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

Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America

ellsberg.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 157 posts

Re: Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America

#71

Post by jbooth »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #67
glurgh wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you're concerned with the spirit of laws - your parallel is much in the spirit of 'Godwin's law' and ahistorical to the point of being specious. The USSR was a totalitarian single-party state that engaged in many decades of brutal mass repression of its population. The US is a constitutional democracy where laws are formulated, enforced and interpreted by independent branches of government, two of them elected. Th…

The US is a constitutional democracy Actually, it's a constitutional republic . But my real concern here is with the "constitutional" part, because most reasonable readers seem to agree that the PRISM surveillance violates the Constitution. Yet the federal government only seems concerned about Constitutionality when it suits them, (literally) laughing it off otherwise: CNS: Madam Speaker, where specifically does the…

That's a really bad example, given the interstate commerce clause. Pelosi was laughing it off because damn near everybody, including the majority-conservative supreme court, agrees that regulating healthcare is regulation of interstate commerce, just like 1000s of other things that the federal government does which don't happen to be hot political footballs at the moment.

Conversely, most people that I've talked to agree that the NSA listening is very much not constitutional as per the 4th amendment. Even if you think it's constitutional, you have to do a lot of weasel wording about the definition of 'search and seizure'.

Re: Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America

#72

Post by dragonwriter »

brown9-2 wrote: post #68
dragonwriter wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One difference here is that when the USG says "well it's all done according to law", that law was written and passed by an institution who at least nominally represents and is elected by the people. I don't know if the same can be said of the USSR. The USSR was also nominally run under laws, which were notionally written and formally adopted by an institution which at least nominally represented and was elected by…

I am asking this out of genuine interest and lack of knowledge - was there a representative legislative body in the USSR in the 1920s?

I believe the Congress of Soviets was an indirectly elected representative legislative body elected by the local Soviets.

Re: Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America

#73

Post by mholkesvik »

The NSA leak is troubling, yes. It is NOT comparable to the horrors of communist authoritarianism - where 20 million people were killed, starved, or simply disappeared. To me, this seems like a cheap shock tactic more common on stations like Fox News where the labels "nazi" or "socialist" are thrown around without thought. These words have deep historical roots and deep meaning, and to use them in situations where it isn't appropriate is trivializing. A government can be intrusive and overstep its bounds without earning the label of 'Stasi'. We can have a conversation about the power and role of government in this country without drawing these hyperbolic and historically inaccurate parallels.

Re: Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America

#74

Post by betterunix »

mpyne wrote: post #57
betterunix wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What they required was, you know, tyranny. We don't have any right now." We have all the pieces in place. Widespread surveillance, a "legal system" that allows anyone to be arrested and imprisoned, soldiers carrying out police work, secret courts/secret laws, mass imprisonment, etc. All it would take is for someone to arrange those pieces properly and tyranny would ensue.

So in other words "all it would take" is for someone to do the one part of that which is actually almost impossible?

How is it almost impossible? What, other than voluntary procedures, is standing in the way?

Re: Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America

#75

Post by embolism »

jbooth wrote: post #71
CWuestefeld wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is a constitutional democracy Actually, it's a constitutional republic . But my real concern here is with the "constitutional" part, because most reasonable readers seem to agree that the PRISM surveillance violates the Constitution. Yet the federal government only seems concerned about Constitutionality when it suits them, (literally) laughing it off otherwise: CNS: Madam Speaker, where specifically does the…

That's a really bad example, given the interstate commerce clause. Pelosi was laughing it off because damn near everybody, including the majority-conservative supreme court, agrees that regulating healthcare is regulation of interstate commerce, just like 1000s of other things that the federal government does which don't happen to be hot political footballs at the moment. Conversely, most people that I've talked to a…

Ordering people to pay money to a government approved set of corporations is not regulating healthcare it's regulating the people and undermining property rights.

What's next? A selected group of 'food providers' that you have to pay because the government decides that they provide a better diet than people would choose from the free market?

Re: Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America

#76

Post by gknoy »

graycat wrote: post #65
paganel wrote: post #3

For once I'll avoid Godwin's law and link instead to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_58 > The article was used for the imprisonment and execution of many prominent people, as well as multitudes of nonnotable innocents. (...) Article 58 of the Russian SFSR Penal Code was put in force on 25 February 1927 to arrest those suspected of counter-revolutionary activities. So the point is that even in Soviet Russia…

> I'd say there's nothing that the minority can do (if it matters I'm not from the US) No, not at all. The situation is still all well within the US Constitution in the sense of want people "can do". In particular, as I will outline, there is a very fast, simple solution well within what "the minority can do". Background: In the US Federal Government, there are three branches, executive (e.g., headed by the president…

> My guess is that much of the relevant laws will be struck down. > If the Supreme Court strikes down the laws, they will be gone -- out'a here.... > What matters are the laws, not what Presidents ... say.... Instead what matters here is what laws the Supreme Court says are Constitutional.

I wish I shared your optimism.

I sincerely hope that the laws will get struck down, but I also fear that the classified nature of many things that touch this will lead the courts to say that we can't show we have standing, and therefore decline to rule on the constitutionality.

More importantly, what matters is NOT just what the laws say, but whether the government follows them! The core issue here is that we believe the laws and constitution are NOT being followed, and that the government feels that What the King Does Is Legal. That was Nixon's claim, and in effect is what the Bush administration claimed re: treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. This time around, the fact that it's being done by the NSA with the President's permission allows them to claim that the classified nature of nearly everything at stake here means we should trust them.

Getting the laws overturned will be a HUGE first step, though, and you laid out in excellent detail things that we citizens can (and should) do and expect.

Re: Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America

#77

Post by glurgh »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #67
glurgh wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you're concerned with the spirit of laws - your parallel is much in the spirit of 'Godwin's law' and ahistorical to the point of being specious. The USSR was a totalitarian single-party state that engaged in many decades of brutal mass repression of its population. The US is a constitutional democracy where laws are formulated, enforced and interpreted by independent branches of government, two of them elected. Th…

The US is a constitutional democracy Actually, it's a constitutional republic . But my real concern here is with the "constitutional" part, because most reasonable readers seem to agree that the PRISM surveillance violates the Constitution. Yet the federal government only seems concerned about Constitutionality when it suits them, (literally) laughing it off otherwise: CNS: Madam Speaker, where specifically does the…

I don't know who these reasonable readers are given how few facts are available about PRISM surveillance - so few that it's next to impossible to reasonably conclude much about it.

As to the 'it's not a democracy, it's a republic' thing - it's just silly. So is taking the fact that some congressperson would not engage in a constitutional law debate with a reporter as an indication of the country's inexorable drift away from its constitution. Especially when you consider the question was answered - by the Supreme Court.

Re: Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America

#78

Post by jbooth »

embolism wrote: post #75
jbooth wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a really bad example, given the interstate commerce clause. Pelosi was laughing it off because damn near everybody, including the majority-conservative supreme court, agrees that regulating healthcare is regulation of interstate commerce, just like 1000s of other things that the federal government does which don't happen to be hot political footballs at the moment. Conversely, most people that I've talked to a…

Ordering people to pay money to a government approved set of corporations is not regulating healthcare it's regulating the people and undermining property rights. What's next? A selected group of 'food providers' that you have to pay because the government decides that they provide a better diet than people would choose from the free market?

It's not new. You've got mandatory flood insurance from a selected group of companies, mandatory osha safety training from a selected group of companies, mandated accounting procedures that must be certified by selected people...

If you disagree with the law on principle, that's fine, it's certainly not a perfect solution.

But those are political objections. Based on how the interstate commerce clause has been interpreted for a wide variety of issues, it's not unconstitutional (for most working definitions of constitutional). That's why Pelosi laughed and moved on to the next question.

Re: Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America

#79

Post by dreamdu5t »

graycat wrote: post #65
paganel wrote: post #3

For once I'll avoid Godwin's law and link instead to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_58 > The article was used for the imprisonment and execution of many prominent people, as well as multitudes of nonnotable innocents. (...) Article 58 of the Russian SFSR Penal Code was put in force on 25 February 1927 to arrest those suspected of counter-revolutionary activities. So the point is that even in Soviet Russia…

> I'd say there's nothing that the minority can do (if it matters I'm not from the US) No, not at all. The situation is still all well within the US Constitution in the sense of want people "can do". In particular, as I will outline, there is a very fast, simple solution well within what "the minority can do". Background: In the US Federal Government, there are three branches, executive (e.g., headed by the president…

So what the Supreme Court says, goes? You have quite the romantic opinion of them.

Maybe we should ask the Japanese Americans who were put into camps if they feel safe with the Supreme Court protecting us from the legislative and executive branches.

Re: Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America

#80

Post by embolism »

jbooth wrote: post #78
embolism wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ordering people to pay money to a government approved set of corporations is not regulating healthcare it's regulating the people and undermining property rights. What's next? A selected group of 'food providers' that you have to pay because the government decides that they provide a better diet than people would choose from the free market?

It's not new. You've got mandatory flood insurance from a selected group of companies, mandatory osha safety training from a selected group of companies, mandated accounting procedures that must be certified by selected people... If you disagree with the law on principle, that's fine, it's certainly not a perfect solution. But those are political objections. Based on how the interstate commerce clause has been interp…

This is a good argument for the constitution meaning essentially nothing since if there are no limits on how the government can control how people spend their money, there are no real limits on how much control the government can exert over the individual.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your point isn't really about what is or is not constitutional, but rather that interpretation has rendered the constitution meaningless so anything is constitutional now. Perhaps this is why Pelosi laughed at the idea of something being unconstitutional.

Post reply on HN