BoldW
Molten Core Raider
- 2,081
- 25
It's on CSPAN too so I have been watching it in the background waiting for that part to come up. shouldn't be long.
The NSA watches you poop.
- Thread starter Beef Supreme_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
BoldW
Molten Core Raider
- 2,081
- 25
On the linked video (friggin missed it first time) it's at 1:01:50ish during Goodlatte's first questioning.
http://gizmodo.com/thanks-to-a-secre...g-on-842780716
On Friday, the secret court that oversees cases related to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act renewed the order that enables the NSA to compel telecom companies to hand over records whenever it wants. Translation: No end in sight to the NSA spying on phone records.
There is some good news to this week's happenings. We now know more than ever before exactly how the NSA's telephony metadata program works. Unfortunately, the more we learn, the less it seems we can do.
On Friday, the secret court that oversees cases related to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act renewed the order that enables the NSA to compel telecom companies to hand over records whenever it wants. Translation: No end in sight to the NSA spying on phone records.
There is some good news to this week's happenings. We now know more than ever before exactly how the NSA's telephony metadata program works. Unfortunately, the more we learn, the less it seems we can do.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Can a president be held responsible for violating your constitutional rights? Is it ever possible to prove that such a violation has taken place? Is it even against the law to compromise the freedoms of your people? Is there a statute of limitations on this? If there are no consequences for cheating your citizens out of their rights, what the fuck is the point of having rights?
I know we're never going to get tens of thousands of people to march with "Stop stealing our freedom" signs in front of the White House, but is it even possible to get a small team of lawyers to investigate charging a president with "crimes against the constitution" or something? Heck, we don't even need to focus on Obama. Start with Bush Jr for that Patriot Act bullshit. I mean, realistically, if he can get away with war crimes I suppose he can get away with the Patriot Act, but he's probably a much better target than Obama since most of the world at large already (justifiably) sees him as a villain, and making an example of him could force Obama to rethink this NSA nonsense. Otherwise they just keep trampling over our rights while laughing at our impotence.
I know we're never going to get tens of thousands of people to march with "Stop stealing our freedom" signs in front of the White House, but is it even possible to get a small team of lawyers to investigate charging a president with "crimes against the constitution" or something? Heck, we don't even need to focus on Obama. Start with Bush Jr for that Patriot Act bullshit. I mean, realistically, if he can get away with war crimes I suppose he can get away with the Patriot Act, but he's probably a much better target than Obama since most of the world at large already (justifiably) sees him as a villain, and making an example of him could force Obama to rethink this NSA nonsense. Otherwise they just keep trampling over our rights while laughing at our impotence.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
The Patriot Act passed in the House 357 to 66. In the Senate it was 98 to 1. Like it or not, and I certainly don't, that shit passed with near unanimous support.
Going after the president legally in some suit would be a nightmare. It would inevitably lead to retaliatory action against Clinton and Obama for various other activities. The last thing we need is what would rightfully be seen as a politically motivated witchhunt against an ex-president.
Juvarisx
Florida
- 4,067
- 4,454
No, its legal until the Supreme Court says the Patriot Act as a whole or the specific parts of it which made PRISIM legal is unconstitutional and would have to be scrapped. I don't see any politicans or special interests rushing to go drag it to the Supreme Court at the moment.
I don't see how you could even go after the sitting President or his predecessor for anything relating to either at the moment. They could just argue they set up programs that were technically legal under Federal Law and that would be it. If people want this kind of stuff changed they will have to vote in people who will vote to repeal the Patriot Act, and good luck with that, their opponents will just paint them as sympathetic to terrorists or don't care bout MURICA! I have no doubt the majority of the populace has very little to no knowledge of PRISIM.
I don't see how you could even go after the sitting President or his predecessor for anything relating to either at the moment. They could just argue they set up programs that were technically legal under Federal Law and that would be it. If people want this kind of stuff changed they will have to vote in people who will vote to repeal the Patriot Act, and good luck with that, their opponents will just paint them as sympathetic to terrorists or don't care bout MURICA! I have no doubt the majority of the populace has very little to no knowledge of PRISIM.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,657
It's what Impeachment is for. The crime doesn't have to be super specific. Congresscanjust tell a President to GTFO. Obviously that's one hell of a lot easier to do with a specific crime -- but they really don't have to have one.
Unfortunately that requires the Congress to be functional. The more practical threat than impeachment is in blocking the unpopular president's power -- and that's no threat at all when Congress is dysfunctional to begin with and the President doesn't need their authority in any way to continue what may be construed as abuses of his power. A president can un-president in 3 ways: He can resign, he can die, or he can be forced to resign through an act of Congress.
It's checks and balances. The writers of the Constitution did allow that individual branches of government would occassionally get all fucked up. That's just life. They did hope that 2 out of 3 wouldn't get all fucked up at the same time.
Optimists, those guys.
Unfortunately that requires the Congress to be functional. The more practical threat than impeachment is in blocking the unpopular president's power -- and that's no threat at all when Congress is dysfunctional to begin with and the President doesn't need their authority in any way to continue what may be construed as abuses of his power. A president can un-president in 3 ways: He can resign, he can die, or he can be forced to resign through an act of Congress.
It's checks and balances. The writers of the Constitution did allow that individual branches of government would occassionally get all fucked up. That's just life. They did hope that 2 out of 3 wouldn't get all fucked up at the same time.
Optimists, those guys.
Juvarisx
Florida
- 4,067
- 4,454
Amusingly I cannot foresee Congress even starting impreachment proceedings against Obama over this because I promise you the majority of them support it. If they tossed the President out over PRISIM and the Patriot Act then didn't get rid of both it would cause HUGE issues.
Anyways there is a difference between an unconstitutional law and a hugely unpopular law with the populace. The Supreme Court probably wouldn't even hear a case against the Patriot Act unless someone present a good constitutional argument against it.
Anyways there is a difference between an unconstitutional law and a hugely unpopular law with the populace. The Supreme Court probably wouldn't even hear a case against the Patriot Act unless someone present a good constitutional argument against it.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,657
Go read it. Most of the amendments 11+ are cases where it did, and we had to tack another paragraph onto the document.
Even our Constitution allows that sometimes popularity will overpower it.
Our generation isn't immune to that. It's dangerous though, because we think we are. We think Prohibition is something that happened around the time the slaves were freed. If we even know what Prohibition was.
Even our Constitution allows that sometimes popularity will overpower it.
Our generation isn't immune to that. It's dangerous though, because we think we are. We think Prohibition is something that happened around the time the slaves were freed. If we even know what Prohibition was.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
OK then, change the Constitution. Add an amendment that says your right to privacy is not valid if the government decides for any reason to ignore it.
Until that's done, they're just getting away with pissing in the face of the principles America was founded upon.
Until that's done, they're just getting away with pissing in the face of the principles America was founded upon.
Juvarisx
Florida
- 4,067
- 4,454
Again, you would have to make an agument how this is violating the Constitution rather then SAYING it does without presenting an argument. Does PRISIM which is legal under the Patriot Act violate your fourth amendment rights against search and seizure. Keep in mind you have a court issuing warrants (FISC) to use or view information collected. is collecting information but not being able to use or view it a violation of the fourth? What would that mean for police surveillance of criminals unrelated to PRISIM?
I think the law is bullshit personally and no one should be happy about it, but you have to realize its no a simple thing.
I think the law is bullshit personally and no one should be happy about it, but you have to realize its no a simple thing.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
I personally can't show how the Constitution is being violated, but couldn't a team of lawyers? Have they tried? Couldn't we use the many times a program designed for one specific purpose was then abused for purposes far beyond the original scope as a reason to cast reasonable doubt that PRISIM is operating within the parameters they assure us are being followed? Seems every time we try to find out what's actually going on, they pull out the "Sorry, that's top secret" card that acts as their invincible, investigation-proof force field.
Juvarisx
Florida
- 4,067
- 4,454
I have no doubt there are groups looking at taking it to the courts yes. Oversight of programs such as this is usually done by Congressional or Senatorial committees and in this case it is the Senate Intelligence committee which was setup in in 70's. They are tasked with making sure the programs stay within their parameters and if they say that they are then it is reasonable to believe that they are. If it could be proven for example that the people operating PRISIM are giving the finger to everyone and flat listening into calls with the committee's knowledge it would lead to big time problems for those people. Yes this being a secret program hurts transparency in this case, but no its not an investigation-proof shield. Is it a shield against you or me being able to fully investigate the going ons in the NSA? Sure. But they have to report to the people in charge and if you do not trust those people then you have the option of helping to vote them out.
If SNowden came out with documents showing that he recieved memo's from his bosses for example said to listen into calls they think are from terrorists but have no warrant from the FISC, that would be a good example.
If SNowden came out with documents showing that he recieved memo's from his bosses for example said to listen into calls they think are from terrorists but have no warrant from the FISC, that would be a good example.
Asshat wormie
2023 Asshat Award Winner
- 16,820
- 30,968
Asshat wormie
2023 Asshat Award Winner
- 16,820
- 30,968
