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

#141

Post by e3pi » Sat, Aug 10, 2013, 8:30 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?

>It's fascinating that the situation is such a mockery of the rule of law, yet it keeps on rolling.

Unable to be aware of the current secret case law history, addressing the FISA secret court, is it intellectually dishonest to still say, `Your Honor?'"

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

#142

Post by mullingitover » Sat, Aug 10, 2013, 8:52 PM UTC

dylangs1030 wrote: post #102

chinpokomon wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The burden of proof applies to those who's liberties are infringed. If my rights are being stripped, the burden of proof should not be that I need to prove the NSA is infringing those liberties, it should be that they need to prove that they aren't. With National Security Letters, the recipients can't even acknowledge that they've received them, and with the FISA court, we have no way to know.

You missed the point. In logic, it's fruitless to try to place the burden of proof on a negative statement. Example: "Prove there isn't an invisble ball of undetectable mass swirling in my hand." What I was saying is a general rule that's valid across every subject in logical debate, and it is valid as a response for the sentence I quoted. What you're saying isn't a rebuttal to my point.

> In logic, it's fruitless to try to place the burden of proof on a negative statement.

That's unnecessary. We've already seen, via the leaks, that dragnet surveillance is happening. The NSA's claim that domestic communications are sacrosanct are put to lie by the revelations that the DEA and IRS are both using laundered NSA domestic surveillance data. We're now well beyond the need to prove that the government is in a state of sin with regard to the Constitution. The issue now is what remedies we'll pursue.

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

#143

Post by bsbechtel » Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 1:30 AM UTC

chinpokomon wrote: post #131

bsbechtel wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to affect change, maybe helping out with this would be a start: https://medium.com/surveillance-state/7d456a6a04df

I'm on board with this, but I expect little traction. I got actively involved with the Republican Party because I saw them as the lesser of two evils. I hoped that my fresh outlook might be able to influence the party to become the party I imagined they could be. To become involved to the point you might make a difference, you need to demonstrate that you share the same values as the leadership... effectively prevent…

Do you have write-in candidates in Washington? I'd see what I'm proposing as more of a platform for introducing new ideas and gathering popular support for them. You just need to identify who is credible to bring forth those new ideas, and give them a platform first.