Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 493 posts

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#221

Post by codethief »

stefan_ wrote: post #173
ncmncm wrote: post #2

Now, when can we begin prosecuting the instigators? Presumably, after we have prosecuted those who ordered and participated in torture. (There is no statute of limitations on torture, is there?)

The historical track record isn't good. Nobody bothered much with prosecuting nazis or nazi collaborators after WW2, Stasi spies after the reunion, party members after the soviet collapse, AT&T and others for collaborating with the NSA on warrantless surveillance (that was Bush) or the CIA torturers (that was Obama). "[N]othing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past … we must resist…

While not many Nazis and Stasi agents got convicted at the end of the day (mostly due to a lack of clear evidence), many of them at least were tried in a proper court. In case of the US intelligence agencies, however, not even that is happening.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#222

Post by ColanR »

joshuamorton wrote: post #178
mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They lost the territory and all of its resources that allowed those within it to eventually overtake their status as the world's most powerful nation.

Note that in the broader context the claim was that we should throw politicians in prison, or face punishment for doing illegal things. Britain as an entity certainly faced consequences from US independence, but they didn't behead the queen (which *did happen 20 years later in france).

It seemed pretty obvious to me when I wrote the original content that I was referring to the American revolution as the 'holding Britain accountable'.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#223

Post by 37383265253 »

ncmncm wrote: post #2

Now, when can we begin prosecuting the instigators? Presumably, after we have prosecuted those who ordered and participated in torture. (There is no statute of limitations on torture, is there?)

Why would you prosecute people who were given permission by the relevant authorities?

>The call-tracking effort began without court authorization under President George W. Bush following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.So the PotUS gave them the authority.

>A similar program was approved by the secretive FISA Court beginning in 2006 and renewed numerous times, but the 9th Circuit panel said those rulings were legally flawed.So in this instance the IC was still operating under the authority of the FISA court. Whether the court came to the right conclusions or not is irrelevant to whether or not the agencies were bound to following those conclusions.

>The metadata program was officially shut down in 2015 after Congress passed the USA FREEDOM Act, which provided a new mechanism where phone providers retained their data instead of turning it over to the government. The revamped system appears to have been abandoned by the NSA in 2018 or 2019.So the programs being discussed have already been terminated. What more would you have done? Are we going to prosecute judges for making rulings we disagree with?

>The American Civil Liberties Union hailed the decision as "a victory for our privacy rights," though the left-leaning group said it was "disappointed that, having found the surveillance of Mr. Moalin unlawful, the court declined to order suppression of the illegally obtained evidence in his case."As an aside, it's wildly funny to me that the ACLU won't defend free speech anymore but they'll defend terrorists and their supporters.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#224

Post by laughinghan »

yyyk wrote: post #213
laughinghan wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not having a pardon power allows bad judges to throw anyone they don't like into jail with no recourse by anyone. Technically, all judges can be impeached, and all judges other than SCOTUS can be appealed (there's actually a specific writ you can file claiming to be jailed unjustly, habeas corpus). In practice, impeachment hasn't proven to be much of a check on judicial power (recall elections have probably been more…

Technically, all judges can be impeached, and all judges other than SCOTUS can be appealed (there's actually a specific writ you can file claiming to be jailed unjustly, habeas corpus). This doesn't vacate the original judgement, which is nigh-unappealable if made by SCOTUS. There are also cases when impeachment isn't warranted but a pardon still makes sense (I gave examples in another post in the thread). I think ad…

I don't think SCOTUS in its entire history has ever directly ordered anyone jailed, only upheld lower court rulings jailing someone or overturning opinions that concluded someone shouldn't be jailed. So at most that's recourse within the judicial system failing, not lack of recourse; obviously, pardon power can "fail" as recourse too, if anything, not providing recourse to injustice is the normal operation of pardon power.

If my choices were status quo and status-quo-except-pardon-power-is-abolished, I would probably prefer the status quo, because law enforcement overreach is currently a bigger problem than abuse of pardon power. But you made a much stronger statement: "There's no choice in a democracy but to have something like the pardon power." I disagree with that, I could easily imagine a much more just and fair democratic system where all recourse to judicial overreach still involved a decision by a judge at some point.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#225

Post by est31 »

portpecos wrote: post #202
lehi wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A reminder that a CIA officer who oversaw, ordered, and participated in systematic detainee torture, then wrote the order to destroy the evidential tapes of said torture, was not only not punished or prosecuted but promoted to the current Director of the agency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_CIA_interrogation_videota... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Haspel

Yeah but Gina had unanimous support by Democrats, Republicans, and the entire CIA to become the Director of the CIA. Let’s not forget that Obama re-signed the Patriot Act even after campaigning in 2008 to end it. This kind of behavior is a problem that spans generations of government positions. It’s about time something is done about it.

> Yeah but Gina had unanimous support by Democrats, Republicans, and the entire CIA to become the Director of the CIA.

* 109 generals oppose her nomination in a letter: https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/RMLSena...

* yes, there were some democrats who voted in her favour, but there were republicans too who voted against her. Overall though, the overwhelming majority democrats did vote against her. Far from "unanimous support" like you claim.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#226

Post by joshuamorton »

ColanR wrote: post #222
joshuamorton wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that in the broader context the claim was that we should throw politicians in prison, or face punishment for doing illegal things. Britain as an entity certainly faced consequences from US independence, but they didn't behead the queen (which *did happen 20 years later in france).

It seemed pretty obvious to me when I wrote the original content that I was referring to the American revolution as the 'holding Britain accountable'.

Perhaps, but I don't think that they were punished. The difference I'm getting at here is subtle, but it's the difference between declaring independence and replacing the existing government. Both happen through revolution of some form, but one breaks away from a government you dislike. THat's not punitive. One replaces it and usually punishes the old one.

Declaring independence from a distant seat of government is vastly different and vastly easier than trying to overthrow the local government.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#227

Post by Thorentis »

mLuby wrote: post #127

Our society hasn't figured out how to punish organizations, whether businesses, NGOs, religious groups, or government agencies. Past a certain level, fines don't cut it—you need existential threats. We need "prison" more often for misbehaving entities; that is, a prohibition on operating for the duration of the sentence. "But what about all the people who will be unemployed?" Exactly, that's part of the incentive not…

Shutting down the NSA isn't the answer. We do need those orgs to keep operating for good reasons. Otherwise somebody who dislikes those orgs or has a grudge can shut the whole thing down by breaking the law (imagine a foreign agent playing the "long-con" and doing this).

The answer, as others have already said, is imprisonment of commanding officiers, supervisors, senators in charge of oversight committees, etc. Hold the people that make decisions accountable. Don't hold the entry-level engineers who had a family to feed accountable. Hold the people calling the shots accountable. 10 years in prison is a pretty good incentive for those in charge to make sure what they and their employees are doing is legal.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#228

Post by Igelau »

laughinghan wrote: post #189
stefan_ wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The historical track record isn't good. Nobody bothered much with prosecuting nazis or nazi collaborators after WW2, Stasi spies after the reunion, party members after the soviet collapse, AT&T and others for collaborating with the NSA on warrantless surveillance (that was Bush) or the CIA torturers (that was Obama). "[N]othing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past … we must resist…

I'm confused by your Bush and Obama references—both incidents occurred under Bush, the one that you attribute to Bush was revealed under Obama, whereas the one you attribute to Obama was revealed under Bush. Are you attributing based on occurrence or based on decision not to prosecute? Did you accidentally switch them?

It appears to be trying to say "no one prosecuted the CIA torturers (and the Obama administration should have)." Implying not that his administration was behind it, but that his administration failed to do anything about it after the fact. Which may or may not be a fair point.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#229

Post by 205guy »

ndesaulniers wrote: post #198
chard_slicks_ wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will Clapper's perjury ever be punished?

I wonder if Clapper established that you could lie before US Congress without consequence, or if there are earlier instances?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North

"In July 1987, North was summoned to testify before televised hearings of a joint congressional committee that was formed to investigate the Iran–Contra scandal. During the hearings, North admitted that he had misled Congress..."

One of the sources explains that when congress investigated the Iran-Contra scandal, it granted Oliver North immunity for what he would say. From one of the Wikipedia sources:

"The most serious obstacle to North's prosecution was the immunity grant extended him by the Select Committees that in 1987 investigated the Iran/contra matter. North's nationally televised testimony under that grant of use immunity, which guaranteed that nothing he told Congress could be used against him in a criminal proceeding, greatly complicated Independent Counsel's investigation and raised serious questions as to whether North could ever be tried."

https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_02.htm

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#230

Post by Igelau »

BoorishBears wrote: post #211
0xdde wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have some deeper point you're trying to get at? This sounds like a total nitpick, and I'm not sure where you're getting your erroneous corrections from. The illegal wire-tapping was a matter known to the public before Obama's time and there was a case brought by the EFF during the Bush years. The CIA torture comment most likely refers to the fact that a Senate report on CIA abuses was published during Obama's…

It is plain as day the current language in the comment is implying Obama was behind it. A clarification to that is pretty far from a nitpick.

Polarizing much? When you get to "or the CIA torturers" back up and find the verb. It's just poor sentence structure.
Post reply on HN