Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

This has turned into the worst thread on the board. Everyone arguing with Tim. We get it. Tim doesn't mind gov't surveillance and isn't changing his mind.

I have changed my mind on several specific points regarding this issue, thanks to this thread.

Does it bother you at all that everything you do online or off with a paper trail is going to be stored here indefinitely?

Yes. I already stated that it bothers me some.

 

[wazoo11]

@AP: NSA collected thousands of US internet communications over 3 years with no terror connection.

 

[Slapdash]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

Only in terms of mass searches, and in those cases I don't mind.But this doesn't need to apply to individual searches. Let's say that the local police are suspicious that you are a drug dealer. They can't just ask the NSA, "Let's have a look at Doug B's emails". They still need to get a warrant. And if they did attempt to use emails obtained without a warrant to prosecute you for a crime, the judge would throw it out. So I disagree with your entire premise. The 4th Amendment is as powerful as its ever been. It was never meant to apply to this sort of collective search through millions of emails, because such a thing wasn't possible before now.

How do you know that any of what you wrote is true? Pretty much everything the government has told you so far about the program has turned out to be a lie.

Which part of what I wrote is false? Are you suggesting that the government will start prosecuting people without obtaining legal warrants?

Do you really believe it impossible for something like the following to occur:

1. Tim suspected of X crime.

2. Local law enforcement calls up the NSA and says, "Hey, you know all that data you've been collecting? While, I need a "mass search" done to see if I can find a pattern on this guy Tim so I can obtain a search warrant"

3. NSA ponies up the data behind the scenes with a select few knowing.

4. Cops show up with a warrant to do a thorough search of Tim's house, car, work, technology and can OFFICIALLY go to the NSA and ask for the data.

5. Tim's screwed.

I believe this to be real. I believe it happens today. What's worse, the government has everyone believing that they have these programs to prevent terrorism so few question them. The worst of all is we can't question them to find out the truth. Why this isn't an issue for more people is beyond me. At this point my only recourse is to make sure I'm ok with whatever I put out on the internet because I have to assume someone is watching.

If that happens today (and I have no evidence of it, do you?) then it shouldn't.

As you correctly pointed out, the main element of a free society which operates under the rule of law is not the Constitution (which, in the final analysis, is only a piece of paper) but the willingness of the people to abide by it- specifically, judges. So long as we have an independent, honest judiciary (and I believe that for the most part we do), it will prevent the sort of thing you're talking about. Any judge worth their salt would look at the situation you described and throw out all evidence obtained as part of the "poison fruit", since it was illegally obtained in the first place. Does this happen every time? Probably not. I'm sure people can come up with anecdotes that show screw-ups or even deliberate misapplications of police power which are allowed by judges. Are these anecdotes enough to condemn the overall idea of what the NSA is doing? I don't believe they are.

This is what you don't get.....there isn't a way to prove it was obtained illegally if done correctly. I'm not talking about the times where a zealous cop does something stupid, it comes to light and is dismissed. I'm talking about the carefully orchestrated dance between local authorities and federal authorities. We know a substantial relationship exists between these groups just look how quickly the FBI, CIA etc got their hands on all the images from the cameras for the Boston Marathon bombings.

But I WANT that "substantial relationship" to exist. I have no evidence that anything illegal took place. Do you?

You mean besides the article cstu posted that you dismissed?

 

[timschochet]

1. What specific lie was made to Congress?2. What specific law has been broken?

Clapper specifically told Congress that the NSA was not collecting data on US citizens, did he not?

I don't know. Do you have a link? (Not challenging you on this; I honestly don't recall what he specifically said.)

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/this_man_is_still_lying_to_america/

OK thanks.

Well his excuse is weak. He obviously lied. I believe it is acceptable for those in charge of our national security to lie to the public (and Congress) at times. Here are some historical examples:

1. General George C. Marshall testified before Congress during the summer of 1941 that the United States was not coordinating military plans with England against Germany and Japan. This was an outright lie designed to appease the isolationists.

2. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State under Eisenhower, lied to Congress about U-2 planes spying over Russia and was forced to admit his lie when Francis Gary Powers was shot down.

3. Both LBJ and Nixon were forced to lie to Congress about the activities of the U.S.S. Pueblo, captured by North Korea, because telling the truth about their mission would have prevented the ship's release.

I don't think the public needs to know everything.

 

[whoknew]

1. What specific lie was made to Congress?2. What specific law has been broken?

Clapper specifically told Congress that the NSA was not collecting data on US citizens, did he not?

I don't know. Do you have a link? (Not challenging you on this; I honestly don't recall what he specifically said.)

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/this_man_is_still_lying_to_america/

OK thanks.

Well his excuse is weak. He obviously lied. I believe it is acceptable for those in charge of our national security to lie to the public (and Congress) at times. Here are some historical examples:

1. General George C. Marshall testified before Congress during the summer of 1941 that the United States was not coordinating military plans with England against Germany and Japan. This was an outright lie designed to appease the isolationists.

2. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State under Eisenhower, lied to Congress about U-2 planes spying over Russia and was forced to admit his lie when Francis Gary Powers was shot down.

3. Both LBJ and Nixon were forced to lie to Congress about the activities of the U.S.S. Pueblo, captured by North Korea, because telling the truth about their mission would have prevented the ship's release.

I don't think the public needs to know everything.

1. How do you determine which are good lies to congress and which are bad ones? Does Clapper's lie count as an acceptable one?

2. So Perjury is a crime for regular citizens but not gov't officials? What's the point of Congressional hearings held by elected officials? So prosecute Roger Clemens but give Clapper a pass?

 

[timschochet]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

Only in terms of mass searches, and in those cases I don't mind.But this doesn't need to apply to individual searches. Let's say that the local police are suspicious that you are a drug dealer. They can't just ask the NSA, "Let's have a look at Doug B's emails". They still need to get a warrant. And if they did attempt to use emails obtained without a warrant to prosecute you for a crime, the judge would throw it out. So I disagree with your entire premise. The 4th Amendment is as powerful as its ever been. It was never meant to apply to this sort of collective search through millions of emails, because such a thing wasn't possible before now.

How do you know that any of what you wrote is true? Pretty much everything the government has told you so far about the program has turned out to be a lie.

Which part of what I wrote is false? Are you suggesting that the government will start prosecuting people without obtaining legal warrants?

Do you really believe it impossible for something like the following to occur:

1. Tim suspected of X crime.

2. Local law enforcement calls up the NSA and says, "Hey, you know all that data you've been collecting? While, I need a "mass search" done to see if I can find a pattern on this guy Tim so I can obtain a search warrant"

3. NSA ponies up the data behind the scenes with a select few knowing.

4. Cops show up with a warrant to do a thorough search of Tim's house, car, work, technology and can OFFICIALLY go to the NSA and ask for the data.

5. Tim's screwed.

I believe this to be real. I believe it happens today. What's worse, the government has everyone believing that they have these programs to prevent terrorism so few question them. The worst of all is we can't question them to find out the truth. Why this isn't an issue for more people is beyond me. At this point my only recourse is to make sure I'm ok with whatever I put out on the internet because I have to assume someone is watching.

If that happens today (and I have no evidence of it, do you?) then it shouldn't.

As you correctly pointed out, the main element of a free society which operates under the rule of law is not the Constitution (which, in the final analysis, is only a piece of paper) but the willingness of the people to abide by it- specifically, judges. So long as we have an independent, honest judiciary (and I believe that for the most part we do), it will prevent the sort of thing you're talking about. Any judge worth their salt would look at the situation you described and throw out all evidence obtained as part of the "poison fruit", since it was illegally obtained in the first place. Does this happen every time? Probably not. I'm sure people can come up with anecdotes that show screw-ups or even deliberate misapplications of police power which are allowed by judges. Are these anecdotes enough to condemn the overall idea of what the NSA is doing? I don't believe they are.

This is what you don't get.....there isn't a way to prove it was obtained illegally if done correctly. I'm not talking about the times where a zealous cop does something stupid, it comes to light and is dismissed. I'm talking about the carefully orchestrated dance between local authorities and federal authorities. We know a substantial relationship exists between these groups just look how quickly the FBI, CIA etc got their hands on all the images from the cameras for the Boston Marathon bombings.

But I WANT that "substantial relationship" to exist. I have no evidence that anything illegal took place. Do you?

You mean besides the article cstu posted that you dismissed?

I try to read everything that's posted. Sometimes I miss one. I don't recall what you're referring to.

 

[Slapdash]

1. What specific lie was made to Congress?2. What specific law has been broken?

Clapper specifically told Congress that the NSA was not collecting data on US citizens, did he not?

I don't know. Do you have a link? (Not challenging you on this; I honestly don't recall what he specifically said.)

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/this_man_is_still_lying_to_america/

OK thanks.

Well his excuse is weak. He obviously lied. I believe it is acceptable for those in charge of our national security to lie to the public (and Congress) at times. Here are some historical examples:

1. General George C. Marshall testified before Congress during the summer of 1941 that the United States was not coordinating military plans with England against Germany and Japan. This was an outright lie designed to appease the isolationists.

2. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State under Eisenhower, lied to Congress about U-2 planes spying over Russia and was forced to admit his lie when Francis Gary Powers was shot down.

3. Both LBJ and Nixon were forced to lie to Congress about the activities of the U.S.S. Pueblo, captured by North Korea, because telling the truth about their mission would have prevented the ship's release.

I don't think the public needs to know everything.

Gov't officials lying to Congress is completely unacceptable, no matter their justification.

 

[Slapdash]

You mean besides the article cstu posted that you dismissed?

I try to read everything that's posted. Sometimes I miss one. I don't recall what you're referring to.

You responded to it.

 

[timschochet]

@AP: NSA collected thousands of US internet communications over 3 years with no terror connection.

Here is the full piece:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nations' top intelligence official is declassifying three secret U.S. court opinions showing how the National Security Agency scooped up as many as 56,000 emails annually over three years and other communications by Americans with no connection to terrorism, how it revealed the error to the court and changed how it gathered Internet communications.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper authorized the release Wednesday.

The opinions show that when the NSA reported to the court in 2011 that it was inadvertently collecting as many as 56,000 Internet communications by Americans with no connection to terrorism, the court ordered the NSA to find ways to limit what it collects and how long it keeps it.

This last part seems to contradict what many of you have been reporting. You guys have implied that the NSA is out of control, not limiting what it collects, and keeping it forever, without any kind of supervision. I'd like to hear more, but hopefully this will show that you guys have been wrong all along.

 

[RCon]

1. What specific lie was made to Congress?2. What specific law has been broken?

Clapper specifically told Congress that the NSA was not collecting data on US citizens, did he not?

I don't know. Do you have a link? (Not challenging you on this; I honestly don't recall what he specifically said.)

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/this_man_is_still_lying_to_america/

OK thanks.

Well his excuse is weak. He obviously lied. I believe it is acceptable for those in charge of our national security to lie to the public (and Congress) at times. Here are some historical examples:

1. General George C. Marshall testified before Congress during the summer of 1941 that the United States was not coordinating military plans with England against Germany and Japan. This was an outright lie designed to appease the isolationists.

2. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State under Eisenhower, lied to Congress about U-2 planes spying over Russia and was forced to admit his lie when Francis Gary Powers was shot down.

3. Both LBJ and Nixon were forced to lie to Congress about the activities of the U.S.S. Pueblo, captured by North Korea, because telling the truth about their mission would have prevented the ship's release.

I don't think the public needs to know everything.

In other words, the ends justify the means as long as you agree with the ends.

In your defense, I suppose perjury is fairly minor compared to trampling the Constitution in the first place.

 

[timschochet]

1. What specific lie was made to Congress?2. What specific law has been broken?

Clapper specifically told Congress that the NSA was not collecting data on US citizens, did he not?

I don't know. Do you have a link? (Not challenging you on this; I honestly don't recall what he specifically said.)

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/this_man_is_still_lying_to_america/

OK thanks.

Well his excuse is weak. He obviously lied. I believe it is acceptable for those in charge of our national security to lie to the public (and Congress) at times. Here are some historical examples:

1. General George C. Marshall testified before Congress during the summer of 1941 that the United States was not coordinating military plans with England against Germany and Japan. This was an outright lie designed to appease the isolationists.

2. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State under Eisenhower, lied to Congress about U-2 planes spying over Russia and was forced to admit his lie when Francis Gary Powers was shot down.

3. Both LBJ and Nixon were forced to lie to Congress about the activities of the U.S.S. Pueblo, captured by North Korea, because telling the truth about their mission would have prevented the ship's release.

I don't think the public needs to know everything.

Gov't officials lying to Congress is completely unacceptable, no matter their justification.

That's your opinion. Obviously, given the examples I listed, I disagree with you.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I believe it is acceptable for those in charge of our national security to lie to the public (and Congress) at times. Here are some historical examples:

 

[Slapdash]

1. What specific lie was made to Congress?2. What specific law has been broken?

Clapper specifically told Congress that the NSA was not collecting data on US citizens, did he not?

I don't know. Do you have a link? (Not challenging you on this; I honestly don't recall what he specifically said.)

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/this_man_is_still_lying_to_america/

OK thanks.

Well his excuse is weak. He obviously lied. I believe it is acceptable for those in charge of our national security to lie to the public (and Congress) at times. Here are some historical examples:

1. General George C. Marshall testified before Congress during the summer of 1941 that the United States was not coordinating military plans with England against Germany and Japan. This was an outright lie designed to appease the isolationists.

2. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State under Eisenhower, lied to Congress about U-2 planes spying over Russia and was forced to admit his lie when Francis Gary Powers was shot down.

3. Both LBJ and Nixon were forced to lie to Congress about the activities of the U.S.S. Pueblo, captured by North Korea, because telling the truth about their mission would have prevented the ship's release.

I don't think the public needs to know everything.

Gov't officials lying to Congress is completely unacceptable, no matter their justification.

That's your opinion. Obviously, given the examples I listed, I disagree with you.

Right. You are OK with a totalitarian government. I'm not.

 

[drummer]

@AP: NSA collected thousands of US internet communications over 3 years with no terror connection.

Here is the full piece:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nations' top intelligence official is declassifying three secret U.S. court opinions showing how the National Security Agency scooped up as many as 56,000 emails annually over three years and other communications by Americans with no connection to terrorism, how it revealed the error to the court and changed how it gathered Internet communications.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper authorized the release Wednesday.

The opinions show that when the NSA reported to the court in 2011 that it was inadvertently collecting as many as 56,000 Internet communications by Americans with no connection to terrorism, the court ordered the NSA to find ways to limit what it collects and how long it keeps it.

This last part seems to contradict what many of you have been reporting. You guys have implied that the NSA is out of control, not limiting what it collects, and keeping it forever, without any kind of supervision. I'd like to hear more, but hopefully this will show that you guys have been wrong all along.

Do you just argue against the text provided from other posters? Is there a way for you to actually research topics yourself?

Or doing your own research is not your game?

 

[Slapdash]

@AP: NSA collected thousands of US internet communications over 3 years with no terror connection.

Here is the full piece:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nations' top intelligence official is declassifying three secret U.S. court opinions showing how the National Security Agency scooped up as many as 56,000 emails annually over three years and other communications by Americans with no connection to terrorism, how it revealed the error to the court and changed how it gathered Internet communications.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper authorized the release Wednesday.

The opinions show that when the NSA reported to the court in 2011 that it was inadvertently collecting as many as 56,000 Internet communications by Americans with no connection to terrorism, the court ordered the NSA to find ways to limit what it collects and how long it keeps it.

This last part seems to contradict what many of you have been reporting. You guys have implied that the NSA is out of control, not limiting what it collects, and keeping it forever, without any kind of supervision. I'd like to hear more, but hopefully this will show that you guys have been wrong all along.

 

[whoknew]

So Tim - now that we all agree Clapper lied to Congress, can you answer this:

While you may believe that, we KNOW they lie to Congress. And therefore, the people who are "on your side" and are trying to fight terrorism, break the laws they are supposed to uphold.

If laws are only as good as the people living under/by them - what does it mean when those people who are supposed to live by them, break those laws?

 

[Politician Spock]

We're going around and around in the same circle here, and we're not getting anywhere.

Do you really believe you can convince people to see it your way?

Or are you admitting you are willing to budge?

Let's make it abundantly clear here, absent a constitutional amendment specifically making what the government is doing legal, nothing you say will ever convince me what the government is doing is legal. And I refuse to accept the argument others are making that laws are pointless because the Federal government is more powerful than law.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Or doing your own research is not your game?

Tim NEVER does his own research. The closest thing you'll get from him is that he heard some unknown radio person talk about something. And he's often ignorant of the topic being discussed. I mean, in this very thread at this stage he claimed ignorance about whether the NSA lied to congress. I'd be embarrassed if I were Tim given how often he's caught with that level of ignorance. So no, he does not do any research and even when others do it for him he'll forget the things they prove to him.

 

[Politician Spock]

I believe it is acceptable for those in charge of our national security to lie to the public (and Congress) at times. Here are some historical examples:

OMG!!!



Ok... I admit, it's worth it to engage with Tim when it produces these little nuggets of golden humor.

 

[Doug B]

Gov't officials lying to Congress is completely unacceptable, no matter their justification.

That's fine, but this particular barn door has been open since the founding of the Republic. Any punishment meted out against Clapper will essentially be for show.

 

[RCon]

Gov't officials lying to Congress is completely unacceptable, no matter their justification.

That's fine, but this particular barn door has been open since the founding of the Republic. Any punishment meted out against Clapper will essentially be for show.

And there's the problem. Throw Clapper in jail for 20 years and maybe the next guy won't lie.

It's kind of like the big banks ripping off consumers for $10 billion, then getting a $500 million fine. People argue that the system just can't prevent such abuses when that's patently and obviously false. Throw the CEO of Goldman or the director of the NSA or even the POTUS in jail, and see how often it happens again.

 

[Slapdash]

Gov't officials lying to Congress is completely unacceptable, no matter their justification.

That's fine, but this particular barn door has been open since the founding of the Republic. Any punishment meted out against Clapper will essentially be for show.

It isn't a republic if the government lies to the representatives of the people.

 

[Slapdash]

Gov't officials lying to Congress is completely unacceptable, no matter their justification.

That's fine, but this particular barn door has been open since the founding of the Republic. Any punishment meted out against Clapper will essentially be for show.

And there's the problem. Throw Clapper in jail for 20 years and maybe the next guy won't lie.

It's kind of like the big banks ripping off consumers for $10 billion, then getting a $500 million fine. People argue that the system just can't prevent such abuses when that's patently and obviously false. Throw the CEO of Goldman or the director of the NSA or even the POTUS in jail, and see how often it happens again.

 

[Politician Spock]

Gov't officials lying to Congress is completely unacceptable, no matter their justification.

That's fine, but this particular barn door has been open since the founding of the Republic. Any punishment meted out against Clapper will essentially be for show.

Add him to the list of convicts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

No one is too big to jail.

 

[Doug B]

That's fine, but this particular barn door has been open since the founding of the Republic. Any punishment meted out against Clapper will essentially be for show.

And there's the problem. Throw Clapper in jail for 20 years and maybe the next guy won't lie.

Clapper (or, really, the quasi-governmental organization he represents) has a lot more stroke than any U.S. court.

Even with a long jail sentence, though ... the next guy will obviously lie. That's the job.

 

[drummer]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/feds-spending-over-5-1m-on-facial-recognition-surveillance-program/

 

[Doug B]

It isn't a republic if the government lies to the representatives of the people.

Then we may no longer be living under the Platonic ideal of a republican government. Your point is certainly granted.

 

[timschochet]

That's fine, but this particular barn door has been open since the founding of the Republic. Any punishment meted out against Clapper will essentially be for show.

And there's the problem. Throw Clapper in jail for 20 years and maybe the next guy won't lie.

Clapper (or, really, the quasi-governmental organization he represents) has a lot more stroke than any U.S. court.

Even with a long jail sentence, though ... the next guy will obviously lie. That's the job.

Forget it. You're arguing with dreamers. I respect their idealism, but it's both impractical and naive.

 

[Politician Spock]

It isn't a republic if the government lies to the representatives of the people.

Then we may no longer be living under the Platonic ideal of a republican government. Your point is certainly granted.

Do you want that?

Honest question.

 

[Doug B]

Gov't officials lying to Congress is completely unacceptable, no matter their justification.

That's fine, but this particular barn door has been open since the founding of the Republic. Any punishment meted out against Clapper will essentially be for show.

Add him to the list of convicts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

No one is too big to jail.

Clapper is not what I'd call a "politician". The NSA (or deeper organization) may choose to hang Clapper out to dry for their own reasons, but they've got the power to keep him out of the truly deep water.

Too big to jail? The truly powerful never even face charges

 

[Doug B]

Do you want that?Honest question.

Of course not. But what I want hardly matters.

 

[Politician Spock]

Gov't officials lying to Congress is completely unacceptable, no matter their justification.

That's fine, but this particular barn door has been open since the founding of the Republic. Any punishment meted out against Clapper will essentially be for show.

Add him to the list of convicts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

No one is too big to jail.

Clapper is not what I'd call a "politician". The NSA (or deeper organization) may choose to hang Clapper out to dry for their own reasons, but they've got the power to keep him out of the truly deep water.

Too big to jail? The truly powerful never even face charges

Above the law?

 

[Slapdash]

That's fine, but this particular barn door has been open since the founding of the Republic. Any punishment meted out against Clapper will essentially be for show.

And there's the problem. Throw Clapper in jail for 20 years and maybe the next guy won't lie.

Clapper (or, really, the quasi-governmental organization he represents) has a lot more stroke than any U.S. court.

Even with a long jail sentence, though ... the next guy will obviously lie. That's the job.

Forget it. You're arguing with dreamers. I respect their idealism, but it's both impractical and naive.

Expecting the government to adhere to the laws of the land is not idealism.

 

[timschochet]

It isn't a republic if the government lies to the representatives of the people.

Then we may no longer be living under the Platonic ideal of a republican government. Your point is certainly granted.

no longer? We never have. But we don't live in a dictatorship either. There are exceptions to every rule. We live MOSTLY in a republican government with some exceptions made in the name of national security, but not nearly enough to threaten our libertarian institutions. Some people will never accept this, but it's true just the same.

 

[Politician Spock]

Do you want that?

Honest question.

Of course not.

I find that hard to believe after reading many of your posts. You seem to desire that people accept this reality and stop arguing against it. To me that is wanting it.

 

[drummer]

Or doing your own research is not your game?

Tim NEVER does his own research. The closest thing you'll get from him is that he heard some unknown radio person talk about something. And he's often ignorant of the topic being discussed. I mean, in this very thread at this stage he claimed ignorance about whether the NSA lied to congress. I'd be embarrassed if I were Tim given how often he's caught with that level of ignorance. So no, he does not do any research and even when others do it for him he'll forget the things they prove to him.

So in essence, most who argue with tim are arguing with an idiot. Nicely played tim.

 

[Doug B]

Above the law?

Sure.

 

[Doug B]

Expecting the government to adhere to the laws of the land is not idealism.

Depends how perfect the adherence must be to count. We're dealing with corruptible huimans here.

That said, things go south in a hurry if the government just abandons law chaotically.

 

[Daywalker]

Cnn.com, foxnews.com and drudge? Hard to find a Manning story. Bbc.com? Lead story.

 

[Politician Spock]

Above the law?

Sure.

So those who talk about things like a "secret government", "elite that run the country", and "illuminati" are right. Perhaps the words they choose aren't exact matches, but the "power" they are talking about does exist.

I don't want to believe that.

Do you want me to believe that?

 

[Doug B]

I find that hard to believe after reading many of your posts. You seem to desire that people accept this reality and stop arguing against it. To me that is wanting it.

I don't mind if other people argue about it. Especially as a philosophical exercise.

 

[Slapdash]

Expecting the government to adhere to the laws of the land is not idealism.

Depends how perfect the adherence must be to count. We're dealing with corruptible huimans here.

That said, things go south in a hurry if the government just abandons law chaotically.

Of course. I would argue though that bold is what is happening with regards to the [SIZE=10.5pt]surveillance state. [/SIZE]

 

[RCon]

That's fine, but this particular barn door has been open since the founding of the Republic. Any punishment meted out against Clapper will essentially be for show.

And there's the problem. Throw Clapper in jail for 20 years and maybe the next guy won't lie.

Clapper (or, really, the quasi-governmental organization he represents) has a lot more stroke than any U.S. court.

Even with a long jail sentence, though ... the next guy will obviously lie. That's the job.

Forget it. You're arguing with dreamers. I respect their idealism, but it's both impractical and naive.

They said the same thing about Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin, etc.

 

[Politician Spock]

That's fine, but this particular barn door has been open since the founding of the Republic. Any punishment meted out against Clapper will essentially be for show.

And there's the problem. Throw Clapper in jail for 20 years and maybe the next guy won't lie.

Clapper (or, really, the quasi-governmental organization he represents) has a lot more stroke than any U.S. court.

Even with a long jail sentence, though ... the next guy will obviously lie. That's the job.

Forget it. You're arguing with dreamers. I respect their idealism, but it's both impractical and naive.

They said the same thing about Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin, etc.

They = King George III

 

[Doug B]

Do you want me to believe that?

Believe what you like.

 

[RCon]

Expecting the government to adhere to the laws of the land is not idealism.

Depends how perfect the adherence must be to count. We're dealing with corruptible huimans here.

That said, things go south in a hurry if the government just abandons law chaotically.

Of course. I would argue though that bold is what is happening with regards to the [SIZE=10.5pt]surveillance state. [/SIZE]

It's not chaotic at all. It's very deliberate and intentional. But yes, portions of the government are clearly at the point where they just ignore whatever laws they find inconvenient at the time.

 

[Politician Spock]

Do you want me to believe that?

Believe what you like.

I'm trying to understand what YOU want me to believe.

 

[Doug B]

Of course. I would argue though that bold is what is happening with regards to the [SIZE=10.5pt]surveillance state. [/SIZE]

I wouldn't call it "chaotic" yet -- the range of laws broken is still narrowly-focused.

Doesn't make it right, of course. I'm just applying a pedantic description. But as of now, the general rule of law in American society still functions (e.g. we'd still call the cops to report a robbery wihtout fear that the cops would shake us down for money once they arrived).

 

[Politician Spock]

Of course. I would argue though that bold is what is happening with regards to the surveillance state.

I wouldn't call it "chaotic" yet -- the range of laws broken is still narrowly-focused.

Doesn't make it right, of course. I'm just applying a pedantic description. But as of now, the general rule of law in American society still functions (e.g. we'd still call the cops to report a robbery wihtout fear that the cops would shake us down for money once they arrived).

As long as we aren't calling the cops to report that someone who is above the law has committed a robbery.

 

[Doug B]

As long as we aren't calling the cops to report that someone who is above the law has committed a robbery.

Touche.