Slashdot Mirror
Senator: 'Plenty' of Domestic Surveillance We Still Don't Know About
An anonymous reader writes: In a recent interview, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has complained about the Obama administration's failure to shut down the NSA's bulk collection of phone metadata. This program and most other programs we've heard of were disclosed by Edward Snowden. But Snowden couldn't tell us everything. When asked if there were further domestic surveillance programs about which the public knows nothing, Senator Wyden said, "Yeah, there's plenty of stuff." The ones he knows about are classified, so he couldn't elaborate. "Even in cases where the public has been informed of government practices, Wyden warned the government still collects far too much information on millions of citizens with virtually no accountability."
It's too bad that Wyden isn't half the patriot Snowden is. We need someone in authority to step up, tell the American people what is going on, and take the heat for it. The last 2 administrators have been so anti-liberty that one can make the argument the government is no longer working for the people.
5 seconds later, he'd be arrested for revealing classified information. Then the American people would vilify him as a traitor for letting the terrorists know how they're being watched, and he'd be put on trial for treason. In the end, it would make no difference. Nothing will until the majority of the people actually care and desire to not be spied on.
This space intentionally left blank
As for when the people will care -- it'll be after a big scandal involving the abuse of domestic spying powers. Reporting on the spying itself will never disturb most people. A report on say the IRS borrowing NSA spy data to repossess people's guns, on the other hand, will cause a frenzy.
This space intentionally left blank
I'm sure there wouldn't be any consequences (to themselves) whether the spying is classified or not
If Senator Wyden actually believed that these programs were undermining civil liberties he could read them into the Congressional record with no consequences whatsoever to his person or position. He'd undoubtedly lose access to classified information going forward but he could not be held accountable for the breech thereof.
The thing is, and nobody here wants to hear this, all of the people "in the know" about these programs seem to agree that they're necessary. Even those Senators and Representatives whose political leanings suggest they wouldn't support these programs (Wyden, Pelosi, et. al) haven't outright condemned them. Neither has the sitting President, who may you recall railed these practices as a candidate, then reversed himself once he had the nomination and was presumably read into (Presidential candidates the same briefings as the sitting President) these programs. Some people "in the know" have nibbled around the edges, suggesting reforms and more oversight, but none have condemned the practices in question or tried to change them.
At the end of the day, under our system of government, you delegate decisions such as these to your elected representatives. If you don't agree with their judgment vote their asses out of office. If you can't convince enough people to vote with you on these issues then that's your starting point. Remember, soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box, in that order. Step #1 isn't even complete, unless you think Slashdot is representative of the entire American body politic.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Too bad he's not in a position where he could write some sort of law about it. If you can't fix the problem from there, the problem's not fixable. I'm guessing the majority of the American public either approves or doesn't care. I guess in which case, is the problem even a problem? I mean clearly some people here and this guy seems to think it's a problem, but if the vast majority doesn't agree, are you going to tell them they're wrong? I'm pretty sure that's the definition of fascism. Just sayin'...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Wyden's on-record questioning of James Clapper – wherein Clapper answered "No sir... not wittingly" to Wyden's "Do you collect any information on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" question – is cited by Snowden as the event that pushed him over the edge, and caused him to disclose the US domestic spying programs. Wyden's patriotism set the whole thing in motion.
See the Wikipedia article on the Speech and Debate Clause or read it for yourself in the Constitution. So he can talk all about the program during a speech on the floor of the Senate, and nothing can be done to him.
... stop being an enabler and speak up.
Nobody wants to listen. They have other things to worry about. Like lives. And even if we could get them to care, they best they could do within the system is vote for the candidate who is slightly less in favor of the surveillance instead of the candidate who is slightly more in favor of the surveillance.
...is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
If the government has done nothing wrong, they should have nothing to hide.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Like all members of the federal Legislature (the House and the Senate), Wyden is Constutionally protected from being punished for any action taken in the course of his official duties. (Dipshits from both parties have gotten out of drunk driving tickets by saying they were on their way to the Capitol, so this is a pretty broad protection.) If Wyden obtained a classified document about surveillance programs and ordered it read into the Congressional Record, which is a routine thing that Senators and Representatives do, he couldn't be punished for it. (The Pentagon Papers were read into the Congressional Record this way, for example.)