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

181–190 of 226 posts

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

#181

Post by graycat »

dnautics wrote: post #146
graycat wrote: post #131

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…

This language ("aiding enemies of the US") is going to be specifically used to justify calling leakers "treasonous". The words are directly lifted from Article III of the constitution, part of which outlines what it means to commit treason. There are certainly holes in the constitution, which over time politician and bureaucrats always find a way to "hack" their way into securing more powers for themselves, such as t…

> I think this is very, very dangerous.

I agree. But, we should not be surprised since Jefferson told us

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

I believe, certainly I hope, that the SCOTUS will see the danger with crystal clarity. E.g., one of the main concerns of the founding fathers and objectives of the Constitution was to limit the powers of the central government and just because of the "dangers". I'd bet that the SCOTUS will see all this and not weasel out with some nonsense about "aiding enemies of the US".

We need to protect the Constitution and the rest of the US, not sacrifice one for the other -- yup, Franklin said something like that.

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

#182

Post by graycat »

doki_pen wrote: post #179
dnautics wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This language ("aiding enemies of the US") is going to be specifically used to justify calling leakers "treasonous". The words are directly lifted from Article III of the constitution, part of which outlines what it means to commit treason. There are certainly holes in the constitution, which over time politician and bureaucrats always find a way to "hack" their way into securing more powers for themselves, such as t…

In theory, the supreme court should see through "loop holes" and interpret the meaning of the constitution, not just the words.

That's their job and why we try to put smart people there.

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

#183

Post by graycat »

niels_olson wrote: post #172
robomartin wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sure you meant well but I found your write-up somewhat scattered and lacking a logical conclusion supported by prior points. This is easy to do if one is writing with passion. I've done it too. If your point is that we will ultimately be protected by the Supreme Court, I think you are wrong. This is the same Supreme Court that enabled Obamacare, a law that allows the Federal Government to force every american to…

> We had to pass it to find out what's in it Er, is it so amazing that you have execute code and see the results of the running process before you can really find the bugs?

When people see how bad it is, e.g., the IRS grabbing money out of their bank accounts, the people will understand "what's in it".

The people who passed it had their fun and, due to the delay in implementation, so far have not had to pay for their fun.

When people don't like it, Congress can repeal it, and the next president can sign the repeal. Mostly the waste will have been however many paper pushers wrote 10^10th pages of bureaucratic nonsense no one will ever read.

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

#184

Post by enraged_camel »

graycat wrote: post #181
dnautics wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This language ("aiding enemies of the US") is going to be specifically used to justify calling leakers "treasonous". The words are directly lifted from Article III of the constitution, part of which outlines what it means to commit treason. There are certainly holes in the constitution, which over time politician and bureaucrats always find a way to "hack" their way into securing more powers for themselves, such as t…

> I think this is very, very dangerous. I agree. But, we should not be surprised since Jefferson told us "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." I believe, certainly I hope, that the SCOTUS will see the danger with crystal clarity. E.g., one of the main concerns of the founding fathers and objectives of the Constitution was to limit the powers of the central government and just because of the "dangers". I'd bet…

>>I agree. But, we should not be surprised since Jefferson told us "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

What if SCOTUS decides to interpret this as "the price of liberty is eternal surveillance"?

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

#185

Post by graycat »

mpyne wrote: post #163
robomartin wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sure you meant well but I found your write-up somewhat scattered and lacking a logical conclusion supported by prior points. This is easy to do if one is writing with passion. I've done it too. If your point is that we will ultimately be protected by the Supreme Court, I think you are wrong. This is the same Supreme Court that enabled Obamacare, a law that allows the Federal Government to force every american to…

> This is the same Supreme Court that enabled Obamacare, a law that allows the Federal Government to force every american to buy something. That's exactly like saying the Federal Government forces everyone to get married and have children, since they'll charge you higher taxes if you don't. As it stands, I can remember a greater perversion of authority: the USA PATRIOT Act...

I've been guessing that W, Cheney, etc. knew quite well that the Patriot Act was unconstitutional but estimated, apparently correctly, that it would take years for the SCOTUS to strike down the law and in the meanwhile W, Cheney, etc. could "take the gloves off", go after the Jihaders, and teach them a lesson, not to mess with the big, bad US, that would last 1000 years. Why is it always 1000 years?

However at this point it appears that W and Cheney were not the brightest bulbs on the tree because we really have not exactly roasted all the Jihaders.

Indeed, OBL could laugh that just a few wacko Muslims sucker punched the US into wrecking its commercial airline system, trashing its Constitution, blowing $3 trillion (net present value) on absurd foreign adventures, killing 4000+ US soldiers and seriously wounding tens of thousands more, and still got run out of Afghanistan like so many before.

You know, there's good liberal stuff, good conservative stuff, some places for genuine argument, and then there's just plain dumb stuff. We blew it.

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

#186

Post by mpyne »

graycat wrote: post #177
robomartin wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sure you meant well but I found your write-up somewhat scattered and lacking a logical conclusion supported by prior points. This is easy to do if one is writing with passion. I've done it too. If your point is that we will ultimately be protected by the Supreme Court, I think you are wrong. This is the same Supreme Court that enabled Obamacare, a law that allows the Federal Government to force every american to…

> I am sure you meant well but I found your write-up somewhat scattered and lacking a logical conclusion supported by prior points. This is easy to do if one is writing with passion. I've done it too. IANAL! But my 'point' is that there is a process of bringing cases, claims of unconstitutionality, to the SCOTUS and now that process has started. There will be the issue of a plaintiff having 'standing' to bring the ca…

> One more point was, one of his tear jerk cases said that due to her existing bad health she couldn't get insurance. Nonsense: All she had to do was move to a state with 'community rating'.

That's actually one of the points Justice Ginsburg addressed in her concurring/dissenting opinion about the Obamacare case.

In the long term Obamacare systems have failed in individual states that have tried to impose it, because the inevitable result is that neighboring states dump their unhealthiest people into those states using a community rating.

It's the same problem as any other actuarial scheme like life insurance or fire fighting. Having a lower whole-community rate for everyone only works when the most-expensive people can't unilaterally decide to arbitrage against the least-expensive community.

With Obamacare the incentive for that type of arbitrage is drastically reduced, as wherever you are moving from will have some form of community rating as well.

Of course with the old scheme it is likely that the state using community ratings would have moved to establish a firm time-based residency requirement. But then it would not be possible to claim that all someone has to do is move to the right state. For that 12-24(+?) month window that person would be essentially screwed.

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

#187

Post by graycat »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #176
graycat wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 em…

Before reading Fromm, I never thought about the difference between having and being; but once seen it can hardly be unseen. Like when he talks about idolatry or God, with a point and seriousness and as atheist, or the distinction between necrophilia and love of life -- before Fromm necrophilia was something out of gross jokes to, not anything I could seriously ponder, but now I'm thinking we're just so deep into all…

Wow! Some of that may also be in the last half of 'The Art of Loving', but what you wrote is new to me. You are right -- just from what you quoted, he had something perceptive and important to say.

And on India, he's right: I refuse to pay attention to India, and for essentially just the reason he said.

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

#188

Post by enraged_camel »

Sven7 wrote: post #82
grey-area wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a free society, you can't guarantee that you will stop terror attacks. They do cause damage and mayhem, however that is strictly localised unless the government overreacts and introduces draconian measures in a mistaken attempt to find terrorists under every rock. The UK survived decades of terrorism (sponsored by some US politicians like Rep. Peter King, now so ferocious against terrorists) without relying on mas…

If you were a Congresswoman, and a terror attack happened in your district, and you give this speech, what do you think the reaction would be?

If I were really brave, like Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg was after the 2011 massacre there, then I would stick by the ideals my country was founded upon and wouldn't particularly care about the public's reaction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks#Domestic

"At a press conference the morning after the attacks, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and Justice Minister Knut Storberget addressed the country. Stoltenberg called the attack a "national tragedy" and the worst atrocity in Norway since World War II. Stoltenberg further vowed that the attack would not hurt Norwegian democracy, and said the proper answer to the violence was "more democracy, more openness, but not naivety".

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

#189

Post by graycat »

mpyne wrote: post #186
graycat wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am sure you meant well but I found your write-up somewhat scattered and lacking a logical conclusion supported by prior points. This is easy to do if one is writing with passion. I've done it too. IANAL! But my 'point' is that there is a process of bringing cases, claims of unconstitutionality, to the SCOTUS and now that process has started. There will be the issue of a plaintiff having 'standing' to bring the ca…

> One more point was, one of his tear jerk cases said that due to her existing bad health she couldn't get insurance. Nonsense: All she had to do was move to a state with 'community rating'. That's actually one of the points Justice Ginsburg addressed in her concurring/dissenting opinion about the Obamacare case. In the long term Obamacare systems have failed in individual states that have tried to impose it, because…

You are trying to take Obamacare seriously. Sure, it's a serious issue, and no doubt in the 2000 pages of the bill and the 10s of thousands of pages of 'regulations' there is some good thinking.

But my overwhelming impression is that Obamacare was, in the end, poorly designed. Maybe enough writers of 'regulations' can make it helpful, but I doubt it. I just believe that the whole thing was politics, not healthcare. Or, I can't trust in the seriousness of something that made Nancy smile like a Homecoming Queen. And I can't trust the academic 'health care system economic planning' community. That's Karen Davis, right? I've been too close to such academics, and I wouldn't trust it to hand me a band aid.

The exceptions have already started. Supposedly Congress doesn't want it for themselves (does this mean they actually read some of it or understood it was junk just on general principles?). Some states are fighting it.

My guess is that after Obama leaves office there will be no one strongly supporting it. Then the IRS will torque off one too many people, and Congress will just repeal it. I'm just guessing of course.

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

#190

Post by csense »

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.

> it would still not be as big a problem as automobile accidents

In terms of deaths? No, it wouldn't.

But what about the property damage and economic disruption that came from attacking an important financial center?

Post reply on HN