Skip to main content

View Diary: Shameless Full Court Press by NSA, DNI, & FISA Court to Stop Reform (88 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  How would they know that? (19+ / 0-)

      I mean, really, almost by definition there is no way to even answer that . . ..

    •  We were appalled by these programs in W/Cheney (38+ / 0-)

      years.  We will be equally appalled by these programs when, as is virtually inevitable, the GOP regains the WH some time down the road.  I don't understand, accordingly, why there is any debate about them now.

      Imagine any surveillance program in the hands of Christie before you start defending it.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 10:16:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  who's to say "we" really were? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sweatyb, Tony Situ

        I was appalled by the fact that Bush and Cheney deliberately said the FISA law didn't apply and tried to get an unconscious John Ashcroft to overrule a lucid Jim Comey who said no.  An admittedly aggressive reading of the FISA amendments (which Obama supported, and where the big debate on the left was really over after-the-fact telco immunity), doesn't rise to the same level, whatever one's opinion on what is/should be legal.  The data collection itself was always too abstract, at least for me.  If anything, it seemed like a waste of time before that it doesn't as much now, having seen strides made in data analytics.   The legal foundations are apples and oranges, though, so you only get to hypocrisy by pretending such arguments never existed.

        Christie running a program with even limited court oversight worries me less than Christie in charge of the IRS, FBI, or the NTSB.  It's an argument to be more, not less partisan.  

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 11:05:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  yes, integrity check (14+ / 0-)

        I despised the programs during the Bush/Cheney admin, and I still despise them with the Obama admin. They remain loathsome no matter who's in office. Is our constitution just lip service for propaganda or does it actually mean something?

        "Watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, fanatical, criminal..."-7.75, -5.54

        by solesse413 on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 12:09:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  None of our Founding Documents... (15+ / 0-)

          ... US Constitution or Bill of Rights, provides for secret courts, secret legal opinions, wiretaps without probable cause and a proper search warrant that defines where and what is to be searched - or spied upon in the case of electronic communications.  Even that could not be done without probable cause of criminal wrongdoing - at least not before the AUMFs, Patriot Acts, MCA '06, FISA fiasco '08, or MCA '09; the 'office of faith-based initiatives' is also unconstitutional because it's run out of the White House and gives a toe in the door to set up a national religion to be forced down everyone's throat (precisely why my earliest colonial ancestors left England and came to these shores, as a matter of fact; I do genealogy research and the historical data I've found for my New England ancestors isn't anything remotely like the reichwingnuttia fiction and historical revisionism).

          The word "secret" is NOT found in the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights (nor in the Declaration of Independence; I checked that one, too, altho that is a list of grievances and wrongdoings perpetrated by the crown against the citizens of England living in the colonies, which became the justification for the Revolutionary War, and not a founding document for our form of government per se).  The word "secrecy" is found once - in the Constitution - Article I [Legislative branch], Section 5, third paragraph:

          Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
          Torture and coercion are expressly forbidden in more than one amendment, as well as several treaties which are 'the law of the land.'

          Otherwise, we were meant to have a free, transparent, open society with all laws clearly stated (no bleeping loopholes!).  I concede some confidential information needs to be kept that way during times of legally declared and justifiable war (WWII is the last justified war in which the US was involved; all others after that have been illegal and unconstitutional).  Once the conflict is all over, those documents need to be released to the public for historians to read and research.

          To answer your question, yes, our Constitution is now "just lip service for propaganda," and until or unless our Cretinous Congress Critters repeal in full all of the illegal legislation they passed to take away our rights (not merely fix a paragraph or two here or there), and remove corporations from various governmental departments, we are a fascist nation in all but name.

          You are correct.  All of these things were abhorrent, illegal, and unconstitutional when Dumbya & Dickie were in office, and they continue to be abhorrent, illegal, and unconstitutional now that Obama is president.  I knew he was too naive and inexperienced to be a good leader, but I did hope he'd turn this country around once he got into office.  I was sorely disappointed when he followed in Dumbya and Dickie's footsteps and retained the Bushista people to run the same departments that kept us in the wars he promised to end, but are still going on.  I continue to be ashamed and embarrassed to have to call myself an American.

          I don't really give a flying fart who holds our elected offices or which political party they belong to... if our "elected leaders" violate our Constitution and the Bill of Rights and set up all sorts of illegal and unconstitutional "secret" doings, and don't give us back our rights, and as long as we tolerate such illegal and unconstitutional actions, then we have devolved into a third-world fascist nation run by corporations and the military-industrial complex.

          The only glimmer of hope I hold out is that our illustrious whistleblowers (and Jesselyn is one of them) information will somehow get past the media propaganda and start sinking into the minds of the general population which I could hope would get our legislators to repeal all the bad laws and get this country back to being an ethical, moral, law-abiding nation again.

          I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

          by NonnyO on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 01:25:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  And let's face "it" which is the core of any (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        maryabein, NonnyO, gerrilea

        rationalization for secret laws, with secret courts and the requisite expedient and unfettered power, and "it" is:

        OUR POST-NUKE WORLD

        But let's take this assumption to it's logical conclusion which is a dictatorship or plutocracy is better than a bona fide democracy to protect ourselves.

        BUT HOLD ON THERE!  

        Open up our history books and we can see unified and consolidated power does not beget regard for human life for those who are not the power elite (e.g., the 1%).

        SO, ISN'T IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A REAL OPEN DEMOCRACY WITH PUBLIC LAWS FOR ALL AND DUE PROCESS ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION?


        Do expect less is just lazy and/or corrupt IMHO.

        Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

        by Einsteinia on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 12:23:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site