No, it's not "currently allowed under an Exec Order".
Neither the constitution, nor the laws bound by it, nor the orders bound by the law are "bigger on the inside"... They're not TARDISes. They may not exceed their legal limits.
Laws must not exceed the authority routed to them by the constitution. Orders must not exceed the authority routed to them by law. That's how the system is designed.
Letting any member of government ignore the reasonable constraints placed on them by their society because they might do what's right for their country instead of what promotes their own career is like letting a rabid dog free in a shopping mall because it might bite a shoplifter.
You can't demand to be forgotten without demanding that another person give up their rights to remember.
The so-called "right to be forgotten" is not a right. It's a demand that others limit their rights of free speech and freedom of expression.
Even if there was such a right, it would not promote a healthy society.
Such a "right" would mean prevent others from learning through the experience of others.
Que the "See Reagan did this, so Obama is still my hope and change." BS.
...and "Bush was so much worse."
While we're bickering about "my team" vs "your team", the constitution erodes further....
Don't you remember George Walker Bush declared the Constitution of the United States of America be to "a worthless piece of paper?" The constitution eroded in full on that day.
There it is. Right on cue.
Thanks for proving my point and getting that garbage out of the way.
Now, can we get to the business of restoring the constitution and kicking out anyone who continues to break their oaths regardless of their political associations?
Exactly.
The law is constrained by the constitution, orders (executive, and otherwise) are constrained by the law.
The point at which the constrained item reaches beyond its container is the point at which the item becomes invalid.
In other words, unlawful orders are null be definition. Unconstitutional law is no law at all. Unconstitutional orders are not orders.
no... the money gets the honey, bunny! It has nothing to do with political ideology and everything to do with what politicians you own.
In the long-run, yes. You're absolutely right.
In the short-run, it's the ones currently in office returning the favor to those that got them there.
Money and political ideology are inseparable in modern politics. Big oil feeds one. Big media feeds the other.
Imagine a government agency that knows which members of congress are pedophiles and let's say that that agency possesses data that proves such activity.
Now imagine that government agency's top dog lies to congress.
If you can imagine what happens next, please let us know.
U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
---------
Is the CIA not an organization of war?
As such, are the tools and methods of the CIA not tools and methods of levying war?
Did the CIA not just admit to using those tools and methods of levying war against this country's government?
Then did the CIA not levy war against our own country by using the tools and methods of levying war against us?
How about stop trying to place restrictions on things just because they could be abused. We're supposed to be 'the land of the free,' for fuck's sake. This is just embarrassing.
Some of us have been saying this type of thing for a large portion of our lives.
Call the other side "deniers" to associate them with holocaust deniers. Surely, that will trigger some useful dialog without triggering a defensive posture.
Snowden would be a hero in my mind if he'd stopped at just revealing the illegal spying the NSA was doing on US citizens, but he went farther than that. He revealed a lot of the things the NSA does to spy on foreign powers. That is their job and I expect them to do it, and I do not expect a citizen of the US to reveal our sources and methods of intelligence gathering. I don't think he's an evil person but I do think he went too far.
4 Items in play.
The leak
The value (to protecting the US and the state of our constitutional/democratic republic) of the leak.
The cost (to protecting the US and the state of our constitutional/democratic republic) of the leak.
The effort and time to redact or to personally edit the material to improve the value or at least reduce the cost.
The value seems to be so much greater than the cost, I'm not sure if the effort that you suggest is warranted.
From TFA:"Nowadays, 'Our military listeners have invaded the centre of an evolving net, where conscriptable digital superbrains gather intelligence on the human race for purposes of bagatelle and capitalism."
It's not capitalism if the government has its hooks in every aspect of trade and communications.
Slashdot Mirror
... cares for the nation ... works for the people
As long as we still rely on the Republicans and the Democrats to steer this country, USA is going nowhere fast
If we were truly going nowhere, it would be less worrisome. Make no mistake, we're moving and the ultimate destination is frightening.
Actually... lawmakers and NSA staff could be arrested for deprivation of rights under color of law.
No, it's not "currently allowed under an Exec Order".
Neither the constitution, nor the laws bound by it, nor the orders bound by the law are "bigger on the inside"... They're not TARDISes. They may not exceed their legal limits.
Laws must not exceed the authority routed to them by the constitution. Orders must not exceed the authority routed to them by law. That's how the system is designed.
The best comments always appear when I have no more mod points left.
Tell me again what this label is supposed to accomplish: Warning - Sexist Content
Tell me again what this label actually accomplished: Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics
hmmmm
Letting any member of government ignore the reasonable constraints placed on them by their society because they might do what's right for their country instead of what promotes their own career is like letting a rabid dog free in a shopping mall because it might bite a shoplifter.
You can't demand to be forgotten without demanding that another person give up their rights to remember.
The so-called "right to be forgotten" is not a right. It's a demand that others limit their rights of free speech and freedom of expression.
Even if there was such a right, it would not promote a healthy society.
Such a "right" would mean prevent others from learning through the experience of others.
Que the "See Reagan did this, so Obama is still my hope and change." BS.
While we're bickering about "my team" vs "your team", the constitution erodes further....
Don't you remember George Walker Bush declared the Constitution of the United States of America be to "a worthless piece of paper?" The constitution eroded in full on that day.
There it is. Right on cue.
Thanks for proving my point and getting that garbage out of the way.
Now, can we get to the business of restoring the constitution and kicking out anyone who continues to break their oaths regardless of their political associations?
Que the "See Reagan did this, so Obama is still my hope and change." BS.
...and "Bush was so much worse."
While we're bickering about "my team" vs "your team", the constitution erodes further....
Exactly.
The law is constrained by the constitution, orders (executive, and otherwise) are constrained by the law.
The point at which the constrained item reaches beyond its container is the point at which the item becomes invalid.
In other words, unlawful orders are null be definition. Unconstitutional law is no law at all. Unconstitutional orders are not orders.
no ... the money gets the honey, bunny! It has nothing to do with political ideology and everything to do with what politicians you own.
In the long-run, yes. You're absolutely right. In the short-run, it's the ones currently in office returning the favor to those that got them there.
Money and political ideology are inseparable in modern politics. Big oil feeds one. Big media feeds the other.
So, the left leaning (Hollywood production) companies get a benefit from the executive branch that other companies do not.
Constitution>Law>Executive Order
This is how it works. This is how it was designed. The contained may not exceed the authority of the container.
Last time I checked, the government doesn't earn money. Taxpayers do.
...pride.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Exactly!
Imagine a government agency that knows which members of congress are pedophiles and let's say that that agency possesses data that proves such activity.
Now imagine that government agency's top dog lies to congress.
If you can imagine what happens next, please let us know.
U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
---------
Is the CIA not an organization of war?
As such, are the tools and methods of the CIA not tools and methods of levying war?
Did the CIA not just admit to using those tools and methods of levying war against this country's government?
Then did the CIA not levy war against our own country by using the tools and methods of levying war against us?
An agency that knows which members of congress are pedophiles and which ones are drug addicts will not be easy to arrest.
Ditto. That bitch is still around. Maybe the FTC is losing hard-drives too.
How about stop trying to place restrictions on things just because they could be abused. We're supposed to be 'the land of the free,' for fuck's sake. This is just embarrassing.
Some of us have been saying this type of thing for a large portion of our lives.
Call the other side "deniers" to associate them with holocaust deniers. Surely, that will trigger some useful dialog without triggering a defensive posture.
Snowden would be a hero in my mind if he'd stopped at just revealing the illegal spying the NSA was doing on US citizens, but he went farther than that. He revealed a lot of the things the NSA does to spy on foreign powers. That is their job and I expect them to do it, and I do not expect a citizen of the US to reveal our sources and methods of intelligence gathering. I don't think he's an evil person but I do think he went too far.
4 Items in play.
The leak
The value (to protecting the US and the state of our constitutional/democratic republic) of the leak.
The cost (to protecting the US and the state of our constitutional/democratic republic) of the leak.
The effort and time to redact or to personally edit the material to improve the value or at least reduce the cost.
The value seems to be so much greater than the cost, I'm not sure if the effort that you suggest is warranted.
If you're saying that we have neither capitalism nor democracy, then I agree.
Now what are we going to do about it?
From TFA:"Nowadays, 'Our military listeners have invaded the centre of an evolving net, where conscriptable digital superbrains gather intelligence on the human race for purposes of bagatelle and capitalism."
It's not capitalism if the government has its hooks in every aspect of trade and communications.