt (and for that matter several other Western 'democracies' ) governing in a way that is in harmony with how the population would like to be governed?

I assume that's rhetorical.

More often I see the government trying to convince the public, than I see the public affecting the government.

-scheherazade

 

[raz-0]

There is so much wrong with so many levels of government today Ill be amazed if We, the USA, will ever be able to dig ourselves out... 16 strait years of failed leadership is tough.

16? This douche of a judge was apponted by clinton. He has a track record of ruling against the citizen and for the interest of the government on most issues.

Most of the issues with the government have a pretty clear path of cause and effect back to some point between Nixon and Obama. A lot of the things Nixon did weren't out of the blue, so there were obviously some policy failures prior to that that resulted in the broken situation they "fixed", but that's when a lot of the WTF were they thinking type stuff with obviously bad consequences telegraphed way in advance started getting passed and coming home to roost.