If French intelligence had tapped US phones... I suspect many Americans would be demanding that Versailles get nuked or we name french fries to freedom fries.
France has been caught spying in the US before and nothing like that happened.
The US is not at war with Mexico, what business did they have doing that?
Maybe you've heard that they have a Narco-Terrorist insurgency in Mexico? They've had more people killed than the US lost in Vietnam ( 60,000+). The violence spills over the border, and the American side of the border isn't safe in many places for miles into the US. The drugs don't spill over, they flow in. So yes, the US might have a reason or two to have an idea about what is going on in Mexico.
And by the way, did you hear that some of the 9-11 hijackers were from a terrorist cell in Hamburg Germany? Maybe there is a reason for the US to keep an eye on things in Europe as well.
Sold? Not so much. Stalin claimed Eastern Europe for his sphere of influence, and had the Soviet Red Army in place to occupy it. How do you think a different outcome would have occurred? The Poles certainly were grateful for assistance against the Soviets in the 1980s when the Solidarity movement was challenging Communist oppression.
That may or may not be, but based on the evidence of seemingly endless "BS" in countless Slashdot posts, there is apparently no shortage of holders of "B.S." degrees that seemingly have a major concentration in "BS" rather than STEM.
With "allies" like your country no one needs enemies.
If your country is in Europe and is a US ally today, chances are that it had been occupied by its enemy (either state or political party) and the US helped remove that enemy and return government to the people. That covers the West, and in some cases was a redo from 25 years before. As to the East, the US allied with newly free Western Europe against the Soviet empire in the East, supported freedom movements and dissidents there, and continued to defend Western Europe until Soviet rule collapsed and most of Eastern Europe was free as well.
The US paid a price in both blood and treasure to free Europe and keep it free, and contributed to its rebuilding.
The few people remaining that remember what it was like to be under the boot of a real enemy are probably more clear on this question than you are. Maybe you should find out what it was like before you do something stupid. And I think it is likely that Europe is going to be in big trouble in 30-50 years, so hold that thought.
It almost certainly isn't a violation of US law for US intelligence agencies to conduct intelligence operations in foreign countries. It is certain that the US government knew, and highly likely that the French government knew. The "blowback," as you refer to it, only exists because Snowden stole Top Secret documents had gave them to a Leftist paper and journalist predisposed against the US for publishing. I think the reaction of the French government is likely along this line.
Do you have any speculation as to when we can expect documents on Chinese, Russian, or Iranian intelligence to be published? I expect it to happen when hell freezes over. For some reason the "whistleblowers" are quite selective in the damage they are doing.
Yet another revelation from Snowden that reveals Top Secret American foreign intelligence activities that have no relation to the rights of Americans.
When will people come to understand that his goal was not simply protecting the rights of Americans? Isn't it clear from who his Russian spokesman was?
I'm not sure what lead you to interject in this thread at this point, but let me provide you with a simplifying assumption you can make when you respond to my posts, especially it relates to warfare in general, and WW2 in particular. If you think I'm wrong, the most useful reaction for you to have initially is to wonder what is it about my post that you (s. petry) don't understand that would make you think that I (Cold Fjord) am wrong. Your post is completely unconnected with anything that was under discussion other than the general time period of the examples. The purpose of the examples I gave was to show impositions on personal liberty that had occurred in the US during wartime, with much of it applying to the UK, and you completely missed that. You got the country wrong, apparently referring to Germany when the location for the events in question was the United States. You got the context of one of the examples I gave wrong since you thought it had to do with a loss of electrical power in Germany instead of what it really was, light discipline as a security measure in the US/UK. Concentration camps were never a theme of the discussion, nor the reason for German fighting. The other person in the discussion understood my point. You missed all of that, and more, and yet to tell me, "You should really talk to people from the era and check history." I was right about what I wrote, but you tell me in essence that I'm wrong and provide unrelated information unconnected to the topic under discussion. In a way this isn't terribly different from that recent post you made about the 9/11 crash sites, how there wasn't any debris from the planes at the sites. I provided you a series of links on those incidents, some of which had pictures showing debris, and others with discussions of the investigation by either people that conducted them, or experts providing analysis. I doubt that you looked into any of them. You already had the answer you needed from the "truther" site. Oh, I'm sure you'll object that they are "only asking questions", but in essence that is little more than a rhetorical trick to avoid being confronted for offering conspiracy theories. Personally I think that one of the most important questions you need to consider is, did you look at the links I provided you, and if not, why not? I suspect the answer is no, because you think you know the answers, or the "right questions". But just as in this case where you didn't understand the discussion before interjecting irrelevant information, I think it is pretty likely you misunderstand the events around 9/11 as well. There is no meaningful consequence for being wrong in this thread, but being wrong about 9/11 is going to lead you to be tempted to hold positions held by cranks, and will negatively influence your views in a number of areas. If you haven't looked at those links yet I urge you to do so, and strongly urge you to rethink your position on 9/11. You're obviously an intelligent person, but you have a mistaken view on this topic. I truly hope you reconsider.
To give the best answer I think you might have to clarify exactly what you mean by "crimes by the government." Like you, INAL, but I do have some understanding of various aspects of the law for various reasons. To really be sure you would probably want to speak with a lawyer that practices in this particular area, especially since there are some unusual aspects to it compared to ordinary criminal law or the law of war. Having said that.....
The US government has what is known as sovereign immunity. It has to agree to face legal consequences for its actions in court for anyone or any organization to take legal action against it in US courts. There are many areas in which it has done so, and others where it hasn't. When you say "crimes by the government that cross national boundaries," I'm going to assume you are referring to intelligence gathering or surveillance. US Law and constitutional rights, as I understand them, are largely confined to American territory, or vessels, although American citizens retain their rights outside the country when dealing with the US government. A citizen of Syrian living in Luxembourg as a member of a terrorist cell plotting attacks against Canada has no rights under the US 4th Amendment that would require the NSA or CIA to get a warrant to spy on him. The same would apply to the Quds Force special forces of the government of Iran. The NSA or CIA wouldn't require a warrant to spy on them. The same would apply to other countries and their citizens. Inside the US, the rules change so there would need to be warrants at some point, unless they were in direct contact with terrorists outside the country. (And you can quibble about this point on various statutory or Constitutional grounds.) And American citizen would retain 4th Amendment rights both in and out of the country unless they were in direct contact with a terrorist group. (Same quibbling could again apply.) So if some US intelligence agency actually did have access to an email account of a foreign leader, it is very unlikely that there was a crime committed under US law for there to be an action against the Federal government in US court, even assuming that the US government waived sovereign immunity in that instance, which isn't likely as far as I know. (Check with a lawyer.) There might be a diplomatic problem, but that is a different question. If some foreign citizen felt that they had a legitimate grievance against the US government, the thing to do would be to contact a lawyer that practices in the area of US law in question and see about filing a suit US Federal court. It would start in the lower courts. If there was a significant Constitutional question, it might make it to higher courts, perhaps even the Supreme Court. I think the key for the vast, vast majority of people to avoid being a subject of surveillance by the US government, when someone is actually looking at your information instead of just having it in a computer, is to avoid involvement with violent extremists groups or foreign intelligence agencies. The resources that the US has, extensive as they may seem, are still limited and they aren't going to waste much time on someone unless necessary. Write letters of protest instead of picking up an AK.
Well here's the thing, the US did all those things as a democracy while fighting a war. It wasn't even close to the incredible oppression of the Soviet Union, or Germany. And when the war was over, most of the wartime impositions on liberty went away, some quickly, some more gradually. (The US had conscription though most of the Cold War, until about 1974, but I don't remember if it was continuous, of there was a break.) But I agree with you that every imposition on Liberty needs to be a measured one, and removed when it no longer serves a meaningful, useful, and agreed upon purpose. I think the more insidious threat comes from the nature of the modern bureaucratic state, the growing tentacles of regulation, and the continuing temptation of the legislators to "just do something" when something bad happens and create a thicket of stifling laws. Our views may not really be that far apart overall, we may disagree on some of the particulars. And that's fine. We both want Liberty to endure.
Wake me up when there is official censorship of both personal mail and the media (newspapers, magazines, radio, television), a massive draft and the military expands by something like 20x, rationing is in place for food, gasoline, and other "luxury" goods, Civil Defense organizations police the use of electric lights at night, propaganda posters are everywhere, and so forth, like in WW2, and WW1 for that matter. The war against al Qaida has had a rather light touch so far. If you think what is going on is a war on "US liberty", then I must conclude that liberty is winning.... just like it ultimately did in WW2. And that is before we get to the question of al Qaida failing in their demand that the US convert to Islam, and replace the Constitution with Sharia law. Don't get me wrong, there are reasons for concern, areas where there needs to be vigilance, but the US isn't exactly squirming under the heels of the boots of fascism.
The problem with unmoderated "tax and spend" is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Then the problems get really bad. Much of the Western world is heading in that direction. Things that can't continue, won't.
It failed because they went with the lowest bidder
It didn't fail because they went with the lowest bidder. This was apparently a "sole source" contract. They just added another task onto an existing contract.
CGI's business model depends on embedding itself deeply within an institution.
"The ultimate aim is to establish relations so intimate with the client that decoupling becomes almost impossible," read one profile of the company....
CGI Federal's winning bid stretches back to 2007, when it was one of 16 companies to get certified on a $4 billion "indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity" contract for upgrading Medicare and Medicaid's systems. Government-Wide Acquisition Contracts — GWACs, as they're affectionately known — allow agencies to issue task orders to pre-vetted companies without going through the full procurement process, but also tend to lock out companies that didn't get on the bandwagon originally. According to USASpending.gov, CGI Federal got a total of $678 million for various services under the contract — including the $93.7 million Healthcare.gov job, which CGI Federal won over three other companies in late 2011.
It's also true that CGI Federal began lobbying as it started winning government work. According to OpenSecrets.org, it has spent $800,000 since 2006 lobbying on several different tax and appropriations bills.
Rather than open the contracting process to a competitive public solicitation with multiple bidders, officials in the Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid accepted a sole bidder, CGI Federal, the U.S. subsidiary of a Canadian company with an uneven record of IT pricing and contract performance.
CMS officials are tight-lipped about why CGI was chosen or how it happened. They also refuse to say if other firms competed with CGI, or if there was ever a public solicitation for building Healthcare.gov, the backbone of Obamacare’s problem-plagued web portal....
There is no evidence CMS issued any public solicitation for the Obamacare website contract. The Examiner asked both CMS and CGI for copies of any public solicitation notice for the Healthcare.gov task orders. Neither CMS nor CGI furnished any such public notice.....
The ID/IQ system provides a fast-track contract approval process, but it is much less likely than competitive bidding to secure high quality at a reasonable cost.
“Whenever you have limited competition, but certainly with a sole source or a one-bid offer, the government has to question whether it is going to get the best product at the best price,” said Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog organization that monitors federal contracting.
Both USAspending.gov, which tracks federal spending, and the FFATA Subaward Reporting System, which specifically tracks contracts, refer to CGI as the lone bidder for the Obamacare website design award.
Each site describes the CGI contract award as the product of “full and open competition,” but CGI is the only bidder listed.
I can't find the link at the moment, but apparently this company is "favored" within the administration.... for some reason.
And add staff, lots more staff. That will make it better, and get the job done faster. (Wasn't that one of the conclusions of The Mythical Man Month? (Archive.org download))
To the best of my knowledge the Supreme Court doesn't have original jurisdiction for the case. That is, it can't act as a trial court, it has to be an appeals court. That means that this case has to start the way almost every other case does which is in a lower level federal court. The Supreme Court doesn't have unlimited jurisdiction.
They are simultaneously arguing in lower courts that the lower courts have no jurisdiction because it's a matter for the SC, AND in the SC that the SC does not have jurisdiction, because it's a question for the lower courts.
Actually no, they aren't. The Supreme Court doesn't have original jurisdiction for the EPIC complaint. The lower court cases are running into other issues. The Supreme Court has already ruled about the status of phone records is one issue. Another is standing for a 4th Amendment challenge.
The government is arguing in the terrorism case that serves as the National Security Agency's primary public justification for its bulk collection of telephone records that criminal defendants have no constitutional right to challenge the agency's sweeping surveillance program.
In a filing made Sept. 30, U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy of the Southern District of California contends that only the telephone companies have a Fourth Amendment interest in their call records -- and therefore that Basaaly Moalin cannot challenge his conviction for providing material support to the Somali terrorist group al-Shabaab.
Moalin is a Somali immigrant and San Diego cab driver convicted in February with three other defendants of sending $8,500 to al-Shabaab. His case constitutes the only time the government has admitted using bulk phone records surveillance as the crucial step in a domestic terrorism investigation, and thus it has taken on an outsized significance in the debate over the NSA's program.
"[N]either Moalin nor his co-defendants have standing to challenge the United States' collection of the telephony metadata from the service provider, regardless of the collection's expanse," the government's filing asserts.
Since we seem to have a group of moderators running around today that are ignorant of the functioning of the US court system, I'll restate.
Lower courts have the authority to rule acts of the Federal government unconstitutional and stop them. This case has little chance of being accepted by the US Supreme Court. It isn't proper procedure for it to start there, and it isn't the type of case that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over. This is a matter for the lower courts to start with. Any citizen or corporation that received a gag order from a court could challenge it in the same court, or appeal it.
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Hopefully this is clear, and modding me down doesn't change the law even if you don't like it.
As to the second paragraph, surveillance just by itself is obnoxious, and potentially very dangerous for a free society, but limited in various respects since there isn't necessarily a "do" tied to the "see". The truly awful point was the Rubicon crossed when the Supreme Court decided that Obamacare was constitutional, that the US Federal Government had the power to order individual citizens to do whatever it pleased. (Of course I'm not thrilled by the asset forfeiture programs, nor by prosecutors freezing all the funds of defendants leaving them unable to defend themselves either.)
But I agree with the overall point, there needs to be more discussion and thought put into Constitutional protections and how they apply with the changing conditions that result from changes in technology that makes things possible that were formerly impossible. But as part of that discussion there also needs to be consideration of how the protections play out in peace versus war, and the strange war we are in now. I'm not thrilled by the "uneven" way the courts have been approaching some of that.
I have little need to post anonymously, and it is lame for you to think that there aren't other people that have a factually based opinion similar to mine.
So, I'll ask again: Snowden claimed to have taught classes related to Chinese intelligence work. He should have had complete control over documents for his own class, so where are they? Hmmm? Where are the documents relating to Chinese intelligence operations?
If you reread it again you see that he claims to have taught classes related to Chinese intelligence. Where are the documents for that? Why do we see nothing about Chinese intelligence activity, but plenty about the UK, and US, not to mention Germany, France, Canada, Australia, and probably others? I would think he would have the most immediate control over documents for a class that he taught. Where are they? Where are any documents about Chinese or Russian intelligence activities?
I'm quite certain that revealing Russian intelligence secrets would not sit well with the rulers of his future home, especially since Putin was a Lieutenant Colonel in the KGB.
That would be the appropriate way to address it. I doubt that much will happen since much of the area covered by it of interest to the government is ordinary business records (which is basically what the phone records are) that the government has to deal with on a regular basis. I think a case could be made for a heightened level of scrutiny for records of communications as a desirable aspect of privacy. We'll see what happens.
I'm basing my statement on what he claimed. If you don't like that then you should ask yourself why he made those claims. You are spreading FUD to benefit him and his actions, probably because you approve of them despite (or because of?) the damage they did to the US and allied intelligence community.
Slashdot Mirror
If French intelligence had tapped US phones ... I suspect many Americans would be demanding that Versailles get nuked or we name french fries to freedom fries.
France has been caught spying in the US before and nothing like that happened.
Boeing Called A Target Of French Spy Effort
The US is not at war with Mexico, what business did they have doing that?
Maybe you've heard that they have a Narco-Terrorist insurgency in Mexico? They've had more people killed than the US lost in Vietnam ( 60,000+). The violence spills over the border, and the American side of the border isn't safe in many places for miles into the US. The drugs don't spill over, they flow in. So yes, the US might have a reason or two to have an idea about what is going on in Mexico.
And by the way, did you hear that some of the 9-11 hijackers were from a terrorist cell in Hamburg Germany? Maybe there is a reason for the US to keep an eye on things in Europe as well.
Sold? Not so much. Stalin claimed Eastern Europe for his sphere of influence, and had the Soviet Red Army in place to occupy it. How do you think a different outcome would have occurred? The Poles certainly were grateful for assistance against the Soviets in the 1980s when the Solidarity movement was challenging Communist oppression.
No, that's from BA degrees.
That may or may not be, but based on the evidence of seemingly endless "BS" in countless Slashdot posts, there is apparently no shortage of holders of "B.S." degrees that seemingly have a major concentration in "BS" rather than STEM.
With "allies" like your country no one needs enemies.
If your country is in Europe and is a US ally today, chances are that it had been occupied by its enemy (either state or political party) and the US helped remove that enemy and return government to the people. That covers the West, and in some cases was a redo from 25 years before. As to the East, the US allied with newly free Western Europe against the Soviet empire in the East, supported freedom movements and dissidents there, and continued to defend Western Europe until Soviet rule collapsed and most of Eastern Europe was free as well.
The US paid a price in both blood and treasure to free Europe and keep it free, and contributed to its rebuilding.
The few people remaining that remember what it was like to be under the boot of a real enemy are probably more clear on this question than you are. Maybe you should find out what it was like before you do something stupid. And I think it is likely that Europe is going to be in big trouble in 30-50 years, so hold that thought.
You're making even less sense.
It almost certainly isn't a violation of US law for US intelligence agencies to conduct intelligence operations in foreign countries. It is certain that the US government knew, and highly likely that the French government knew. The "blowback," as you refer to it, only exists because Snowden stole Top Secret documents had gave them to a Leftist paper and journalist predisposed against the US for publishing. I think the reaction of the French government is likely along this line.
Do you have any speculation as to when we can expect documents on Chinese, Russian, or Iranian intelligence to be published? I expect it to happen when hell freezes over. For some reason the "whistleblowers" are quite selective in the damage they are doing.
Yet another revelation from Snowden that reveals Top Secret American foreign intelligence activities that have no relation to the rights of Americans.
When will people come to understand that his goal was not simply protecting the rights of Americans? Isn't it clear from who his Russian spokesman was?
Maybe they just wanted to know how many French cars would burn this year, set ablaze by.....guess who?
More than 40,000 vehicles are burned each year in France...
This is what you get for making fun of the NSA.
I think this sums it up.*
*Assuming "making fun of them" is a cause of action. ;-)
I'm not sure what lead you to interject in this thread at this point, but let me provide you with a simplifying assumption you can make when you respond to my posts, especially it relates to warfare in general, and WW2 in particular. If you think I'm wrong, the most useful reaction for you to have initially is to wonder what is it about my post that you (s. petry) don't understand that would make you think that I (Cold Fjord) am wrong. Your post is completely unconnected with anything that was under discussion other than the general time period of the examples. The purpose of the examples I gave was to show impositions on personal liberty that had occurred in the US during wartime, with much of it applying to the UK, and you completely missed that. You got the country wrong, apparently referring to Germany when the location for the events in question was the United States. You got the context of one of the examples I gave wrong since you thought it had to do with a loss of electrical power in Germany instead of what it really was, light discipline as a security measure in the US/UK. Concentration camps were never a theme of the discussion, nor the reason for German fighting. The other person in the discussion understood my point. You missed all of that, and more, and yet to tell me, "You should really talk to people from the era and check history." I was right about what I wrote, but you tell me in essence that I'm wrong and provide unrelated information unconnected to the topic under discussion. In a way this isn't terribly different from that recent post you made about the 9/11 crash sites, how there wasn't any debris from the planes at the sites. I provided you a series of links on those incidents, some of which had pictures showing debris, and others with discussions of the investigation by either people that conducted them, or experts providing analysis. I doubt that you looked into any of them. You already had the answer you needed from the "truther" site. Oh, I'm sure you'll object that they are "only asking questions", but in essence that is little more than a rhetorical trick to avoid being confronted for offering conspiracy theories. Personally I think that one of the most important questions you need to consider is, did you look at the links I provided you, and if not, why not? I suspect the answer is no, because you think you know the answers, or the "right questions". But just as in this case where you didn't understand the discussion before interjecting irrelevant information, I think it is pretty likely you misunderstand the events around 9/11 as well. There is no meaningful consequence for being wrong in this thread, but being wrong about 9/11 is going to lead you to be tempted to hold positions held by cranks, and will negatively influence your views in a number of areas. If you haven't looked at those links yet I urge you to do so, and strongly urge you to rethink your position on 9/11. You're obviously an intelligent person, but you have a mistaken view on this topic. I truly hope you reconsider.
To give the best answer I think you might have to clarify exactly what you mean by "crimes by the government." Like you, INAL, but I do have some understanding of various aspects of the law for various reasons. To really be sure you would probably want to speak with a lawyer that practices in this particular area, especially since there are some unusual aspects to it compared to ordinary criminal law or the law of war. Having said that.....
The US government has what is known as sovereign immunity. It has to agree to face legal consequences for its actions in court for anyone or any organization to take legal action against it in US courts. There are many areas in which it has done so, and others where it hasn't. When you say "crimes by the government that cross national boundaries," I'm going to assume you are referring to intelligence gathering or surveillance. US Law and constitutional rights, as I understand them, are largely confined to American territory, or vessels, although American citizens retain their rights outside the country when dealing with the US government. A citizen of Syrian living in Luxembourg as a member of a terrorist cell plotting attacks against Canada has no rights under the US 4th Amendment that would require the NSA or CIA to get a warrant to spy on him. The same would apply to the Quds Force special forces of the government of Iran. The NSA or CIA wouldn't require a warrant to spy on them. The same would apply to other countries and their citizens. Inside the US, the rules change so there would need to be warrants at some point, unless they were in direct contact with terrorists outside the country. (And you can quibble about this point on various statutory or Constitutional grounds.) And American citizen would retain 4th Amendment rights both in and out of the country unless they were in direct contact with a terrorist group. (Same quibbling could again apply.) So if some US intelligence agency actually did have access to an email account of a foreign leader, it is very unlikely that there was a crime committed under US law for there to be an action against the Federal government in US court, even assuming that the US government waived sovereign immunity in that instance, which isn't likely as far as I know. (Check with a lawyer.) There might be a diplomatic problem, but that is a different question. If some foreign citizen felt that they had a legitimate grievance against the US government, the thing to do would be to contact a lawyer that practices in the area of US law in question and see about filing a suit US Federal court. It would start in the lower courts. If there was a significant Constitutional question, it might make it to higher courts, perhaps even the Supreme Court. I think the key for the vast, vast majority of people to avoid being a subject of surveillance by the US government, when someone is actually looking at your information instead of just having it in a computer, is to avoid involvement with violent extremists groups or foreign intelligence agencies. The resources that the US has, extensive as they may seem, are still limited and they aren't going to waste much time on someone unless necessary. Write letters of protest instead of picking up an AK.
Well here's the thing, the US did all those things as a democracy while fighting a war. It wasn't even close to the incredible oppression of the Soviet Union, or Germany. And when the war was over, most of the wartime impositions on liberty went away, some quickly, some more gradually. (The US had conscription though most of the Cold War, until about 1974, but I don't remember if it was continuous, of there was a break.) But I agree with you that every imposition on Liberty needs to be a measured one, and removed when it no longer serves a meaningful, useful, and agreed upon purpose. I think the more insidious threat comes from the nature of the modern bureaucratic state, the growing tentacles of regulation, and the continuing temptation of the legislators to "just do something" when something bad happens and create a thicket of stifling laws. Our views may not really be that far apart overall, we may disagree on some of the particulars. And that's fine. We both want Liberty to endure.
Wake me up when there is official censorship of both personal mail and the media (newspapers, magazines, radio, television), a massive draft and the military expands by something like 20x, rationing is in place for food, gasoline, and other "luxury" goods, Civil Defense organizations police the use of electric lights at night, propaganda posters are everywhere, and so forth, like in WW2, and WW1 for that matter. The war against al Qaida has had a rather light touch so far. If you think what is going on is a war on "US liberty", then I must conclude that liberty is winning.... just like it ultimately did in WW2. And that is before we get to the question of al Qaida failing in their demand that the US convert to Islam, and replace the Constitution with Sharia law. Don't get me wrong, there are reasons for concern, areas where there needs to be vigilance, but the US isn't exactly squirming under the heels of the boots of fascism.
The problem with unmoderated "tax and spend" is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Then the problems get really bad. Much of the Western world is heading in that direction. Things that can't continue, won't.
It failed because they went with the lowest bidder
It didn't fail because they went with the lowest bidder. This was apparently a "sole source" contract. They just added another task onto an existing contract.
Meet CGI Federal, the company behind the botched launch of HealthCare.gov
CGI's business model depends on embedding itself deeply within an institution.
"The ultimate aim is to establish relations so intimate with the client that decoupling becomes almost impossible," read one profile of the company. ...
CGI Federal's winning bid stretches back to 2007, when it was one of 16 companies to get certified on a $4 billion "indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity" contract for upgrading Medicare and Medicaid's systems. Government-Wide Acquisition Contracts — GWACs, as they're affectionately known — allow agencies to issue task orders to pre-vetted companies without going through the full procurement process, but also tend to lock out companies that didn't get on the bandwagon originally. According to USASpending.gov, CGI Federal got a total of $678 million for various services under the contract — including the $93.7 million Healthcare.gov job, which CGI Federal won over three other companies in late 2011.
It's also true that CGI Federal began lobbying as it started winning government work. According to OpenSecrets.org, it has spent $800,000 since 2006 lobbying on several different tax and appropriations bills.
Feds reviewed only one bid for Obamacare website design
Rather than open the contracting process to a competitive public solicitation with multiple bidders, officials in the Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid accepted a sole bidder, CGI Federal, the U.S. subsidiary of a Canadian company with an uneven record of IT pricing and contract performance.
CMS officials are tight-lipped about why CGI was chosen or how it happened. They also refuse to say if other firms competed with CGI, or if there was ever a public solicitation for building Healthcare.gov, the backbone of Obamacare’s problem-plagued web portal....
There is no evidence CMS issued any public solicitation for the Obamacare website contract. The Examiner asked both CMS and CGI for copies of any public solicitation notice for the Healthcare.gov task orders. Neither CMS nor CGI furnished any such public notice.....
The ID/IQ system provides a fast-track contract approval process, but it is much less likely than competitive bidding to secure high quality at a reasonable cost.
“Whenever you have limited competition, but certainly with a sole source or a one-bid offer, the government has to question whether it is going to get the best product at the best price,” said Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog organization that monitors federal contracting.
Both USAspending.gov, which tracks federal spending, and the FFATA Subaward Reporting System, which specifically tracks contracts, refer to CGI as the lone bidder for the Obamacare website design award.
Each site describes the CGI contract award as the product of “full and open competition,” but CGI is the only bidder listed.
I can't find the link at the moment, but apparently this company is "favored" within the administration.... for some reason.
And add staff, lots more staff. That will make it better, and get the job done faster. (Wasn't that one of the conclusions of The Mythical Man Month? (Archive.org download))
I'm all for it just as long as the mandates are delayed until the infrastructure is really done this time.* When does the RFP go out?
* And maybe a "few" other kinks in the law ironed out.
To the best of my knowledge the Supreme Court doesn't have original jurisdiction for the case. That is, it can't act as a trial court, it has to be an appeals court. That means that this case has to start the way almost every other case does which is in a lower level federal court. The Supreme Court doesn't have unlimited jurisdiction.
The war against al Qaida authorized by the US Congress in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
They are simultaneously arguing in lower courts that the lower courts have no jurisdiction because it's a matter for the SC, AND in the SC that the SC does not have jurisdiction, because it's a question for the lower courts.
Actually no, they aren't. The Supreme Court doesn't have original jurisdiction for the EPIC complaint. The lower court cases are running into other issues. The Supreme Court has already ruled about the status of phone records is one issue. Another is standing for a 4th Amendment challenge.
NSA Phone Records Collection Can't Be Challenged By The Callers, Government Argues
The government is arguing in the terrorism case that serves as the National Security Agency's primary public justification for its bulk collection of telephone records that criminal defendants have no constitutional right to challenge the agency's sweeping surveillance program.
In a filing made Sept. 30, U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy of the Southern District of California contends that only the telephone companies have a Fourth Amendment interest in their call records -- and therefore that Basaaly Moalin cannot challenge his conviction for providing material support to the Somali terrorist group al-Shabaab.
Moalin is a Somali immigrant and San Diego cab driver convicted in February with three other defendants of sending $8,500 to al-Shabaab. His case constitutes the only time the government has admitted using bulk phone records surveillance as the crucial step in a domestic terrorism investigation, and thus it has taken on an outsized significance in the debate over the NSA's program.
"[N]either Moalin nor his co-defendants have standing to challenge the United States' collection of the telephony metadata from the service provider, regardless of the collection's expanse," the government's filing asserts.
One example.
Since we seem to have a group of moderators running around today that are ignorant of the functioning of the US court system, I'll restate.
Lower courts have the authority to rule acts of the Federal government unconstitutional and stop them. This case has little chance of being accepted by the US Supreme Court. It isn't proper procedure for it to start there, and it isn't the type of case that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over. This is a matter for the lower courts to start with. Any citizen or corporation that received a gag order from a court could challenge it in the same court, or appeal it.
A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Hopefully this is clear, and modding me down doesn't change the law even if you don't like it.
I agree with your first paragraph.
As to the second paragraph, surveillance just by itself is obnoxious, and potentially very dangerous for a free society, but limited in various respects since there isn't necessarily a "do" tied to the "see". The truly awful point was the Rubicon crossed when the Supreme Court decided that Obamacare was constitutional, that the US Federal Government had the power to order individual citizens to do whatever it pleased. (Of course I'm not thrilled by the asset forfeiture programs, nor by prosecutors freezing all the funds of defendants leaving them unable to defend themselves either.)
But I agree with the overall point, there needs to be more discussion and thought put into Constitutional protections and how they apply with the changing conditions that result from changes in technology that makes things possible that were formerly impossible. But as part of that discussion there also needs to be consideration of how the protections play out in peace versus war, and the strange war we are in now. I'm not thrilled by the "uneven" way the courts have been approaching some of that.
I have little need to post anonymously, and it is lame for you to think that there aren't other people that have a factually based opinion similar to mine.
So, I'll ask again: Snowden claimed to have taught classes related to Chinese intelligence work. He should have had complete control over documents for his own class, so where are they? Hmmm? Where are the documents relating to Chinese intelligence operations?
If you reread it again you see that he claims to have taught classes related to Chinese intelligence. Where are the documents for that? Why do we see nothing about Chinese intelligence activity, but plenty about the UK, and US, not to mention Germany, France, Canada, Australia, and probably others? I would think he would have the most immediate control over documents for a class that he taught. Where are they? Where are any documents about Chinese or Russian intelligence activities?
I'm quite certain that revealing Russian intelligence secrets would not sit well with the rulers of his future home, especially since Putin was a Lieutenant Colonel in the KGB.
That would be the appropriate way to address it. I doubt that much will happen since much of the area covered by it of interest to the government is ordinary business records (which is basically what the phone records are) that the government has to deal with on a regular basis. I think a case could be made for a heightened level of scrutiny for records of communications as a desirable aspect of privacy. We'll see what happens.
I'm basing my statement on what he claimed. If you don't like that then you should ask yourself why he made those claims. You are spreading FUD to benefit him and his actions, probably because you approve of them despite (or because of?) the damage they did to the US and allied intelligence community.