General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUK, Germany, France, Bolivia, Venezuela, Do we even need to research Russia and China?
So the question that is going to remain when all the manufactured outrage is finished is:
When can we have the rational discussion about what kind of national security surveillance program is needed if any? Those of us on DU on my side of the issue have been ready since day one. Those of you on the other side are too busy falling over yourselves in a hyperbolic blame fest. That blame fest probably seems a little sillier since the revelations about all the other countries that do it including the western democracies and the Latin American countries and administrations that some of you think are heroic.
We're waiting to have that conversation whenever you are ready. Take your time, get it all out of your system.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dkf
(37,305 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
dkf
(37,305 posts)
dkf
(37,305 posts)The people are not happy that the leaders are spying on them.
You aren't even on the right side of the people vs the powerful argument.
Take a look at who you are supporting on this...you need to reflect and look at your biases.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)We're still waiting.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Probable cause for all warrants, no blanket warrants. More police and detective type work.
I have no problem with traditional CIA type operations, infiltrating terrorist groups, tracking their funds and communications etc.
But blanket surveillance of everyone? No f-ing way.
More defensive protection of our communications. Instead of insisting on keys into our communications, promotion of encryption and privacy.
When concern is your own government more so than terrorists, the balance is waaaay too far.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Perhaps we should continue the conversation down there? Up to you?
dkf
(37,305 posts)Stay close to how things were meant to work back when we had sane legislators.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)standard remedy for such a situation is a Constitutional Amendment.
dkf
(37,305 posts)They stretch it conveniently into whatever they want.
Bush v Gore is the perfect example of how you can convince yourself of anything if you desire.
I can't believe YOU have tied yourself into knots when you should be condemning an obvious violation of the 4th!!!
Its crazy how this looks even vaguely constitutional to anyone.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)My demand in 2007 was that we reject warrant-less wiretapping and go back to FISA, which is pretty much exactly what President Obama did.
I've been pretty consistent on what I said I wanted.
That being said, if the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of the government disagree with you on what you think the Constitution means and should require, the redress is a Constitutional Amendment.
It could be simple. Something that says:
1. National Security Surveillance shall no longer be considered an exception to the Fourth Amendment requirements outlining unreasonable search and seizure.
2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this through necessary legislation
I'm not necessarily against that. The other side of this discussion needs to be an assessment of the actual threats out there.
dkf
(37,305 posts)This is a crisis IMO. There are no laws that can correct this since those too will be manipulated to what they want in their secret opinions of secret interpretations in secret courts.
Our leaders are out of control. They have placed themselves as above it all and feel they can lie with impunity as witnessed by Clapper and Alexander and yes, our President who we trusted as a constitutional scholar and professor.
They say they do this to protect us, but really this secrecy is to protect them. I cannot square this circle.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)with it, but it is there and if we disagree with it, we can fix it. My understanding is that the exception rulings go all the way back to the war of 1812. I've seen appellate decisions on this going back at least to the 1950's.
It's a single principle that can be overturned with an amendment if that is what the people of this country want and decide.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)how how much power our spying agencies should have.
It's all right there in the OP.
dkf
(37,305 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)We can hardly let them do a lot more than we can and not expect them to get an advantage of us somehow. China has 1/4 of the population of the world.
dkf
(37,305 posts)That's messed up.
Rex
(65,616 posts)They just LOVE him!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts) The inane line of thought had a last gasp and reached even further. I hope it reaches far enough to keep from falling over the mental cliff.
Good Lord.
Rex
(65,616 posts)You KNOW we can do no wrong! You just won't admit it!
Aerows
(39,961 posts)since it's worth crying about but it's too silly to waste with tears 
Aerows
(39,961 posts)"My lesbian life as a tea bagger". That seems to be what I've been accused of lately and is a neatly juxtaposed title.
Think it would sell any copies?
I learned (here from one of our crack reporters) this year that wind turbines maybe/might/scouts honor cause cancer and fling those (always menacing) cracked blades over 2 miles (depending on what country they are built in). Wow...no woo there.
2 days later I am accused of being an Obamabot, since he did one good thing recently that I commented on. Which I find funny since other days I spend my time in the Professional Left corner that nobody wants at the dinner table.
They always stick me in the kids section.
Oh and I think Snowden is an idiot, yet I don't think the NSA needs our call records to see if I ate corn or not.
So there, I'm really fucked.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)has not, as expressed in the representation of the three branches of the government.
dkf
(37,305 posts)isn't so.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's a free country and the information is out there.
People vote for who they vote for and the winners go to Congress. Congress passes the FISA in response to realization that the courts do not recognize any limits on Presidential spying. The courts uphold FISA.
If you want a different system, you'd have to lay it out and convince enough people they want it to either vote for it or bring it about by revolution.
Reality 101.
dkf
(37,305 posts)
Romulus Quirinus
(524 posts)No one's saying that other countries monitoring their citizen's every move is great. Some people, myself included, think that we can do better. Some of us also completely understand the fear of being locked in a tiny room, incommunicado, forever, and the willingness to do anything to avoid it.
What do you want from us?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Romulus Quirinus
(524 posts)Is that really necessary?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Instead, you respond to something I didnt assert.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Keep it up I love watching you 
THIS IS GREAT ENTERTAINMENT! How will you top yourself next time!?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Also Known as: Peer Pressure.
Description of Bandwagon
The Bandwagon is a fallacy in which a threat of rejection by one's peers (or peer pressure) is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:
Person P is pressured by his/her peers or threatened with rejection.
Therefore person P's claim X is false.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because peer pressure and threat of rejection do not constitute evidence for rejecting a claim. This is expecially clear in the following example:
Rex
(65,616 posts)Your peers are all on Foxnews!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And yes, here is one of my appearances on Fox News! Since you love that so much, each time you mention it, I am going to post a video for you to watch!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017128908
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)after all....
randome
(34,845 posts)According to Carl Bernstein, the checks and balances in the NSA are good.
But too many want to believe everything that drops out of Snowden or Greenwald's mouths without evidence to back them up. Other than lame PowerPoint slides that are easily explained away.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)What makes his opinion so great?
randome
(34,845 posts)They seem to have opposite opinions on the current state of the NSA.
Bernstein's opinion is simply another data point. And evidence that two titans of journalistic excellence can reach different conclusions with the same data.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)What special knowledge does Bernstein have that informs his opinion over any other?
randome
(34,845 posts)I'm not saying he's perfect simply because his opinion more closely aligns with mine. I'm saying he is a well-respected journalist and widely admired. His opinion is simply another data point to consider.
Neither he nor Ellsberg, on their own, should be the determining factor as to whether or not Snowden & Greenwald are to be believed.
But since S&G released evidence that is, at best, ambiguous, our belief in what they say is unavoidably determined by outside factors and opinions.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Big difference.
dkf
(37,305 posts)You think Dianne Feinstein has a clue what the normal person might feel? She's been one of the rulers for too long. They are all bubble people.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)tried and true.
randome
(34,845 posts)They should be evaluated with the same degree of objectivity. Just because S&G tell us what they say does not mean we shouldn't make our own decisions.
Thus far, what they have said and what the documents say are not in accordance.
We'll see what comes next.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)criteria for a warrant) be considered invalid.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
What would your constitutional amendment look like? I say Constitutional amendment because the appellate courts have all agreed that the fourth amendment does not apply to national security surveillance.
Do you believe that any national security surveillance should be done? Should any of it be secret? If so who should have the oversight?
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Stare decisis be damned.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)remedy in such an instance is a Constitutional Amendment, no?
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)One being Constitutional Amendment, which would be ineffective, as it's clear the Constitution doesn't really mean anything in this case. That, due to the fact that we have a corrupt power structure that has decided that anything not explicitly prohibited is allowed, and even when it is explicitly prohibited, secret interpretations prevail.
The other is revolution. That will never happen either. The Bread and Circuses will see to that.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)response to dkf that a simple amendment would probably be effective. The question is, do you believe that the threats to us are weak or insignificant to where if we removed the National Security Surveillance exception that we wouldn't then experience some or several horrific attacks shortly thereafter?
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Wiki writes about warrants:
Most often, the term warrant refers to a specific type of authorization; a writ issued by a competent officer, usually a judge or magistrate, which permits an otherwise illegal act that would violate individual rights and affords the person executing the writ protection from damages if the act is performed.
A warrant is usually issued by a court and is directed to a sheriff, constable or a police officer. Warrants normally issued by a court include search warrants, arrest warrants, and execution warrants. A typical arrest warrant in the United States will take the approximate form of: "This Court orders the Sheriff or Constable to find the named person, wherever he may be found, and deliver said person to the custody of the Court."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't think this is at issue.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)"no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
randome
(34,845 posts)We don't need 535 politicians all trying to get their own slice of the pie. 100 is enough.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)I'm in favor of divided government. I like my government big AND inefficient.
Romulus Quirinus
(524 posts)UK, Germany, France, Bolivia, Venezuela, Do we even need to research Russia and China?
No, we are quite aware that all of these countries have some domestic spying capability of one sort or another, which may or may not violate their local laws. I suspect many of the Western democracies have crossed their own lines, so to speak, and are experiencing uproars similar to our own. However, this in no way justifies our government doing the same to us, especially considering our vast (in an absolute sense) intelligence budget and concomitantly greater technical intrusion capabilities, which at this time are restrained by the thinnest of threads and a very weak auditing regime.
So the question that is going to remain when all the manufactured outrage is finished is: When can we have the rational discussion about what kind of national security surveillance program is needed if any?
Who can tell? Much of the problem is that most Americans (and humanity in general) do not have the specific computer science education to understand the mere size of quantities of data involved, much less the complexities of data mining and how swiftly that field is evolving. How many people here can say what power of 2 a petabyte represents, or why it comes in 2's rather than 10's? How many know the difference between a byte and a bit, or what layer the intercepts are occurring on, or what the basics of the IP protocol are? What and where are the internet backbones, and who is responsible for their maintenance? The understanding of this basic knowledge is vital for anyone who wishes to understand the scale and scope of the spying and what is being proposed in the name of security.
Assuming a number of us here are computer literate, then the debate can happen. I will assume anyone who responds is sufficiently informed and is responding in good faith unless they indicate otherwise. Which aspect would you like to debate?
(In addition, the implication that anyone who disagrees with how our surveillance capabilities are being put to use is somehow being dishonest is mildly offensive.)
Those of us on DU on my side of the issue have been ready since day one. Those of you on the other side are too busy falling over yourselves in a hyperbolic blame fest. That blame fest probably seems a little sillier since the revelations about all the other countries that do it including the western democracies and the Latin American countries and administrations that some of you think are heroic.
Thats, like, your opinion, man. I can only answer for myself.
We're waiting to have that conversation whenever you are ready. Take your time, get it all out of your system.
I took 20 minutes to type this up. I'm about to hit the road, where I'll be for a few hours. If I don't catch you before I leave, I'll do so afterwards.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Before I go into a point by point discussion, I have to ask, from my conversations with dkf and MNBrewer above, do you agree with them in terms of a desire to completely remove National Security Surveillance from the exceptions to the fourth amendment?
Romulus Quirinus
(524 posts)We only have an inkling of what is actually going on. If the worst case scenario is true, that the government is recording all communications and only considering it a "search/seizure" if someone runs a query against it, then something has to change. There is always a place for foreign intelligence, but it is a Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads if every communication is taken, awaiting the day it can be called up to condemn us.
The problem becomes "what do we change?" One half of the problem is limiting search capability via technological limitations. This is relatively straight-forward once we put our mind to it. The other half, the legal half, is much harder.
The entire apparatus of our legal system, from the Constitution up, is essentially obsolete with respect to current communications technology. If a Constitutional amendment or even a Constitutional Convention is the only way to change things, to shut the Panopticon which sees all and knows all, then what can we do? Since amendments are essentially impossible (we couldn't even pass the ERA, for God's sake) and rulings on Constitutionality of technological eavesdropping are often made by technically incompetent, but otherwise intelligent judges, we cannot depend on the Constitution alone, as it stands, to protect us.
If we decide to attempt to change the system via a bill in Congress, where do we start? This is where we touch upon the "secret law" that so many speak of: not truly a law itself, the Top Secret interpretation of the fourth amendment and the USA PATRIOT act that we are not privy to behaves essentially as a law unto itself.
The founders wrote into our Constitution that we should be able to confront our accusers in the court of law, because no man can defend himself if he doesn't know the nature of the crimes of which he is accused. Similarly, it is impossible to attack this secret interpretation of an already intolerable law via legislation if the vast majority of the US Congress is not allowed to even read it, much less we common folk.
We cannot take it to the courts, because we cannot prove standing. If by some miracle we can prove standing (say a leak), then the case goes before a court whose members are chosen almost exclusively by conservatively-oriented Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. If we win or lose, we cannot discuss vast swathes of the results of those cases without being given leave from that same court.
This is the source of the anger and frustration you see from most who oppose the current intelligence apparatus. As far as I can tell, we have no legal remedy.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)the 4th amendment afforded to national security surveillances traces back a long way perhaps to 1812.
If a Constitutional Amendment is passed that simply says that this exception no longer exists, would that be something you were in favor of.
The ERA is perhaps not the best example of an attempt to pass an amendment because the view of women as equals had not sufficiently evolved by that time and there was broad opposition on the conservative side of America.
An amendment to remove the exception we are talking about would have fairly broad support on the left and would also have support on the Libertarian right. I might even support it, if, and this is the big question, if I was convinced that the current threats were small enough that the risk was low.
Romulus Quirinus
(524 posts)But it seems the vast majority of the people who can make it happen have not interest. Certainly not 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the states. I would certainly support any such campaign.
The fact that the precedents allowing this exception trace back to 1812 highlights the frustration I feel when I see people attempting to frame modern communications within the framework of an 18th century document. We are as far removed from then as Captain Kirk is from us. We have moved so completely beyond that context, and age when leeches and balancing humours were medicine, that it would be funny, if it weren't for the knowledge that people who want you and I silenced are building an imposing and unanswerable edifice of power on that foundation.
Romulus Quirinus
(524 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Who gives a fuck what other countries are doing? Other countries do all kinds of fucked up shit, is that our standard now? What a sick joke it is to be posting this relativist crap on Independence Day.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Wow! 
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)What is, is the smarmy 'my country right or wrong' crap you represent.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)is just a distraction, IMHO. We need to have this discussion re: security and personal privacy.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)We'll see. I hope lots more people participate.
moondust
(19,981 posts)It's a vastly different world from 1776.
Viewpoint with John Fugelsang had on a national security attorney, Mark Zaid, Wednesday who explained that Snowden didn't have to release any classified information or put himself at risk to register his grievances. This attorney has apparently sued the government over such things on behalf of whistleblowers. Snowden also could have contacted a U.S. Senator's office (i.e. Ron Wyden). So there are channels available that don't risk compromising sensitive information and igniting perhaps foolish outrage in a public that isn't familiar with the challenges and parameters of intelligence gathering in the age of terrorism, smartphones, and insect-sized drones.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)document. I shudder to even think what the end result would look like.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)moondust
(19,981 posts)under the circumstances.
Maybe someday.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)And kicking up a cloud of dust won't make the original problem go away.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Do continue.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)The point stands even while you enjoy your humor.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,318 posts)You claim that you're in favour of a discussion on surveillance. I haven't seen you telling ProSense she's spamming the board with endless crap. Frankly, until you start that, you have no claim that you're after a discussion.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And why stop at Prosense? Why not tell me how much you want me to tell Skinner and EarlG how to run DU?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,318 posts)She is the person mainly responsible for the hysteria about Snowden. If you want to claim that you want a conversation, you should show you've made an effort to get those shouting about Snowden to shut up.
But I don't believe you want the conversation. See #75.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I have no idea what makes you think DUers would take orders from me.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,318 posts)You harp on about "manufactured outrage ", when you ignore the main maunfactured outrage - of ProSense, and some others, who have been desperately trying to make this about Snowden, or Greenwald, rather than the US government spying on its own people, and on friendly governments.
You ask "when can we have the rational discussion" - when this is the first time in a month you've tried to have a 'rational discussion'.
"Those of us on DU on my side of the issue have been ready since day one." Total bollocks. I have shown that you, personally, have just said "whatever Obama does is fine by me", and "other countries spy too". Since you appear to be on the "Obama can do no wrong" side, then I have to point out that those 'on your side' are busy flooding DU with spam threads about Snwoden - which is why I bring up ProSense. The 'blame fest' that has been aimed at Greenwald and Snowden - and The Guardian, which idiots here have been calling a right wing newspaper, and a front for British intelligence, in their unbelievable desperation to divert any attention away from the US government's spying - has been unbelievable. The DUers on your side are now cheering at the insulting of a head of state, by withdrawing flight rights, who dared to say Snowden might have a point.
God help us, your side is kowtowing to power like your life depends on it. Your brown-nosing is sickening.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)Spying on spies who spy on spies who spy on spies.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)and there are lots of us who refuse to agree that our government should be spying on US citizens. You can discuss all you want. I am not going to agree with you.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,318 posts)Look over there - another country does it
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023162494
When can we have the rational discussion about what kind of national security surveillance program is needed if any? When you stop screaming "waaah, but he does it too!"
If we look further back, we find you saying:
Greenwald probably damaged the investigation of the Boston bombing (which you got wrong, but you've used this as an opportunity to attack Greenwald)
FISA is wonderful (though you fail to address why the 'F' is now magically standing for 'Domestic')
The ACLU - what would they know about civil liberties?
I can't see you've made any proper effort to have a reational discussion about the surveillance. Just a kneejerk "Obama is wise - let him do whatever he wants, with FISA, which isn't in any fashion a rubber-stamp, nosir, not at all" program.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Kinda makes your intended point moot, no?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts) stevenleser
(32,886 posts)rational.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)technology. So we should join them and do it too.
The governments of certain wealthy countries may think this is OK, the people don't. The conservative party Austrian minister of the interior acknowledged that when she spoke about the process for granting asylum to Snowden and Morales' situation.
This program is wrong. at least 26 members of Congress question its scope and secrecy. More will join when more facts emerge. Just wait.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Something like "Judge, we need a trap on calls to and from THIS NUMBER" rather than towing a thousand-mile wide butterfly net through the air with 10,000 airplanes, trying to catch smoke.
I'd be all over that.
BTW, you're sounding terribly authoritarian these days Steve. That's not much like you. Each and every day, it seems more and more like for you this is ONLY about how Snowden has made President Obama look. You can stop worrying, my money is on President Obama to serve out the rest of his term. How he's judged by History though might be another story.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)How about a word concerning specificity as called for in the Fourth Amendment?
"...upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Instead, you mention the 'A' word (can't even SAY it, huh?). Want me to catch your show? Talk about something that MEANS something.
Still disappointed; you asked, I answered, and your reply is like one of those puffs of smoke our government is trying to catch with butterfly nets.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)You slay me. You really do.
