81–90 of 157 posts
The only plausible presidential candidate who'll put a stop to these kinds of abuses is Bernie Sanders. Be sure to vote for him in your Democratic Primary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The President technically has that power, but in reality the DOJ's policy is set by the Attorney General, and the historical relationships between Presidents and their A.G.s has tended to be fraught. Mostly, what the President can do in reality is fire the AG. But if Obama does that, he'll have to find and get confirmed a new AG. If you're outraged by NSLs, the new AG Obama could confirm in this climate is unlikely t…
That's an odd view of the relationship. The President gets to set policy, and the AG can comply or resign. The responsibility rightly lies with the President, and Cabinet officers are unlikely to resign over issues unless their own views are irreconcilable with their boss's wishes.
But there are statutes that delegate powers directly to agency heads and cabinet members, and not to the President, others that expressly limit the President's authority over agencies, and there are independent agencies that the President can appoint people to but cannot directly control --- despite residing in the Executive Branch.
Also, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to vest the appointment of "public ministers, consuls, and all other officers of the United States" directly to the heads of departments, explicitly bypassing the President, who is mentioned earlier in that sentence of the text.
Ultimately I think you're mostly right in one sense, and the President has so much authority over the DOJ that resignation is the only real authority the AG has --- which explains things like the Saturday Night Massacre --- but that the day-to-day authority of the AG and the leverage they have over the President by threatening to resign makes the balance of power here tricky.
Again: John Ashcroft thwarted not just Bush but the real President at the time, Dick Cheney; so far as we know, he didn't threaten to resign in protest, but rather just refused to authorize STELLARWIND. And, unlike the Saturday Night Massacre, Bush's party controlled Congress, and was not hostile to what he was trying to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hoover had plenty of apologists who were arguing that he was using these tactics only for good causes (such as against communism, today it would be terrorism or child pornography), it took a long time before anybody dared to speak out against this, he was simply too powerful. Most likely today such direct blackmail of (domestic) politicians and other officials is not the case but you can't really rule it out complete…
> The bad thing is that the reputation of the FBI and other such agencies is now such that an analogy with the Hoover days can no longer be rejected out of hand 'because they'd never do such a thing'. Not only that but when someone's life is as public as a politician - and their career dependent on that credibility - it takes far less than Hoover-era style blackmail to ruin such a person. So even if the FBI is no lon…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FBI's founding director had this very tactic as his modus operandi. It isn't hard to speculate that the culture of the FBI has supported political extortion for well over 80 years now.
That's true. J Edgar Hoover did do this. Of course, Hoover is also one of the great villains of US history, and there was a major course-correction in the 1970s regarding the legal process federal law enforcement has to adhere to. "The FBI is run by the modern equivalent of J. Edgar Hoover" is also an amusing and dramatic interpretation of the facts we have now. But they don't square well with other facts we know, su…
I think things are certainly not as bad as when the FBI was literally commanded (founded, really) by a criminal and a traitor (the Ashcroft event was quite encouraging) but I'm not so sure many people in LE consider him so evil and much of his culture lives on.
Though I agree with you it seems like quite a stretch to blame blackmail for any of this. More likely well-meaning people making short-sighted decisions, as it always is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. There has to be a place for principles in this world.
If we're apparently putting people in jail for their intentions then definitely, intentions matter when the situation is the reverse as well. The guy tried to make a stand, messed up under pressure (and who here would dare to say they would not, I'm pretty steadfast but when that sort of power is aimed directly at you and your small company it takes some serious mental fortitude to even consider rejecting the request…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's true. J Edgar Hoover did do this. Of course, Hoover is also one of the great villains of US history, and there was a major course-correction in the 1970s regarding the legal process federal law enforcement has to adhere to. "The FBI is run by the modern equivalent of J. Edgar Hoover" is also an amusing and dramatic interpretation of the facts we have now. But they don't square well with other facts we know, su…
Such a villian, in fact, that a huge building in DC bears his name in order to honor him. The building that houses the very organization we are discussing in fact. Whose employees walk past his plaque and honorifics every day, witnessing a great work done by their colleagues for the sole purpose of giving him his due respect. I think things are certainly not as bad as when the FBI was literally commanded (founded, re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because you're cleared in one area/agency doesn't mean you have access to anything of that level or lower. Clearances are entirely need to know. I'm not sure of the rules today, but 10 years ago clearances in some agencies/departments didn't even transfer to other agencies due to differing requirements. (I'm not saying that this system is good, just describing how it works.)
Thank you for the clarification. Nevertheless, I feel like there should be some recourse in the system to appeal to a branch of government other than the secret judicial branch in circumstances like this...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow - it's astonishing that you can't even speak about NSLs with people who (or at least some of whom) have top secret clearance...
Just because you're cleared in one area/agency doesn't mean you have access to anything of that level or lower. Clearances are entirely need to know. I'm not sure of the rules today, but 10 years ago clearances in some agencies/departments didn't even transfer to other agencies due to differing requirements. (I'm not saying that this system is good, just describing how it works.)
AFAIK, this is still true. Compartmentalized clearances can have all sorts of fun and exciting restrictions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FBI's founding director had this very tactic as his modus operandi. It isn't hard to speculate that the culture of the FBI has supported political extortion for well over 80 years now.
HN readers in particular should consider how technology has affected an important part of J. Edgar Hoover's political extortion: COINTELPRO[1]. Technology has made it a lot easier to discredit and disrupt political activists. An obvious example of how to map relationships to find potential organizers that might bring together a larger political movement is the NSA programs COTRAVELER[2], but the methods are not that…
Consensus decision making has hamstrung progressive causes since the 70s (http://berkeleyjournal.org/2015/05/the-theology-of-consensus...), predating the technological toolkit which nominally justified not having a targetable leadership.
It is right, fitting, and appropriate to consider how governments abuse technology. One the other hand, to descend into a fearful state about data making it "a lot easier to discredit and disrupt political activists" is both unbalanced and fundamentally disrespectful to our forebearers who faced lynching, Pinkerton detectives, the Raj's army, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is certainly the most amusing and dramatic explanation of what's happening. A simpler explanation might just be that Congress broadly supports what DOJ is doing, and cares a lot less about the integrity of specific online services than they do about DOJ's role in combating terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and foreign intelligence services.
I personally think it's a combination of things. Sometimes Congress is just on board with what's happening. Sometimes they don't have an idea what's happening. Other times, the surveillance state has their finger on the scale. I think the case of Jane Harman is the creepiest example of this -- a case where the DoJ withheld prosecution of a surveillance "friend", derived from NSA surveillance, so that she could contin…