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

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

#161

Post by rayiner » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 8:01 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #152

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.

Nerds on message boards also think that the country is outraged alongside them about TSA scans. But I listened to Talk of the Nation this week on the new TSA pocketknife policy, and the sentiment was overwhelmingly in the other direction --- "I fly with my children, so I think anything we can do to make ourself more safe...". People are angry at TSA... for relaxing restrictions on carry-on items! I opt out of the ele…

The only reactions I've gotten re: the TSA have been:

1) General annoyance at how much time it adds to the process;

2) People who don't like taking orders from TSA workers (on class/race grounds);

3) Slightly exhibitionist reactions from female friends who don't mind the naked scanners.

At least (1) is by far the most common reaction, but I'm not even kidding about (2) and (3).

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

#162

Post by rayiner » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 8:08 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #142

rayiner wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I was actually quite opposed to the Iraq war (on time/money grounds, not pacifism) but I was quite definitely in the minority. Then again, Georgia Tech is a pretty conservative place as far as universities go, especially within the engineering departments. I think the political tone was closer to the mainstream, though, than what is the case at other universities.

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

#163

Post by anigbrowl » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 10:56 PM UTC

wnight wrote: post #159

anigbrowl wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a lot to say about it because I'm very interested in law, as well as theories and philosophy of law. I feel these offer some important context that is otherwise missing from these discussions, and that many people are unaware of. I'm not trying to swamp your point, though.

I too am interested in law, but more with anthropological curiosity. My thinking on governance is akin to the rape model though - all that matters is if they're currently saying "No". It looked like you were just saying that eminent people (Jefferson) had once thought the courts too powerful among the branches of government and that this had bearing on this situation via some "requires the powers to enforce their man…

Oh, just pointing out that quite eminent historical personages had different opinions on the merits of judicial review, and that similar views still exist today, although they're in a minority. I think people are inclined to assume that The Way Things Are is much the same as How They're Supposed To Be, when in fact the country might have developed quite differently very easily, despite having started from the same constitutional beginning.

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

#164

Post by pinko » Sun, Mar 17, 2013, 12:40 AM UTC

macchina wrote: post #130

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Credo mobile, it's in the article.

Yeah, Credo is sort of a bizarre little company. They created a Super PAC to oppose tea party candidates and to support public financing of campaigns, i.e., outlawing Super PACs (they were a total anomaly in this regard). In 2011, they received one of those so called "national security letters" and just completely stonewalled the FBI. Thank god for this one activist mobile carrier or this case would've probably never…

Credo is the latest incarnation of the old Working Assets long-distance firm, if you're old enough to remember them and that helps explain their politics.

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

#165

Post by Snoptic » Sun, Mar 17, 2013, 3:49 AM UTC

pinko wrote: post #164

macchina wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Credo is sort of a bizarre little company. They created a Super PAC to oppose tea party candidates and to support public financing of campaigns, i.e., outlawing Super PACs (they were a total anomaly in this regard). In 2011, they received one of those so called "national security letters" and just completely stonewalled the FBI. Thank god for this one activist mobile carrier or this case would've probably never…

Credo is the latest incarnation of the old Working Assets long-distance firm, if you're old enough to remember them and that helps explain their politics.

Wow,nice!

Just saw their website. Impressed by the progressive values, saddened by the partisan politicking ('fight the right', WTF?

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

#166

Post by Snoptic » Sun, Mar 17, 2013, 3:58 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #154

unclebucknasty wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am bringing up historical context because you keep using the word "unprecedented." We did attempt to justify the Iraq war: WMD's. No less justifiable than many of our other interventions in Latin America, Asia, etc. Spanish American war anyone? Also: since when is justification required to go to war? The test has never been more or less than "protecting our interests." I don't think its a stretch to compare an Amer…

The problem of habeas corpus isn't to protect Al Awalki, it is to prevent the government from torturing Al Avalki for ten years and then saying, oops, we got the wrong guy.

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

#167

Post by Snoptic » Sun, Mar 17, 2013, 4:01 AM UTC

SEMW wrote: post #147

jacquesm wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If foreigners can't submit to our responsibilities, then they can't have our rights. The US doesn't rule the whole world, and the world doesn't want US to. Therefore, conflicts will arise, and there is no fair play among warring nations.

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

#168

Post by XorNot » Sun, Mar 17, 2013, 9:32 AM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #150

XorNot wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Your freedoms are hardly being overtly invaded by being security screened when you fly. Whether the security screening is effective or a distraction is a different question (or dangerous, in the case of the X-Ray backscatter).

I'm curious what freedoms you think you've given up in the name of security, that aren't simply complaints about being inconvenienced. Because there's plenty of real problems, but, in the context of this little comment-chain, the issue was airport security.

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

#169

Post by unclebucknasty » Sun, Mar 17, 2013, 2:51 PM UTC

Snoptic wrote: post #166

rayiner wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am bringing up historical context because you keep using the word "unprecedented." We did attempt to justify the Iraq war: WMD's. No less justifiable than many of our other interventions in Latin America, Asia, etc. Spanish American war anyone? Also: since when is justification required to go to war? The test has never been more or less than "protecting our interests." I don't think its a stretch to compare an Amer…

The problem of habeas corpus isn't to protect Al Awalki, it is to prevent the government from torturing Al Avalki for ten years and then saying, oops, we got the wrong guy.

Yes. This.

These guys always assume the government only takes freedoms from the bad actors, but, that logic is completely circular. The entire point of our system is that the government doesn't get to make that determination unilaterally. When they do, and in particular when the Executive alone does so, it's called a dictatorship.

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

#170

Post by wnight » Sun, Mar 17, 2013, 5:02 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #163

wnight wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too am interested in law, but more with anthropological curiosity. My thinking on governance is akin to the rape model though - all that matters is if they're currently saying "No". It looked like you were just saying that eminent people (Jefferson) had once thought the courts too powerful among the branches of government and that this had bearing on this situation via some "requires the powers to enforce their man…

Oh, just pointing out that quite eminent historical personages had different opinions on the merits of judicial review, and that similar views still exist today, although they're in a minority. I think people are inclined to assume that The Way Things Are is much the same as How They're Supposed To Be, when in fact the country might have developed quite differently very easily, despite having started from the same co…

I've re-read your earlier post and I have to say that any view that requires the supreme court to enact laws they find outside the scope of the constitution is just baffling and tautologically wrong.

Marbury v. Madison didn't establish a power, it clarified the obvious. If the law oversteps the bounds of the constitution the court has no power to enforce it - their and congress' own power being derived from the constitution. Nobody can be ordered by law to do something beyond the scope of law.

But above and beyond that, "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in [the supreme court]" is pretty clear - congress passes laws and the courts enforce them. If a single entity was desired, it'd have been specified.

It doesn't mean the SC is the final arbiter of constitutionality, the people are, but they certainly have the ability and duty to say no.