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

Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

mcclatchydc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 226 posts

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#131

Post by graycat »

I suggest that, on the question prominent in this thread, "what should the US do about terrorism and the claimed excesses of the NSA", there is now an answer that is unavoidable, rock solid, quite clear, maybe crystal clear, even if it does not address all concerns.

Here in logical steps is the unavoidable answer:

(1) Due to whatever in history before 1776, the US founding fathers gave us the Constitution. Soon they gave us the Bill of Rights. In particular we have the Fourth Amendment.

(2) Congress, the FISA 'court', the Intelligence committees of Congress, the president, the NSA, etc. may have done this and that, but there are claims that the Constitution has been violated.

(3) Law suits are being brought claiming that the Constitution has been violated. Apparently there will be suits from Google, EFF, and the ACLU, and there's little to stop more suits from being brought. It appears that quite generally lots of lawyers will be burning midnight oil, word processing, filing cases, etc.

(4) Very likely some of these law suits will make it to the steps of the Supreme Court, be taken in by the court, studied, argued, and decided. If the Constitution has been violated as clearly and strongly as it is easy to guess from the recent news, then the court will likely strike down at least some of the laws that enabled the violations. Really, for this process, nothing can stop it now -- not the president, the NSA, the FISA court, Congress. People can argue this and that, that we need what the NSA has been doing or we don't, but still the Supreme Court will take this issue and address it.

(5) The founding fathers made sure that the Supreme Court was not just a bunch of kids playing tag on a playground. Instead the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) is about as serious as anything in this solar system. The court is absolutely, positively 100% aware of the Constitution, their role in defending it, and threats to it. Arguments of short term expediency, the threats of Boston loser wackos with backpacks with pressure cookers, Jihaders with chembio in public places, or well funded efforts to sneak a nuke into a major US city will not be seen as repealing the Bill of Rights or even one comma in the Constitution. And the SCOTUS is just awash in power, both in principle and in practice, to strike down as unconstitutional whatever parts of the Patriot Act, the FISA court, etc. they conclude, with considerable study and wisdom, is appropriate.

The process of (1)-(5) has now started and will move forward "with all deliberate speed" which might be 1-2 years.

In simplest terms, the SCOTUS can, yes, understand the threats of terrorism but can understand with much greater concern the threats to the Constitution. The SCOTUS has no choice but to pay essentially all their attention just to the threats to the Constitution.

It's the process: The Executive branch is supposed to follow the laws and, really, can't change the laws. If the laws are too limiting for the important work of the Executive branch, then have Congress pass some new laws. We did that. If the new laws are unconstitutional, then bring suits before the SCOTUS to have the unconstitutional laws struck down. We're now in the process of doing just that. The SCOTUS has to protect the Constitution and can't change it. If the Constitution needs changing, then that's 2/3rds of the House, 2/3rds of the Senate, and 3/4ths of the states.

So, in 1-2 years we will know. The smart money is on the Constitution coming out whole. And the chances of an amendment to the Constitution are as usual from slim to none.

So, where will the SCOTUS defending the Constitution leave Congress, the Executive branch, the NSA, the FBI, local police, etc.? They will have to put their thinking caps on and find ways to protect the US from the Jihaders within the Constitution. Or the Executive branch will find more ways to violate laws and/or the Constitution, and then there may be more leaks, law suits, etc.

Whatever, and it may take time, in this mud wrestling the Constitution stands to come out whole. Thank you founding fathers.

Did the founding fathers see this coming? Absolutely. Been there; done that; got the T-shirt, 200+ years ago.

Or, we need to defend the US. One of the best parts of the US is the Constitution. So, it is logically impossible to defend the US and trash the Constitution. Instead, in defending the US, it is in particular necessary to defend the Constitution. For also defending the rest of the US, that's a problem we have to work to solve; I have no doubt at all we can solve it.

In simple terms, the problem is not finding ways within the Constitution to stop the Jihaders. Instead, the problem is stopping intellectually lazy, empire building bureaucrats and CYA politicians from using the Jihader threat as an excuse to trash the Constitution, build empires, and CYA.

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#132

Post by hga »

venomsnake wrote: post #122
hga wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think is going to happen to the Muslim parts of the world that aren't in majority non-Muslim nuclear states after the, say, third Muslim origin nuclear weapon slags a US city? That's a pretty powerful motivation to keep this beat back, to e.g. as I noted WRT to Afghanistan post-9/11 send a strong message that if you kill thousands of us we will return the favor to the leaders and enablers.

The same that will happen when my little pony characters begin to worship chaos undived and add Abbadon the Despoiler in the crusade against Gandalf who is sitting on the golden throne. The idea of a successful attack on US with missile is just bad B movie trope. Even USSR strategies were for massive waves of missiles that could overpower the defenses. Non state actors cannot manufacture nuclear weapons. This thing i…

Who said anything about missiles? For best effect, smuggle in a device and do the mother of all "suicide bombings" from a general aviation plane at optimum height and location. Nasty detail: as of when I left the D.C. area, the defense plans for the White House would only shoot down the 2nd airplane which violated the relevant restricted air space....

We also have absolutely no defenses for anything from our east, unless an Aegis ship with SM-3s and the upgrades to fire them is near the target and properly alert. This lack of protection was, after all, one of the reasons for the Bush plan to put ABMs in Eastern Europe, they'd protect everything there to the west, including the eastern part of the US.

As for sources, IF they got enough HEU they could most certainly manufacture working gun assembly nuclear weapons; as usual the trick is getting the fissionables, but are you entirely, "You Bet Your Life" sanguine about Pakistan's control over its nukes and nuclear materials??? And how responsible Iran will be when they get "the bomb" remains to be seen.

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#133

Post by Sven7 »

zainny wrote: post #120
Sven7 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finally someone with a realistic solution that can be politically acceptable. Amazing to watch how defensive people get over a question. So thank you, for showing everyone else who has been downvoting me into oblivion, the right way to react to questions that make one uncomfortable. And in the end, this debate will only move forward over reasonable solutions. Not fancy speeches on privacy and freedom. Which I have ha…

Other people have in fact been pointing out this very fact/approach as well, you just chose to ignore them. Coming in at the last moment and saying "Finally!" is just dense and completely transparent.

Hilarious :)

What else are you upset about?

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#134

Post by steveklabnik »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #2

A bit off-topic, but related: there's also a huge increase in the number of federal agencies who are outfitting their own SWAT teams. (This type of service, if really needed, could be delivered by the FBI or local law enforcement) SWAT teams traditionally have been there to diffuse potentially violent confrontations -- to reduce violence. But in the last decade or so [correction: three decades], we've seen a change i…

A few weeks ago, I was in Chicago, eating breakfast. I didn't realize that it was a national holiday. I came out of the diner, and turned a corner, and said "Whoah, when did a millitary parade happen?"

Then, I saw the words on the side of the APC: "Chicago Police Department SWAT."

To give you an idea, it looks like this: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kHTFUq0_Yec/T-s2AzxBmQI/AAAAAAAAHz... That's Nebraska, but it was basically the same model.

After the G20 came to Pittsburgh in 2009, the city used the money to purchase four of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Acoustic_Device During the event, I had the privilege of becoming one of the first Americans to have this particular, previously military-only weapon used on me. Why would a city of 300,000 people need four of these, especially as we're closing schools and cutting bus lines?

The militarization of the police force is a real problem.

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#135

Post by rdouble »

steveklabnik wrote: post #134
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #2

A bit off-topic, but related: there's also a huge increase in the number of federal agencies who are outfitting their own SWAT teams. (This type of service, if really needed, could be delivered by the FBI or local law enforcement) SWAT teams traditionally have been there to diffuse potentially violent confrontations -- to reduce violence. But in the last decade or so [correction: three decades], we've seen a change i…

A few weeks ago, I was in Chicago, eating breakfast. I didn't realize that it was a national holiday. I came out of the diner, and turned a corner, and said "Whoah, when did a millitary parade happen?" Then, I saw the words on the side of the APC: "Chicago Police Department SWAT." To give you an idea, it looks like this: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kHTFUq0_Yec/T-s2AzxBmQI/AAAAAAAAHz... That's Nebraska, but it was basic…

I could see how Chicago PD could use that APC/Tank vehicle, but not sure why the Nebraska highway patrol would ever need one.

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#136

Post by jackmoore »

mpyne wrote: post #18
shaunrussell wrote: post #11

one must ask, why does the US have enemies?

Yes, certainly America is solely to blame for anything bad that should ever happen to it, no matter what the response.

You've contributed nothing with this shameless strawman of an argument. Nobody here made that claim, and probably nobody ever has made that claim. Who are you arguing against?

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#137

Post by hga »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #116
twoodfin wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is this obsession with body counts? To bang again on my favorite drum, many, may more Americans were dying of polio or coal mining accidents in 1941 than German or Japanese bombs. That doesn't mean it was stupid to enter World War II. Obviously those who have chosen to deliberately kill civilians in spectacular ways are not right now a danger akin to imperial Japan or Nazi Germany. But will it really take a dirt…

>Obviously those who have chosen to deliberately kill civilians in spectacular ways are not right now a danger akin to imperial Japan or Nazi Germany. Obviously. Which is the point. >But will it really take a dirty bomb, a successful mass infection/poisoning, or god help us a nuke to stop this silly argument? These are movie theater plots. "Mass poisonings" are a very poor attack vector because as soon as they're ide…

"dirty bombs are a media fabrication" ... I don't know about this, once you factor in Green hysteria about radiation. I suspect a dirty bomb in e.g. Germany would have amazingly disproportionate results compared to the actual threat.

In the US, we'd probably do what they did in NYC after 9/11 WRT to the excessive claims of danger from asbestos, say "never mind" (after cleaning up hot spots). And "don't eat dirt" and the like, but who knows?

Elsewhere I've touched on how I'm not as sanguine as you over the real nuclear threat.

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#138

Post by refurb »

christkv wrote: post #95

reminds me off the Hermann Goering quote from the Nuremberg trial in 1947. "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the lea…

That's a bit simplistic, no? Sure, you might only come back to your farm in one piece, but what if the alternative to going to war is never coming back to your farm? What if it means leading a life that is far worse that what you currently have?

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#139

Post by refurb »

lukeschlather wrote: post #67
Sven7 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how do you plan to stop the next terror attack?

I don't. We could have a 9/11 type event every year, and it would still not be as big a problem as automobile accidents. If we're going to live in a police state, I would hope the police state would focus on major causes of preventable death, like disease and automobile accidents. Terrorism in the United States is not a serious problem worthy of this level of concern.

You see no difference between someone dying in a traffic accident and a citizens being murdered by acts of violence? A death is a death?

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#140

Post by graycat »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #130
graycat wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, now, now, which Fromm document did you have in mind? My favorite is his TAOL. That's the one?

There is nothing I read of him that I didn't utterly love, so I'd recommend whatever is easily obtainable, it's all good. But "The Sane Society" particularly comes to mind.

His 'The Art of Loving' was hands down one of the best things I ever read. He explained a lot to me about people, motivations, personality, women, etc. A lot. Some of his explanations were shockingly succinct but from decades of my checking empirically right on target.

To me in that book, he is fully credible. I can guess how he got the insights: Be a bright guy, have a good background in what was known, at least empirically, at the time about psychology and psychiatry, do a lot of clinical psychology, listen to a lot of people, and identify the main issues and forces in common. Now I can look at events A, B, and C, from Fromm find the intuitive, qualitative version of the conditional probability of event X given events A, B, and C -- P(X}A, B, C) -- when this conditional probability is high, take X as a candidate explanation, look at some more data, and often conclude that Fromm nailed it again.

Post reply on HN