Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal • Hacker News Board

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

#451

Post by AndrewBissell » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 7:28 PM UTC

chmod775 wrote: post #356

AndrewBissell wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The CIA had already started circumventing the POTUS's executive authority in Eisenhower's administration with unauthorized U-2 overflights of the Soviet Union, but it was when a rogue faction within it assassinated Kennedy (with some "special" help) that the CIA became the final word on any matters of real consequence to the U.S. empire.

Assuming the CIA assassinated a president because at one point someone gave a command without being explicitly authorized from their superior is quite a leap, don't you think? I have heard many different equally baseless conspiracy conspiracy theories about this by now, and they all have two things in common: They each conflict with the other theories and their adherents all sound utterly convinced they are right. Wh…

> Assuming the CIA assassinated a president because at one point someone gave a command without being explicitly authorized from their superior is quite a leap, don't you think?

Indeed it would be, and that's not what I was doing in my post. I brought up the U-2/Eisenhower history only to establish that the CIA was already taking steps to make itself the final arbiter on policy, above and independent from the POTUS. Especially when it came to any potential rapprochement in the Cold War, toward which JFK was also making serious overtures just before he was killed.

You can go looking through the vast numbers of theories around JFK's killing and find absurd ones I'm sure, but lumping them all together into one big undifferentiated mass hardly makes for a good argument. In favor of the existence of a conspiracy, there are numerous witnesses and extensive documented and circumstantial evidence, and the motive for such a conspiracy is clear. It's one thing if you don't find that evidence persuasive but it's ridiculous to call it "baseless."

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

#452

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 7:38 PM UTC

lifeformed wrote: post #200

jessaustin wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a simple majority system, a close result will entail a nationwide recount. With the Electoral College, recounts are only necessary at the state level. Smaller tasks are easier and faster.

Why is ease of recounting prioritized over fairness and accuracy?

The Electoral College is neither unfair nor inaccurate. Also, eliminating it would require a constitutional amendment, which could only be proposed by 2/3 majority votes in either the Senate or in a hypothetical "Article V" convention and then passed by 3/4 of the states. So, this reform that supposedly hurts small states requires two levels of approval from small states. That ain't happening.

Protests against Electoral College are a distraction from possible and substantial reforms, like ranked-choice voting and ending interstate crosscheck and similar disenfranchisement efforts.

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

#453

Post by hammock » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 7:38 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #388

hammock wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law..." and Congress still makes a law, what are you going to do, throw Congress in jail? That's nonsense. Well.. you could depose them. Or declare independence from them. That has happened a few times in history. The Constitution is a social contract. The people say "we'll give you (government) these abc powers, if you promise to use them this xyz way." When that co…

In an ideal world, yes. In our actual world, the Constitution was ratified by a very small number of representatives from the population. And those representatives were drawn from and selected by white male landowners who owned some minimum threshold of land. IIRC that counted for less than 10% of the people living in the proto-US.

So your solution is to throw Congress in jail? Or do you have another proposal?

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

#454

Post by Proziam » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 7:46 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #426

Proziam wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a senator woke up tomorrow and wanted to help a martian terror cell that nobody knew existed, they would still be assisting an enemy of the state. It would still be treason, and I doubt that interpretation would be a topic of debate. There are also groups who openly consider us their enemy and take action to harm the United States, even if we don't 'officially' recognize them. Some of these groups are nation-state…

A communist wouldn't accept that installing communism in the US is "waging war against the US", and legal precedence in the US is that its legal to be a communist, so I'm not sure what you meant by that. In fact, even supporting the Soviet Union would not be treason. Enemies, in this context, is very narrowly defined as an entity the US has declared war against. À senator helping a Martian terror state, as long as th…

It's not about communists, it's about groups that engage in specific behaviors such as economic warfare.

> Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them - or - adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

> Enemies, in this context, is very narrowly defined as an entity the US has declared war against.

There has been so few cases that this interpretation isn't well-tested. Regardless, based on cases that do exist, this doesn't seem to be true.

There are exceptions to what you're saying such as John Brown who was executed for treason for attempting (failing) to incite a slave revolt. Also, cases such as Fries Rebellion exist where war was never declared as far as I am able to ascertain, but the leader was convicted of treason. And then there's the case of Mary Surratt who was connected to the Lincoln assassination and executed for treason.

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

#455

Post by sudosysgen » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 8:53 PM UTC

Proziam wrote: post #454

sudosysgen wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A communist wouldn't accept that installing communism in the US is "waging war against the US", and legal precedence in the US is that its legal to be a communist, so I'm not sure what you meant by that. In fact, even supporting the Soviet Union would not be treason. Enemies, in this context, is very narrowly defined as an entity the US has declared war against. À senator helping a Martian terror state, as long as th…

It's not about communists, it's about groups that engage in specific behaviors such as economic warfare. > Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them - or - adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10…

I said that enemy was defined as someone that is at war with the US. John Brown attacked the US government, so it isn't treason under the section of aiding and abetting an enemy, but under war against the US. Same for the Fries Rebellion, same for Mary Surratt.

Economic warfare, whatever that means, against the US, is not illegal, and making it illegal is unconstitutional due to the strong protections for private property.

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

#456

Post by mattacular » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 9:02 PM UTC

jaywalk wrote: post #412

mattacular wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a family member that watches Fox News and then check some of their primetime programming out, you'll see both the fear and where that fear comes from.

And you could do the same with CNN and MSNBC. Don't single out one source, they're all peddling fear just in different ways.

I don't really disagree but I will single out Fox News because it's completely valid to do so. They are a much more blatant offender than any other outlet and essentially wrote the playbook on fear-mongering for political gain in this country. It's silly to deny the extent of their influence on the media landscape in your desire to seem equitable.

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

#457

Post by Proziam » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #455

Proziam wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about communists, it's about groups that engage in specific behaviors such as economic warfare. > Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them - or - adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10…

I said that enemy was defined as someone that is at war with the US. John Brown attacked the US government, so it isn't treason under the section of aiding and abetting an enemy, but under war against the US. Same for the Fries Rebellion, same for Mary Surratt. Economic warfare, whatever that means, against the US, is not illegal, and making it illegal is unconstitutional due to the strong protections for private pro…

> [0] economic warfare may reflect economic policy followed as a part of open or covert operations, cyber operations, information operations during or preceding a war. Economic warfare aims to capture or otherwise to control the supply of critical economic resources so that the military and intelligence agencies can operate at full efficiency or deprive enemy forces of those resources so that they cannot function properly.

If you think people engaged in the above activities aren't engaged in a crime, then there's no point in carrying this discussion further.

> Economic warfare, whatever that means, against the US, is not illegal, and making it illegal is unconstitutional due to the strong protections for private property.

This is 100% incorrect, on every level. Taking intentional action to harm an economy is a direct threat on the security of a nation and would be an objectively justifiable Casus belli.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_warfare

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

#458

Post by entropicdrifter » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 9:53 PM UTC

hyperdimension wrote: post #446

entropicdrifter wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Remember, there's an incredible amount of money changing hands in the military-industrial complex, and money plays a huge role in winning elections. This, to me, is the heart of the issue. American politics are fundamentally corrupted by campaign financing

I don't know, I feel like > A legislator's primary goal is to get reelected is the more pressing problem to issue first. Is their "primary goal" not to legislate first? Pandering to the court of public opinion in order to secure re-election seems like it would also cause all sorts of conflicting incentives.

I respectfully disagree; we want them accountable to the public. The simplest way to have politicians accountable to public opinion (without violence) is by making them have to care about elections. That's the entire point of democracy.

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

#459

Post by DaiPlusPlus » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 10:16 PM UTC

jaywalk wrote: post #412

mattacular wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a family member that watches Fox News and then check some of their primetime programming out, you'll see both the fear and where that fear comes from.

And you could do the same with CNN and MSNBC. Don't single out one source, they're all peddling fear just in different ways.

Fear and sensationalism sells news - yes. And Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are guilty of that - yes. But that does not mean they are in any way equivalent or as-bad-as-each-other. They are not.

Fox News uses fear - and the degree at which their resident pundits use falsehoods and misrepresent the truth - and use fear as a partisan tool to push one single political party - is far beyond CNN and MSNBC.

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

#460

Post by heimatau » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 10:52 PM UTC

salawat wrote: post #437

heimatau wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aristocratic comes with way more baggage than what you describe; and you only have to look at jolly old England to see that. To be an Aristocrat. You had to be landed, but you also had to fit somewhere in the Peerage or established Nobility. That whole system of class stratification? That came with an entire Parliamentry House in the form of the House of Lords. You never answered my question, "How would you define…

Apologies for all the typos by the way. Trying to get these written during breaks/downtime, and Autocorrect is making life interesting. >You never answered my question, "How would you define the ability to vote, as only going to select white men?" I actually did, but the typos may have minced it. You say they created a System where the vote only went to "certain white men". You're not really appreciating how wide tha…

>You said: The Peerage and Nobility is intrinsically woven into the concept and definition of English social and civic life. There is no 1:1 mapping of that same characteristic in the United States. There is no Aristocracy.

>> I said this: I'm not sure how you quantify (facts/evidence) your statement that "That is the exact opposite of Aristocratic". As this would be considered historic revisionism. Aristocratic might not be the most precise word (elitism goes too extreme) but it gets close enough to the vein of truth to understand my point. Selected few men, rule over the masses, by design. [1]

I'm not sure why you went on multiple different tangents but my main point is above and hasn't been refuted. It's almost as if you don't understand the definition of aristocratic (addressed later).

>You said: You can credibly say that it sure smells like an aristocracy nowadays, and I won't argue. Back then though? Absolutely not.

No. It was aristocratic then. It wasn't British aristocratic then but it was aristocratic, nonetheless. Yes, it was by design or else there wouldn't be a Republic. I'm not deeply a scholar of the time period therefore I can't say whether it was malevolent or not.

> Wiki says: Aristocracy (Greek ἀριστοκρατία aristokratía, from ἄριστος aristos 'excellent', and κράτος, kratos 'rule') is a form of government that places strength in the hands of a small, privileged ruling class, the aristocrats. The term derives from the Greek aristokratia, meaning 'rule of the best'. [2]

The founders didn't merit their land ownership nor the ability to read/write nor merit being white nor merit being male nor merit many other factors. It was circumstantial, largely through no agency of their own, which is privileged. They did use that privilege to attempt something new which was more Democratic than most forms of govts. Regardless, they were aristocrats. /end for me.

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24361561

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy

(edited for formatting)