White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts • Hacker News Board

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#41

Post by reginaldjcooper » Sun, Dec 22, 2013, 2:37 PM UTC

sparkie wrote: post #36

Theodores wrote: post #15

This is great - they are making it worse for themselves! Before the Snowden revelations came along nobody took you seriously if you thought we lived in a world of mass surveillance. Now we all know all too well that we do. As the scandal unravels the government are clinging to the 'terrorism' fig leaf. They haven't got anything else, no other plausible excuse for what they have been up to. Nobody has completely seen…

The "protect the children" card. It's already in full use in the UK, with mandatory opt-out porn filtering.

And sex education filtering.

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#42

Post by sneak » Sun, Dec 22, 2013, 3:13 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #30

samgranieri wrote: post #16

James Clapper needs to be fired

He needs to experience the same treatment I would experience if I lied to Congress. This treatment would go quite a bit beyond being fired.

http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#43

Post by drcube » Sun, Dec 22, 2013, 3:31 PM UTC

RexRollman wrote: post #19

There really is nothing the government won't do to keep its illegal surveillance powers.

Yeah, does anybody think this will actually stop, even if the courts demand it?

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#44

Post by aluhut » Sun, Dec 22, 2013, 3:52 PM UTC

I'm curous. Could someone tell me how the republicans feelings are towards all this? Are they doing something? They are in some way in a bad position. Much of the stuff has been established under Bush but on the other hand they pretend to "protect the constitution" and of course they don't like Obama.

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#45

Post by w_t_payne » Sun, Dec 22, 2013, 4:01 PM UTC

atlantic wrote: post #37

brianpgordon wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Checks and balances. The NSA is funded by Congress. Congress needs the courts in order for their legislation to have any effect.

Intelligence agencies have a history of attempting to circumvent the limitations imposed by funding. There's a lot of evidence that the CIA has been involved in drug trafficking. In the case of the NSA, it could for example sell some of its intel to the private sector (technical and business information concerning rival companies).

So what do you think it is in this case? Front running? Or a more esoteric form of market manipulation?

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#46

Post by yardie » Sun, Dec 22, 2013, 4:04 PM UTC

Theodores wrote: post #15

This is great - they are making it worse for themselves! Before the Snowden revelations came along nobody took you seriously if you thought we lived in a world of mass surveillance. Now we all know all too well that we do. As the scandal unravels the government are clinging to the 'terrorism' fig leaf. They haven't got anything else, no other plausible excuse for what they have been up to. Nobody has completely seen…

China.

They are already engaged in cyberwarfare with the PRC. I haven't met anyone in the security industry that would dispute this. It doesn't generate headlines because no one has actually died. I feel eventually the need of the state will outweigh the diplomatic necessity of maintaining most favoured status with the Chinese.

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#47

Post by joelgrus » Sun, Dec 22, 2013, 4:08 PM UTC

aluhut wrote: post #44

I'm curous. Could someone tell me how the republicans feelings are towards all this? Are they doing something? They are in some way in a bad position. Much of the stuff has been established under Bush but on the other hand they pretend to "protect the constitution" and of course they don't like Obama.

It varies, the "national security Republicans" are all for the surveillance, e.g.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2013/12/mike-rog...

whereas the "libertarian Republicans" are just as strongly against it, e.g.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/12/ama...

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#48

Post by rayiner » Sun, Dec 22, 2013, 4:09 PM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #12

pvnick wrote: post #3

So, [Clapper] said, he was continuing to assert the state secrets privilege, which allows the government to seek to block information from being used in court even if that means the case must be dismissed. It's almost funny to see the administration's hypocrisy on full display. They seem to think that if they keep pushing this issue under the rug that it'll just go away. The Obama administration wants to have its cak…

"I'm optimistic." Don't be. The supremes have made it clear as recently as last year they have little to no interest in this one.

I don't see Roberts embracing a reading of the state secrets privilege that essentially makes these sorts of constitutional claims unreviewable. What was on the line in both Reynolds and General Dynamics was money. The justices were quite pointed about this in General Dynamics, accusing the company in oral arguments of just being greedy, etc. The assertion of the privilege in at least some of the NSA cases raises countervailing issued that didn't exist in Reynolds and GD. If the Court does decide to take up the issue, I think the government will find the privilege less helpful than they might wish.

edit to my other comment: Reynolds wasn't a contract action, but a tort action, but what was essentially on the line was damages.

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#49

Post by tessierashpool » Sun, Dec 22, 2013, 4:09 PM UTC

atlantic wrote: post #37

brianpgordon wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Checks and balances. The NSA is funded by Congress. Congress needs the courts in order for their legislation to have any effect.

Intelligence agencies have a history of attempting to circumvent the limitations imposed by funding. There's a lot of evidence that the CIA has been involved in drug trafficking. In the case of the NSA, it could for example sell some of its intel to the private sector (technical and business information concerning rival companies).

that's the long game. the KGB basically became the Russian Mafia when the USSR went under. maybe the NSA's thinking ahead too.

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#50

Post by rtpg » Sun, Dec 22, 2013, 4:35 PM UTC

Malician wrote: post #18

mabhatter wrote: post #13

As President he's "supposed" to fight for this, even if it's crap. That's how our "adversarial" government works. That's why it's CHECKS... As in gloves off, missing teeth, hockey checks. It's up to the other TWO BRANCHES to get off their lazy asses and knock the Executive branch down a peg or two. They liked blaming the President but they gotta do the WORK to take things back. Shut up and FIGHT!

In the case of DOMA, Justice Scalia noted that, if Obama thought DOMA was unconstitutional, he could simply refuse to enforce it. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-307#writing-... Doesn't this suggest that it is, to some extent, the President's responsibility to maintain his own branch? Or do you think Scalia is wrong in both cases?

Where exactly is it said in there? I'm having a hard time finding something that means that. And in a more general sense, isn't the executive bound to laws passed by congress?

Slightly off-topic, but the fact that Justice Scalia doesn't believe that the Supreme Court has the right to judicial review. An interesting concept to me.