Checks and Balances

[GGT]

Differences lie between laws as written, the spirit or intent of those laws, how they're interpreted or applied, and by whom.

The Citizens United decision only made things worse.

[Dreadnaught]

Nonsense.

[Loki]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...lances/276596/

An actual case of checks and balances totally failing. And more evidence of hope and change of course.

[GGT]

Symptoms of the Patriot Act, proposed during the Bush administration, approved and legislated by congress, continued into the Obama administration....with intelligence and security congressional committees fully briefed, and FISA judges giving legal warrants.

[Loki]

Because clearly Obama has no ability to stop using it or to stop expanding it. It's all Bush's fault!

[Lewkowski]

Because clearly Obama has no ability to stop using it or to stop expanding it. It's all Bush's fault!

Didn't the Democrats control the house and Senate during parts of the Obama administration?

[Veldan Rath]

And Bush?

[Loki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us...-calls.html?hp

Even more hope and change.

[GGT]

Are you guys seriously claiming you never knew about any top-secret "Classified" special operations within our government/military? All approved by Legislative and Judicial branches? Jeez, this stuff goes back to (at least) the 70's, including Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC)....

After 9/11, the creation of Homeland Security and passage of the Patriot Act, the Executive (Bush) used broad and vague definitions to conduct warrantless wiretaps, leading to creation of FISA (foreign intelligence surveillance act) with special courts and judges to oversee the process. None of this happened without oversight from senate/house special committees (Judiciary, Intelligence, National Security).

There are questions about criteria used to appoint these FISA judges, how things are "Classified" or de-Classified (and by which agency), and if pertinent information wasn't getting its way to non-committee congress members....but none of this stuff happened in a vacuum, or by Executive powers alone.

It's interesting to watch the partisan hyper-spin. People who previously defended the Bush administration policies are now shocked to learn the Obama administration is more like Bush-lite than the SSSocialist, military dove they warned against, with apoplectic fervor.

[Loki]

Only you can turn a blatant infringement of our rights into evidence for Obama not being socialist.

[GGT]

Only you can turn a blatant infringement of our rights into evidence for Obama not being socialist.

That's the hyper-partisan spin I meant. That gets people hung up on (R) or (D), President X or Y, and detracts from debating the larger issues and principles.

[Enoch the Red]

That's the hyper-partisan spin I meant. That gets people hung up on (R) or (D), President X or Y, and detracts from debating the larger issues and principles.

Fine, ignore the (R) and (D) and President X. Are these the principles you want our government to have? Are you outraged that this government is essentially running round the clock surveillance on every person in this country? And why do I have a sneaking suspicion we are seeing less outrage from many who were yelling the loudest just a few years ago because the person with the keys has a (D) in front of their name instead of an (R)?

Here's some bipartisan spin for you. The issues and principles at stake have everything to do with a large and powerful government, not the person in power at any given moment.

[GGT]

Fine, ignore the (R) and (D) and President X. Are these the principles you want our government to have? Are you outraged that this government is essentially running round the clock surveillance on every person in this country? And why do I have a sneaking suspicion we are seeing less outrage from many who were yelling the loudest just a few years ago because the person with the keys has a (D) in front of their name instead of an (R)?

Actually, I'm disappointed that our modern political era still has overtones of J. Edgar Hoover and McCarthy.

Any outrage by senate/house members has less to do with which political party tag is next to their name, since "liberals" and "libertarians" share complaints on violations of civil liberties and privacy. How inconvenient for the party machinery, eh?

Here's some bipartisan spin for you. The issues and principles at stake have everything to do with a large and powerful government, not the person in power at any given moment.

We agree that privacy and civil rights are valuable principles. So is national security and military defense. Those values are constantly in flux, pulling and tugging at each other, trying to find proper balance and equilibrium.

But I don't automatically blame conflicts in those principles as failures of a "large and powerful government", or any POTUS. IMO our dysfunctions can be traced back to those who control the process of political power, with money being the most important factor.

That means 'the issues and principles at stake' also include large and powerful industries, corporate lobbyists, PACs, and their wealthy donors.

[Veldan Rath]

You are gonna make the leap of NSA overreach to lobbyists and NOT Big Government?

It's government hacks grabbing more and more power, are you so entrenched in your view of bigger is better no matter what?

[Enoch the Red]

You are gonna make the leap of NSA overreach to lobbyists and NOT Big Government?

It's government hacks grabbing more and more power, are you so entrenched in your view of bigger is better no matter what?

I think we're just rehashing old ground here. To us it's fairly obvious that crony capitalism, lobbyists, and powerful private interests are a problem. However, they are a problem because we have a government that is big and powerful enough to make lobbying them worthwhile. If the government didn't have the money, authority, and power that it currently holds there would be a much smaller incentive to lobby them, much less money in politics, and an electorate that might not be terrified of what would happen if the other guy wins.

I believe this is a point that is made at every juncture, but each time seems to be either glossed over or ignored.

[Loki]

If only the government was more powerful, none of this would be a problem.

[Aimless]

That means 'the issues and principles at stake' also include large and powerful industries, corporate lobbyists, PACs, and their wealthy donors.

What do any of those actors have to do with overreach and general scumminess of US intelligence agencies? If you want to place the blame anywhere, lay it at the feet of the majority of voters who most likely feel all of this is perfectly acceptable behaviour from their government.

[GGT]

I think we're just rehashing old ground here. To us it's fairly obvious that crony capitalism, lobbyists, and powerful private interests are a problem.

However, they are a problem because we have a government that is big and powerful enough to make lobbying them worthwhile.

This is like playing checkers. Or the chicken/egg "which came first" game.

We are a large nation with a large population, covering millions of square miles, cultures and immigrants. Never mind that we began by slaughtering indigenous natives (genocide) or exploiting human slavery (as an economic 'trade industry'). Our democratic republic was meant to create a more perfect union.

If the government didn't have the money, authority, and power that it currently holds there would be a much smaller incentive to lobby them, much less money in politics, and an electorate that might not be terrified of what would happen if the other guy wins.

Sure, yet even "small government" proponents put a high priority on national defense and public security. It's a constitutional requirement, after all.

I believe this is a point that is made at every juncture, but each time seems to be either glossed over or ignored.

If you mean this forum (or me in particular) that's utter Nonsense. Most of our debates & discussions are about private/public, cost/benefit ratios, defining and weighting fundamental principles, and applying theories or policies, using context.

[Loki]

What do any of those actors have to do with overreach and general scumminess of US intelligence agencies? If you want to place the blame anywhere, lay it at the feet of the majority of voters who most likely feel all of this is perfectly acceptable behaviour from their government.

It's acceptable only if a Democrat is in power.

[Flixy]

It's acceptable only if a Democrat is in power.

Seems like it's that way for one half of the people, and the reverse for the other half... let's be honest, quite a lot of pundits who are complaining now supported the Patriot Act, at least now we also see a lot of lefties complaining too.

Either way, it's a program started under Bush, continued under Obama, and overseen by Congress (with members from both parties), and rubberstamped by the court, so it seems like a perfect bi-partisan effort, sanctioned by all three branches of government. So I think Aimless isn't all wrong where he places the blame. To blame this on any party seems utterly ridiculous to me. Besides, it seems like it was according to the law, which means it was a) passed by a majority b) public record - not the program itself, but the laws that allow it are. So that's what you get for ignoring the criticism about the constitutionality and privacy concerns back when the law was enacted, I suppose.

Though in all honesty I do think it's funny that the guy who introduced the law that allows this in the first place is also very much against background checks if you want to buy a gun. Oh, the irony..

[Loki]

Not that I'm doing much TV news-watching, but I certainly don't see too much of a big deal being made about this. I can't imagine the same would be true if Bush was president.

[Veldan Rath]

The lack of concerted media response suprises you?

[Ominous Gamer]

Its front page news on my local paper, but its been established that loki's world is slightly off from the real world.

[earthJoker]

Well the lack of interest of the US people made it to the front pages here.

[Enoch the Red]

Its front page news on my local paper, but its been established that loki's world is slightly off from the real world.

I don't think Loki is saying that it hasn't made the news, just that the tenor and direction of the conversation isn't exactly what one would expect given the scale of the disclosures. I don't think it's unhealthy to ask if that might be partly rooted in the politics of the situation.

[Loki]

Ditto.

[Aimless]

Is this NSA leak at all comparable to the Bradley Manning/Wikileaks incidents wrt tone of media coverage?

[Ominous Gamer]

I don't think Loki is saying that it hasn't made the news, just that the tenor and direction of the conversation isn't exactly what one would expect given the scale of the disclosures. I don't think it's unhealthy to ask if that might be partly rooted in the politics of the situation.

I think it has more to do with exhaustion and that no one was honestly surprised. This is something that's been talked about for at least the past 6-7 years when 2 AT&T whistleblowers came forward, and that timeline went back to 2002.

[earthJoker]

The term that the Swiss paper used to describe the public US opinion was "resignation".

[LittleFuzzy]

Yeah. The NSA vacuuming up data, even domestic data, is not exactly fresh news. It wasn't even particularly surprising news way back when. People do still remember Carnivore right? And that was the FBI, which is way, way behind the NSA when it comes to intercepting.