Slashdot Mirror
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."
Do politicians follow the law?
No good deed goes unpunished.
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.
"NSA Lies"
FTFY
How long before Congress simply states "We aren't in charge anymore."?
My gut says this is plausible, but we don't really know - it's never been tried.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
How about instead of creating new legislation, they repeal some old bills. Like the National Security Act of 1947.
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.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
"So the [put any country's name here] government uses taxpayer money to lie to the people... there's a surprise!"
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.
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.
Or The USA PATRIOT Act of 200X.
Or the espionage act of 1917. Created with the noble intent of going after people who spoke against joining WWI.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
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.
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.
I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
No, Udall is Dem, Wyden is Rep.
You win -1 Internets.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Found it archived here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20130625004125/http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/press_releases/section_702_protections.pdf
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
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.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.