Via today’s The New York Times,* some big-time journalism on how the FISA court is creating an alternate judiciary — at least potentially more powerful, than the already compromised public one by which we thought American citizens encountered the law:
In more than a dozen classified rulings, the nation’s surveillance court has created a secret body of law giving the National Security Agency the power to amass vast collections of data on Americans while pursuing not only terrorism suspects, but also people possibly involved in nuclear proliferation, espionage and cyberattacks, officials say
….
“We’ve seen a growing body of law from the court,” a former intelligence official said. “What you have is a common law that develops where the court is issuing orders involving particular types of surveillance, particular types of targets.”
In one of the court’s most important decisions, the judges have expanded the use in terrorism cases of a legal principle known as the “special needs” doctrine and carved out an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant for searches and seizures, the officials said.
The special needs doctrine was originally established in 1989 by the Supreme Court in a ruling allowing the drug testing of railway workers, finding that a minimal intrusion on privacy was justified by the government’s need to combat an overriding public danger. Applying that concept more broadly, the FISA judges have ruled that the N.S.A.’s collection and examination of Americans’ communications data to track possible terrorists does not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, the officials said.
That legal interpretation is significant, several outside legal experts said, because it uses a relatively narrow area of the law — used to justify airport screenings, for instance, or drunken-driving checkpoints — and applies it much more broadly, in secret, to the wholesale collection of communications in pursuit of terrorism suspects. “It seems like a legal stretch,” William C. Banks, a national security law expert at Syracuse University, said in response to a description of the decision. “It’s another way of tilting the scales toward the government in its access to all this data.”
I’m once again crashing deadlines, so I’ll leave off trying to write (n) words on a subject in which I have no particular expertise (the sound you hear is the peanut gallery cheering). The only thing I can say both quickly and with a reasonable shot at validity is that we already know how this kind of thing, unchecked, plays out. Secret courts trump even secret police as a threat to both democracy and freedom of thought and expression.
We’ve seen how this works in plenty of prior examples — and not just in the bad decades of the 20th century either. This isn’t where we should be now.
Over to you…
*This kind of piece is the reason I maintain my (Sunday) subscription to the Grey Lady. The opinion pages may be a howling desert of intellectual mediocrity (w. the Krugman exception and a few others worthy of honorable mention) and outright mendacity (looking at you BoBo)¹. But there is no substitute for the quality of journalism backed by real resources that the Times is capable of when it chooses. I know it doesn’t always do so (Judith Miller, anyone). But it still is the home of more of this kind of stuff than any other MSM outlet (that I can think of). So, yeah, we still need the place, much as we need it do a whole lot better a lot of the time.
¹I’m not even going to go to the “It’s not nice, child, to point and laugh” division populated entirely by Master Ross Douthat.
Image: Pedro Berruguete, Saint Dominic Presiding over an Auto-da-fe, 1475.
Cross Posted at The Inverse Square Blog (as are most of my posts here, and I just forget to say so. Sue me.)
different-church-lady
Well, I’m with you on this: this would seem to be a real investigation into real problems, instead of the libertarian equivalent of Fox News feeding “death panels” porn to willing intellectual victims.
Corner Stone
Don’t worry yourself about it too much. The govt adds the words “foreign intelligence” to all the submittals.
It’s all good.
Corner Stone
Well, since FISA is legal, then how could any of the rulings they generate be unconstitutional?
Keith G
Unfortunately it seems like a lot of folks both here elsewhere don’t seem to care much about this. I don’t know why. Is it because they have so much faith in the human condition? Is it because they feel our current leadership has a secret plan to confront this? Have they given up? Obviously there are those who feel this is no big deal.
Keith G
Unfortunately it also seems like the mobile interface allows me to easily double post. I don’t know why about this as well.
Botsplainer
THIS is the end of freedom as we know it?
Jesus fucking Christ.
Yes, the world is going to end if conservative white conspirators can’t concoct their crimes with impunity.
socoolsofresh
People here already know this is a nothingburger. And since it wasn’t written by Greenwald than people have nothing to get upset about so, snooze. 4th amendment, who cares amiright?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
I thought this was a rather interesting discussion by David Simon, the creater of The Wire. He talks about something he reported on in the 1980 when he was a reporter in Baltimore.
And the reason the judge was OK with allowing the data collection in the first paragraph: “Because they aren’t listening to the calls.”
ruemara
This is also a bunch of judges appointed by the Roberts’ SCOTUS. Oh, that just sets my mind at ease. Yech. We need more oversight and a real system of checks and balance.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Keith G: When I talk to my friends and family, the only thing they are concerned about is Snowden wondering the globe giving secrets to other countries.
Cygil
But… Greenwald is a blowhard. Snowdon is a traitor. Nothing to see here.
burnspbesq
@Corner Stone:
This has been explained several times. Are you stupid, mendacious, or trolling?
Mino
Just surprised John Yu isn’t on the FISA court.
Emma
Transparency has always been one of my biggest bugaboos with all the security laws. There’s no reason why FISA should not publish the decisions after a certain period of time has passed. The biggest problem remains the same, though: as long as Congress is supposed to have oversight we are screwed. Somehow I don’t see the current Republican clowns doing anything constructive. About anything, much less this.
Corner Stone
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): This opinion piece was pummeled by his commenters, including his own son, as being severely misguided and failing as an appropriate analogy.
ETA, Simon backed off it a bit and rethought his stance as a result.
Botsplainer
@Cygil:
Yes. Your point?
Emma
@Cygil: Do you feel better after? I’m sooooo glad. And yes, they are. When Greenwald tells a man who has spent his whole life working on peace issues that Snowden has done more for the world in two months than he has done all his life, I know exactly how to value his contribution.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42233_Greenwald_Lashes_Out_on_Twitter_at_Adam_Serwers_Dad
Xantar
@Cygil:
No, actually THIS is exactly the debate we should be having. And it has nothing to do with Greenwald or Snowden. You will note that this post isn’t about the NSA collecting a database of metadata. It’s about the oversight of the NSA through the FISA court. Which Obots and firebaggers alike should agree is a real problem we need to address.
Xantar
@Cygil:
No, actually THIS is exactly the debate we should be having. And it has nothing to do with Greenwald or Snowden. You will note that this post isn’t about the NSA collecting a database of metadata. It’s about the oversight of the NSA through the FISA court. Which Obots and firebaggers alike should agree is a real problem we need to address.
Botsplainer
Speaking of Greenwald, he got himself owned.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42233_Greenwald_Lashes_Out_on_Twitter_at_Adam_Serwers_Dad
He’s a gaping dumbass, incompetent as a lawyer, an idiot polemicist.
burnspbesq
@ruemara:
Easy to say, less easy to design something that appropriately balances the competing interests. Unless, of course, one thinks that keeping intelligence sources and methods secret isn’t a legitimate interest.
The most you can ever hope for, I suspect, is delayed release of (sometimes heavily) redacted opinions. Is that going to be useful? Maybe. The bigger issue is that there is no appellate court with jurisdiction over appeals from the FISC, and even if you had one, it’s far from clear who would have standing to appeal an order allowing some surveillance activity to occur.
Keith G
@Emma: So, are you following the formulation that because Greenwald and Snowden in are not worthy characters, the information they are pointing to should be discounted and there are no issues that need to be discussed?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Corner Stone: Actually, you might want to go read his second post on the topic rather than the twitter feeds.
Botsplainer
@Emma:
You beat me to it.
Corner Stone
@Emma: It’s funny that Charles “Larry” Johnson didn’t include the initial tweet from Daniel Serwer to GG. Actually, no, I don’t find that unusual for him.
Corner Stone
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): I have, thanks.
Emma
@Keith G: No. I am in fact discussing the issue. If you have read my previous posting you would have seen that.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@burnspbesq: My understanding of the law is very fuzzy, but can you appeal a surveillance order?
burnspbesq
@Mino:
Your troll-fu is weak. If you’re trying to set the guy up as a boogie-man, at least spell his name correctly.
Last I heard, it was still Professor Yoo, not Judge Yoo.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Corner Stone: Was it this one: “Do you never tire of flacking for a source?”
Emma
@Corner Stone: Really? Why don’t you take the blinders off and look again. Because the twitter image RIGHT BELOW THE FIRST PARAGRAPH reproduced it.
Sad, really. You’re the person you’re always railing against.
Botsplainer
@Keith G:
Pretty much. Greenwald is a lying, self aggrandizing, incompetent piece of shit, and Snowden is a Walter Mitty fool who walked off with little of actual value, but needs to be made an example of, pour encouragement les autres.
Frankensteinbeck
@Xantar: and @burnspbesq:
I agree with both these points. I’d really like more oversight, and it’s a VERY important question, but I don’t know even where to start. How much oversight and of what kind does FISA have now? What can we realistically release without blowing national security to hell?
different-church-lady
@Keith G:
Jeez, couldn’t have anything to do with presentation, could it? I mean, how much attention do you give the crazy guy screaming on the street corner? You don’t listen, you just put your head down and move on.
If people who care about this want other people to listen, they have to stop with the stunts.
burnspbesq
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
As a practical matter, no. Standing is the problem, thanks to Amnesty International v. Clapper.
Ordinarily, the remedy for Fourth Amendment violations is suppression of evidence obtained by unlawful means. Which is only useful to a defendant, and only useful if defense counsel actually knows about the putatively unlawful surveillance in time to file a timely motion to suppress.
Corner Stone
@Emma: I’m sorry but I don’t see the initial tweet from Daniel Serwer anywhere on the linked LGF page.
different-church-lady
@Keith G:
The problem is their worth as “characters” obfuscates the information they are pointing to. When they’re not outright misrepresenting it, that is.
White Trash Liberal
Interesting that it was the firebaggers who swiftly injected GG and Snowden.
The reason this isn’t generating the needed outrage is because at this time, no one is getting hauled off to prison, disappeared, etc. No one is feeling the consequences. Every blowhard can go onto social media and express whatever discontent against the government without having their doors knocked down by thugs in stylish boots.
This is a very big deal. Several posters here have pointed to FISA (the very FISA that GG defended in 2006 when the scandal was warrantless tapping) and PATRIOT as being the primary battlefields for reform. None of that is at issue. Instead, it is going to break down into standard Purity Sumo…
WereBear
Well, there’s:
A) They don’t know about it.
B) If they do, they don’t really understand it.
C) If they do understand it, they don’t think it applies to them.
The pool of those who can figure it all out and project likelihoods into the future based on it? Vanishingly small.
Ruckus
@burnspbesq:
Have you considered the possibility that all three just might apply at the same time?
Corner Stone
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): As far as I can tell that is the initial tweet but I’m not a twitter pro so there could be more context I am unaware of in this exchange.
I found LGF posting GG’s response, but not the initial tweet from DS, to be less than useful for context and evaluation.
Firebert
Can I still think that the FISA courts need more transparency and oversight while believing that Greenwald and Snowden suck, or do I have to pick only one?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Corner Stone: I copied the text from the LGF page. Go look at the article.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Corner Stone: If you go to the LGF page, and click on Daniel Sewer’s twitter name, peacefare.net, and scroll to the one with the matching text, you can click View Conversation. You will then find that Daniel is responding to the following quote from Glenn: “Edward Snowden confirmed to me today that the statement released by @Wikileaks was written exclusively by Snowden.”
NickT
@Keith G:
Your argument is essentially that testimony as to the color of a car by a blind man would still be valuable.
Did you not realize this?
different-church-lady
@Firebert: You must pick one or the other.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@burnspbesq: I realize that my knowledge is from old news and TV shows (I’m 43) but I have never seen that anyone could appeal a surveillance order. Has it been that no one every tried before that case? Everyone just assumed that surveillance was what cops did?
Mino
@burnspbesq: Google let me down. lol Thought I knew the last name; went looking for the first.
Corner Stone
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): I’m sorry but I’m running Firefox 22.0 and have my No Script turned off and I can’t see that tweet. I did a word search as well and no good. I’ll try another computer and look again.
I can see the first one from GG that has the “2 months” in it and then the next one is the “fuck you” from Adam S.
Citizen_X
@Firebert:
That. Jesus, two things at once, people. It’s not that hard.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@different-church-lady: I had at least some hope since everyone seemed to be trashing that post.
ruemara
@burnspbesq: Don’t denigrate an overachiever.
@burnspbesq: The issue with oversight, which I can say because dammit, I have learned a lot of things with sleaze in government this month, do we elect people to watch over our secret government? If so, we run into the same bullshit due to our dumbass electorate. Do we trust appointments? Then see other flaw, based on dumbass electeds. I got no idea, but I’d like to see some sort of a step to true oversight. I’d like to see some attempt at deconstructing the national security complex. I’d also like to throw out there my tinfoil hat theory of the month. I find all of this and the persons involved to be suspicious. Why? Don’t we have a president that just recently started talking about ending not just the Iraq & Afghanistan wars, but to ending the idea of being on a perpetual war footing? Snowden was never a liberal, he was a libertarian who was very upset about Obama because of his (Snowden’s) views on gun control. As every paper in the world is now reporting on the huge shock that America spys on other countries and OMG-other countries spy on America and other countries-it feels like a farcial Pink Panther movie playing out in real time while the actual effort to reduce the war footing and spending and the security profitability are being left out to die. All the better if it can dishearten the already too stupid to vote democratic base that always fails at midterms. Yeah, I know, tinfoil hattery, but trying to perceive the motives going on here have led me to it.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Corner Stone: Well, then, you probably either need to not comment on tweets or fix your browser so they can be displayed. The time on Glenn’s tweet is now 21 hours old, not two months. Snowden’s statement released by Wikileaks is not two months old.
max
I’m All For The Rule Of Law. It’s The Judges I Can’t Stand
When a secret court effectively repeals higher law (a constitutional amendment) in service of some vague statutory interpretation entirely unconnected with the statute itself (which in itself is over-broadly written), that ain’t rule of law – anymore than ‘separate but equal’ was rule of law. Not on my planet, anyways.
‘Getting away with it’ != ‘calling balls and strikes’ or ‘adhering to the law as written’
I think your post title should have been ‘I Am In Favor of the Rule of Law, and Justice Roberts Isn’t’.
max
[‘I am sure the Bush administration did something right in 8 years but damned if I know what it was.’]
burnspbesq
@Firebert:
Unfortunately, fair and balanced has fallen into disrepute.
Botsplainer
@different-church-lady:
Leave Glenn alone!
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@ruemara: I’m often reminded of the Dr. Seuss story about the bee, the bee watcher, the bee watcher-watcher, the bee watcher-watcher-watcher, etc.
max
@max: [‘I am sure the Bush administration did something right in 8 years but damned if I know what it was.’]
Not launching an air attack or an invasion on Iran. OK, somehow they managed to avoid doing that. That was right.
max
[‘Does that count?’]
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@max: Well, he did leave the White House on Jan 21, 2008.
Botsplainer
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
“As was dictated to him by the representative for Wikileaks”.
FTFY
different-church-lady
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): Well, apparently he went back, because he was still there 365 days later.
Eric U.
congresscritters are supposed to have oversight over this, but I have heard few of them show up for the meetings.
I still have yet to see one of the people that think we are insufficiently upset about this issue explain how to do anything about it. Has Keith G. called his congressman? Has John Cole called his congressman? Showing up and telling people that they are insufficiently upset about something is just trolling. Personally, I am in this for the long haul and if I do get really upset about things like this it is counterproductive.
Ruckus
@burnspbesq:
I know you are not saying this but just because it is hard is no reason to not at least try. And we as a country aren’t even trying right now.
I see the issues as we know there are some people out there that want to maim and kill for some political/religious reasons. We don’t really know who they are, with possibly a very few exceptions. So how do we find them before they get a chance to act? Or do we allow them to act and then punish them, as we do with criminals inside this country? Because I see two problems here. If we attempt to stop them before they act, how do we know they would have actually acted? And if we decide that stopping them prior to an act is proper, why don’t we apply that to criminals inside the country? And isn’t this the basis of stop and frisk?
So back to the issue. In the world today we have almost instantaneous communications that allows people to plan, coordinate and carry out acts of violence against others much better than just a decade or two ago. How do we stop or at least lessen that? And whatever system that we devise how do we protect against the possible misuse of the system?
I believe we have to do better than we have been. I don’t see transparency of what the process, which we don’t have now, as a problem, transparency of the information gathered would be.
Corner Stone
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): I can find the fucking tweet on twitter but it is not listed as an image on LGF’s linked page. Which was my point so gfy.
This has become tedious and I just don’t care that much about anything that fucking clown Charles Johnson has to say or post.
ETA and no shit you fucking gimp. That’s the reason I used quotes for “2 months” so it identified wording in the pictured tweet. It’s not a date stamp you fucking schmoo.
Botsplainer
@Ruckus:
If a white conservative wants to plan to blow up an abortion clinic or government building or Olympic event (and plans it along with some friends), and uses electronic communications, surveillance is tyranny because Hitler.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@different-church-lady: Yep, screwed that one up, I did.
Villago Delenda Est
@burnspbesq:
Which is, in essence, catch 22.
Which is some catch.
Soonergrunt
@burnspbesq: You shouldn’t rule out the high probability of all three at the same time.
Villago Delenda Est
@Eric U.:
Well, you know, important, worse-than-Watergate stuff like BENGHAZI! are keeping them busy.
Villago Delenda Est
@max:
By the deserting coward’s own standards, his malassministration was a failure, because he got to use all the toys in the toybox but the nukes.
This is why he’s retired to painting that rivals that of the Bismarck, ND, kindergarten class.
different-church-lady
@Eric U.:
Since we seem to be having a halfway sane conversation thread about this topic going for a change, let’s unpack this a bit.
First, for those who aren’t interested in nothing more than proving their predetermined conclusions, it’s taking a bit of time to come to a proper understanding of just what’s going on and how we feel about it. How long has this been on the big radar screen now, a month? I feel like that entire month I’ve been trying to claw my way through an obstacle course made out of flack, land mines, orcs, propaganda, and piles of flaming human hair.
Second, what to do about it is a hard question to answer. Today’s NYT article presents us with more information about how hard it would be to do so.
Third, those who feel “we” are insufficiently upset about this seem to be of a mind where being upset about it is the point of the endeavor. They constantly present from a position where the government is evil, the citizens are powerless, and nothing can ever change that. Solutions are hard to envision even for people who are honest actors in the dialog, but for the people I am describing here, coming to a solution isn’t even within their conception, so it is natural they wouldn’t spend their limitless soap box time discussing such.
So, I guess a shorter version is that it’s not as easy as you seem to think, but that moot since they won’t put in the effort anyway.
Yatsuno
@Eric U.: Nope, that’s work. Ranting on the Interwebs is much much easier.
Villago Delenda Est
@Citizen_X:
Oh, I don’t know. At least 27% of the population has serous problems with that sort of multitasking. I mean, it’s a challenge for them to sip a beer and at the same time watch this week’s NASCAR event.
Ruckus
@max:
And on the last day they left. Sort of. OK not really. Shit.
burnspbesq
@Ruckus:
You’re digging around in the hardest question of all, which is “which paradigm is better for dealing with terrorism, war or law enforcement?”
A few years ago, somebody in the Economist wrote something that I thought was really smart:
different-church-lady
@Ruckus:
Myself, I’m beginning to rethink even that construction. I still believe in innocent until proven guilty, but how many more gun massacres and bombings are we supposed to tolerate before we start to consider that some kind of pre-emptive measures might be a good idea?
I mean, easier said than done — every society on earth has persecuted people for thoughtcrime, and certainly American democracy has done a lot to tamp that down. I can’t say I know any answers, but I do have an inkling that perhaps an entirely hands-off approach no longer works in a world where technology has put massive instantaneous carnage within reach of the average Joe.
SiubhanDuinne
@Corner Stone:
Which is why you posted five separate comments on it, right?
Soonergrunt
@SiubhanDuinne: The food at that restaurant is horrible! And the portions are too small!
Ruckus
@burnspbesq:
I like the hard questions. They get to the meat of the issue much faster.
And I think that quote is absolutely correct. We have to protect those rights that are (or at least should be) the core of our government. Of course we also need to understand that all freedoms come with responsibilities and costs. #2 springs to mind as one that so many have misused both the responsibilities and costs side of.
Corner Stone
@SiubhanDuinne: et tu?
If so, then you obviously missed the word “become” so stuff that in your hat!
Ruckus
@Soonergrunt:
Jonathon would be proud.
Yatsuno
@Ruckus: Goyim doing Borscht Belt humour. OI!
FlipYrWhig
IMHO what the FISA Court does is the crux of the whole story, and to the degree that Greenwald and Snowden had something to do with bringing it up anew, they deserve credit. OTOH, their hyperbolic presentation of what was actually happening vis-a-vis the NSA was, you know, wrong, and has continued to confuse the issue with the non-politically-obsessive. And the stories about international spying have fuck-all to do with anything, especially not civil liberties. So that was one absurd digression that served no one’s interests whatsoever.
Soonergrunt
@FlipYrWhig:
That ought to be posted at the beginning of any posting or comment on this subject for the next week.
burnspbesq
@Ruckus:
The political problem with that stance is easy to state and difficult to overstate.
Fighting terrorism with one hand tied behind your back pretty much guarantees that some plots will succeed, and it’s hard to build a political consensus for the preventable deaths of innocent civilians.
Which isn’t to say it isn’t the right answer. It requires a degree of courage that we seem to be in the process of selectively breeding out of our political class.
Soonergrunt
@burnspbesq: But would you vote for someone would say “I’m going to make decisions that will increase the risk that some of you will be killed even though I could have done something about it.”?
The problem with principles is that they’re really easy to defend when everybody is safe and warm.
burnspbesq
@FlipYrWhig:
Well. it served Merkel and Hollande’s domestic political interests to be seen as standing up to big bad Uncle Sam. At least until Hollande was cut off at the knees by the (entirely unsurprising) revelation that oui, DGSE le fait aussi.
Frankensteinbeck
@Soonergrunt:
The elephant in that room is that we’re not dealing with a remotely rational political climate to begin with. Everything that will happen in our government is dominated by the cultural conservatives’ attempt to take the rest of the nation with them as fundamentalist Christianity dies by inches.
burnspbesq
@Soonergrunt:
I might, but I’m capable of processing the idea that if we become like our enemies, they win.
If you only defend them when everybody is safe and warm, are they really principles?
Ruckus
@different-church-lady:
See burns in #74. The quote is absolutely spot on.
It comes down to this. You can not be free if any prior act always costs you your freedom. If you screw up and pay the penalty then you should be done with that. But of course there is a problem. Example, we know that child molesters very, very rarely stop. We know that many DUIs are repeaters. Not all of either but most will commit additional violations. We can’t stop them from the first act and monitoring them, ignition locks, etc protects us but reduces their freedoms. The costs.
The costs. Some are risks for all of us. This is where data gathering seems to be now. We obviously are doing it, for that there is no question. The question is, are we abusing the data? Who knows? Can the data be easily abused? Same answer, who knows? Is there any way to answer any of these questions? And we do have an answer for this one. Trust us. That’s the answer. I’m not impressed.
Ruckus
@Yatsuno:
One of Mr. Winters best. Kid writes home from camp complaining about everything. But the food especially. “The food is horrible and besides there is not enough of it”.
Ruckus
@Frankensteinbeck:
@burnspbesq:
The crux of the matter. Costs. Balance. Who we really are. And can we be better.
burnspbesq
@Ruckus:
And that’s where the whole line of argument turns circular. The obvious response to “trust us” is “earn our trust.” And the obvious response to “earn our trust” is “how can I do that?” And the obvious answer to “how can I do that” is “don’t abuse the power we have given you?” But how do they show they haven’t abused the power we’ve given them to do things in secret, except by revealing the secrets?
It really takes you all the way back to “elections have consequences; choose wisely.”
NickT
@Soonergrunt:
There’s also the broader issue of whether the NSA and FISA’s activities really have made us safer – or whether we could achieve the same degree of safety in a better way. If we start the debate by conceding that this is the best and only way for us to stay safer, the debate isn’t going to go anywhere.
Botsplainer
Dropping entries. FYWP
Ruckus
@Soonergrunt:
Done something about it? Done what? Something is not the same as everything.
Spain, UK, US. All gathering data, all have had major terrorist acts committed against them. And in at least one instance the threat was apparently seen and not acted upon. IMHO due to gross incompetence as humans but still. And I’m not actually against some of this, I would like to know what is going on though. For me it is the total secrecy cloud that is the problem. FISA court not only approving all warrants but making secret judicial rulings that no on knows about. Those two words that say it all, Trust Us. That is not a democracy, or even a representative democracy.
ETA Spain not France, at least in what I was referring to.
SiubhanDuinne
@Soonergrunt:
Zackly :-)
Soonergrunt
@Frankensteinbeck: This. Everything this government does or fails to do is shaded by those pricks. We’re never going to be free as long as they have any power.
@burnspbesq: That’s exactly my point. The hell of it is that since the end of the war of 1812, the US has NEVER faced a true existential threat. Even Hitler’s Germany wasn’t capable of projecting force to North America. Had he beaten England? Unknown what might have been five or ten years down the road.
Ruckus
@burnspbesq:
Yes it does take us back there. But there is no time machine to go back in and correct stupidity. We have to work with what and who we have now. So for me the problem is not explaining how we got here from the last few decades but how do we evaluate the problem and go forward. Sooner is right that no one is going to run on a platform of we didn’t do everything we could to keep you safe. But that is the wrong question in the first place. We kill thousands with guns in this country and we do the same with vehicles. Do we do everything we could to stop that? Hell no we don’t. We’ve made the cars much safer but we haven’t done much for the idiot behind the wheel. With guns we have done nothing. Nothing. So why shouldn’t we have the same discussion about terrorists? Can we be 100% safe? No fucking way, we just can’t. No one can.
Felonius Monk
If you are growing tired of thinking about FISA courts, the surveillance state, the coming of the Neo-Gestapo, or whatever, perhaps you’d like a respite by considering another aspect of the Great American Underbelly. With another win in the Nathan’s hot dog eating contest, Joey Chestnut is still on many minds. Check out this summer read:
HORSEMEN of the ESOPHAGUS: Competitive Eating and the Big Fat American Dream
If this doesn’t bring on the indigestion, nothing will. Antacids, anyone?
Soonergrunt
@Ruckus: As somebody who has had access to and use of classified material my entire adult life, and even generated a small share of it, I can tell you that you won’t have an argument from me on that point.
Personally, we classify way too much stuff at too high a level for way too long. The bias in the system should be for NO classification whenever possible, minimal classification whenever possible, and declassification whenever possible. People should have to justify classifying stuff and to further justify keeping it classified rather than the other way around, and that applies to the court system as well.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@burnspbesq:
@Soonergrunt:
It depends on which principles you claim to be defending. Throughout our history, we have given up some of our freedoms at times. We did it after 9-11. I think for most people, general security and the ability to make it through each day is the biggest principle. This is why it was so easy for Boston to be able to shut down the entire city to attempt to find the bomber.
What we haven’t done is truly consider when we should be done with the suspension.
And for most people that don’t visit these blogs, they really haven’t felt much change in their freedoms: They are still able to get up in the morning, go to a shitty job, come home, and park in front of the TV until bedtime.
We yell a lot on these blogs. It’s very quiet outside. I doubt traffic on the internet has slowed down very much.
Ruckus
@Soonergrunt:
I had a high clearance level(not anywhere near the top mind you) and I agree with you 100% here.
On a somewhat related note, something I noticed while I served, a lot of lifers were exactly the people that you didn’t want in a position of responsibility. I imagine that hasn’t changed a lot. What’s your take, especially as related to the issue of secrecy and security?
Cygil
@Emma: Greenwald is being ratfucked by his own alledged “allies” on the left. Like you. That’s gonna make you snappy.
I don’t worship Greenwald. We know more about the culture of lawlessness at the top of the surveillance state because of him, and that’s all that’s important.
NickT
@Cygil:
By his own arrogance, incompetence and excessive self-regard.
gbear
@Eric U.: From what I’ve heard, Al Franken is one of the senators that shows up for these meetings. He takes it pretty seriously and I know he’s gotten in trouble with progressives for not having a knee-jerk reaction to the information that’s coming out. He’s already been aware of most of it. If anyone wants to contact congress with their concerns, he may be one of the best people to contact (and he’s going to be around for a while. No republican is going to unseat him in 2014).
@Corner Stone: I can’t beleive you can’t find Daniel Serwer’s original tweet, but even if you can’t, you’ve seen what Greenwald tweeted to Serwer and below that you can see Serwer’s bio. You have to admit that Greenwald seriously stuck his foot in his mouth by shooting off a snotty reply without giving a shit about who he was talking to. He looks like a goddamned fool.
Ruckus
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Has life ever been a lot different? Most people just want to make it through the day. And the next day and so on. Would it make much difference in their lives who was in charge as long as they could just make it through the day and see their lives being stable? I was once a part of a conversation between 2 Russian immigrants in the early 80’s. One thought that Russia had not been all that bad and he had been thinking of going back. The other was dumbfounded that someone who had lived in a totalitarian state would want to give up the opportunity of living in the US to go back. The first man just wanted a level of sameness every day. He didn’t want to have to think about much more than breathing and eating.
Villago Delenda Est
@burnspbesq:
When elections are viewed as tribal markers and sporting events, “choosing wisely” somehow gets lost in the process.
ruemara
@Cygil: BWHAHAHAHA!
Yatsuno
@Cygil:
lolwut? He put fingers to keyboard and insulted a man who has done a shit ton of good work in this world. No one made him do that. Sit down before you hurt yourself.
gbear
@Cygil: Mostly what we found out is that the private contractors to which the government is outsourcing our security are willing to hire really shitty, moronic, duplicitous employees. That makes me more nervous than any of the other stuff.
Bob In Portland
Did anyone else hear what Putin said about the whole Snowden Affair? He said it was a lot like shearing a piglet. Not much wool but lots of squealing.
joel hanes
@max:
I am sure the Bush administration did something right in 8 years but damned if I know what it was
Created three huge marine life preserves in relatively-pristine areas of the Pacific.
And with that, I’ve exhausted my list.
Jewish Steel
@Yatsuno: Esp when the alternative was to, you know, say nothing? GG does more mischief to himself with his anaphylactic impulses than anything.
jayackroyd
There’s a picture of Tunch with account suspended pasted across his phiz in my short list twitter stream. Has Cole been posting inappropriate feet pictures?
Yatsuno
@joel hanes: He also did quite a bit of good work expanding AIDS relief in Africa. But otherwise yeah I’m stuck.
@Jewish Steel: For Glenn silence is impossible. He MUST interject his opinion always and forever.
geg6
@Soonergrunt:
Second that.
Higgs Boson's Mate
I wonder how difficult it would be for an employee of the NSA or one of its contractors to use their access to communications to make a killing in the stock market. They could have a friend or relative make the stock transactions and funnel the proceeds into an offshore account and subsequently retire with considerable wealth. If the NSA was unaware that someone was traipsing off with classified information then it’s a pretty safe bet that a careful l person could make quite a haul. A further incentive for that kind of activity is that even if the NSA found out they’d have to hale you into court to exact any punishment. The revelation that someone could use the security apparatus for crime would preclude that last.
NickT
@joel hanes:
Left office on time.
eemom
@Yatsuno:
heh. As I’ve mentioned before, my bestest friend was a law school classmate of Glennzie’s back in the early 90s and they were in the same “small section” — which means they were in small classes together and not just large lectures — and she says he almost never said anything then.
Rather, he was s “silent, brooding, somewhat menacing presence off in the corner” — a description that never ceases to crack me up.
Xenos
@Higgs Boson’s Mate: It is usually pretty obvious when an insider makes a quick bundle like that. They would do better to sell the info to a hedge fund that is already heavily trading the stock in question.
CVS
Which is why its called the “slippery slope.”
Me thinks we’ve probably slid too far at this point to make it back…
socoolsofresh
Funny how a post on a NYT article quickly devolves into Greenwald bashing. I also loved the story of someone who supposedly knew him in law school!
NickT
@socoolsofresh:
Funny how you never fail to be the exact opposite of your name.
Botsplainer
@eemom:
Somehow it fits.
gbear
@socoolsofresh:
Funny how it was the Greenwald supporters who dragged him into the conversation. And what NickT said…
different-church-lady
@socoolsofresh: You were the first person in this entire thread to mention him.
Soonergrunt
@Ruckus: I think a huge problem is that for so many people, their ego is tied up with their position, so they fight like hell to increase their power relative to everyone around them, and that this dynamic works at pretty much all levels of bureaucratic organizations. For my part, it was lifers who taught me a lot of what I know, but I was pretty lucky that the one who taught me the most was always very careful to remind me that eventually somebody would replace him and the machine wouldn’t even skip a beat (that was me) and that somebody would replace that person and the machine would just keep running then too. As a result of this, I never took what I did too seriously.
Soonergrunt
@eemom: “Rather, he was s “silent, brooding, somewhat menacing presence off in the corner” — a description that never ceases to crack me up.”
Well, I suppose I’d rather he do what he’s doing now than climb a water tower with a rifle, which is the other famous way those types end up.
Soonergrunt
@socoolsofresh: It is entirely possible to be concerned about the activities of the national security organs of this country AND think that Greenwald (and Snowden, ftm) is a sanctimonious preening asshole who is far more hot air than substance.
Not coincidentally, this view of Greenwald is also one that most folks tend to ascribe to his fanboys.
Ruckus
@Soonergrunt:
A very good point. The system(in this case government) is bigger than the parts. But when everything is secret how can we make good decisions about the people doing the oversight?Or even what oversight is. At some point we the people have to make decisions or we really don’t live in a democracy. And given the way or media and our political system is, many if not most of us are not making rational decisions, we are betting on a horse race. With huge stakes. That we really don’t win but for sure can lose.
Keith G
A lot of name calling and personal attacks.
I guess that is one way to deal with the nagging frustration that there are trends in the behavior of our government that will ultimately turn out to be problematic for the society that most of us have grown up in and value very much.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
Anyone else find it amusing that the Brogressives can’t be bothered to join in when we’re having a constructive conversation about what’s wrong with the national security state, yet say one word about Greenwald and they’re all over that like white on rice?
gogol's wife
@gbear:
Thisthisthis!
Betty Cracker
@Keith G: There was some name-calling, but I thought this thread was more thoughtful than most on this topic. Kinda refreshing.
Elie
@Betty Cracker:
I agree — checked in as a lurker and appreciated it…
different-church-lady
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-: Here we are having the very discussion they keep claiming they want to have, and yet they can’t be bothered to actually participate.
‘Course it helps when the front pager actually sets the tone constructively.
Soonergrunt
@different-church-lady: “‘Course it helps when the front pager actually sets the tone constructively.” I tried that very thing. They didn’t want it, and the main offenders were the Greenwaldians.
NickT
@Soonergrunt:
I’ll take Greenwald and his acolytes seriously when I see them fighting for the liberties of people who don’t fit in with their pet causes: women, minorities,people who don’t want their children to be shot by some lunatic with a Bushmaster.
different-church-lady
@Soonergrunt: I said it helps — I didn’t say it was a magic wand. ;-)
But I can’t remember which post you’re referring to.
different-church-lady
@NickT: I don’t even care what the topic is, I’m willing to take them seriously when they stop acting like the political equivalents of WWE performers.
NickT
@different-church-lady:
It could be a looooong wait.
Ruckus
@different-church-lady:
@NickT:
I don’t think a lot of people on blogs want answers or ideas of how to improve things. I think they want to bitch. And that’s OK, we all need to bitch once in a while, we all need a place where it’s possible to, where people understand what and why we are bitching. But at some point we have to pitch in and work to make things better. We have to do this because it’s all there is. We can help find and elect better candidates. But that’s not all, we can actually learn and understand issues and have constructive discussions about them so that we can find and support those better candidates. That’s what I want. I also want to discuss pets and dinner and lives because that’s important too. That’s why I like this place. We have constructive discussions, not often enough but we have them. Some of us have chased off people when their ideas don’t match our own and that doesn’t help. Some of us seem to hold grudges against those people, mostly for stupid and silly reasons and so I understand why they seldom if ever post here any more. But we need them. I know it’s silly but really all we have is each other, we can be better or not, but we can’t grow if we don’t try.
Please understand my rant is not aimed at either of you but you gave me an opening to something I’ve wanted to say for a while.
Thank you.