US Senators: NSA Lies In Fact Sheets

Bruce66423 writes "The Guardian reports that two U.S. senators have written to the NSA telling it to amend its 702 provisions fact sheet (PDF) which, they claim, contains inaccuracies. However they can't actually say HOW they are inaccurate, because they would be compromising classified information. So the U.S. government uses taxpayer money to lie to the people... there's a surprise!" From the letter: "In our judgment, this inaccuracy is significant, as it portrays protections for Americans' privacy as being significantly stronger than they actually are." But they go on to say "We appreciate your attention to this matter. We believe that the U.S. government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage, and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans. Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings, but on informed public debate as well."

Comments

Since when

[jasper160]

Do politicians follow the law?

Re:Since when

[L4t3r4lu5]

Since they get to win votes by looking like the good guys for once.

Any opportunity to give the appearance of caring what the serfs think of them, at least until the next series of America's Top Next Factor Voice Brother starts and this whole mess can be forgotten.

Re:Since when

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but "cold fjord" and the other government shills/retards will be here soon to tell us that it's all ok and for our own safety.

Re:Since when

[mmcxii]

Looking like the good guy matters less by the day. "My party, right or wrong" has been the battle cry of American politics for a long while but the lengths to which this is take in the past few administrations has become insane.

Re:Since when

[TWiTfan]

Since when does the NSA ever tell the truth? Basically all this letter says is "Your lies have been exposed, so make up some new ones." Meanwhile they're trying to throw the leaker of said lies into a prison for the rest of his life in hopes of discouraging anyone else from exposing the *next* set of lies.

Re:Since when

[Seumas]

Well, there's an important decision to be made.

The OATH of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES that he takes before the entire world during his inauguration clearly states that his duty in that position is "to protect and uphold the constitution of the United States".

However, George Bush stated that his job was to be "The Decider".

And Obama repeatedly states at every interview and speech that his "first priority and duty as president" is "to protect the American people".

So.. no, they don't have "the law" (ie, the Constitution) anywhere in their realm of concern.

Even though Obama is a fucking Constitutional lawyer, I believe.

Re:Since when

[causality]

Even though Obama is a fucking Constitutional lawyer, I believe.

The purpose of being a Constitutional lawyer is to perform mental gymnastics creating exceptions to clearly-stated language such as "shall not infringe" and "shall make no law".

Re:Since when

[Archangel Michael]

"Is it legal" - Trade Federation

"I will make it legal" - Darth Sidious

This is the lie of the big government proponents. They love to cloak themselves in "legality", and skirt around the issue of whether or not something is right (correct, moral). Is Snowden a traitor or a hero? Well that depends upon whether you look at what he did as being legal or moral, because those questions result in two different outcomes.

Next time you here someone say "but they broke the law" ask them if Rosa Parks broke the law.

Not all laws are just laws.

Re:Since when

[mmcxii]

Several times? A few one-offs hardly represent a mandate from the people when you're dealing with a combined legislative body of 535. The US legislature has the approval rating of a two bit whore at a church gathering and you call a handful of incumbents being ousted by other people normally from the same party a reason to think that Americans are blind to politics beyond the little Rs and Ds that follow a politicians name?

The fact that you called them "insurgents" speaks volumes to your own political outlook. When the so-called Tea Party looks like a radical departure from the Republican party you know the blinders are on. While the Tea Party did have a good grassroots structure behind it at one point, today it's just another faction of a slightly fractured party. It certainly isn't enough to think that there is serious momentum from the status quo. Even more so apparent when you consider where the "Tea Party" is today compared to these grass roots. It's safe to say the Tea Party would be pretty much forgotten if it weren't for the Democrats trying to whip anyone they didn't like into the mold of a "teabagger."

Re:Since when

[RabidReindeer]

And Obama repeatedly states at every interview and speech that his "first priority and duty as president" is "to protect the American people".

Allegedly, the job of the US President was to serve the American people.

Which is not the same thing at all.

Re:Since when

[tibman]

never?

Re:Since when

[IamTheRealMike]

In fairness, aren't these the guys who were warning about the secret interpretations for years? Not all politicians are cut from the same cloth. The problem here is that they knew the NSA was lying but knew if they blew the whistle (which is their fucking job, being representatives of the people) then they'd go to the slammer. A simple solution would seem to be to pass a law saying that any classified information can be revealed by elected representatives at any time, and doing so automatically declassifies it with no penalty.

Re:Since when

[davydagger]

Or you could probably state that there acceptance into the republican party was more or less when they got taken off the terrorist watch list.

The worst part is that the democrat machine still regards the republican intervention as a good thing for the tea party. The major parties and their propaganda still reffer to each other as a lesser of two evils than actual grass roots activists they regard as terrorists.

Re: Since when

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Senators are scared that exposing crimes would get them thrown in jail? They need to harden the fuck up and do their fucking job, which is to represent the people, not protect their sorry asses.

Re:Since when

[Anonymous Coward]

Tea Partiers are just gullible Republicans who've been tricked by Koch brothers money into thinking they AREN'T just supporting the rich and powerful.

Re:Since when

[geekoid]

What he did was illegal, and highly immoral.

Something can be immoral, illegal AND right.

Re:Since when

[Anonymous Coward]

You're too used to the American system of having only two viable parties with similar agendas. In a proper system you have a bunch of lying crooks, but they're working at cross purposes. Like waveforms exactly 180 out of phase, they cancel each other out. In the American system the waves are only a few degrees out of phase and so once in a while they impact each other to some minimal degree, but nothing more.

Re:Since when

[cold fjord]

The truth hurts less than shrapnel.

One sided debates tend to be pointless.

Re:Since when

[geekoid]

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” G.Washing First inauguration. So yeah,. protecting and defending has been their all along. . but you go ahead with your ignorance.
lest you have forgotten:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Re:Since when

[lightknight]

Indeed. I thought that was one of the perks of being elected to higher office...not having to lie / cover up as much of the crime you commit as you normally do, because you're now immune to prosecution. ^_^

Re:Since when

[lightknight]

Peanut butter tastes good on bread.

The sky tends to look blue during a clear day.

Non-sequiturs are tangential.

Re:Since when

[mmcxii]

But those who are replacing the incumbents are still in the same party. There's a reason I made it bold text in my first reply to you. Most of what the Tea Party did when it still had some legitimacy was getting liberal leaning Republicans off the ticket. That didn't change a damn thing in the general elections. My saying "My Party, right or wrong" isn't me saying that political parties can't be dynamic in nature. Only an idiot would think that.

Again, a few people getting thrown out on their ear as their party screams "RINO" at them is not a mandate. The majority of this movement happened in 2010. If there was any real force behind the Tea Party we would have seen them as a larger factor in 2012 but it just didn't happen. Given the current political unrest, if there isn't a significant motion to the right in 2014 it can safely be said that the Tea Party is a dead issue. But this won't stop every leftist from screaming "teabagger" at even the most moderate of Republicans.

Meh. The fact of the matter is that the two party system keeps the minds of the American voter in check as the status quo is maintained regardless of the costs to the man on the street. Anyone seeing the Tea Party as a significant break from the mainstream Republican party only helps support my thoughts on this matter.

Re:Since when

[geekoid]

Have you even read the Constitution?

The word 'serve' isn't even in it.

And since you seem to be pretty clueless about the constitution:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"
So, yeah to protect the American people is his top priority.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/prespowers.html

Re:Since when

[cold fjord]

Tea Partiers...tricked by Koch brothers

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken

Re:Since when

[geekoid]

"While the Tea Party did have a good grassroots structure behind it at one point,"
false.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/study-confirms-tea-party-_b_2663125.html

wait.. you think the Tea Party was created recently? *points at mmcxii "HAHAHAHAHahahahahahha!"
Next you will be telling me you think some women in 2009 created it..*wipes tear from eye.

Re:Since when

[mmcxii]

The same could be said for the Democrats. Yesterday I had seen an interesting placement of links on a new site... one was about how Michelle Obama had hired some high priced fashion advisor while the next link said that 76% of all Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Barak spent more in both elections then the "big money" Republicans.

When it comes right down to it the big political parties are turning into the next aristocracy and their followers turn a blind eye to their excesses and abuses. We can't afford to offer tours of the White House but we can bring in AAA rated pop stars to do birthday parties? Are you kidding me?

I don't believe a Republican administration would be that much different.

It's a party, to be sure... and you're not invited unless you can write some big money checks.

Re:Since when

[Nadaka]

I have voted reform, libertarian and green. But I usually vote democrat. Because I can not allow the treasonous and traitorous republicans to get into office. The tea party being supported and endorsed by the republicans makes this all the more clear. They are the absolute enemy of liberty and justice.

Re:Since when

[Nadaka]

Its not a significant break from standard republican. and that is the problem. They represent a dark and malignant cancer that has infested the party since ts Nixons southern strategy absorbed the racists that felt betrayed when the democratic party endorsed civil rights, its just that they feel comfortable being back in the light of day again. Its a sign of the degeneracy of this nation toward conservatism.

Re:Since when

[gmuslera]

They only must look good for the Lesters, and a lot of them are outside the reach of the law anyway.

Re:Since when

[Hatta]

The problem isn't partisanship. The problem is that the worst abuses have bi-partisan support.

e.g. When was the last time John Boehner, Peter King, or Lindsey Graham supported an Obama policy? Before the NSA wiretapping became public, I can't remember a single instance.

e.g. Law and order conservatives could easily attack Obama for failing to enforce the law against bankers. But they choose not to attack this weakness, while making much, much stupider attacks. Why? Because they're all on the same payroll.

e.g. Obamacare was right out of the Heritage Foundation. While the right made a good show of oppositition, they knew they had won from the start. Nobody on either side of the aisle gave a moments thought to single payer, a.k.a. the way every civilized country manages health care.

e.g. The War on Drug Users. This is quite simply an atrocity that no honest, well meaning person can support. And yet no one on either side of the aisle has done anything to deescalate. Obama has sent more caregivers to prison than Bush did.

And so on, and so on. On every single important issue that faces America, there is broad bipartisan support for the worst possible policy.

Re:Since when

[Nadaka]

Its not immoral. He swore an oath for his security clearance. An oath like the president or any soldier. Its first clause to to protect and defend the constitution of the united states of America. The last is to perform the duties of his position.

He was placed in the position where he could not simultaneously fulfill both parts of the oath. No matter what he did, he would be breaking part of it. So he sided with the constitution and the American people, and I think that makes him a hero.

Re:Since when

[Hatta]

Tea partiers have been allowed to win because the policies they support will make the rich and powerful even more rich and more powerful. When an actual opposition movement arises (e.g. Occupy) there is violent retaliation from the authorities.

Re:Since when

[Nadaka]

And I am tired of it. The democrats are not a good party either. I want a real liberal progressive party in this country.

Re:Since when

[lightknight]

Well, there are two ways to 'insure domestic tranquility': by promoting a peaceful environment / laws such that it occurs naturally, or by 'manual' pacification through artifice. Guess which one we're opting for?

Re:Since when

[gl4ss]

well.. maybe they just don't want to look like dickheads coupe of years down the road.
and they're making a point about how senators are under gag orders. that's some transparent governing right there!

anyway, the privacy protections in the government surveillance have a flaw: technically the guys running the surveillance network can take any data they want out of it, so it depends on them not accessing the data without a court order. the logic behind how they "can't" spy on americans with it is simply because it's illegal to do so without a warrant. so the logic is that because it's illegal it can't be done. which is fine logic right there.

and they have long ago switched it around so that they can snoop on americans thought to have connections to foreigners anyhow.

Re:Since when

[Jeremy Erwin]

Constitutional law is about arguing the constitution in court. -what arguments tend to succeed, what arguments tend not to. Unless the judge is receptive, it has nothing to do with normative truth.

Re:Since when

[fustakrakich]

Ah, but the problem isn't complex. That's just people trying to sound all superior, spreading condescending bullshit.

Re:Since when

[mtrachtenberg]

It does seem a bit unfair to build a Department of Snooping, Lying, and Cheating and then complain when it snoops, lies, and cheats. It's so sad that the United States government is now (and has been for at least fifty years) the most frightening enemy of the United States Constitution.

Re:Since when

[CByrd17]

If he felt this way, I would think a good first step would not be to steal all the classified data he can gather and release it.
Maybe, talk to your supervisor, something like that?

This guy really seems like he is trying to be famous vs. honorable.

Re:Since when

[Nadaka]

Being famous might be the only way to avoid extraordinary rendition to a black site where you are disappeared forever.

Re:Since when

[RabidReindeer]

Have you even read the Constitution?

The word 'serve' isn't even in it.

Neither are the words, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

What the USA is is not defined solely by the Constitution and strictly legalistic definitions are for the courts, not the government. George Washington himself shot down the idea that the President should be treated as a monarch, notwithstanding what some of his successor may have felt.

The Commander In Chief is a military office, and like all military officers, subject ultimately to his or her superiors, as MacArthur found out in Korea. In the case of the Commander in Chief, his superiors are the American people. He is not a dictator no matter who may think otherwise. His choices of degree and manner of protection are subject ultimately to the approval of the citizenry. And a considerable number of citizens are concerned that the level of protection they are being subjected to is too expensive.

Re:Since when

[meta-monkey]

And Obama repeatedly states at every interview and speech that his "first priority and duty as president" is "to protect the American people".

Perhaps he's telling the truth. What threats do you suppose those who pull his strings have made against the American people should he fail to do as he's told?

Re:Since when

[tendrousbeastie]

Well, this is what I would expect in a 2 party system over a long period of time. When you have 2 parties in power on and off over a long period and there are a small number of central issues then both parties will converge on an acceptable middle position. The alternative would be constant political strife leading to either unrest or a strong third party.

Keep in mind that for each of the issue you mention above there are a lot of people who care strongly about one of them, but very few who care strongly about all of them - there is very little strong consensus about all central issues, and very few people care strongly about al of them.

Many voters may care strongly about a single issue, or a couple. But few care strongly about many issues.

Most people care strongly about their own economic well being more than other issues, and so (this being an issue affected a lot by government) this is generally the strongest area of contention in politics in western governments.

Britain is much the same. There is a little bit of different on social issues such as immigration, gay marriage, etc. but really very little, and a fair amount of disagreement on economic issues (within the generally accepted framework of standard economics - e.g. debating furiously about a few percent of govt.. spending and taxing)

Re:Since when

[mmcxii]

Its a sign of the degeneracy of this nation toward conservatism.

Right. Right along with how legalized gay marriage and marijuana is spreading.

Your kind of banter is part of the problem. The country is shifting to the left and you're still running around with your hair on fire screaming of "a dark and malignant cancer" and "a sign of the degeneracy of this nation toward conservatism".

Ok. So show me where the nation is "degenerating" toward conservatism. You want to paint the right leaning Republican as a racist but can you produce proof? Are you spooked by the fact that the states are making decisions on marriage equality and the legal status of marijuana without the help of big borther?

So much talk like this and so little proof. Do you look under your bed for the boogie man at night too?

And don't get me wrong, I don't vote Republican or Democrat, but these cries of racism are really an ugly attempt to discredit others with little to no justification. I'm sure there are racists in the Republican party but there are just as many in the Democratic party. But keep the blinders on. Keep being part of the problem yourself.

Re:Since when

[Nadaka]

Take your blinders off, go meet these people, talk to them, attend their meetings. Do it in the deep south where I live. It is obscenely obvious where they are coming from.

Re:Since when

[mmcxii]

Never said it was created recently and never said that it was from some women. I guess you have to try to discredit me before I even have a say in the matter? Wow. I just love that maneuver. You must be a politician yourself.

Having a grass roots structure doesn't mean that everyone is a pauper and there is no money involved. It means that it has a popular backing. That backing has largely toned down into the form of mainstay Republicans. This effectively ended the Tea Party as an entity. Again, it's the Democrats who have to keep screaming "teabagger" who keep the ghost of it alive.

Oh, and people who like to project their ideas of what others think even though they never said it.

Oh well, typical Slashdot.... a retort of trying to twist the words of another that were never said, a nice unbiased cite and an attempt to shame another user. Very well played.

Re:Since when

[Hatta]

When you have 2 parties in power on and off over a long period and there are a small number of central issues then both parties will converge on an acceptable middle position.

Except that they haven't converged on an acceptable middle position. They have converged on barbaric policies that only benefit the rich and powerful.

Re:Since when

[phantomfive]

Barak spent more in both elections then the "big money" Republicans.

Good point.

Re:Since when

[OutOnARock]

Does anyone else start reading the Preamble and end up with the old School House Rock song rhythm by the end?

Re:Since when

[OutOnARock]

Oblig. link:

http://www.schooltube.com/video/03f9c858260a4da9b582/

Re:Since when

[OutOnARock]

Blowing your lottery winnings on cocaine and hookers?

Re:Since when

[mmcxii]

I most certainly agree with you but the problem is partisanship. It's not a problem for those at the top, it's a problem for those that actually think their party is going to work for them. These falsely perceived differences between the parties is what's helping the parties get away with whatever they want while the man on the streets stands like a loyal dog by his party that does little of note for him. If people weren't so loyal to their parties we may have actual numbers defecting. I don't foresee this happening in my lifetime tho.

Re:Since when

[Anonymous Coward]

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken

What the fuck is your point? -- B. A. W. Russell

Re:Since when

[mmcxii]

More than I expected but still just as lame. You've already shown your bias in plain sight with your rants where you sounds like a rabid dog. I'm sorry but it's hard to take people seriously who present themselves that way. I'm sure you have good intentions but that doesn't matter for much when you're a loose cannon.

Re:Since when

[Common Joe]

"Is it legal" - Trade Federation

"I will make it legal" - Darth Sidious

Say what you want about the Star Wars Prequels (and I'll probably agree with you), but there are a few choice quotes. This is one of them. Another is this one:

"So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause."

Re:Since when

[Nadaka]

Kick a dog long enough and he will start snarling.

Re:Since when

[causality]

Bull crap. But you go head and take small piece of sentence and act like that's the entire Constitution amendment.

Ass

The "Congress shall make no law" part means that Congress shall make no law like that described by the rest of a given amendment. This is pretty basic.

But hey, when you're a miserable person with lots of spite to vent, any target will do, right? That's why you don't bother providing an example or even a general idea of why you think I am wrong and how my mistake could be corrected. A constructive response wouldn't give you that false sense of superiority you so obviously crave.

You'll never, ever fill that void in your life this way. No matter how hard you try. Yes, you are that transparent. Now then, if you wish to discuss the Constitution like two gentlemen I would be glad to do so.

Re:Since when

[causality]

Constitutional law is about arguing the constitution in court. -what arguments tend to succeed, what arguments tend not to. Unless the judge is receptive, it has nothing to do with normative truth.

The arguments allowing the government to expand its power by legitimizing what it was doing anyway are the ones most likely to succeed these days.

Abusing eminent domain not because you need the land for a legitimate public purpose, but because Wal-mart pays more taxes (not building a bridge or a school, but taking it from one private entity and giving it to another private entity)? Sure, the SCOTUS gives that a nice seal of approval. Police placing GPS tracking devices on vehicles without warrants and without even suspecting a specific crime? Hell, go ahead. Requiring citizens to buy a product/service from a private company or be hit with a fine? Yeah, we like that too. Applying no ceiling at all to the "limited" term of a copyright? Why not?

That's the Surpreme Court these days. It seems they've never seen a fascist or oppressive policy they didn't like. Government is always the good guys, never abuses its power, and always has our best interests at heart, right? Maybe you don't get to be a judge, let alone such a prestigious one, without first believing in the system so hard that everything it does must be good. Heh, maybe new Supreme Court judges are shown a video of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before (that's a joke - with props to Bill Hicks).

Re:Since when

[causality]

He was placed in the position where he could not simultaneously fulfill both parts of the oath. No matter what he did, he would be breaking part of it. So he sided with the constitution and the American people, and I think that makes him a hero.

I'm a little surprised there are still people who believe in the USA, who don't think it's too far gone, who are willing to risk ruining their own life in an attempt to turn the situation around rather than making an escape plan by deciding which foreign country they want to migrate to before leaving becomes too difficult.

Re:Since when

[causality]

well.. maybe they just don't want to look like dickheads coupe of years down the road. and they're making a point about how senators are under gag orders. that's some transparent governing right there!

anyway, the privacy protections in the government surveillance have a flaw: technically the guys running the surveillance network can take any data they want out of it, so it depends on them not accessing the data without a court order. the logic behind how they "can't" spy on americans with it is simply because it's illegal to do so without a warrant. so the logic is that because it's illegal it can't be done. which is fine logic right there.

and they have long ago switched it around so that they can snoop on americans thought to have connections to foreigners anyhow.

There are only up to six degrees of separation (you know someone who knows someone is two) between yourself and any other human being on the planet. A greasy lawyer could probably make the case that every American has some connection to some foreigner at some time.

Re:Since when

[HiThere]

It may be a joke, and I know of no reason to believe it, but unless you can prove it didn't/doesn't happen that way you shouldn't close your mind to the possibility.

Re:Since when

[Jeremy Erwin]

Actually, I'm quite skeptical of constitutional literalism. I prefer Souter's view.

My own interpretation of Madison is that the the constitution invites conflict as a means of thwarting would be tyrants. If the constitution gave clear answers to every political dispute, it could be gamed.

Here's the Lawrence Tribe's syllabus for his constitutional law course I don't think it promises the clear cut, fundamentalist political values that a lot of people seem to seek out. But would be lawyers might find it to be of practical use.

Re:Since when

[causality]

It may be a joke, and I know of no reason to believe it, but unless you can prove it didn't/doesn't happen that way you shouldn't close your mind to the possibility.

I sincerely believe that the system does work that way, or in some manner very much like it, dominated by the international bankers such as those who run the Federal Reserve and other similar private banks operating in every 1st-world nation on the planet. They don't care about distraction (passion-sink) issues like the whole abortion debate, or the flag-burning of yesteryear. But every American President who tried to institute government-issued interest-free currency has been assassinated: Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, and JFK. That's because controlling a nation's currency means you can bring it to its knees without ever firing a single shot. That's real power with little risk, unlike a king or czar who could be overthrown. I believe they actually arrange these events Manchurian Candidate-style, or in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald, they just blame a patsy and invent some ridiculous story.

It amazes me how you can tell someone that a mugger might hurt or even kill for the $50 in a wallet, but if you suggest that powerful men play for keeps and are willing to kill over trillions of dollars and lots of power, then you're some kind of tin foil-hat wearing conspiracy nut. It's as though the media conditions us not to ever seriously consider the possibility, which gets really interesting when you consider there are about five corporations who control everything Americans see on TV, hear on the radio, or read in magazines and newspapers.

I merely temper this belief of mine with the fact that I have no solid proof of it. It is proper for a certain humility and meekness to go with that which you won't see me demonstrate when I know I can prove something. Having said that, I do believe that anyone who seriously looks into the matter with an open mind will come to the same conclusion. Not only will they come to that conclusion, they will realize that it's obvious. The problem is that most people are weak-hearted, intellectually and spiritually timid, and so they only believe what they want to believe and are prepared to believe. That isn't exactly a courageous search for truth.

So no, to more briefly answer your post: I don't easily close my mind to anything. The longer I live, the more I see for myself that some of the most absurd and inconceivable things are actually more true than anything one would consider comfortable and obvious. I wouldn't presume to place artificial limitations on a possibly infinite Universe that no one has begun to understand. It is the height of arrogance to say something can't be true without the ability to soundly falsify it. The farthest one can reasonably go is to say "I really don't know."

Re:Since when

[causality]

The basic idea is that the Constitution is like a default-deny firewall. The government has no powers whatsoever, except those granted to it by the Constitution.

The modern trend of doing things like "well we can attach a dollar value to nearly anything at all, and the economy means we are all interconnected in some manner, so clearly the Commerce Clause means we can do whatever the fuck we want at any time!" disturbs me. I do not believe this was intended at all.

What does it take, exactly, for a Supreme Court judge to say "you know, maybe the federal government is big enough and powerful enough as it is, so maybe just maybe my ruling should make the case that the latest $power_expansion technique is going too far"? Like I said before, it would seem like you have to really believe in the system to get to be a Supreme Court judge. I don't really place much faith in systems. What I do believe is that it is inherently in the nature of authority and power to be abused, which is why all proposals to expand it must be regarded with the most extreme suspicion, while all proposals to reduce it are assumed good until proven otherwise.

Good to see senators at least doing their job

[mcvos]

I'd rather they actually put a stop to it, but I guess we have to be happy that at least some senators are willing to address lies by the government.

Re:Good to see senators at least doing their job

[elashish14]

Actually, generating public outcry is probably the best thing that they can do. There are only a couple good senators and representatives in the US congress and they're not going to overturn these awful laws by themselves. Instead, all they can do is call out the other legislators on their supposed claims of government oversight keeping these programs in check, because obviously that's not happening. The NSA, and probably all other US (and UK, and other) intelligence agencies have already been exposed several times for their lies to the public (and this goes back decades as well).

So the best thing that these good guy legislators can do is expose the programs and discredit the people that support them. That will get a lot of people who are on the fence to fall on their side.

Re:Good to see senators at least doing their job

[TheP4st]

They did little more than slap the NSA in it's fingers saying "naughty boy!" while at the same time condoning the appalling concept of secret courts.

"We appreciate your attention to this matter. We believe that the U.S. government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage, and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans. Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings, but on informed public debate as well."

Re:Good to see senators at least doing their job

[TheP4st]

It should of course have read "on its fingers..." And no! I am not under the delusion that some anal retentive asshat won't find something to whine about and declare that I am guilty of a crime of genocidal proportions due to my failure to double check before posting.

Re:Good to see senators at least doing their job

[causality]

And no! I am not under the delusion that some anal retentive asshat won't find something to whine about and declare that I am guilty of a crime of genocidal proportions due to my failure to double check before posting.

What if each electron is actually an entire universe, and by using more than necessary to transmit two posts, you have destroyed trillions of trillions?

FTFY

[redback]

"NSA Lies"

FTFY

Re:FTFY

[Jason Levine]

Rule One: The NSA Lies.

I'll forgive the lies if they also have two hearts, a box that's bigger on the inside, and think bowties and fezes are cool.

Re:FTFY

[JRV31]

The only time a government ever tells the truth is when it is in it's own best interest.

Re:FTFY

[geekoid]

Ah so lying is OK when it's 'your' people the lie. I got it.
fucking hypocrite.

Re:FTFY

[Jason Levine]

Um... It was a reference (attempt at humor) to "Doctor Who" (Rule One: The Doctor Lies), not an acceptance of what the NSA did.

Re:FTFY

[fustakrakich]

A good reflection on about 98% of the people. Everybody, in their personal little fiefdoms is doing the exact same thing. Everything we create is in our own image. That includes governments, corporations, communities, deities... and even inanimate objects.

Re:FTFY

[gmuslera]

Rule Two: The NSA always lies
Rule Three: In the very improbable case that the NSA said something true, you should apply rules one and two.

Re:FTFY

[Jason Levine]

Let's hope the NSA never says "This statement is a lie." If the statement is true, then it's a lie and so it's false. If it's false, then it's not a lie and so it must be true. The resulting paradox will rip the Universe apart.

Congress upset someone is lying to them?

[hsmith]

I can't decipher how sad or pathetic this actually is.

Re: Congress upset someone is lying to them?

[niftydude]

Yeah, does seem a bit like the pot meeting the kettle.

Re:Congress upset someone is lying to them?

[mjtaylor24601]

So you really mean breaking the constitution, which they are sworn to uphold. Constitutional rights are binary, you have them or you do not.

Not that I disagree with the main point of your post, but in practice constitutional rights are rarely as black and white as you seem to think.

You have the right to free speech, but not the right to yell "fire" in a crowded room. You have the right to bear arms but not the right to own a suitcase nuke.

Personally I don't think anyone should be aspiring to a justice system that rigidly enforces the letter of law without any regards to the spirit of the law. All that does is encourage people to go searching for loopholes in the language, since you'll never be able to codify the law so perfectly that it won't require any interpretation.

Re:Congress upset someone is lying to them?

[eheldreth]

You are conflating cause and effect. Yes you can be held accountable for getting people injured by yelling fire in a crowded room just as you can be arrested for murder. The government does not have the right to make you wear a gag before you enter the room just encase you get the urge to do so. This is one of the most common mistake made by middle ground gun law sympathizers. You can under the constitution make it illegal for me to shoot you with out due cause (Yell fire!) but you can not deny me the right to be armed (gag me before I enter the room).

Re:Congress upset someone is lying to them?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

You have the right to bear arms but not the right to own a suitcase nuke.

Precisely this. The text of the second amendment clearly states "shall not be infringed". It takes some serious mental gymnastics to interpret that to mean "shall not be infringed unless such infringement is reasonable or warranted".

The law is the law, or at least it ought to be. Merely ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights when convenient (like in the case of your hypothetical suitcase nuke) leads us to right where we are now: a situation where the rule of law has been eroded, to be replaced by the rule of man. Surely this can be more convenient, since now we don't need a 2/3 majority of states to ratify an amendment that bans private ownership of nuclear arms. However, it also makes it possible for secret courts to okay secret laws that legalize unconstitutional secret spying on our fellow citizens. By finding a way around the checks and balances put in place by the founders of this country, we've made it considerably easier to pass new legislation, both good and bad.

Personally, I value freedom over expediency, and I'm deeply disturbed by this trend to ignore the law and instead pay heed to man. I can easily see the benefits, and also the pitfalls, of such an approach, but I fear that I'm somewhat alone in my desire to look at this objectively. It would be nice to hear some honest debate about the role of the Supreme Court and their rather liberal (read: false) "interpretation" of the Constitution. That the Constitution is a "living document" should not mean that black can mean white, or that up can mean down. "Shall not be infringed" is quite clear in its meaning, and no amount of men in robes will convince me otherwise. That we, as a nation, are okay with current legislation that desirably, but unconstitutionally, infringes on the right to bear arms, and are okay with a Supreme Court that twists basic English words to mean their very opposite, is a sad indictment of our ability to be principled human beings.

I've been a gun owner my whole life, but we really, really need to repeal the second amendment. We can't have people running around with nukes, and we can't infringe on people's right to bear arms unless we either A) amend the constitution or B) ignore the constitution. Option B doesn't sit as well with me as it does with the entire rest of the American population.

Re:Congress upset someone is lying to them?

[Dripdry]

IMO It's because people are overworked and want a turnkey solution for the law, just like governance and cooking and many other things. Put enough gears and cogs in place and, cross fingers, everything will run smoothly.
I see it in finance: We have a TON of procedures in place for the tiniest details. It helps clients generically, but we could do better by attending each case separately and adhering to the spirit of things more. Why don't we? It would be REALLY tough to make money that way, or we'd have to charge such high fees that almost no one would pay.
We want it all: Low prices. Low amount of time/attention spent on tasks. Least hassle possible. It's a recipe for bureaucracy.

Re:Congress upset someone is lying to them?

[mjtaylor24601]

Oh absolutely. If you give too much leeway for interpretation then you might as well not bother even having laws because judges/juries will just "interpret" them however they fell like. As with most things I think a balance needs to be struck.

Re:Congress upset someone is lying to them?

[mjtaylor24601]

But if we take that argument to the extreme then the government would be able to pass any types of laws against constitutionally protected activities because the negative repercussions imposed by the law would just be part of you "being held liable for the results".

Sure you have the right to bear arms, so long as you're willing to be held liable for the results. The fact that those results might include a criminal prosecution that puts you in jail for the rest of your life...

Re:Congress upset someone is lying to them?

[mjtaylor24601]

But can I (and legitimate question here as I am by no means a constitutional scholar) prevent you from owning a suitcase nuke because you might blow someone up without "due cause"? I think that's the more analogous comparison here. Personally I think the government should be able to prevent me from owning a nuke, and there certainly are laws to that effect on the books. However I'd be open to idea that such laws are, strictly speaking, unconstitutional, and technically should require a constitutional amendment.

Re:Congress upset someone is lying to them?

[Macdude]

You have the right to free speech, but not the right to yell "fire" in a crowded room.

Actually you do have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded room. You just can't use the first amendment to avoid prosecution for starting a riot. In other words, you have the right to act but you are also responsible for your actions.

Re:Congress upset someone is lying to them?

[CrimsonAvenger]

I've been a gun owner my whole life, but we really, really need to repeal the second amendment. We can't have people running around with nukes, and we can't infringe on people's right to bear arms unless we either A) amend the constitution or B) ignore the constitution.

Depends on your definition of "arms", I suppose.

If you pay attention to that "militia" clause in the front, it's pretty easy to conclude that "arms" means "weapons suitable to the militia (which includes all adult males in the USA, and should include all adult women, but amending the Militia Act that way would cause entirely too many people to have heart attacks).

"Weapons suitable to the militia" pretty much means "light infantry weapons" (we've got a Regular Army for the artillery/armour/heavy stuff), which pretty much ought to include any sort of rifle, pistol, or shotgun, whether selective fire or not.

machineguns are a bit more problematic, though they were still freely available to anyone who wanted to pay for one up until FDR decided that if he couldn't make them illegal, he'd tax them out of existence.

Re:Congress upset someone is lying to them?

[mjtaylor24601]

Precisely this. The text of the second amendment clearly states "shall not be infringed". It takes some serious mental gymnastics to interpret that to mean "shall not be infringed unless such infringement is reasonable or warranted".

Well the 2nd amendment also clearly states "well regulated militia" and IMHO it takes some non-trivial mental gymnastics to interpret that to mean everyone, everywhere, all the time, regardless of reason. To me that's the danger of attempting to blindly follow the wording of the law without considering the broader context of what what the law was trying to accomplish.

Constitution is a "living document" should not mean that black can mean white, or that up can mean down

But does "well regulated militia" mean everyone? Just the national guard? Should the neighborhood watch count? I think as a practical matter some level of interpretation is always going to be necessary because it will be virtually impossible to so fully specify a law that it becomes completely unambiguous in all circumstances, especially when you start considering how various laws, passed separately, might interact. Of course that doesn't mean that the Supreme Court (or anyone else) should be just allowed to "interpret" the law to mean whatever they fell like. You need to strike a balance.

I've been a gun owner my whole life, but we really, really need to repeal the second amendment. We can't have people running around with nukes, and we can't infringe on people's right to bear arms unless we either A) amend the constitution or B) ignore the constitution.

That seems like a highly rational position to me. I've always found most pro-gun advocates to be a little hypocritical when it comes to the 2nd amendment. They're fine with government infringement when it comes to non-gun types of "arms" but as soon it's applied to guns all of a sudden the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct. Either some types of arms are too dangerous to be allowed in civilian hands (and in that case the debate we should be having is whether or not guns meet that threshold) or any regulation of any kind is unconstitutional (in which case we should be arranging to have a constitutional amendment because virtually everyone agrees that some level of arms regulation is necessary).

Re:Congress upset someone is lying to them?

[eheldreth]

That's a touchy question and in a grey area because as I understand the law I could own and build the mechanics and electronics of a suite case nuke legally but I could not own or attempt to obtain a sufficient quantity of fissionable material to detonate it and would require a license to own explosives of sufficient quality and yield. Of course those laws have as much to do with environmental and public health concerns as the actual military use of the material itself. I could if I wished and had sufficient funding build an ICBM in my garage. I could not launch it without government approval. I could own a Jet fighter (assuming someone would sell it to me) and if sufficiently licensed even fly it. There are companies that specialize in putting you through mock dog fights with lasers now. I could not currently own most of the weapons for it seeing as they are fully automatic and covered under the NFA of 1934. Questions of nukes aside I consider the NFA highly and unquestionably unconstitutional.

Re:Congress upset someone is lying to them?

[zzsmirkzz]

Well the 2nd amendment also clearly states "well regulated militia" and IMHO it takes some non-trivial mental gymnastics to interpret that to mean everyone, everywhere, all the time, regardless of reason.

Yes, it mentions it as a justification/rationalization of where the right comes from, no mental gymnastics required. It is clear when it says that "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" which is how it is interpreted to mean everyone, because "The People" includes everyone.

They're fine with government infringement when it comes to non-gun types of "arms" but as soon it's applied to guns all of a sudden the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct.

This is where straw-men arguments confuse normal people. I don't believe that the laws outlawing the ownership or possession of any type of weapon is constitutional, period. The very clear and precise wording of the Second Amendment is hard to argue in an intellectually honest manner (i.e. not arguing up means down because "blah"). I also do not think it wise to allow everyday Joes access to unstable and unsafe nuclear materials. There was/is a simple, constitutional solution to this that the Courts were too weak to require but should of been mandated. After the discovery/invention of the atomic bomb a very clear and simple Constitutional Amendment should of been proposed that would except Nuclear, Chemical or other WMD's (Specifically defined) from the rights recognized in the Second Amendment. This would of been an easy sell, I cannot fathom who would of voted against it. But they didn't go this route, and I suspect it is because they didn't want to make it clear that this is the only legal route to restrict the Bill of Rights.

Re:Congress upset someone is lying to them?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Depends on your definition of "clause", I suppose.

The prefatory clause issue was settled with the Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson (2001).

You suggest that the second amendment is restricted to weapons suitable to the militia, or "light infantry weapons", under the assumption that "we've got a Regular Army for the artillery/armour/heavy stuff". However, you overlook the fact that when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, there was no "Regular Army". In fact, that's the reason why we have a second amendment. Take this commentary from Joseph Story, who served on the Supreme Court from 1811 to 1845:

The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.

It is evident to any honest person that at the time of the writing of the second amendment, the intent of the legislators was to obviate the need for a standing army by ensuring that the populace is armed. It would follow that imposing artificial limitations on the degree of armament would be counterproductive then as it is today. We don't tell our standing army they can't have artillery or armor or nukes.

However, things have changed. Arms have changed, and now we have things like nukes. Attitudes have changed, and now we have things like a standing army. It's safe to say that there is overwhelming support for a prohibition against private ownership of nuclear arms. However, that prohibition runs counter to both the letter and the spirit of the second amendment. The correct course of action, in this case, is to scrap the second amendment, not to ignore it, not to "interpret" it in a way that casts aside both its content and its intent.

I think we can all agree, we don't want people running around with nukes. I just don't understand this inability to be honest about what the second amendment actually says.

Re:Congress upset someone is lying to them?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

First of all, you're referring to the prefatory clause of the second amendment. You're not the first person to bring it up, and thankfully this issue was resolved with the Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson (2001). It turns out that the right is not restricted to the militia. The fact that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state is merely stated as one possible justification for the amendment's existence. If I were to state "the sky is blue, one plus one is two", would you argue that one plus one is only two if the computation is performed under a blue sky?

Second, you're distracting yourself with the issue of militia membership. For the record, if you're asking who constitutes the militia, it's hard to take you seriously. Second, it's not virtually impossible to so fully specify a law that it becomes completely unambiguous in all situations. The second amendment is one such law. It states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no "except" or "unless" or any other corner cases. Shall. Not. In standard English, there is no ambiguity here. Now, you might argue that such an unambiguous law is undesirable, as it would allow private ownership of nukes, et cetera. I, personally, would agree with you. Or you could argue that we should ignore both the letter and the spirit of the law in the interest of expediency, since we all agree that there is in fact a need to infringe on the right to bear arms. I, personally, would rather die in a nuclear holocaust.

Reactions to this

[FunkyLich]

It is important not to simply wonder on this. After all, in a way or another some had seen it commming. Now that the brown pieces have hit the rotating blades, the real issue is how to prevent this from happening in the future.
  The first thing that comes to mind is the word "Legislation". But then again, it is exactly that what gave rise to this situation in the first place.

"I have a million ideas. They all point to certain death" - Marvin

Re:Reactions to this

[Anonymous Coward]

How about instead of creating new legislation, they repeal some old bills. Like the National Security Act of 1947.

Re:Reactions to this

[FunkyLich]

I strongly wish that. When I mentioned "Legislation" by no means I was thinking adding only. The options could be as trimming, repealing, changing, trashing... in general, fixing. And moreover, the process of stopping this from happening again should encompass legislation, not be limited within its boundaries. For example, it might also involve necessity to inform the public and some line there reading "Non compliants will be taken out and shot". Ok, this is figurative but the idea is that there has to be some fear factor in it. Human civilsation experience so far has shown countless times that absolute power corrupts absolutely. So we shoud be careful to NOT give such powers.

Re:Reactions to this

[Seumas]

Or The USA PATRIOT Act of 200X.

Re:Reactions to this

[Vintermann]

Or the espionage act of 1917. Created with the noble intent of going after people who spoke against joining WWI.

Re:Reactions to this

[cold fjord]

How about instead of creating new legislation, they repeal some old bills. Like the National Security Act of 1947.

Great idea. What are you going to replace it with? Or do you think the US should just do away with the US Department of Defense, NSA, Army, Navy, Air Force, etc.? Shouldn't there be at least some sort of mutual disarmament treaty between the major powers before the US disarms? Maybe try building on the success of the Kellogg–Briand Pact which outlawed war?

Re:Reactions to this

[fustakrakich]

The 'rule of law' is bullshit if not applied to everybody, including those who write and enforce it. Don't expect any respect until that changes. Pretty simple.

Re:Reactions to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, cold fjord, some have declared that you're an NSA shill, but I don't think so. I think you simply have way too much faith in the establishments of the USA. You trust them. You like them. You feel that there are bad people out there and that these things protect you. And you're fighting back against what you see is paramount to enemy forces tearing down our nation's walls and weapons.

So let me make this clear: You're trolling. You're over the top. You cannot possibly believe the ludicrous points your arguing. The effort you're putting forth to try and convince people that the NSA aren't the evil lying scumbags that they appear to be, is so over the top that you're actually being detrimental to your cause. This is a debate, not an argument. You don't have to convince the opposition that they're wrong, all you have to do is make them look like fools to the crowd. And right now you're looking pretty foolish.

Here's why:

Or do you think the US should just do away with the US Department of Defense, NSA, Army, Navy, Air Force, etc.?

The national security act of 1947 established the Air force and CIA, and turned the MWE into the DoD, but it did not establish the NSA, Army, or Navy. Considering that the topic at hand is the illegal warrentless domestic spying campaign, one would imagine that the parent poster was talking about the CIA. Now, his main idea was to repeal some legislature rather than add more, and some acts would be higher on my shit list than the national security act of 1947, but rather than point out the flaws of his post you've decided to presume that he somehow wants to dismantle our Air Force, while chucking in the Army and Navy into the pot for no good reason. Not only is your argument fighting a strawman (because he in no way suggested we dismantle the Army and Navy [hell you even omit the CIA from that list]), you ignore his main thrust that cutting bad laws is safer than adding on new laws.

Shouldn't there be at least some sort of mutual disarmament treaty between the major powers before the US disarms?

Unfortunately, the "major powers" in this conflict are the American people vs the American government. And by "disarm" we're suggesting that the spies obey the our laws and get a specific warrant, by having probable cause, if they want to spy on us.

Re:Reactions to this

[cundare]

I thought that's what the Supreme Court does.

At least this week.

diff....

[gbjbaanb]

However they can't actually say HOW they are inaccurate, because they would be compromising classified information.

diff those documents before and after amendment, see the classified information. I don't know if the senators are dumb or being subtly clever.

Re:diff....

[drinkypoo]

diff those documents before and after amendment, see the classified information. I don't know if the senators are dumb or being subtly clever.

After such an amendment, the information would have been declassified. Can't tell if you're cleverly dumb or dumbly subtle.

Well yea but

[jameshofo]

Politicians pointing out that the NSA lies about facts, and they let them know. They should go to the people who are in charge of the NSA and let them know, silly politicians.

Who is in charge?

[Subm]

How long before Congress simply states "We aren't in charge anymore."?

Re:Who is in charge?

[Danathar]

that happened years ago

Re:Who is in charge?

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before Congress simply states "We aren't in charge anymore."?

The Executive branch would never authorize that leak.

Re:Who is in charge?

[Seumas]

Didn't they do that a long time ago? For at least a decade, they have basically been nothing but yes-men to the executive branch. There may as well not even fucking BE a legislative branch.

Re:Who is in charge?

[cold fjord]

As long as Congress controls the budget, Congress is in charge. That won't change any time soon.

The question is, do enough of their colleagues agree with them to take action? Their view may be poorly justified.

Re:Who is in charge?

[Jason Levine]

Even though they're "in charge," they might not set the rules due to a lack of political will (standing up to someone who wants to do something "to fight terrorists" or "in the name of national security" for fear of being portrayed as weak next election cycle) or due to money flow from lobbyists telling them what laws to write ("we're not bribing you, we're just giving you this expensive trip and a cushy position when you retire if you get this bill we wrote passed"). Having the authority to be in charge and actually being in charge are two very different things.

Re:Who is in charge?

[gl4ss]

How long before Congress simply states "We aren't in charge anymore."?

they got a gag order against that from a secret court.

yeah, they really did. THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT of this action by these senators.

Re:Who is in charge?

[gl4ss]

how can they be in charge if they don't know where the budget goes and how can they campaign for a seat when they can't tell people what money usage they would be against..

Re:Who is in charge?

[CannonballHead]

A bill like that would never pass the Senate. ;)

Re:Who is in charge?

[causality]

Even though they're "in charge," they might not set the rules due to a lack of political will (standing up to someone who wants to do something "to fight terrorists" or "in the name of national security" for fear of being portrayed as weak next election cycle)

This is why the Senators were originally appointed by their respective states, not elected. Changing that was a very bad idea.

Half right

[SirGarlon]

The senators said, in part,

it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans

My gut says this is plausible, but we don't really know - it's never been tried.

Re:Half right

[NatasRevol]

Why does the NSA see tigers everywhere?

Re:Half right

[SirGarlon]

I live in Boston. So, yes, we had a "tiger" attack recently that killed 3 people and injured 250+, you insensitive clod. (N.B. I am not saying we need stronger counter-terrorism, I am just saying that terrorists are not purely imaginary.) I am sure the people of Iraq, Pakistan, India, and Yemen believe in terrorists as well.

Re:Half right

[SirGarlon]

Because the definition of "terrorist" is so wonderfully flexible. It's very useful for constructing circular justifications: we spy on the terrorists because the people we want to spy on are terrorists. But if you think there is _no_ need for counter-terrorism at all, then I have to disagree. I just think the FBI can handle it using regular, constitutional law enforcement powers.

Re:Half right

[Anonymous Coward]

Three people died yesterday in Boston due to a car wreck. We must ensure that no other person dies in a car accident by requiring a GPS implant in every car as well as a device that only allows a car to be activated with government approval. Without this, all of our safety is at dire risk. Additionally, we must ensure that no traffic laws are broken by requiring a live dashcam feed sent to the local police department for every vehicle on the road. Without this, we will not be able to identify those who are at risk of breaking a traffic law and placing *ALL* of us at grave risk.

Re:Half right

[pjt33]

The other way of reading that quote is that it's not possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of some (extraordinary) Americans.

Re:Half right

[oreaq]

I'm glad we had all that illegal surveillance going to prevent this attack.

Re:Half right

[Anonymous Coward]

3+250 is an occasional zoo escape; small enough to not disprove the stone's effectiveness but scary enough to bump the sales. The product is not for sale in India.

Re:Half right

[RabidReindeer]

The senators said, in part,

it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans

My gut says this is plausible, but we don't really know - it's never been tried.

Let's look at history.

Unlike the Soviet Union and other historical threats to the USA, "the terrorists" are not some big nation with a big military that we can "go to war against". We can't "invade Terrorstan" and "show them johnnies what's what" because (and I hate to break it to my common-sense neighbors), there's no such country as Terrorstan to invade.

"The terrorists" are not a single country or alliance, they're hundreds of mostly-small groups, many of which hate each other even more than they hate us. They're not exclusively conveniently far-off, and they use "unfair" and barbaric methods of attack.

Now when has anything like that ever been a problem for the USA? Well, how about right about the time it was founded? Only the name we gave them back then was "Indians". Dark-skinned peoples with a foreign culture who would swoop down on communities and wreak havoc with little or no warning. Sometimes they would be friendly and sometimes they'd turn on us for what they considered injustices.

So did we set up checkpoints on all the highways and make travellers take their shoes off? Appoint officials in Franklin's Post Office to examine all the mails of the new-formed Republic? Hire people to audit businesses for possible Indian sympathizers? Peer over farmers fences for hints at who might be deviating from the official policy?

No we didn't. "Home of the Brave" wasn't just a cynical joke back then. Nor was "Land of the Free". You can't be the second if you aren't the first.

Re:Half right

[SirGarlon]

Saying that surveillance does not prevent or predict terrorist attacks is a very different statement from saying terrorism doesn't exist. The former is demonstrably true; the latter is demonstrably false.

Re:Half right

[Anonymous Coward]

NSA isn't working to fight terrorism 'worldwide'.

The statistic should look something like
2001 : 3k
2002-2012 : 0k

Re:Half right

[NatasRevol]

Those numbers are like 10% of worldwide car accident deaths.

In other words, not worth spending ridiculous amounts of money on, while trampling the fundamental tenets of the US.

Re:Half right

[Anonymous Coward]

even eariler on, you had problems with terrorists. These ones won, however, and they now call themselves "Patriots of the USA".

Re:Half right

[timeOday]

The Boston attack isn't even relevant to the topic of national security. I realize it was horrible for the dozens of people personally affected, but it is really not possible to fashion a security mesh fine enough to filter out something of this scale (one or two dudes with what amounts to pipe bombs) yet large enough to cover the nation. Not even in a full occupation, like the Nazis in France during WWII, could they prevent things of that scale.

.

Preventing the next 9/11, on the other hand, may be possible. And here is the problem: We The People will be infinitely more upset if that occurs, than we are about being spied upon and lied to by our own government. And they know that.

Re:Half right

[SirGarlon]

it is really not possible to fashion a security mesh fine enough to filter out something of this scale (one or two dudes...

It would be a very positive step if the US government would just admit that and move on.

Re:Half right

[NatasRevol]

The cost of the fight against al Qaida is a relatively small percentage of the federal budget.

Unless you add in all the military resources brought to bear worldwide on finding tigers.

Still have free speech? Yes

Freely monitored speech. That isn't actually free.

There are plenty more

like the right to unreasonable search & seizure without a warrant AND probable cause?

If they take one, how hard is it to take others?

Re:Half right

[gmuslera]

They are taking into account this count? A lot of innocent died during those terrorist attacks.

Re:Half right

[cold fjord]

Unless you add in all the military resources brought to bear worldwide on finding tigers.

That doesn't really get you anywhere. The military existed before al Qaida attacked, it will exist after al Qaida is gone.

Freely monitored speech. That isn't actually free.

It is pretty unlikely that the contents of your communications will be monitored unless you are in direct contact with an actual terrorist group.

like the right to unreasonable search & seizure without a warrant AND probable cause?

If you're an American you still have those rights.

If they take one, how hard is it to take others?

The next one they take will likely be the first.

Re:Half right

[lightknight]

Old trick: stick a picture of a tiger to the center of the lenses they use to spy on people...tigers are seen everywhere.

Re:Half right

[NatasRevol]

like the right to unreasonable search & seizure without a warrant AND probable cause?

If you're an American you still have those rights.

You're fucking delusional.

Re:Half right

[RoTNCoRE]

Statistically, terrorism in the US doesn't exist, and should not occupy the mind-share and consume the budget that it does. Keeping children away from pools unsupervised, drunk driving prevention, fitness and anti-smoking campaigns would keep us all much safer, and on a much lower budget.

Re:Half right

[10101001 10101001]

Three people died yesterday in Boston due to a car wreck.

Fuck that analogy. How about this? Between every five and six days in Boston, there's a murder (that is, it's been in the 50-70 people murdered per year for a while). So, what did that terrorist attack amount to? A few weeks worth of murders. Now, what's Boston's response to the equivalent of ~20 terrorist-level attacks on a regular basis? Near nothing, really--and by that, I mean, there hasn't been any calls for martial law which is seemingly what anti-terrorists want.

Oh, but you say, the terrorists also injured a good many people too! Well, wouldn't you know, assaults in Boston are on the scope of ~3,000/year. So, on the order of ~15 terrorist-level assaults per year (okay, that's rather unfair, since clearly assaults include all scopes of attacks and I doubt many result in permanent maiming). But, then, there's all sorts of other crimes (rapes and armed robbery) as well which could be argued of equal or greater heinousness in many multiples more of peoples lives.

The point then? Even when serious, ongoing crimes, we wouldn't accept martial law--war on crime may be twisted that way repeatedly but it quickly gets slapped down when applied to someone in power or influence. No, it's precisely because terrorism is seen as some sort of short-term problem that martial law can fix. But, then, the only people who tend to believe that are those who have no memory of history or having been personally effected want "justice" (aka vengeance) and really don't give a shit about the law. Well, you know, all those people victimized by common crimes I mentioned above fall into the same boat. And society generally ignores them--at best, a few quick sound bites in the newspaper blotter.

In short, if I would figuratively weep for the victims of the Boston bombing, I have way more figurative tears for a lot more, less published victims. Of course, it doesn't help that way more "victims" of the Boston bombing are merely people who happen to commute/live in Boston and say to themselves, "it could have been me".

Re:Half right

[someSnarkyBastard]

Never going to happen. To admit weakness or impotence is anathema for _ANY_ government. I creates doubt in the minds of citizens, leading to dangerous thoughts like "We gave up so many of our rights, we ceded so much power to you, and yet you say that you still cannot do this? What was the point of it all then?" Soon after that people will start demanding those rights and powers back and we all know how government regards relinquishing its power...

Re:Half right

[SirGarlon]

I seriously think it's a rhetorical device, to get the "ordinary Americans" to realize this blanket surveillance affects them, because it does. There are people, like my father, who say without apology that "terrorists don't have rights." (I can't get it through his head that "terrorists" are innocent until proven guilty. I've tried.) I think the senators are just trying to steer away pushing the buttons of folks like that, and toward the argument that should be easier: that people who aren't even suspected of wrongdoing need to have their rights respected. Maybe it's gutless to gloss over the fact that suspects have rights too, and/or maybe it's strategic.

Wouldn't that be classified?

[MrMickS]

If they can't show the issues with it due to national security reasons would we be able to see a correctly amended version of the document? It seems odd to point out issues with a public document but not be able to point out what is wrong.

If the document is corrected how will we know if its a true and accurate portrayal of the state of affairs? It seems to me that information will be held back, for national security reasons, and as such the document is bound to be inaccurate even if not deliberately misleading.

No real congressional over-site

[schwit1]

Obama stated that "These programs are subject to congressional oversight and congressional reauthorization and congressional debate. And if there are members of Congress who feel differently, then they should speak up. And if in fact there was - there were abuses taking place, presumably, those members of Congress could raise those issues very aggressively. They're empowered to do so."

But the only place Congress is legally permitted to speak up is in a classified hearing.. This means it's not just that members of Congress can't publicly air complaints about the programs they can't even acknowledge they exist.

Re:No real congressional over-site

[Anonymous Coward]

This story exists because some members of Congress are publicly airing complaints.

Re:No real congressional over-site

[moeinvt]

If we had some people in Congress and the Senate who were genuine leaders with a modicum of courage and respect for the oath they swore on The Constitution, they'd go public. Let's see Big Brother arrest some of our elected officials for "treason" because they tell their constituents what the government is doing.

After all of Obama's speeches telling us about how the programs have congressional oversight, I've been demanding that my elected asshats in DC tell me exactly who knows the details. No luck yet. I've suggested that it must be the intelligence committees, but my Rep. and Senators won't give me any specifics.

Re:No real congressional over-site

[Virtucon]

There is congressional oversight by the Intelligence Committees. However they're so caught up with shit all over their faces right now because they're the ones who tell their peers that "This is okay, approve it" when it comes to the acts and the budget.

The way to kill all of this horseshit is to ultimately hold congress accountable and change the laws, de-fund it and get back to putting this country on the right track as opposed to worrying about middle-eastern shit for brains that have nothing better to do than kill and maim their own people. That of course would mean that we need voters who are willing to actually vote for new candidates and stop voting for the same old shit. With about half of the country opposed to the other half right now, I'll believe that when I grow udders and get milked (to paraphrase a line from "The Money Pit.").

"In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve." - Joseph de Maistre

Re:No real congressional over-site

[Vintermann]

You got to wonder what Wyden thinks to himself, when he sees his own president brazenly say stuff like this while simultaneously forbidding him by force of law from speaking up.

Re:No real congressional over-site

[Vintermann]

It would be nice if it was the powerful dissenters like Wyden who resorted to civil disobedience, rather than comparatively powerless like Snowden.

Not that it would be without consequences, even for the powerful, to resist. But they're much, much better equipped to defend themselves.

Re:No real congressional over-site

[geekoid]

That isn't the case.
A) The president was address the ludicrous claim that congress was kept in the dark.
B) Not being able to speak of specific matters of security is not the same as not being able to speak up.

let me fix that for you

[csumpi]

"So the [put any country's name here] government uses taxpayer money to lie to the people... there's a surprise!"

Re:let me fix that for you

[fustakrakich]

So the [put any country's name here] government is under the thumb of organized criminals.... there's a surprise.

You will have to elect some brave souls who are willing to give up everything they love if you expect anything to change at all. That is the business we are in.

Re:let me fix that for you

[csumpi]

"Transparency and Open Government" said Barack Obama.

He also explains what that means here.

Re:let me fix that for you

[fustakrakich]

And? So they lie. It's a prerequisite of winning an election and keeping the job. They do it because we reward them for it. Those who tell the truth are given the electric shock. It's Pavlovian conditioning. What do you expect??

Important info but ...

[oztiks]

Since when did /. become an aggregate of the Daily Show? News for nerds... stuff that matters?

Re:Important info but ...

[RabidReindeer]

Since when did /. become an aggregate of the Daily Show? News for nerds... stuff that matters?

It's very difficult to screw around with the Internet/technology/communications without it being news for nerds or stuff that matters.

Re:Important info but ...

[gmuslera]

Your information on the net is not your information anymore. There, i translated it to nerdspeak. Thats why it matters.

Secret courts?

[PeeAitchPee]

Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings

What's the goal -- having a police state? There NO place for secret courts and secret Congressional hearings in a free society.

Re:Secret courts?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think having a nuanced view of these issues requires us to consider the possibility that such things might sometimes be justified.
Spies and terrorists do exist. The levels of these threats may be different from what they are portrayed to be, but they're not completely fictitious.
Is it completely unreasonable to ever need to keep secrets in the investigation and handling of spies and terrorists?

Re:Secret courts?

[Greyfox]

Pretty sure the secret courts were one of the gripes our founding fathers had with England. Of course, in England's eyes, our founding fathers were terrorists, so there you go.

Re:Secret courts?

[Bucc5062]

The base issue is not so much about keep secrets in the ongoing investigations, not telling bad guys we know where you are is understandable. The issue is that agencies like the NSA are usupring the Constitution in order to try and hook bad guys, pontetially invading privacy of US citizens that have no connection with any bad guys. Consider this statement:

"Any inadvertently acquired communication of or concerning a US person must be promptly destroyed if it is neither relevant to the authorized purpose or evidence of a crime."

There is no implied statement there, the NSA is processing general communications in the hopes of find a bad guy, but doing so by digging into private communications without a warrant.

The whole point of a warrant is to ensure that the Authority has reasonable reason to look beyond the public face of an individual. What the NSA did is akin to random checkpoints, searching all people who come by. If one refuses then they labeled suspicious, not that they are asserting their constitutional rights. We are innocent till proven guilty, but the NSA seems to feel that that does not matter. We are all guilty, just ignore the stuff that doesn't matter right now.

Keeping an investigation quiet? Yes. Secret Courts, maybe? But secret Congressional hearings? No for they represent Us and We should demand that agencies be held accountable to the Law.

tldr; I don't want my country to become East Germany

Re:Secret courts?

[Lumpy]

They are never justified, NEVER.

Re:Secret courts?

[mu51c10rd]

Secret courts are important..depending on their purpose. FISA is useful as it grants a small group of judges security clearances instead of the entire federal bench corp. Security clearances are necessary to vet people who will see information to protect sources and methods...it is not supposed to be protecting information (beyond that which would reveal sources and methods). I see FISA as a necessity, but it appears that Snowden has revealed how abused the FISA court now is. FISA should not have the authority to do blanket searches like that...only targetted ones.

Re:Secret courts?

[cold fjord]

There NO place for ... secret Congressional hearings in a free society.

That is a popular if completely unserious view. Do you really believe that in the modern world today that a republic of 300,000,000 people will have no secrets that have to be maintained, and that you personally should have access to everything at your whim? If you do, then you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of representative government.

There NO place for secret courts ... in a free society.

The US FISA court isn't a secret trial court that tries suspects for guilt or innocence. It is a court that handles classified information and requests for warrants. The judges on it are ordinary judges. If the FISA court didn't exist, little would change. The matters before it would still be confidential.

Re:Secret courts?

[cold fjord]

From the perspective of the Crown, the Americans were rebels, not terrorists. Big difference.

Re:Secret courts?

[geekoid]

Of course there is, don't be stupid.

Re:Secret courts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me? A terrorist is, by the new American definition, anyone who needs to be removed.

Re:Secret courts?

[alexo]

Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings

What's the goal -- having a police state? There NO place for secret courts and secret Congressional hearings in a free society.

Since there is no "free society", the question becomes academic.

Re:Secret courts?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think having a nuanced view of these issues requires us to consider the possibility that such things might sometimes be justified.

Possibly so. So debate it, and then pass the constitutional amendment.

But what happened is that we debated it, didn't reach a consensus, and in the end we did not legalize it. Why not throw these criminals under the bus? Lots of crimes are justified but our policy is generally to punish people anyway, as a means of trying to get the ball rolling on the debate again.

What Manning did was justified too, but was illegal and I don't hear government people saying that a nuanced view means that he should be let go.

Re:Secret courts?

[Anonymous Coward]

New word, same meaning.

Re:Secret courts?

[fustakrakich]

And from your perspective, what do you call the AQ fighters in Syria that the US and Europe are financing? I only bring this up because it appears that you and your peeps define 'terrorists' by their target.

Re:Secret courts?

[Arker]

There is a difference between keeping secrets in an investigation (which is done all the time in regards to normal non-secret courts) and simply using secrecy as a weapon to place oneself above the law. And unfortunately that is exactly what our government has spent the last century doing - using secrecy to place itself above the law.

If we are to keep a free society we must be very clear that no one is above the law. Secret courts and general warrants are absolutely anathema to a free society. Converting the land of the free into a police state is not a way to beat the terrorists, it's a way to capitulate to them.

Re:Secret courts?

[someSnarkyBastard]

So then your nuanced view would allow you to be comfortable with the idea of a SWAT team kicking in your door at 3 AM and disappearing you off to who knows where with no warrant, no public trial, or even knowing what you have been charged with? Because some secret court, using classified evidence that you cannot look at let alone contest, has arbitrarily convicted you of a secret classified crime?

What legal recourse do you possibly have in such a system?

And you are seriously okay with this?

You scare me AC. You also have my pity.

Re:Secret courts?

[colinrichardday]

There NO place for a free society in secret courts and secret Congressional hearings.

FTFY

Re:Secret courts?

[alexo]

And there isn't one now.

Stargate Fans -

[pecosdave]

I think we actually need an NID now. Not the plot device, but a real civilian oversight agency. The real question is how do we staff it without getting people just as corrupt as the rest of the government?

Re:Stargate Fans -

[Lumpy]

no we need Amercians that are not lazy idiots.

Call, Write, FAX and email your senators and demand they work to repeal the PATRIOT act now. and get others to do it as well.

Re:Stargate Fans -

[pecosdave]

That works for actual good politicians.

The elite Feinstein, McCain and other top of the of parties people are going to keep pushing their own personal agenda on the people regardless of what the people want, and they're proving it time and time again with their statements which would bite them in the ass hard were they not state media darlings.

Who keeps re-electing the fucktards?

Re:Stargate Fans -

[gl4ss]

NID sounds just as corrupt as NSA, FBI and CIA agencies it parodies so what was your point again?

Re:Stargate Fans -

[Lumpy]

You dont need to worry about those, just get all the rest to turn on them like a pack of rapid wolves.

That's like the old line..

[Virtucon]

"I could tell you what is wrong, but then I'd have to kill you."

If anyone is surprised...

[intermodal]

I can assure them with confidence that the NSA knows which rock they live under.

Mutually exclusive

[Taibhsear]

...and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans.
Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings,

These last two statements are in direct opposition to one another. They are mutually exclusive. Pick one. And by pick one I mean the former.

Re:Whatever...

[Virtucon]

Oh shit, sorry I thought you said lines... lines.... lines!!!!

National Security Trumps Constitution

[n2hightech]

Essentially the constitution means nothing if they say the magic words "National Security". You think you have rights sorry we think you are a threat to "National Security" we can lock you up. No evidence. No judge. No jury. No Press. No rules apply to us we are protecting "National Security". This is the same logic every dictatorship has used throughout history. How big a threat is Al Qaeda and the Talaban really? In all their attacks on the US through out all history they have killed 4400+/- people. And 4488+/- of our troops in their country. So less than 10,000 US deaths due to Al Qaeda and the Talaban over the last 17 years give or take depending on when you say Al Qaeda formed. So the average death tole is 588 US citizens per year due to Al Qaeda and the Talaban actions. How does this compare to other threats to "National Security" From the CDC Report on death statics http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf This ranks right up there with accidental deaths from firearms and a bad case of the flu. Don't get me wrong. I believe those responsible for acts of violence should be punished and a military response to 911 was the right thing to do. When you look at the actual impact based on the death toll the security of our country was not and has never been at stake. I do not feel less fearful today or more free today. I am much more fearful of loosing my rights and freedoms to actions of our government than I am to those of Al Qaeda, the Talaban and terrorism in general.

Re:National Security Trumps Constitution

[geekoid]

"In all their successful attacks on the US through out all history they have killed 4400+/- people"

It's about prevention, not revenge.

"I am much more fearful of loosing my rights and freedoms to actions of our government than I am to those of Al Qaeda, the Talaban and terrorism in general."
which is stupid, statistically speaking.

DUH.

[Lumpy]

Step 1 when you have a leak. Discredit the source.

the NSA knows they need to lie through their teeth hard to discredit this as fast as possible and hope that the bulk of the population believes them.

Step 2 is demonize the source in the eyes of the people. That one is currently underway.

The media

[Charliemopps]

So... up until this NSA/Snowden incident, I believed the media was incompetent. Not malicious... just out to make a buck and real news was expensive to do research on. But now it's clear. The coverage on this entire affair by CNN, CBS, NBC, etc... is flat out propaganda. There is no question that what the NSA is doing is unconstitutional. It is, without a doubt, a violation of our rights. Snowden really is a political activist. The US would be applauding such behavior of a Chinese citizen, and we would provide them asylum in a heartbeat. The presidents that allowed this to continue (Bush and Obama) should be charged in criminal court for this. Obama, at the very least should be impeached. The courts involved, the members of congress that were aware, they should all lose their offices at the very least. The NSA should be shut down permanently. We still have a chance to save the republic... but it's a small one. Everyone in this country needs to vote 3rd party going forward. If you vote R or D in any election in the future, you're a traitor to your country and we should all be ashamed of you.

Re:The media

[JigJag]

I found the less propagandist news sources were:
1) RT.com
2) Aljazeera.com

I welcome other sources if any of you knows of them. Anything from US, Canada, UK, Australia, and NZ is tainted. I also slightly mistrust the rest of Europe in terms of journalistic integrity.

JigJag

Re:The media

[meta-monkey]

1) There are a very few not-awful ones (Rand Paul, Ron Wyden) who are on the right side of this issue. Yes, I know they are bound to, under scrutiny, have character flaws and some positions one does not like. This is because they are men, and men are imperfect. If you're holding out for the perfect hero, well, that ain't gonna happen. I only heard about one perfect guy and about 2000 years ago he said "hey everybody, let's be nice to each other" and the rabble nailed him to a tree.

2) Let's be careful with the "T" word (traitor, that is). We seem to have outlawed reasonableness. Suggesting those who pull an R or D lever are "traitors" is just as wrong as any of the other recent manglings of language. Perhaps instead say they are "those who love their government more than their country."

In general, this absolutism stuff needs to stop (is that an absolute statement?), because we seem to be constantly demanded to make all or nothing, hyperbolic judgements, that will obviously, inevitable fail to pass scrutiny because the choices given are both wrong. "Snowden: hero or traitor?" Um, how about neither? How about man, who has multiple motivations, some of which are more self-interested than others. That's part of the distraction machine (in addition to the fact that we're talking about the man as much as the message). When those are the only two options, people who only think in binary terms (which seems to be most Americans) just wind up in a confused tailspin. "He's a hero! He stood up to the government!" "But he ran away and heroes don't run!" "Oh no, then he must be a traitor!"

I have no idea how I'd be judged under such standards. Well, I guess I do. "Goes to work to provide for his wife and family! American everyman hero." "Spends time posting on Slashdot at work. Lazy slacker traitor." Couldn't I just be...a guy...who does some things right and some things wrong?

Re:The media

[kannibal_klown]

Zimmerman really should have been the real nail in the coffin on your thoughts on THAT

I'm not getting into the whole "is he guilty / is he right / is he wrong" debate...

But the media was just horrible. Every picture shown of Trevon was like when he was 10 or 12. Seriously, for a while I thought "Damn, that guy shot a grade-schooler"

Then one of the big networks spliced together his 911 tape so he sounded quite racist; they since fired the guy who did it but are fighting back on a lawsuit about it saying nothing was done wrong. They hyped it up as white-on-black crime when he's not white. The list goes on and on.

Again, I'm not saying he's innocent and they portrayed him as guilty... nor am I saying he's guilty. Just the Media's behavior over the whole affair was horrible. WHICH makes the trial all the more difficult... now everyone has their lies and twists burned into their minds.

Re:I will venture a guess...

[NatasRevol]

No, Udall is Dem, Wyden is Rep.

You win -1 Internets.

Just Terrifying

[Shortguy881]

"We believe the US government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans."

Terrorism is an ill defined concept, legally speaking. This still allows them to strip the rights away from any US citizen they deem to be a terrorist.

Re:Just Terrifying

[geekoid]

"Criminal is an ill defined concept, legally speaking. This still allows them to strip the rights away from any US citizen they deem to be a Criminal ."

Re:Just Terrifying

[gl4ss]

actually they're going for the term terrorist - or sometimes enemy combatant - because they decided to use these as labels for people with no human rights.

criminals have all kinds of rights..

smirk

[vikingpower]

Upon trying to access the PDF fact sheet:

Internal Server Error - Read

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Reference #3.767ffea5.1372167766.16d1687b

Re:smirk

[umundane]

Found it archived here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130625004125/http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/press_releases/section_702_protections.pdf

Re:smirk

[SilentStaid]

Is it slashdotted? Or is it someone didn't want it too easily accessible?

I intended this comment to get Funny upvotes... then I read it back and wanted to put Insightful. That's a sad commentary on our system.

Re:And?

[OhHellWithIt]

The "fact" sheet is gone. It turns up in a search using their search engine, but the file itself has been removed. I wonder whether it's because it's inaccurate or whether they don't like getting a gazillion hits from /.

nice hypebole

[geekoid]

" contains inaccuracies" does not mean 'lies'.
Also, I can'[t help but notice that it]s people in the government that are shedding light on this issue.

Re:nice hypebole

[cfulton]

Well, containing intentional inaccuracies is the definition of a lie. So, they are incompetent or liars, take your pick.

Re:nice hypebole

[wisnoskij]

By definition that does mean lie.
If I make a statement, and that statement contains inaccuracies, signification inaccuracies, I have just lied.

Re:nice hypebole

[dgatwood]

And it's pretty ridiculous to then say, "the US government is lying!" when they're actually taking concrete steps to get this right and doing so as transparently as possible.

And the politician caught embezzling money rapidly begins taking concrete steps to determine how such an accounting mistake could have happened. And the politician caught getting blow jobs in the Oval Office makes a contrite apology to the American people and begins taking concrete steps to fix his marriage. And so on.

News flash: When politicians get caught with their pants down (literally or figuratively), they begin taking concrete steps to fix the problem. The thing is, it was still a problem before they were caught, and they were doing nothing about it then. Therefore, it is safe to assume that they are only fixing the things that they were caught doing, and that they are probably doing other things that are just as wrong, but because they have not yet been caught, they won't clean up their act.

The fact of the matter is that most politicians, CEOs, and other leaders are sociopaths. They got into positions of power through not caring who they hurt on the way up. They have absolutely no morals, and cannot be trusted to do the right thing. They must be treated like little children, and watched constantly by a vigilant public. The absence of that watchful eye can only result in tyranny. We've been looking the other direction for far too long, both as a society and individually. It is time to remove the veil of secrecy and show these leaders for what they are: traitors against the United States, its Constitution, and its people. Some crimes just cannot be forgiven with a simple apology and a "We promise not to do it again." But even if it could, they already tried that once before, back in the Bush administration. And although once is a mistake, twice is a pattern of abuse.

Re:I will venture a guess...

[houghi]

I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking." "Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!"
                                                                          -- Bill Hicks

Re:Sorry, did that earfucking push your brain out?

[Shortguy881]

You see when someone breaks the law and is convicted by their peers in open court, they are then a criminal.

The only indeterminate bit is "innocent unless proven guilty" bit. But it is REAL simple to decide who a criminal is. Millions of people do that professionally each day.

Break the law == Criminal
Blow up civilians == Terrorist (unless it was collateral damage, or if you attack our military installations, or you were hit by gunfire deliberately by us, or...)

Someone modded this out of view (I blame the NSA) but the point is valid.

You dont have to do anything illegal or go to court and be convicted to be deemed a terrorist. Get that di** out of your ear

Tyrany

[alexo]

We believe that the [...] government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage, and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists

I am in agreement with that statement, as long as the government never gets do define the meaning of "terrorism", "espionage" and "terrorists".

Those of you who experienced the Red Scare will understand my sentiment.

No passion in your propaganda whatsoever.

[fustakrakich]

You are a real machine, man.. Dig it

Re:Yes.

[dgatwood]

This is required for a democracy: you need to be informed before you can make the informed choice.

For the most part, I would agree with you. However, there is the need for temporary operational secrets, particularly where the revelation of those secrets would compromise the identity of operatives in the field, or would reveal our attack strategies on the battlefield during a time of war. There should, however, be time limits to such secrets.

can't fix this

[tbonefrog]

OK, let's say these senators are correct and the document has fallacies.

And they say they cannot say what the fallacies are because it would release classified information?

WELL NOW THE NSA CANNOT CORRECT THE DOCUMENT OR SOMEONE WHO KNOWS 'diff' CAN FIGURE OUT THE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

The senators should not have made this public. It is almost as if they did release classified information. Are they that stupid? Or are they that smart?

who believes the NSA in the first place?

[jsepeta]

you'd have to be an idiot to believe anything published by any spy agency: the CIA, the NSA, the KGB, the IRS, etc.

Who cares what those redcoats think about US?

[JimtownKelly]

And stay out of our domestic affairs, you snivelling Guardian douchebags from across the Pond.

Re:Yes.

[DMUTPeregrine]

Which is already possible with the normal courts. Request to wiretap John Does #1-5, ask for the court order to be sealed for the duration it allows the wiretapping, etc. No need to have a secret court just to keep operational secrets secret.

Politicians Totally Compromised.

[eyendall]

Politicians are totally compromised by agreeing to secret briefings and by accepting that they are subject to prosecution for revealing information in the House or Senate. Sitting federal representatives should be immune from prosecution for anything sad in the House or Senate, as is the norm in other democratic political systems. Allowing oneself to be silenced is a complete dereliction of duty. Shame on you all.

Re:Yes.

[dgatwood]

Agreed. The entire notion of secret courts should be anathema to any free society.