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

Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 143 posts

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

#51

Post by mikegagnon »

Sauer_Kraut wrote: post #27

As I referenced in another thread, Obama himself voted for the FISA amendment[1]. How clearer must it get that people working for companies like AT&T and Booz Allen are complicit in receiving monetary remuneration for collaborating with various arms of the government in circumventing/intel laundering/routing around the laws and regulations said arms of the government were to be checking each other against? Must there…

I don't think the world is so black and white.

If you pay taxes to the federal government are you complicit with all of the government's actions? Well sure, but what other option do you have? You could not pay taxes and go to jail, or you could move somewhere else where there isn't an imperfect government--- say Antarctica.

Similarly, what are you going to do if you decide not to work for some "complicit" organization? Move to Silicon Valley and work at a startup? Is that any better? Is there any company that is morally and ethically perfect?

Governments, industries, populations, etc. are all part of an inter-related system called The World. If you think this system is imperfect and should be improved, then exiting the system won't solve anything. Rather, you can work within the system and do what you can to make it better.

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

#52

Post by bitwize »

pekk wrote: post #49
bitwize wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Barring a constitutional amendment that implements a multiparty, proportional-representation parliament, your choices in Murka are either Kang or Kodos.

Political analysis from a cartoon show, regurgitated endlessly to shut down any more nuanced discussion.

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.

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

#53

Post by cortesoft »

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 logical choice to interpret the Constitution.

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

#54

Post by anigbrowl »

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 to have operated illegally does not mean that everything the agency does must then be rejected. It's easy to find examples of police officers or even entire departments being corrupt, but it does not follow that everyone who is arrested by the police is necessarily innocent, or that all arrests are flawed.

Arguments of the kind you make above involve a fallacy of composition, one which seems to appear ever more frequently on HN. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

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

#55

Post by anigbrowl »

JPKab wrote: post #36
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.

Mark, I agree. I think that the situation is this: politicians, in the short term, view the security side of the security vs. freedom debate as the best option. If you can stop a terrorist attack from occurring by infringing freedom, then do it. An attack will make you look much worse than a few intelligent people being upset about privacy invasion. That, sadly, is the unfortunate incentive happening here. I think th…

The founders recognized this, which is why the 4th Amendment, along with the rest of the Constitution, is supposed to be enforced by the separate branch of government that is the Judicial Branch.

You're saying the police power is the province of the Judicial Branch?! This is a...unique interpretation. The Constitution divides the power of the government in legislative (making law), executive (promulgating and enforcing law), and judicial (evaluation of the law). In common law jurisdictions the judicial branch does not have any kind of police power, and to the best of my knowledge never has had.

I am perplexed by the number of HNers that seem to think we live in a civil law jurisdiction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)

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

#56

Post by mpyne »

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…

I think courts are the logical choice but I don't think it's ideal that the only way you can get Constitutional questions decided is by getting screwed by an Unconstitutional decision already made somewhere and then getting it overturned, or by having the government try to Unconstitutionally beat you over the head and winning your case.

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

#57

Post by mpyne »

awicklander wrote: post #21

Let me guess, this will be used as a way to legitimize the FISA court. Nothing to see here - move on. See, your rights are being protected.

The FISA court that's been around since 1978? There's entire major commands of the military that have been created and then killed again in the time FISC has existed, seems pretty legit to me.

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

#58

Post by dragonwriter »

JPKab wrote: post #36
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.

Mark, I agree. I think that the situation is this: politicians, in the short term, view the security side of the security vs. freedom debate as the best option. If you can stop a terrorist attack from occurring by infringing freedom, then do it. An attack will make you look much worse than a few intelligent people being upset about privacy invasion. That, sadly, is the unfortunate incentive happening here. I think th…

> Why isn't there a Judicial Branch agency that safeguards the Constitution from the other two branches??

Because there is no authority for such an agency in Article III, and because the type of ombudsman agency you describe would be undertaking investigations of a sort that are executive, rather than judicial, so that even if Congress attempted to create such an agency, it would be (were it Constitutional at all) an Article II agency subject to the President even if Congress gave the Judiciary the power to appoint its officers.

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

#59

Post by anigbrowl »

bitwize wrote: post #52
pekk wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political analysis from a cartoon show, regurgitated endlessly to shut down any more nuanced discussion.

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 outcomes more likely, but then so does unlimited election spending. It's not the foregone conclusion you suggest it is.

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

#60

Post by peterjancelis »

bitwize wrote: post #46
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.

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. They wanted to believe . Even then Obama gave off considerable whiffs of being a relative political neophyte who felt entitled -- or even destined -- to power, and was given an easy path into the White…

I think most people, even those who follow politics, buy into the emotional experience rather than the actual politics. It makes people feel good to listen to a great speech on paying back birth control pills, who cares that it's a really small issue compared to foreign policy or economic policy. The number of real 'political engineers' is really small anyway.

I don't even blame those people. For example I am a car enthusiast but not a car engineer, so while I may love the Porsche brand for the emotional connections it has in my mind, a car engineer who really knows what he's talking about may very well know for a fact that the tech for part X is better in a Toyota. I don't know and I don't care.

People just get disappointed in politicians because they operate in an incentive system that rewards them for not keeping their promises, because votes are a 'sunk revenue' once in office. If laws were made in a private market, they'd be incentivized to be more consistent.

Post reply on HN