Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional • Hacker News Board

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#61

Post by anigbrowl » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 10:47 PM UTC

joshfraser wrote: post #50

dictum wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What saddens me is that while in the 2012 elections it seems most Obama voters were effectively choosing the lesser of two evils, in 2008 they were voting for Obama. They believed in what he was supposed to represent. In retrospect, maybe they were voting against Bush . In the next election maybe a majority will vote against Obama , and the game will keep going.

We may never have a true democratic election in the US again. As long as the NSA dragnet exists, we'll never know what privately collected information was used to humiliate political opponents or cause them to withdraw from the race rather than face public embarrassment.

By your standards, we've probably never had such a thing. Look back to the election 1800: does this sound like a clean campaign to you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_1800#Campaign

What you're specifically alleging could be equally applied to elections in which Nixon was involved, which wer influenced by McCarthyism, when J Edgar Hoover was in office...we could go on tracing it back to the suppression of Shays' Rebellion in 1787 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shay%27s_Rebellion#Impact_on_Co...).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_1800#Campaign

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#62

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 10:48 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #59

bitwize wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the currently-accepted theory among political scientists is that America's first-past-the-post electoral system, in which the plurality candidate wins and everyone else loses, necessarily leads to an effectively two-party system.

Citation needed. In the US there have been other parties that have put presidents in office (Theodore Wilson was a Progressive Party candidate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_State... ) and in the UK, which also has a first-past-the-post system, there are multiple parties and the country is currently governed by a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. FPTP certainly makes 2-party…

> In the US there have been other parties that have put presidents in office

There have never been more than two nationally-competitive parties in the US. There have been times when a party collapsed and subsequently was replaced (the Federalists by the Whigs, and the Whigs by the Republicans.)

> Theodore Wilson was a Progressive Party candidate

Presumably, you mean (former) President Theodore Roosevelt, who, formed the Progressive Party in a factional split from the Republican Party over his dissatisfaction with his hand-picked successor.

And who didn't win, so isn't an illustration of your claim that parties other than the two major ones have put Presidents in office.

> and in the UK, which also has a first-past-the-post system, there are multiple parties and the country is currently governed by a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats

The UK and US differ in that, in additional to FPTP voting for members of the national legislature, the US has a separately (and indirectly) elected strong executive using a means that is even more strongly favors the two major parties than simple single-member district FPTP elections do; this not only gives a greater tendency for a major party to win control of the administration by winning the Presidential election, it further limits the expected influence of non-major party candidates for the national legislature, which further reduces their prospects.

So, yes, there is a well-understood structural reason in the electoral that the US has even less representative government and a stronger tendency to a two-party system (even though it has weaker parties) than the UK, even though both use FPTP for the national legislature.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#63

Post by anigbrowl » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 10:53 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #53

jivatmanx wrote: post #19

At a point in our nation's early history, we decided to trust Constitutional interpretation to the Supreme Court. There were cons to that decision - the Constitution is our social contract and thus it's interpretation is ultimately up to the people - but on the whole I think it was a good one. But, if for whatever reason, this Judicial review cannot occur - whether that be willful avoidance by the DEA for "Parallel C…

The idea that the interpretation of the Constitution is up to the people sounds like a good idea; however, how exactly would that work in practice? We obviously can't just let each individual interpret it how they see fit, or it becomes effectively meaningless. It would be equally impossible for each Constitutional question to be 'voted' on by the people. Is there a way I am missing? It seems the courts are the only…

The other (albeit largely theoretical) possibility is a Constitutional Convention.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#64

Post by tzs » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 10:59 PM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #8

It's fascinating that the situation is such a mockery of the rule of law, yet it keeps on rolling. If the FISA decided that the NSA's activities were illegal, why would it keep rubber-stamping the warrants? It seems like at that point it should deny every single request going forward until the illegal activities have stopped. Is there a process for impeaching the FISA judges for malfeasance?

One FISA judge ruled that one particular program (or perhaps part of one particular program) was unconstitutional. I don't believe we know any of the following:

1. Whether or not that is binding precedent on other FISA judges.

2. Whether or not that program (or that aspect of that program) continued after the ruling.

3. If it did continue, whether or not it was modified to address the concerns of that one judge.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#65

Post by impendia » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 11:01 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #54

mullingitover wrote: post #8

It's fascinating that the situation is such a mockery of the rule of law, yet it keeps on rolling. If the FISA decided that the NSA's activities were illegal, why would it keep rubber-stamping the warrants? It seems like at that point it should deny every single request going forward until the illegal activities have stopped. Is there a process for impeaching the FISA judges for malfeasance?

If the FISA decided that the NSA's activities were illegal, why would it keep rubber-stamping the warrants? First, I don't agree that they rubber-stamp warrants, but believe they evaluate them on a case-by-case basis - not least because their decisions might be classified now, but may well be declassified in the future, and their reasoning will be held up to scrutiny. More importantly, just because an agency is found…

I disagree that this argument involves a fallacy. The following statements are not equivalent:

1. It seems like at that point it should deny every single request going forward until the illegal activities have stopped.

2. Every request going forward is illegitimate.

(2) is false, but I believe that (1) is plausible, especially if there are any difficulties for FISA to determine whether any particular NSA request is legitimate or not.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#66

Post by jivatmanx » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 11:02 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #53

jivatmanx wrote: post #19

At a point in our nation's early history, we decided to trust Constitutional interpretation to the Supreme Court. There were cons to that decision - the Constitution is our social contract and thus it's interpretation is ultimately up to the people - but on the whole I think it was a good one. But, if for whatever reason, this Judicial review cannot occur - whether that be willful avoidance by the DEA for "Parallel C…

The idea that the interpretation of the Constitution is up to the people sounds like a good idea; however, how exactly would that work in practice? We obviously can't just let each individual interpret it how they see fit, or it becomes effectively meaningless. It would be equally impossible for each Constitutional question to be 'voted' on by the people. Is there a way I am missing? It seems the courts are the only…

Congress must take seriously the idea that upholding the Constitution is a central duty, and that the existence of the Supreme Court does not in any way eliminate that duty.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#67

Post by madaxe » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 11:04 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #54

mullingitover wrote: post #8

It's fascinating that the situation is such a mockery of the rule of law, yet it keeps on rolling. If the FISA decided that the NSA's activities were illegal, why would it keep rubber-stamping the warrants? It seems like at that point it should deny every single request going forward until the illegal activities have stopped. Is there a process for impeaching the FISA judges for malfeasance?

If the FISA decided that the NSA's activities were illegal, why would it keep rubber-stamping the warrants? First, I don't agree that they rubber-stamp warrants, but believe they evaluate them on a case-by-case basis - not least because their decisions might be classified now, but may well be declassified in the future, and their reasoning will be held up to scrutiny. More importantly, just because an agency is found…

They don't rubber stamp warrants because there are no warrants. See the XKEYSCORE presentation. They just need a loose reason that the person may or may not be affiliated with a foreign entity by up to five degrees of separation.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#68

Post by madaxe » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 11:05 PM UTC

mark_l_watson wrote: post #29

I donated money to Obama's 2008 campaign and voted for him twice. I am very disappointed with him. Now, my honest opinion is that at worst he sometimes flat out lies, or at least cleverly tries to confuse people. He says that he had an orderly plan for reviewing privacy issues, all the while, I think that his administration has consistently been trying to keep things hushed up.

He explicitly denied warrantless surveillance in his press conference a few hours ago - a few hours after the guardian published a piece on exactly how they go about it.

Also telling were the pregnant pauses when posed questions about the NSA, the backtracking on and modification of sentences that he realised were about to be dangerous, and the fact that he quipped about journalists reading body language when he met Putin - which rather tells us what was on his mind.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#69

Post by anigbrowl » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 11:09 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #62

anigbrowl wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed. In the US there have been other parties that have put presidents in office (Theodore Wilson was a Progressive Party candidate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_State... ) and in the UK, which also has a first-past-the-post system, there are multiple parties and the country is currently governed by a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. FPTP certainly makes 2-party…

> In the US there have been other parties that have put presidents in office There have never been more than two nationally-competitive parties in the US. There have been times when a party collapsed and subsequently was replaced (the Federalists by the Whigs, and the Whigs by the Republicans.) > Theodore Wilson was a Progressive Party candidate Presumably, you mean (former) President Theodore Roosevelt , who, formed…

Theodore Roosevelt indeed - I jammed his name together with Woodrow Wilson, his Democratic opponent. Wilson beat him handily, but Roosevelt still outpolled the GOP candidate, WH Taft.

You are quite right about the key difference with the US having an elected executive vs the parliamentary democacy system of the UK, but I don't see how FPTP prevent the election of Congressional candidates from outside the two major parties. There are usually a few independents in either chamber of Congress, but I don't see any particular reason why another party couldn't make a showing if it were willing to put in the organizational leg-work.

In my (limited) experience American politicians and parties are excessively focused on elective office; being from Ireland myself I think long-term success stems from building a solid local constituency. So for example, I think it's a complete waste of time for the Green party to run candidates in the US presidential election, instead of working to capture a few seats in Congress or in state legislatures. I have been involved in a few such local campaigns, and what I've observed is that on failing to win a major election the candidates tend to exit politics instead.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#70

Post by windexh8er » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 11:11 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #54

mullingitover wrote: post #8

It's fascinating that the situation is such a mockery of the rule of law, yet it keeps on rolling. If the FISA decided that the NSA's activities were illegal, why would it keep rubber-stamping the warrants? It seems like at that point it should deny every single request going forward until the illegal activities have stopped. Is there a process for impeaching the FISA judges for malfeasance?

If the FISA decided that the NSA's activities were illegal, why would it keep rubber-stamping the warrants? First, I don't agree that they rubber-stamp warrants, but believe they evaluate them on a case-by-case basis - not least because their decisions might be classified now, but may well be declassified in the future, and their reasoning will be held up to scrutiny. More importantly, just because an agency is found…

I'm not sure how anyone can has enough reasonable information to make a case that FISA doesn't rubber stamp cases. It seems to me it works that of the way large organizations navigate political nuances internally; people who don't run the technology and platforms make the decisions as it pertains to influence that, is often, good for self-preservation and fiscal motivation - the operators implement the systems as they see fit and generally don't have "real" oversight from the approvers. Even if they do - generally they don't have enough understanding to enforce it if they wanted to. It's just a matter of mincing words at that point.

I think until we see clear evidence from examples the number of cases denied are an obvious minority. Based on what we know from public disclosure, there is abuse. That to me states there is a good indication rubber-stamping has in fact occurred and should be reviewed. But, since it can't be...

The trustworthiness of the system is not there anymore and it has degraded to a point where most informed citizens would err on the side of saying there is something wrong. There are some grave issues that need to be addressed in short order or our government is going to push any data related industry the way of safer harbors.