Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them • Hacker News Board

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#141

Post by D9u » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 8:21 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #100

sixQuarks wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who is not affiliated with either party, I really don't get Obama supporters. He was supposed to bring change to the white house, instead, he has expanded Bush-era secrecy and has eroded our civil liberties even further... and not a peep from his support base. In my view, democrats are the lesser of two evils, but I'm just surprised that nothing has been done about this.

Bringing change is easier said that done. Consider an example from last week's news; US agents captured Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, a former Al Qaeda spokesman, and have brought him to New York to stand trial. Some politicians are incensed, saying that it willmake NY a terrorist target and that he doesn't deserve a criminal trial, and demanded that the fellow instead be sent off to Guantanamo bay and interrogated,…

...They don't march on TSA headquarters to demand the right to leave their shoes on...

I don't know about you, but I'm too busy trying to keep a roof over my head to go traipsing off to New York, or to join a march in demonstration of the TSA.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#142

Post by learc83 » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 9:05 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #107

foobarqux wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The press don't care because of structural reasons not because of a belief system common to Americans. Press reporting is systemically biased in favor of powerful interests that influence them by carrot and by stick.

Have you spoken to many Americans? I went to college in Atlanta, Georgia (a pretty liberal place as far as the South goes). A year or so after the 9/11 bombing, I remember my classmates talking about how we should turn the Middle East into a glass parking lot. Quite seriously, with zero disagreement from anyone else. This was at a well-regarded engineering school, so these weren't stupid people, and indeed they were…

I was in school next door at Georgia State about a year after that. The way I remember it was that the entire campus was basically wailing and gnashing their teeth at the prospect of war with Iraq.

I don't remember anyone, except me, who was pro war (btw I'm ashamed that I supported the war back then--before I shifted to more libertarian views).

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#143

Post by jacoblyles » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 9:14 AM UTC

mbetter wrote: post #101

jacoblyles wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in the business of building things that have never been done before, so I value economic freedom and good governance and my estimate of the lesser of two evils goes the other way. But it's sad that we get no civil liberties either way (unless people like Rand Paul get their way).

Translation: I'm rich and I don't want to pay taxes. Go suck an egg.

Ha! I'm poor, but optimistic. In my experience it's the people who are born privileged that believe in the leftist narrative that all your success is due to luck/privilege, and people born in poor families in poor red states just want the government to leave them alone.

But regardless, I don't mind paying taxes if it goes towards quality public goods. I do mind paying taxes that go straight into union members' pockets. It's shameful how much the Dems have sold out taxpayer interests in blue states to feather the beds of their union masters. Blue states budgets are sinking under union pension obligations. Shameful.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#144

Post by jacoblyles » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 9:15 AM UTC

Steko wrote: post #86

jacoblyles wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in the business of building things that have never been done before, so I value economic freedom and good governance and my estimate of the lesser of two evils goes the other way. But it's sad that we get no civil liberties either way (unless people like Rand Paul get their way).

"I'm in the business of building things that have never been done before," If only the government would get out of the hero entrepreneur's way so he and his fellow Bay Area/Boston/Chinese/Indian/Nordic/Eastern European/ engineers could bring their unique vision to life. "I value economic freedom" For today's GOP "economic freedom" translates to lower taxes for rich people, carte blanche to piss in the pool, and closi…

Blue areas are in a perpetual state of what I call "bad governance". California is an example - a high tax burden, poor public services, and a chronic budget deficit. If you investigate a bit further into how they could suck in so many ways you find out that Democrats held both houses of the legislature for three or four decades straight and that the public unions are their biggest financial supporters. And of course the unions get rich benefits while the rest of us get screwed. So we get high taxes but not even good services to show for it.

The California government is propped up by Hollywood and Silicon Valley, otherwise it would collapse under its illogic. Other blue state governments don't have that luxury and they are in far more dire straights. They have promised their unions more than they can pay and the unions have the power to hold on to it.

I know everybody has different ordering on the importance of issues so reasonable people disagree on politics. I want governments with balanced budgets, long-term planning horizons, decent public services, and a light burden on the private economy and I think the GOP is best suited to provide those things in most areas. It's certainly true in California.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#145

Post by XorNot » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 9:20 AM UTC

D9u wrote: post #137

rayiner wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is mostly just "truthy." In reality, federal surveillance was dramatically higher during the Cold War (modulo improved technology), and the idea of the strong unitary executive dates to the founding of the republic. Stuff that you claim is "unprecedented" is anything but. The concept of "preemptive war" has no real distinguishing characteristic in an American history full of military interventions absent direct…

Further, and tangentially, the idea that I have to remove my shoes prior to boarding a commercial airliner, without any (I've never hijacked a plane before) probable cause, in the same airport that I once carried weapons through while in the service of the US Army, is a definite affront to my sensibilities, especially as a loyal American. Just because a small group of predominantly Saudi Arabian nationals hijacked so…

By this logic you've just eliminated the point of all security screenings of anyone, anywhere, ever.

Yet most people would agree that it would be foolish not to take some precautions when loading 300 people on a cigar-tube cylinder in the sky.

It's worth noting that in the 1970s people weren't trying to commit mass casualty attacks with planes via the passengers nearly as often. Today, no one expects a conventional hijacking either.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#146

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 11:04 AM UTC

D9u wrote: post #140

rayiner wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama has been more or less the right-center President he was as a candidate. People who are surprised by this wishfully read too much into his rhetoric. E.g. Obama has continued interventions in Pakistan, etc, even though some people pinned their hopes on him as an "anti-war" candidate. But he was never "anti-war." He was "anti-Iraq war." He ran on a platform of "Bush took us into Iraq instead of hitting the terrori…

re: drone strikes, is it really any worse than the cruise missiles Clinton was fond of using? Clinton wasn't targeting Americans. If due process can be denied to any American, then our "Moral High Ground" has been forfeit. Even child molesters, and foreign spies, are afforded a trial. Terrorists should also face a trial, as well as punishment when convicted. As for the right-center President, there is very little dif…

> If due process can be denied to any American, then our "Moral High Ground" has been forfeit.

If due process can be denied to anybody, then our "Moral High Ground" has been forfeit.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#147

Post by SEMW » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 12:00 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #146

D9u wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

re: drone strikes, is it really any worse than the cruise missiles Clinton was fond of using? Clinton wasn't targeting Americans. If due process can be denied to any American, then our "Moral High Ground" has been forfeit. Even child molesters, and foreign spies, are afforded a trial. Terrorists should also face a trial, as well as punishment when convicted. As for the right-center President, there is very little dif…

> If due process can be denied to any American, then our "Moral High Ground" has been forfeit. If due process can be denied to anybody , then our "Moral High Ground" has been forfeit.

Exactly right. A moral high ground built on an axiom of 'our citizens are now deserving of human rights than anyone else's' is more of a moral tar pit than a high ground.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#148

Post by unclebucknasty » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 1:14 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #131

unclebucknasty wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. In fact, that's a pretty astounding statement. Executive power has expanded greatly since 9/11. The PATRIOT Act alone vastly expanded law enforcement capabilities. Law enforcement, of course, being of the Executive and including the DOJ. In fact this thread likely wouldn't need to exist if not for the expansion of NSL under the PATRIOT Act. Many of the rights that we ceded as citizens were given over direct…

This is mostly just "truthy." In reality, federal surveillance was dramatically higher during the Cold War (modulo improved technology), and the idea of the strong unitary executive dates to the founding of the republic. Stuff that you claim is "unprecedented" is anything but. The concept of "preemptive war" has no real distinguishing characteristic in an American history full of military interventions absent direct…

You're conflating drone strikes with uniformed soldiers killed on the battlefields of WWII, and I'm being truthy? Well. OK.

Likewise your other thin comparisons. They lack a certain depth that cause them to ring of disingenuousness. For instance, our actions in the past at least attempted to provide some pretext of military aggression against the U.S. or its allies. You yourself called them "interventions". But, you could not call Iraq an intervention, as there was no military pretext. It was unprecedented because we didn't even attempt to trump up the military pretext. We simply went to war based on what they "might do". Your attempt to dismiss such an obvious departure from American doctrine speaks for itself. In fact, it's so obvious that I actually feel silly responding.

I also wrote Bush's adherence to the strong unitary executive principle, which acknowledges its pre-existence. It was his extensive application of the principle that represented the power grab, per the examples I gave. Much of my comment was about the expansion of existing power vs. the "raw creation" of it.

In general, your citing examples of past abuses are just straw men. I never said that the U.S. has a perfect record or that there has never been abuse of power. But, we are living in a time wherein the Executive has more accepted power than in the history of our nation, and much of it has been enshrined into law. Again, the PATRIOT Act alone is unprecedented in the degree and scope of rights and protections that are given over to the Executive.

To ignore these realities and attempt to rationalize this power grab by spurious comparisons to the past is, at best, non-serious.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#149

Post by tatsuke95 » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 1:40 PM UTC

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #17

Fuckin' A, man! Please forgive me for that outburst. But this really puts a smile on my face. I think I'll go give more money to the EFF. Maybe rename my daughter Susan.

>Maybe rename my daughter Susan.

Or just have another daughter...or son?

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#150

Post by unclebucknasty » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 2:00 PM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #145

D9u wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further, and tangentially, the idea that I have to remove my shoes prior to boarding a commercial airliner, without any (I've never hijacked a plane before) probable cause, in the same airport that I once carried weapons through while in the service of the US Army, is a definite affront to my sensibilities, especially as a loyal American. Just because a small group of predominantly Saudi Arabian nationals hijacked so…

By this logic you've just eliminated the point of all security screenings of anyone, anywhere, ever. Yet most people would agree that it would be foolish not to take some precautions when loading 300 people on a cigar-tube cylinder in the sky. It's worth noting that in the 1970s people weren't trying to commit mass casualty attacks with planes via the passengers nearly as often. Today, no one expects a conventional h…

By your logic, the extent to which we protect American ideals and freedoms is a function of what other actors do. Worse, it is the most egregiously abhorrent actors who would drive our direction most.

The problem with this thinking is that it has brought us exactly to where we are today. It is a very slippery slope that can literally destroy the fabric of this country. There is no end to what can be justified under the pretext of security and we have already given up too many freedoms in the name of "security". I will omit the famous Ben Franklin quote regarding freedom and security, but it certainly comes to mind.

Those who would argue that it is necessary to curtail freedoms and rights in exchange for protection, must acknowledge that what they presume to protect would be a wholly different America, and they must be well with this new America. To make that argument would be honest and a simple matter of opinion, but to suggest that we can continue on this course without fundamentally altering this nation is nothing more than illusion.