Those of us who went thru highschool/college in the 60s-70s actually DID learn about the Constitution and what it was written to protect.
I went to high school and college in the 1970's. Question: how do you know it hasn't been taught as well in the decades since? No snark - an honest question.
It goes to show that all that was more about ideology than any real principle.
Neither. It's about rooting for "your" team. All to often politics is reduced to that, on both sides of the aisle.
conservatives were generally a lot more critical towards him than I'm seeing with liberals and Obama today... For a wide variety of reasons Republicans have been in turmoil because conservatives don't feel they're being properly represented.... I've yet to see a similar response to Democrats, they certainly seem unified to a fault.
Swap "Bush" and "Obama", "conservatives" and "liberals", and "Republicans" and "Democrats", and this could easily be a comment from a left wing site. Absent any realistic and objective way to determine the accuracy of these statements, I'll chalk it up to perspective.
Even if they weren't up to their eyeballs in it, I doubt that would be a good political move for the Republicans. There are both authoritarian and anti-authoritarian parts of the right wing (same for the left wing) but I strongly suspect that the more authoritarian side is a majority of Republican voters.
You're right, Congress is not a court of law and the same rules don't apply. However, lying to Congress is a crime. It is called Contempt of Congress.
It's only a crime if you do it under oath. It's at the discretion of congress whether someone testifying before them has to take an oath. Too often they're "we don't want to make it seem as if we're untrusting" so they don't require the oath. Unless of course someone is testifying about a matter of great importance to the country, like the use of steroids in baseball. People got slapped with contempt for lying about that.
You have studied the infringements on rights under the King's governors, yeah?
The defenses one hears of this program do make me wonder how many people were paying attention when they taught American History in school. The "subversive notions" around here are mostly answers to a history exam in an American school.
considering that Google has left China over such an issue
Google can afford to leave China, they can't afford to leave the US. Moreover, no reasonable person here (there are some) is saying that the US is as bad as China. That doesn't mean the US isn't doing things which violate any reasonable understanding of 4th Amendment. Court interpretations may be another matter, but how can you bring suit about a secret program anyway? The Supreme Court has even recently affirmed that you can't bring suit about a spying program which may have affected you, and you can't know if it's affected you if it's secret. Welcome to Catch-22.
after reading a quite sensible account of this whole story
That story doesn't exactly exonerate the NSA or the companies involved.
Twitter declined to make it easier for the government. But other companies were more compliant... While handing over data in response to a legitimate FISA request is a legal requirement, making it easier for the government to get the information is not, which is why Twitter could decline to do so.
Doesn't speak well for companies other than Twitter, does it?
People briefed on the discussions spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are prohibited by law from discussing the content of FISA requests or even acknowledging their existence.
Not what I'd call great transparency.
Tech companies might have also denied knowledge of the full scope of cooperation with national security officials because employees whose job it is to comply with FISA requests are not allowed to discuss the details even with others at the company, and in some cases have national security clearance
Convenient.
The companies said they do, however, comply with individual court orders, including under FISA.... FISA orders can range from inquiries about specific people to a broad sweep for intelligence, like logs of certain search terms...
Doesn't sound to me like the 4th's "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
I question the justification for most "top secret" government information. The track record of declassified information ever having been material that justified the classified status is pretty poor.
Usually the important things to classify are the details, not the existence of big programs. Walker was a traitor for giving codes to the USSR, but it was hardly a secret that we encrypted naval communications. Similarly the existence of almost all US weapons systems, and their basic construction and approximate capabilities, are public knowledge. The Pentagon talks about them in press releases! What's secret is their exact capabilities and the details of their construction. When the government attempts to keep the existence of big programs like this secret, it's usually to keep it from the public, not the bad guys. If we're dealing with terrorists who don't realize that their electronic communications may be monitored, then we have nothing to worry about.
Has it ever occurred to you that most people who are against this type of snooping do not doubt the program's effectiveness of stopping terrorists...
Speak for yourself. I agree that even if it was effective, trashing the Bill of Rights is not a good tradeoff. However, I question whether the data overload you get from a program like this is even helpful, and may even be harmful. 9/11 could have been prevented by FBI headquarters just reading the emails from their field offices.
Knowing something is happening, in general, is often a very different question from the details.
The disclosure is about what's being done. Want details? Lots of people here can provide details on how it can be done.
Some organizations and projects are much more successful than others.
Fear not, everyone respects the NSA's technical abilities.
Bin Laden had couriers delivering his mail as a high value target, but not everyone in Al Qaida gets the same service.
So maybe the have to meet in person. The park is a traditional spot.
n 2001, knowing that Al Qaida had a goal of attacking the United States is a very different thing from knowing the people, the method, and the flights they were planning to use.
Yes, sufficient detail to stop the attacks would have required required FBI headquarters to read the emails from their field offices.
We know nothing of the sort. That article chips away at a few details as though that disproves the central point of the story. Other aspects of the "refutation" include:
McCullagh quotes one of his named (not anonymous) sources, former general counsel of the NSA Stewart Baker, as saying the slides look “flaky”
Clearly that proves the story false! In other news a White House spokesperson denied any involvement in the Watergate breakin.
You're being an Obama apologist (BTW I'm a leftie who voted for him in 2008). Benghazi has been a right wing screaming point for months now, but are you accusing the Guardian of being part of some vast right-wing conspiracy to smear Obama. The Guardian?! If so, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Name 3 policies where Obama is to the left of Nixon.
Didn't you know Nixon was a commie too? Clever huh, old Tricky Dick the commie hunter turning out to be a commie. Talk about deep cover. Those commies are dedicated too - Alger Hiss sacrificed himself just to improve Nixon's cover. Of course Nixon outed himself by signing treaties with the USSR and even talking to Mao, but by then it was all a fait accompli.
Oh, come on, those subtleties and nuuuuances are for effete environmentalists. Real men know that no decent explanation requires so much as high school science or math.
That's because the Deep South has other, even more derogatory terms. That and they would make fun of a white woman who sleeps with a black man 50 years ago; they'd beat her senseless or string her up too.
Thanks for helping to give us Yankees a reputation as a different sort of bigot. Damn, never thought I'd be defending the Deep South, but you've proved me wrong. Hint: things can change in 50 years.
As a native born citizen, I get a little tired of the notion so popular these days that only citizens are entitled to Constitutional protections. Unless you're here with a diplomatic status, everyone in the US is subject to its laws while here. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Guess what? Our most important laws are called the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights.
Pardon the OP for casting aspersions, but it seems that Mr. Putin has gotten a reputation in the states for being a less than stellar civil libertarian. The fairness of such beliefs aside, I believe OP means that this country shouldn't be worse than Mr. Putin allegedly is.
Slashdot Mirror
Those of us who went thru highschool/college in the 60s-70s actually DID learn about the Constitution and what it was written to protect.
I went to high school and college in the 1970's. Question: how do you know it hasn't been taught as well in the decades since? No snark - an honest question.
It goes to show that all that was more about ideology than any real principle.
Neither. It's about rooting for "your" team. All to often politics is reduced to that, on both sides of the aisle.
conservatives were generally a lot more critical towards him than I'm seeing with liberals and Obama today ... For a wide variety of reasons Republicans have been in turmoil because conservatives don't feel they're being properly represented. ... I've yet to see a similar response to Democrats, they certainly seem unified to a fault.
Swap "Bush" and "Obama", "conservatives" and "liberals", and "Republicans" and "Democrats", and this could easily be a comment from a left wing site. Absent any realistic and objective way to determine the accuracy of these statements, I'll chalk it up to perspective.
Even if they weren't up to their eyeballs in it, I doubt that would be a good political move for the Republicans. There are both authoritarian and anti-authoritarian parts of the right wing (same for the left wing) but I strongly suspect that the more authoritarian side is a majority of Republican voters.
You're right, Congress is not a court of law and the same rules don't apply. However, lying to Congress is a crime. It is called Contempt of Congress.
It's only a crime if you do it under oath. It's at the discretion of congress whether someone testifying before them has to take an oath. Too often they're "we don't want to make it seem as if we're untrusting" so they don't require the oath. Unless of course someone is testifying about a matter of great importance to the country, like the use of steroids in baseball. People got slapped with contempt for lying about that.
Did these documents contain the info gathered or just let us know that info was being gathered?
The latter. Whatever you think of Wikileaks, this was not a Wikileaks style dump a bazillion documents. He was very careful about what he released.
You have studied the infringements on rights under the King's governors, yeah?
The defenses one hears of this program do make me wonder how many people were paying attention when they taught American History in school. The "subversive notions" around here are mostly answers to a history exam in an American school.
considering that Google has left China over such an issue
Google can afford to leave China, they can't afford to leave the US. Moreover, no reasonable person here (there are some) is saying that the US is as bad as China. That doesn't mean the US isn't doing things which violate any reasonable understanding of 4th Amendment. Court interpretations may be another matter, but how can you bring suit about a secret program anyway? The Supreme Court has even recently affirmed that you can't bring suit about a spying program which may have affected you, and you can't know if it's affected you if it's secret. Welcome to Catch-22.
after reading a quite sensible account of this whole story
That story doesn't exactly exonerate the NSA or the companies involved.
Twitter declined to make it easier for the government. But other companies were more compliant ... While handing over data in response to a legitimate FISA request is a legal requirement, making it easier for the government to get the information is not, which is why Twitter could decline to do so.
Doesn't speak well for companies other than Twitter, does it?
People briefed on the discussions spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are prohibited by law from discussing the content of FISA requests or even acknowledging their existence.
Not what I'd call great transparency.
Tech companies might have also denied knowledge of the full scope of cooperation with national security officials because employees whose job it is to comply with FISA requests are not allowed to discuss the details even with others at the company, and in some cases have national security clearance
Convenient.
The companies said they do, however, comply with individual court orders, including under FISA. ... FISA orders can range from inquiries about specific people to a broad sweep for intelligence, like logs of certain search terms ...
Doesn't sound to me like the 4th's "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
I have read the original document that was supposedly leaked about PRISM. I still have to be convinced of its authenticity.
I understand your skepticism, but if it's not authentic, then what's he guilty of leaking?
I question the justification for most "top secret" government information. The track record of declassified information ever having been material that justified the classified status is pretty poor.
Usually the important things to classify are the details, not the existence of big programs. Walker was a traitor for giving codes to the USSR, but it was hardly a secret that we encrypted naval communications. Similarly the existence of almost all US weapons systems, and their basic construction and approximate capabilities, are public knowledge. The Pentagon talks about them in press releases! What's secret is their exact capabilities and the details of their construction. When the government attempts to keep the existence of big programs like this secret, it's usually to keep it from the public, not the bad guys. If we're dealing with terrorists who don't realize that their electronic communications may be monitored, then we have nothing to worry about.
Breaking confidentiality on top-secret stuff is no laughing matter. It's treason, a capital offense.
It's treason to tell the American people that their government is spying on them? I don't think so.
Guess we'll find out if Hong Kong was a good choice. The extradition attempts should be interesting.
Has it ever occurred to you that most people who are against this type of snooping do not doubt the program's effectiveness of stopping terrorists ...
Speak for yourself. I agree that even if it was effective, trashing the Bill of Rights is not a good tradeoff. However, I question whether the data overload you get from a program like this is even helpful, and may even be harmful. 9/11 could have been prevented by FBI headquarters just reading the emails from their field offices.
Knowing something is happening, in general, is often a very different question from the details.
The disclosure is about what's being done. Want details? Lots of people here can provide details on how it can be done.
Some organizations and projects are much more successful than others.
Fear not, everyone respects the NSA's technical abilities.
Bin Laden had couriers delivering his mail as a high value target, but not everyone in Al Qaida gets the same service.
So maybe the have to meet in person. The park is a traditional spot.
n 2001, knowing that Al Qaida had a goal of attacking the United States is a very different thing from knowing the people, the method, and the flights they were planning to use.
Yes, sufficient detail to stop the attacks would have required required FBI headquarters to read the emails from their field offices.
It has been reported that this program has helped to stop some of those attempts.
A program that doesn't exist has been given credit? Doubleplusgood!
we now know that the NSA spying story was mostly and overstated hoax
We know nothing of the sort. That article chips away at a few details as though that disproves the central point of the story. Other aspects of the "refutation" include:
McCullagh quotes one of his named (not anonymous) sources, former general counsel of the NSA Stewart Baker, as saying the slides look “flaky”
Clearly that proves the story false! In other news a White House spokesperson denied any involvement in the Watergate breakin.
You're being an Obama apologist (BTW I'm a leftie who voted for him in 2008). Benghazi has been a right wing screaming point for months now, but are you accusing the Guardian of being part of some vast right-wing conspiracy to smear Obama. The Guardian?! If so, I've got a bridge to sell you.
There's solid reason to believe FDR's massive taxation prolonged the Great Depression...
--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Disagree doesn't rate a -1, but OT sure does. You got your talking points mixed up.
Let's take the communist slogan to start with: "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."
Ok, let's take it. You didn't mention when and where Obama used it. Inquiring minds want to know.
How about repealing tax cuts for the "rich" that fits pretty much 100%
Wow, Andrew Mellon was a commie too? Talk about a deep plant. He also believed in progressive taxation.
How about the national health care system designed to give to people who need but cant afford.
Winston Churchill too? He supported the NHS. Damn, those reds are everywhere.
Name 3 policies where Obama is to the left of Nixon.
Didn't you know Nixon was a commie too? Clever huh, old Tricky Dick the commie hunter turning out to be a commie. Talk about deep cover. Those commies are dedicated too - Alger Hiss sacrificed himself just to improve Nixon's cover. Of course Nixon outed himself by signing treaties with the USSR and even talking to Mao, but by then it was all a fait accompli.
Oh, come on, those subtleties and nuuuuances are for effete environmentalists. Real men know that no decent explanation requires so much as high school science or math.
That's because the Deep South has other, even more derogatory terms. That and they would make fun of a white woman who sleeps with a black man 50 years ago; they'd beat her senseless or string her up too.
Thanks for helping to give us Yankees a reputation as a different sort of bigot. Damn, never thought I'd be defending the Deep South, but you've proved me wrong. Hint: things can change in 50 years.
Can those of us who haven't seen the movie be excused?
However - "coal-burning" is also a slang term for ...
Right, while you're at it why don't you lecture use on the supposed racist etymology of the word "picnic".
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
That's a false negative error - even worse are the false positives.
Hear, hear!
As a native born citizen, I get a little tired of the notion so popular these days that only citizens are entitled to Constitutional protections. Unless you're here with a diplomatic status, everyone in the US is subject to its laws while here. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Guess what? Our most important laws are called the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights.
WTF does that have to do with anything?
Pardon the OP for casting aspersions, but it seems that Mr. Putin has gotten a reputation in the states for being a less than stellar civil libertarian. The fairness of such beliefs aside, I believe OP means that this country shouldn't be worse than Mr. Putin allegedly is.