Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   FISA judge orders declassification of secret court opinions justifying constitutionality of NSA surveillance programs   (theguardian.com) divider line 166
    More: Spiffy, FISA, NSA, secret polices, constitutionality, declassification, Jameel Jaffer, southern district  
•       •       •

2019 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Sep 2013 at 7:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



166 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-14 11:06:13 PM  
Next week's headline: FISA judge found dead from multiple self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the back of the head from a double-action revolver and/or bolt-action rifle.
 
2013-09-14 11:24:08 PM  
$20 says he wants to clear the court and show the NSA violated their order(s).

CYA all the way.
 
2013-09-14 11:28:39 PM  
He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

i1.kym-cdn.com

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?
 
2013-09-14 11:44:05 PM  

Honest Bender: WTF? How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?


Well, I'm incredibly glad he did what he did. I WANT to know when my government is f*cking me over. However, I still want to see him tried and convicted just like Manning. They did break the law, but I'm glad both of them did it. With Manning, you saw how the government covers up war crimes (accidents *cough* *cough*) and how our diplomatic cables show we act like complete assholes in a lot of ways. We knew that, but it's nice to see the proof and remind some of the wet brains from time to time, even if they won't listen.

They violated MAJOR secrecy laws. When I got my TS/SCI clearance, they investigated everything about me and then I had to sit down with some fat dude from OPM and tell him all my deepest darkest secrets. People who violate those laws have gotten lots of people killed.

However, especially in the Snowden case, and less so in the Manning case, these were not attempts to harm but inform the public about what violent and powerful men do in the middle of the night on our behalf. Some thing I'm ok not knowing about. Using our own foreign intelligence gathering assets on you and me with absolutely no cause? No. I want to know about that and I'm glad it happened.

Him going to Russia has made it a lot harder to make it a case that he was looking out for America, though. They get to use a lot of propaganda against him.

Will people get harmed by these two data leaks? I'm pretty sure they have. But the alternative is not knowing and that is a far greater crime.
 
2013-09-15 03:07:46 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Honest Bender: WTF? How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?

Well, I'm incredibly glad he did what he did. I WANT to know when my government is f*cking me over. However, I still want to see him tried and convicted just like Manning. They did break the law, but I'm glad both of them did it. With Manning, you saw how the government covers up war crimes (accidents *cough* *cough*) and how our diplomatic cables show we act like complete assholes in a lot of ways. We knew that, but it's nice to see the proof and remind some of the wet brains from time to time, even if they won't listen.

They violated MAJOR secrecy laws. When I got my TS/SCI clearance, they investigated everything about me and then I had to sit down with some fat dude from OPM and tell him all my deepest darkest secrets. People who violate those laws have gotten lots of people killed.

However, especially in the Snowden case, and less so in the Manning case, these were not attempts to harm but inform the public about what violent and powerful men do in the middle of the night on our behalf. Some thing I'm ok not knowing about. Using our own foreign intelligence gathering assets on you and me with absolutely no cause? No. I want to know about that and I'm glad it happened.

Him going to Russia has made it a lot harder to make it a case that he was looking out for America, though. They get to use a lot of propaganda against him.

Will people get harmed by these two data leaks? I'm pretty sure they have. But the alternative is not knowing and that is a far greater crime.


No law was broken. What part of "Congress shall make NO law" don't you people understand? Anybody who gets killed as a result of these leaks is doing something worthy of death to begin with... good riddance to them.
 
2013-09-15 03:52:55 AM  
Hero?

Judge is doing his damn job

/we attach hero to Garbagemen, so that word is about as useless as "racist"
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-15 07:44:04 AM  
Honest Bender:

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional.  That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.
 
2013-09-15 07:47:02 AM  

vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional


Who are they to make such a decision?
 
2013-09-15 07:51:08 AM  
If good reform ever makes it through this mile deep quagmire of shiat,

the butthurt from the "Snowden is teh Satan!" people is going to be absolutely delicious.


/Yeah, he broke the rules. But if you want to make an omelet....
//I'll take a crime of truth by an individual over a crime of deception by my government ANY day of the week.
 
2013-09-15 08:13:26 AM  

DrPainMD: derpderpderp


Why is it so many Republicans seem to be sociopaths?
 
2013-09-15 08:19:20 AM  
This is a big step. Having secret courts rule on what's legal or not is no way to run a democracy. Or a republic, for all of you pedants out there.
 
2013-09-15 08:24:25 AM  

vpb: That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.


Actually, I would have thought a lot more of Snowden had he just revealed domestic spying activities. 

In that sense, I've come to the conclusion that he's something we needed. That needed to be thrown back in our faces, as I've made the point time and time again we allowed a continual slide into what we have today through our apathy and fear of "terrorism" over the last decade+.

That said, the point I stopped respecting him is the point that foreign intelligence operations and espionage operations against foreign countries also were leaked.
 
2013-09-15 08:27:26 AM  

MurphyMurphy: If good reform ever makes it through this mile deep quagmire of shiat,

the butthurt from the "Snowden is teh Satan!" people is going to be absolutely delicious.


/Yeah, he broke the rules. But if you want to make an omelet....
//I'll take a crime of truth by an individual over a crime of deception by my government ANY day of the week.


Nothing is delicious about any of this.  Anybody who delights in any of this is yet another consumer of bullsh*t.  you can be as outraged as you want, but typically, the more outraged you are, the more full of sh*t you are.  Here's the truth of the matter:

*  The NSA is a bloated, redundant, obsolete government program.
*  They are aware of this
*  Everybody with a brain assumed this
*  The fact that they hired a complete imbecile like Snowden without vetting him is evidence of this
*  The fact that they invented top secret yet wasteful programs to keep the imbeciles they hired busy, only to fill their vicious cycle of a funding quota is evidence of this
*  Everybody with a brain has been vindicated
*  The NSA is finally getting the scrutiny it deserves
*  So will the PATRIOT Act

 If you get all emotional about any particular player in this fiasco being a hero or a villain, you're missing the point.  This is a simple case of the system finding waste, fraud and abuse and having to deal with it.  It has jack sh*t to do with you, your personality, your whims, your inflated idea of your own privacy, or any other simplistic little sh*t you feel you need to justify your existence with by immediately attaching your identity to like some brainless remora.

This is not and never was about you or anyone you know, and that should make you comfortable.
 
2013-09-15 08:33:14 AM  

thamike: The NSA is a bloated, redundant, obsolete government program.
*  They are aware of this
*  Everybody with a brain assumed this


Would you care to expand on "why anyone with a brain would think the NSA is an obsolete program" when their entire existence is dedicated to SIGINT?

I'm curious about your insane troll logic on this one?

thamike: The NSA is finally getting the scrutiny it deserves
*  So will the PATRIOT Act


Not denying that at all.

thamike: If you get all emotional about any particular player in this fiasco being a hero or a villain, you're missing the point.


No, quite frankly that's utter bullshiat. Someone can be aghast that these events occurred, and still have a problem with some of the motives and amount of unrelated information that was released along with it.

thamike: This is a simple case of the system finding waste, fraud and abuse and having to deal with it.  It has jack sh*t to do with you, your personality, your whims, your inflated idea of your own privacy, or any other simplistic little sh*t you feel you need to justify your existence with by immediately attaching your identity to like some brainless remora.


Pot, kettle. Also, if this was about finding waste and abuse, why did Snowden release information about foreign intelligence operations by the NSA which were completely legal and within their charter to perform?

thamike: This is not and never was about you or anyone you know, and that should make you comfortable.


I don't think anyone other than you at this point in the thread is trying to make this personal. Turn the projector off, and let's talk.
 
2013-09-15 08:42:12 AM  

Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?


They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.
 
2013-09-15 08:44:21 AM  

hardinparamedic: Would you care to expand on "why anyone with a brain would think the NSA is an obsolete program" when their entire existence is dedicated to SIGINT?

I'm curious about your insane troll logic on this one?


"Troll" has no purpose here.  And SIGINT wasn't the only thing the NSA was doing, which was the case only because there's a limit to how much SIGINT is necessary, which would explain the mess they are in now.  I might have rephrased that as "the NSA has created an obsolete program, or has overcast itself into redundancy" but, again, an intuitive person would have gotten the gist based on the rest of it.


hardinparamedic: No, quite frankly that's utter bullshiat. Someone can be aghast that these events occurred, and still have a problem with some of the motives and amount of unrelated information that was released along with it.


Being aghast is a vocation it seems.

Pot, kettle. Also, if this was about finding waste and abuse, why did Snowden release information about foreign intelligence operations by the NSA which were completely legal and within their charter to perform?

Because he's an imbecile. Also, "pot, kettle" serves no purpose here.

I don't think anyone other than you at this point in the thread is trying to make this personal. Turn the projector off, and let's talk.

I don't know...

MurphyMurphy: the butthurt from the "Snowden is teh Satan!" people is going to be absolutely delicious.


Maybe you should wait for those people to show up.  Then you can have the calm yet illuminating conversation you are so obviously seeking.
 
2013-09-15 08:44:40 AM  

ghare: DrPainMD: derpderpderp

Why is it so many Republicans seem to be sociopaths?



well, you know, if it looks like poop, smells like poop, then its probably poop.   not 100%, but most likely.
 
2013-09-15 08:44:54 AM  
ITT: People get butthurt that someone broke the law in order to expose that the law was being broken.
 
2013-09-15 08:47:19 AM  

vpb: pparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional. That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.


The real traitors are in DC. Snowden is every bit a hero and, if he needs a new home, he can come stay with me.
 
2013-09-15 08:53:25 AM  
Amazingly, Clapper has said something that is right. I would like to think he realizes that things have quickly grown out of control due to advances in technology. I actually think that he wants all the controversy to go away so that they can go back to business as usual. Same with all the big tech companies.
 
2013-09-15 08:54:40 AM  

Honest Bender: He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.



WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?


People don't like a snitch.
 
2013-09-15 08:57:42 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: People don't like a snitch.


People don't like TMZ, no matter what form it comes in.
 
2013-09-15 08:58:31 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Honest Bender: He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

People don't like a snitch.


Exactly. No one should ever tell on anyone, anywhere, ever. Especially if laws are being broken. Especially if the government is breaking them. No sir.
 
2013-09-15 09:00:22 AM  

max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.


That make secret rulings and determine the limits of privacy and individual security with decisions that you cannot discuss or appeal.

I understand and agree that we need something like the NSA and FISA as the world we live in is not a nice place. However, that does not mean that the specific forms they have taken are appropriate or constitutional.

The idea of secret courts making secret findings about the constitution is incredibly disturbing.
 
2013-09-15 09:04:21 AM  

ghare: Tyrone Slothrop: Honest Bender: He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

People don't like a snitch.

Exactly. No one should ever tell on anyone, anywhere, ever. Especially if laws are being broken. Especially if the government is breaking them. No sir.


The difference being that the Judicial Branch determined that the Executive Branch did not break the law written by the Legislative Branch. The only next step is for the Legislative Branch to reign in these practices with additional legislation which they have so far refused to do.

Snowden is the only one who broke the law.
 
2013-09-15 09:09:36 AM  

thamike: "Troll" has no purpose here.  And SIGINT wasn't the only thing the NSA was doing, which was the case only because there's a limit to how much SIGINT is necessary, which would explain the mess they are in now.  I might have rephrased that as "the NSA has created an obsolete program, or has overcast itself into redundancy" but, again, an intuitive person would have gotten the gist based on the rest of it.


I can see that being a better rephrasing.

As an interesting historical side note, didn't the CIA have a presidential directive issued to them in the 1970s not to do things to American citizens inside the United States, when they were trying to do the same thing?

thamike: Because he's an imbecile. Also, "pot, kettle" serves no purpose here.


I kind of think it does, Mike. There seems to be this prevailing "all or nothing" idea on this topic that you either have to support Snowden 100% in what he did, OR you think the NSA is perfectly OK doing what they did. There is no middle ground to be had. 

I don't think you're the kind of person that does that, but there are plenty of them that DO post on FARK.

thamike: I don't know...

MurphyMurphy: the butthurt from the "Snowden is teh Satan!" people is going to be absolutely delicious.


Yeah. You got me there. :)

max_pooper: Snowden is the only one who broke the law.


The only reason the NSA didn't "break the law" is that they found a loophole to exploit. They definitely violated the spirit of the laws created to regulate their activities.
 
2013-09-15 09:15:52 AM  
max_pooper:

snip
snip

Snowden is the only one who broke the law.

time was, helping a slave to escape was against the law
helping to catch the slave was legal
so     not impressed
 
2013-09-15 09:16:08 AM  

hardinparamedic: thamike: "Troll" has no purpose here.  And SIGINT wasn't the only thing the NSA was doing, which was the case only because there's a limit to how much SIGINT is necessary, which would explain the mess they are in now.  I might have rephrased that as "the NSA has created an obsolete program, or has overcast itself into redundancy" but, again, an intuitive person would have gotten the gist based on the rest of it.

I can see that being a better rephrasing.

As an interesting historical side note, didn't the CIA have a presidential directive issued to them in the 1970s not to do things to American citizens inside the United States, when they were trying to do the same thing?

thamike: Because he's an imbecile. Also, "pot, kettle" serves no purpose here.

I kind of think it does, Mike. There seems to be this prevailing "all or nothing" idea on this topic that you either have to support Snowden 100% in what he did, OR you think the NSA is perfectly OK doing what they did. There is no middle ground to be had. 

I don't think you're the kind of person that does that, but there are plenty of them that DO post on FARK.

thamike: I don't know...

MurphyMurphy: the butthurt from the "Snowden is teh Satan!" people is going to be absolutely delicious.

Yeah. You got me there. :)

max_pooper: Snowden is the only one who broke the law.

The only reason the NSA didn't "break the law" is that they found a loophole to exploit. They definitely violated the spirit of the laws created to regulate their activities.


The spirit doesn't mean jack shiat. If they used a loophole to avoid technically breaking the law, then they didn't break the law.

People seem to think that saying the NSA didn't break the law means agreeing with the NSA's methods. It very obviously does not: 'Legal' and 'right' are not the same thing.
 
2013-09-15 09:17:02 AM  

hardinparamedic: I kind of think it does, Mike. There seems to be this prevailing "all or nothing" idea on this topic that you either have to support Snowden 100% in what he did, OR you think the NSA is perfectly OK doing what they did. There is no middle ground to be had.

I don't think you're the kind of person that does that, but there are plenty of them that DO post on FARK.


So you meant the "collective you" just as I did?  Next time, let the MurphyMurphy types defend themselves, especially if you agree with someone else.
 
2013-09-15 09:18:04 AM  

hardinparamedic: thamike: "Troll" has no purpose here.  And SIGINT wasn't the only thing the NSA was doing, which was the case only because there's a limit to how much SIGINT is necessary, which would explain the mess they are in now.  I might have rephrased that as "the NSA has created an obsolete program, or has overcast itself into redundancy" but, again, an intuitive person would have gotten the gist based on the rest of it.

I can see that being a better rephrasing.

As an interesting historical side note, didn't the CIA have a presidential directive issued to them in the 1970s not to do things to American citizens inside the United States, when they were trying to do the same thing?

thamike: Because he's an imbecile. Also, "pot, kettle" serves no purpose here.

I kind of think it does, Mike. There seems to be this prevailing "all or nothing" idea on this topic that you either have to support Snowden 100% in what he did, OR you think the NSA is perfectly OK doing what they did. There is no middle ground to be had. 

I don't think you're the kind of person that does that, but there are plenty of them that DO post on FARK.

thamike: I don't know...

MurphyMurphy: the butthurt from the "Snowden is teh Satan!" people is going to be absolutely delicious.

Yeah. You got me there. :)

max_pooper: Snowden is the only one who broke the law.

The only reason the NSA didn't "break the law" is that they found a loophole to exploit. They definitely violated the spirit of the laws created to regulate their activities.


If that is the case, why hasn't congress passed a bill to close those loop holes?

For the record, I stand in that middle ground. I don't believe the NSA should be doing what they are doing but I believe they are operating under the law which is why I believe Snowden is the only one who broke the law. biatching about the NSA or the President or the FISA court doesn't address who is at fault. Congress is the only body that can change the law to specifically make these practices illegal.

If you really want to do something about this, write your congressman or work on a campaign to replace him with somebody who will fight change these laws.
 
2013-09-15 09:19:38 AM  

Honest Bender: He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

[i1.kym-cdn.com image 232x223]

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?


Because it wasn't heroic. But this is an issue so wrapped-up in emotion and confirmation bias that pointing out the issues with Snowden falls on deaf ears.
 
2013-09-15 09:21:23 AM  

LordJiro: The spirit doesn't mean jack shiat. If they used a loophole to avoid technically breaking the law, then they didn't break the law.

People seem to think that saying the NSA didn't break the law means agreeing with the NSA's methods. It very obviously does not: 'Legal' and 'right' are not the same thing.


Right.  It's all in the game, yo.  Snowden got bored of playing for the NSA, and the DoJ got tired of the NSA's game.

This idea of shock and outrage at the lack of government transparency--in the face of unprecedented government transparency--leaves me with little to no sympathy for either side of the warring factions of The Rended Garment Collective.
 
2013-09-15 09:22:12 AM  

bindlestiff2600: max_pooper:

snip
snip

Snowden is the only one who broke the law.

time was, helping a slave to escape was against the law
helping to catch the slave was legal
so     not impressed


"Time was" indeed. You have noticed that those laws do not exist any more. The laws that the NSA and FISA court operate under can be changed as well. Until then, they are the law of the land.
 
2013-09-15 09:22:54 AM  

Honest Bender: He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).


You're missing the point. They're not violations because they're legal, sanctified by a court. Like it or not they are legal.

Now, if the law is unconstitutional then that's has to work it's way through the courts too. (and should) But no one should kid themselves thinking the NSA just did whatever the hell it wanted. They're hypersensitive to legalities and lean on their lawyers and FISA to give them the green light.

And we could always ask Congress to undue their stupid law.
 
2013-09-15 09:23:16 AM  

bindlestiff2600: time was, helping a slave to escape was against the law
helping to catch the slave was legal
so     not impressed


There's a difference between helping the slave escape, and giving the British a landing zone in the South Carolina beaches.
 
2013-09-15 09:23:26 AM  

max_pooper: For the record, I stand in that middle ground. I don't believe the NSA should be doing what they are doing but I believe they are operating under the law which is why I believe Snowden is the only one who broke the law. biatching about the NSA or the President or the FISA court doesn't address who is at fault. Congress is the only body that can change the law to specifically make these practices illegal.


Notice that nobody's b*tching about their telecoms selling them out without notification.  No, that would make them bad consumers.  And that's just a totally unpalatable revelation.
 
2013-09-15 09:27:00 AM  

NewportBarGuy: However, especially in the Snowden case, and less so in the Manning case, these were not attempts to harm but inform the public about what violent and powerful men do in the middle of the night on our behalf. Some thing I'm ok not knowing about. Using our own foreign intelligence gathering assets on you and me with absolutely no cause? No. I want to know about that and I'm glad it happened.


Snowden went into the job "knowing what the government was up to" and cherry-picking his information. He wasn't an analyst, like he claimed, and is basing his conclusion on a subset of documents and doesn't include any of the instruction that comes with being part of a program. Combine that with his statements about US spying contradicting the documents he released, and it's amazing people are so easily hoodwinked when they're told a story they believe is already true.

Him going to Russia has made it a lot harder to make it a case that he was looking out for America, though. They get to use a lot of propaganda against him.

Well, it certainly makes his statement that he refuses to live in a society that allows that kind of surveillance an outright lie. I mean, it's not like he was taking off in an airplane with US security agents driving down the runway in pursuit a la the movie Argo. He could have easily booked a flight for Ecuador to begin with.
 
2013-09-15 09:33:04 AM  

vpb: That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.


I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.
 
2013-09-15 09:35:00 AM  

Muta: vpb: That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.


According to whom?

Oh, yea, Snowden and confirmation bias.
 
2013-09-15 09:37:02 AM  

Muta: I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.


[Citation needed] - who?
 
2013-09-15 10:01:30 AM  

hardinparamedic: Muta: I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

[Citation needed] - who


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad- is -seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

They admit to spying on Americans. They say it is legal because they only are "targeting" people overseas. In this process they gather up all of the communications. Then they go through it and delete anything not relevant. So what's the problem, citizen?
 
2013-09-15 10:02:43 AM  

NewportBarGuy: $20 says he wants to clear the court and show the NSA violated their order(s).

CYA all the way.


Either that, or it will look something like this.

The  ██████████████ ████████ ████████  and  ████████  ████████    ████████ ████████ ████████

 for  ████████ ████████ ████████ .
 
2013-09-15 10:04:47 AM  

badhatharry: hardinparamedic: Muta: I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

[Citation needed] - who

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad- is -seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

They admit to spying on Americans. They say it is legal because they only are "targeting" people overseas. In this process they gather up all of the communications. Then they go through it and delete anything not relevant. So what's the problem, citizen?


You know there is a difference between illegal and unjust correct?

There are plenty of people that wish for the intilligence agencies to be reigned in that understand that what they are doing is currently legal.
 
2013-09-15 10:06:35 AM  

badhatharry: hardinparamedic: Muta: I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

[Citation needed] - who

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad- is -seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

They admit to spying on Americans. They say it is legal because they only are "targeting" people overseas. In this process they gather up all of the communications. Then they go through it and delete anything not relevant. So what's the problem, citizen?


What is legal is not always right. Just as what is right is not always legal. Why is that such a hard concept for you chucklefarks to understand?

Pointing out that the NSA broke no laws, while Snowden *did* break the law, is NOT justifying the NSA's actions. It's saying that the law needs to be farking fixed.
 
2013-09-15 10:14:19 AM  

thamike: If you get all emotional about any particular player in this fiasco being a hero or a villain, you're missing the point. This is a simple case of the system finding waste, fraud and abuse and having to deal with it. It has jack sh*t to do with you, your personality, your whims, your inflated idea of your own privacy, or any other simplistic little sh*t you feel you need to justify your existence with by immediately attaching your identity to like some brainless remora.

This is not and never was about you or anyone you know, and that should make you comfortable.


"Nothing to see here people! Move along, move along..."

How do you know who I know? :P

Seriously though, how can you even make a statement like that?

As has been repeated more than a thousand times over in these discussions, no one really knows the scope of jack shiat at this point. The evidence suggests the intelligence gathered from these programs has exceeded their mandate within the organization and even if it didn't, we have evidence the intelligence has traveled beyond the organization itself and is being leaked to extra-NSA groups which falls compeltely outside the alleged oversight mechanics over the NSA itself.

A sane discussion is found in the rational middle as hardin pointed out. You decry people insisting on an extreme interpretation of the events but you are doing the same thing.

Your insistance there is nothing more to it than a typical D.C. bureaucratic mess is as retarded on its face as someone who suggests the NSA is after them personally and every action they take is an attack on their 'sovereign citizenry'.

And the audacity to state that no one's privacy concerns are applicable here?... wow. Troll on, man.

thamike: Maybe you should wait for those people to show up. Then you can have the calm yet illuminating conversation you are so obviously seeking.


Did you just post compeltely seperate replies back to back against one of my posts? lol

At this point I don't think you need me here, you seem capable of holding the conversation all by yourself. Between yourself and yourself.
 
2013-09-15 10:15:24 AM  

LordJiro: badhatharry: hardinparamedic: Muta: I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

[Citation needed] - who

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad- is -seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

They admit to spying on Americans. They say it is legal because they only are "targeting" people overseas. In this process they gather up all of the communications. Then they go through it and delete anything not relevant. So what's the problem, citizen?

What is legal is not always right. Just as what is right is not always legal. Why is that such a hard concept for you chucklefarks to understand?

Pointing out that the NSA broke no laws, while Snowden *did* break the law, is NOT justifying the NSA's actions. It's saying that the law needs to be farking fixed.


Some say the NSA broke the law. Some say Snowden broke the law. How do we know if someone is guilty of breaking the law? When a judge or jury finds them guilty. That has not happened for either party yet.
 
2013-09-15 10:23:11 AM  
They will obviously charge Snowden with breaking his confidentiality. But will he be charged with slander for telling lies or treason for telling the truth?
 
2013-09-15 10:29:41 AM  
Next week: FISA judge mysteriously disappears
 
2013-09-15 10:32:56 AM  

Muta: vpb: That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.


Everyone is a traitor!

Did you put your seatbelt on this morning?

NO?!?!?
THIS IS A TIME OF WAR! YOUR ACTS ARE PUNISHBLE BY DEATH!

max_pooper: badhatharry: hardinparamedic: Muta: I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

[Citation needed] - who

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad- is -seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

They admit to spying on Americans. They say it is legal because they only are "targeting" people overseas. In this process they gather up all of the communications. Then they go through it and delete anything not relevant. So what's the problem, citizen?

You know there is a difference between illegal and unjust correct?

There are plenty of people that wish for the intilligence agencies to be reigned in that understand that what they are doing is currently legal.


Legal is a tricky word. And 'currently' is most definitely the operative word there.

Which is why citing it's legality is redundant if not just stupid. That very opinion is at the root of the discussion and is being challenged by the discussion every day. If it weren't we wouldn't still be talking about it.

Is it legal? We'll see.
For now? Sure you bet it is... unless of course it's later decided it isn't. :P
 
2013-09-15 10:38:05 AM  

badhatharry: Some say the NSA broke the law. Some say Snowden broke the law. How do we know if someone is guilty of breaking the law? When a judge or jury finds them guilty. That has not happened for either party yet.


Well that's not true in the NSA's case. They have been given legal opinion in their oversight actions. This authority was given to the FISA courts by the Supreme Court.

Snowden's case I think you're right. (I don't follow the circus close enough to be sure there)
All we've had is public decrying from our professional grandstanders

Now for the NSA... what hasn't occurred yet is a challenge of that legal opinion against what ever other legal precedent someone feels should supercede it (Constitutionality I'd assume)
 
2013-09-15 10:50:53 AM  

MurphyMurphy: badhatharry: Some say the NSA broke the law. Some say Snowden broke the law. How do we know if someone is guilty of breaking the law? When a judge or jury finds them guilty. That has not happened for either party yet.

Well that's not true in the NSA's case. They have been given legal opinion in their oversight actions. This authority was given to the FISA courts by the Supreme Court.

Snowden's case I think you're right. (I don't follow the circus close enough to be sure there)
All we've had is public decrying from our professional grandstanders

Now for the NSA... what hasn't occurred yet is a challenge of that legal opinion against what ever other legal precedent someone feels should supercede it (Constitutionality I'd assume)


I would imagine so. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
 
2013-09-15 10:55:30 AM  

max_pooper: If that is the case, why hasn't congress passed a bill to close those loop holes?


Why the fark would they do that?  They want the NSA spying on us.
 
2013-09-15 11:08:49 AM  

badhatharry: MurphyMurphy: badhatharry: Some say the NSA broke the law. Some say Snowden broke the law. How do we know if someone is guilty of breaking the law? When a judge or jury finds them guilty. That has not happened for either party yet.

Well that's not true in the NSA's case. They have been given legal opinion in their oversight actions. This authority was given to the FISA courts by the Supreme Court.

Snowden's case I think you're right. (I don't follow the circus close enough to be sure there)
All we've had is public decrying from our professional grandstanders

Now for the NSA... what hasn't occurred yet is a challenge of that legal opinion against what ever other legal precedent someone feels should supercede it (Constitutionality I'd assume)

I would imagine so. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


You are entitled to your opinions on constitutionality but you have no authority. The judicial branch has deemed these actions constitutional save for any final decision by the Supreme Court. Until that happens or congress passes new legislation the activities of the NSA are constitutional and legal.

This is very basic civics.
 
2013-09-15 11:13:56 AM  
Watching a meltdown on Fark is almost as interesting as watching a slow motion fart.
 
2013-09-15 11:14:32 AM  

Honest Bender: He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).


Where in the Constitution does it say you can't have your phone calls screened for certain keywords?

Here's a hint, it's not up to you to decide what constitutes an unreasonable search.
 
2013-09-15 11:15:05 AM  
What will be released:

cdn.cultofmac.com
 
2013-09-15 11:22:33 AM  

MurphyMurphy: A sane discussion is found in the rational middle as hardin pointed out. You decry people insisting on an extreme interpretation of the events but you are doing the same thing.


Funny, hardin and I have an understanding, yet you insist on an extreme middle while decrying the superficial extremists, same as I.  Are we to debate who is less in the middle than the other?  Who gives a sh*t?
 
2013-09-15 11:28:06 AM  

ferretman: What will be released:

[cdn.cultofmac.com image 640x520]


This is all just an elaborate plot to funnel taxpayer dollars to the BPICC (Black Printer Ink Cartridge Cartel) which grew out of the weakening BPMC (Black Permanent Marker Cartel) during the Clinton administration.
 
2013-09-15 11:28:35 AM  

Honest Bender: He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

[i1.kym-cdn.com image 232x223]

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?


You might not be, but a LOT of people are. My list of 'chicken shiat bootlicking yellow' farkers went up a millionty % after the Snowden thing. Farkers I general found to be reasonable; from non-insane 'conservatives' to general moderates to kinda progressives to raving lefties LOST THEIR MOTHERFARKING SHIAT over this topic.

Maybe it was the perception of Snowden, a semi-hipster looking guy that triggered some visceral unconscious hate. I don't know.  But it was INSANE. The crazy list of reasons to reject anything to do with the release seemed to include:

1) But you give your info to Google/corporations so this is OK!
2) Only the bad guys will be hurt, so this is OK!
3) No one cares what you are doing so this is OK!
4) Privacy is stupid and quaint so this is OK!
5) We already should have known this was happening so this is OK!
6) The PATRIOT Act makes it legal so this is OK!
7) You're paranoid, so this is OK!
8) But Terrorism, so this is OK!
9) FISA court, so this is OK!
10) Greenwald is a hack, so this is OK
11) Snowden's girlfriend is a stripper, so this is OK!
12) Everyone else is doing it too, so this is OK!
13) Snowden should have stayed for a Kangaroo court trial to be tortured like Manning is, so this is OK!
14) Snowden isn't just like Ellsberg, so this is OK!
15) Stazi style surveillance, COINTELPRO, Gulf of Tonkin, Hoover's lists, Watergate etc. etc. are SO yesterday, so this is OK!

And on and on.

/The bootlicking cognitivedissonance is breathtaking.
//And Scary.
///And Sad.
 
2013-09-15 11:30:34 AM  

thamike: Funny, hardin and I have an understanding, yet you insist on an extreme middle while decrying the superficial extremists, same as I. Are we to debate who is less in the middle than the other?


An 'extreme middle'?
This is rich.
Am I to take it that merely discussing the topic is an extremist position then?

thamike: Who gives a sh*t?


You do?
 
2013-09-15 11:31:37 AM  

freak7: Where in the Constitution does it say you can't have your phone calls screened for certain keywords?

Here's a hint, it's not up to you to decide what constitutes an unreasonable search.


4th amendment.  And I don't decide what constitutes unreasonable. An unreasonable search is one not backed by a warrant issued by a judge, backed by probably cause.

If the NSA wants to snoop my phone calls, then they need to have a reasonable suspicion that I'm breaking the law and they need to swear to that to a judge. The judge reviews their evidence to decide if a warrant is justified.  If he agrees that it looks like I'm breaking the law, THEN the NSA gets to snoop my phone calls (or email or whatever).

That's how it works.
 
2013-09-15 11:32:55 AM  

Honest Bender: 4th amendment.  And I don't decide what constitutes unreasonable. An unreasonable search is one not backed by a warrant issued by a judge, backed by probably cause.


Yeah, people used to say the same about DUI checkpoints, how did that one turn out for you?
 
2013-09-15 11:36:45 AM  

MurphyMurphy: An 'extreme middle'?
This is rich.


That is the joke.
 
2013-09-15 11:37:49 AM  

NewportBarGuy: [...]

Will people get harmed by these two data leaks? I'm pretty sure they have. But the alternative is not knowing and that is a far greater crime.


Perhaps I haven't read well enough into things, but to my knowledge nobody has died because of the leaks of either Snowden or Manning. The charge of putting lives at risk is what the state has claimed each time somebody brings to light documents the government wants kept secret. From the NYT v US Supreme Court majority opinion, "The word 'security' is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security."

The US government couldn't show that leaking the Pentagon Papers caused any harm to troops or the security of the US. Likewise, with both Manning and Snowden the charge is made that their leaks have/will cause harm, but I have not seen any evidence that has happened.
 
2013-09-15 11:39:36 AM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: 1) But you give your info to Google/corporations so this is OK!
2) Only the bad guys will be hurt, so this is OK!
3) No one cares what you are doing so this is OK!
4) Privacy is stupid and quaint so this is OK!
5) We already should have known this was happening so this is OK!
6) The PATRIOT Act makes it legal so this is OK!
7) You're paranoid, so this is OK!
8) But Terrorism, so this is OK!
9) FISA court, so this is OK!
10) Greenwald is a hack, so this is OK
11) Snowden's girlfriend is a stripper, so this is OK!
12) Everyone else is doing it too, so this is OK!
13) Snowden should have stayed for a Kangaroo court trial to be tortured like Manning is, so this is OK!
14) Snowden isn't just like Ellsberg, so this is OK!
15) Stazi style surveillance, COINTELPRO, Gulf of Tonkin, Hoover's lists, Watergate etc. etc. are SO yesterday, so this is OK!


Anybody who rejects anything about this uncovered info and government oversight is an asshole. Then again, anybody who is both surprised yet inexplicably vindicated by this information is delusional.
 
2013-09-15 11:45:05 AM  

vpb: Honest Bender:

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional.  That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.


You have to be crazy, and maybe not so smart, to think that someone who exposes an egregious Stazi style program you ASSUME to be constitutional is AUTOMATICALLY a traitor without trial of either issue.
 
2013-09-15 11:48:29 AM  

freak7: Yeah, people used to say the same about DUI checkpoints


First they came for the Unbelted, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an Unbelted.
Then they came for the Drunks, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Drunk.
Then they came for the Texters, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Texter.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

Because I had drunkenly parked my car on someones leg.  In a bank.  While texting my account number to Verizon.  And I'm stuck in the windshield.
 
2013-09-15 11:48:44 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Honest Bender: He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

People don't like a snitch.


Are you being sarcastic? Hard to tell anymore.

The next time I find out someone is stealing from you, cheating you, or reading your private email I'll tell them to STFU. Cause otherwise snitchin'!
 
2013-09-15 11:52:58 AM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Are you being sarcastic? Hard to tell anymore.

The next time I find out someone is stealing from you, cheating you, or reading your private email I'll tell them to STFU. Cause otherwise snitchin'!


Snitches get b*tches.

www.mediafire.com

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

"Mad b*tches."
 
2013-09-15 12:03:26 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: vpb: Honest Bender:

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional.  That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

You have to be crazy, and maybe not so smart, to think that someone who exposes an egregious Stazi style program you ASSUME to be constitutional is AUTOMATICALLY a traitor without trial of either issue.


Nobody needs to assume consitutionality. These laws are consititional. Warrant applications have been brought before a federal court made up of judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and not once have any of the judges ruled the law under which these warrants are issued is unconstitutional.

These laws are, according to the judicial branch of United States, within the allowances set forth by the Consitition of the United States of America. These laws can be challenged infront of the final arbiter of consititutionality: the Supreme Court. But they are unlikely to disagree with the FISA court since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has yet to remove and replace a single judge on said court for erroneous rulings.

The only option is to have these laws changed. That starts with Congress.
 
2013-09-15 12:13:57 PM  
I don't like secret courts. Not one bit. I don't like secret judicial opinions relating to important matters of constitutional law, and I especially don't like John Roberts having absolute and plenary authority to appoint members to the FISC.

But a like all that a damn sight more than I liked the situation before FISA was enacted.
 
2013-09-15 12:14:05 PM  

max_pooper: The only option is to have these laws changed. That starts with Congress.


I kind of like the way the courts are handling it.  We are actually seeing all the branches of government applying the checks and balances that they were conceived to apply, and because every televisionado has this fixation with reacting to any information they weren't previously privy to as unprecedented concepts, we have dramatic public fallout anytime anything happens.

I'll concede that 2001-2009 might have numbed our ability to see government oversight actually happen and it is ugly but worth it, but hell.
 
2013-09-15 12:18:40 PM  

BMulligan: I don't like secret courts. Not one bit. I don't like secret judicial opinions relating to important matters of constitutional law, and I especially don't like John Roberts having absolute and plenary authority to appoint members to the FISC.

But a like all that a damn sight more than I liked the situation before FISA was enacted.


Congress has the power to impeach and remove from office any federal judge. John Roberts may be the only one to select federal judges for that court but he does not have absolute control over its members.
 
2013-09-15 12:24:03 PM  

edmo: Honest Bender: He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).

You're missing the point. They're not violations because they're legal, sanctified by a court. Like it or not they are legal.

Now, if the law is unconstitutional then that's has to work it's way through the courts too. (and should) But no one should kid themselves thinking the NSA just did whatever the hell it wanted. They're hypersensitive to legalities and lean on their lawyers and FISA to give them the green light.

And we could always ask Congress to undue their stupid law.


Please describe this process with regards to a secret court whose rulings are also secret. Who, exactly, will push this through the court system? The people who may have been harmed by this system a) might not know they have been targeted. b) Are precluded from even discussing the matter.
 
2013-09-15 12:25:38 PM  

vpb: Honest Bender:

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional.  That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.




SCOTUS has never ruled...
 
2013-09-15 12:28:41 PM  
Why does the article not capitalize FISA?  It's not a word.
 
2013-09-15 12:28:41 PM  

max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.




They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.
 
2013-09-15 12:32:13 PM  

MurphyMurphy: badhatharry: Some say the NSA broke the law. Some say Snowden broke the law. How do we know if someone is guilty of breaking the law? When a judge or jury finds them guilty. That has not happened for either party yet.

Well that's not true in the NSA's case. They have been given legal opinion in their oversight actions. This authority was given to the FISA courts by the Supreme Court.

Snowden's case I think you're right. (I don't follow the circus close enough to be sure there)
All we've had is public decrying from our professional grandstanders

Now for the NSA... what hasn't occurred yet is a challenge of that legal opinion against what ever other legal precedent someone feels should supercede it (Constitutionality I'd assume)




FISA Courts were established by Congress (due to the Church Commission), not the SCOTUS.
 
2013-09-15 12:32:57 PM  

HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.



They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.


Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.
 
2013-09-15 12:34:52 PM  

max_pooper: BMulligan: I don't like secret courts. Not one bit. I don't like secret judicial opinions relating to important matters of constitutional law, and I especially don't like John Roberts having absolute and plenary authority to appoint members to the FISC.

But a like all that a damn sight more than I liked the situation before FISA was enacted.

Congress has the power to impeach and remove from office any federal judge. John Roberts may be the only one to select federal judges for that court but he does not have absolute control over its members.




Congress cannot remove a FISA Judge because Congress is not allowed to read any of their rulings.
 
2013-09-15 12:35:54 PM  

HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.


Federal judges are appointed by the POTUS and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Wabbit season.
 
2013-09-15 12:36:07 PM  

HempHead: max_pooper: BMulligan: I don't like secret courts. Not one bit. I don't like secret judicial opinions relating to important matters of constitutional law, and I especially don't like John Roberts having absolute and plenary authority to appoint members to the FISC.

But a like all that a damn sight more than I liked the situation before FISA was enacted.

Congress has the power to impeach and remove from office any federal judge. John Roberts may be the only one to select federal judges for that court but he does not have absolute control over its members.



Congress cannot remove a FISA Judge because Congress is not allowed to read any of their rulings.


There are members of congress with security clearence. That still doesn't matter. Congress can still impeach and remove from office any federal judge.
 
2013-09-15 12:36:49 PM  

max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.


Do we have a list of the FISC judges? If I had to bet a dollar, I'd guess they are predominantly right wing, authoritarian  jerkfaces.
 
2013-09-15 12:38:26 PM  

King Something: Next week's headline: FISA judge found dead from multiple self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the back of the head from a double-action revolver and/or bolt-action rifle.


Please. If the NSA had that power the judge would be found dead in a Russian back alley next to the corpses of Snowden, Greenwald, his spouse and a Russian tranny hooker after a game of spin the botttle gone horribly wrong.
 
2013-09-15 12:39:06 PM  

max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.




Congress does not confirm their appointment to FISA(hence why the judges are all Republicans sans one). Congress confirms all judicial appointments except for the FISA Court, even to SCOTUS. Rand Paul has introduced a bill to allow Congress to do this.

Congress cannot read the FISA court rulings, ergo cannot impeach them.
 
2013-09-15 12:39:55 PM  

max_pooper: BMulligan: I don't like secret courts. Not one bit. I don't like secret judicial opinions relating to important matters of constitutional law, and I especially don't like John Roberts having absolute and plenary authority to appoint members to the FISC.

But a like all that a damn sight more than I liked the situation before FISA was enacted.

Congress has the power to impeach and remove from office any federal judge. John Roberts may be the only one to select federal judges for that court but he does not have absolute control over its members.


That's true, and of course Roberts is limited in his appointment power to duly appointed and confirmed federal judges. Otherwise, though, his authority is plenary and not subject to review.
 
2013-09-15 12:40:49 PM  

max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: BMulligan: I don't like secret courts. Not one bit. I don't like secret judicial opinions relating to important matters of constitutional law, and I especially don't like John Roberts having absolute and plenary authority to appoint members to the FISC.

But a like all that a damn sight more than I liked the situation before FISA was enacted.

Congress has the power to impeach and remove from office any federal judge. John Roberts may be the only one to select federal judges for that court but he does not have absolute control over its members.

Congress cannot remove a FISA Judge because Congress is not allowed to read any of their rulings.

There are members of congress with security clearence. That still doesn't matter. Congress can still impeach and remove from office any federal judge.




All of Congress votes to impeach and a trial is held in the Senate. With everything being secret, there cannot be a vote or trial.
 
2013-09-15 12:42:08 PM  

Evil High Priest: max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.

Do we have a list of the FISC judges? If I had to bet a dollar, I'd guess they are predominantly right wing, authoritarian  jerkfaces.


If I'm not mistaken, I believe that something like ten out of eleven were originally elevated to the federal bench by Republican presidents.
 
2013-09-15 12:44:07 PM  

BMulligan: If I'm not mistaken, I believe that something like ten out of eleven were originally elevated to the federal bench by Republican presidents.


This is my surprised face.
 
2013-09-15 12:44:12 PM  

thamike: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Federal judges are appointed by the POTUS and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Wabbit season.





When the facts don't work, use character assassination. Works on FoxNews.

Snowden is Ghey.
 
2013-09-15 12:45:11 PM  

HempHead: max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.



Congress does not confirm their appointment to FISA(hence why the judges are all Republicans sans one). Congress confirms all judicial appointments except for the FISA Court, even to SCOTUS. Rand Paul has introduced a bill to allow Congress to do this.

Congress cannot read the FISA court rulings, ergo cannot impeach them.


Senate does confirm all federal judges, period. There is not a single FISA court judge who was not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. You can look them up, they are all listed on Wikipedia.

Congress can impeach and remove from office any federal civil officer on the grounds of "treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors." They don't need to be privy to the details of their rulings.
 
2013-09-15 12:47:15 PM  

HempHead: max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.



Congress does not confirm their appointment to FISA(hence why the judges are all Republicans sans one). Congress confirms all judicial appointments except for the FISA Court, even to SCOTUS. Rand Paul has introduced a bill to allow Congress to do this.

Congress cannot read the FISA court rulings, ergo cannot impeach them.


What makes you think that there is any connection between the contents of FISC opinions and the possibility of impeachment? The two subjects are unrelated. In fact, judges should virtually never be subject to removal based on the contents of their decisions. A ruling with which one disagrees isn't a high crime or misdemeanor.
 
2013-09-15 12:48:11 PM  

HempHead: max_pooper: BMulligan: I don't like secret courts. Not one bit. I don't like secret judicial opinions relating to important matters of constitutional law, and I especially don't like John Roberts having absolute and plenary authority to appoint members to the FISC.

But a like all that a damn sight more than I liked the situation before FISA was enacted.

Congress has the power to impeach and remove from office any federal judge. John Roberts may be the only one to select federal judges for that court but he does not have absolute control over its members.

Congress cannot remove a FISA Judge because Congress is not allowed to read any of their rulings.


Sure they can.  You've completely botched what you are trying to say.  Congress abdicated their ability to effectively police the FISA because they told them "No, don't tell us" but they most certainly can remove any FISA judge they want at any time.

Had a FISA judge started publishing every request that came into the court you can expect the impeachment trial would have been scheduled, conducted and concluded with the judge being removed in about 5 minutes.
 
2013-09-15 12:48:58 PM  

BMulligan: HempHead: max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.



Congress does not confirm their appointment to FISA(hence why the judges are all Republicans sans one). Congress confirms all judicial appointments except for the FISA Court, even to SCOTUS. Rand Paul has introduced a bill to allow Congress to do this.

Congress cannot read the FISA court rulings, ergo cannot impeach them.

What makes you think that there is any connection between the contents of FISC opinions and the possibility of impeachment? The two subjects are unrelated. In fact, judges should virtually never be subject to removal based on the contents of their decisions. A ruling with which one disagrees isn't a high crime or misdemeanor.


Please cite the section of the United States Consititution that defines "high crimes and misdemeanors".
 
2013-09-15 12:56:38 PM  

HempHead: max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.

Congress does not confirm their appointment to FISA(hence why the judges are all Republicans sans one). Congress confirms all judicial appointments except for the FISA Court, even to SCOTUS. Rand Paul has introduced a bill to allow Congress to do this.

Congress cannot read the FISA court rulings, ergo cannot impeach them.


Their knowledge of what the court is doing is completely independent of their ability to impeach them.  This is a sign of fuzzy thinking on your part, and what you are being hammered for.  And there are many other reasons why a FISA court judge might be impeached - misconduct, security violations, not approving legitimate requests - all of which would have gotten back to congress rather quickly.

Congress (and by proxy the people) should have more oversight of what goes on in those FISA processes, and as currently authorized, Congress has crippled their ability to control the NSA.  But that isn't what you are writing, even if that's what you might mean based on your emotional restatement of inaccuracies.
 
2013-09-15 12:56:46 PM  

max_pooper: BMulligan: HempHead: max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.



Congress does not confirm their appointment to FISA(hence why the judges are all Republicans sans one). Congress confirms all judicial appointments except for the FISA Court, even to SCOTUS. Rand Paul has introduced a bill to allow Congress to do this.

Congress cannot read the FISA court rulings, ergo cannot impeach them.

What makes you think that there is any connection between the contents of FISC opinions and the possibility of impeachment? The two subjects are unrelated. In fact, judges should virtually never be subject to removal based on the contents of their decisions. A ruling with which one disagrees isn't a high crime or misdemeanor.

Please cite the section of the United States Consititution that defines "high crimes and misdemeanors".


Obviously, there isn't any such definition. But if judicial independence means anything, it means that the executive branch has no power to punish a judge for making unpopular rulings. At the federal level judges enjoy lifetime tenure specifically to cultivate judicial independence, which is why the only tool at Congress' disposal is the blunt instrument called impeachment. It's not intended to be used as a matter of course, nor has it been historically applied in such a manner.
 
2013-09-15 12:57:00 PM  

Hoarseman: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

That make secret rulings and determine the limits of privacy and individual security with decisions that you cannot discuss or appeal.

I understand and agree that we need something like the NSA and FISA as the world we live in is not a nice place. However, that does not mean that the specific forms they have taken are appropriate or constitutional.

The idea of secret courts making secret findings about the constitution is incredibly disturbing.


This.
 
2013-09-15 12:57:57 PM  

HempHead: thamike: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Federal judges are appointed by the POTUS and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Wabbit season.

When the facts don't work, use character assassination. Works on FoxNews.

Snowden is Ghey.


Okay, sport.
 
2013-09-15 01:01:29 PM  

MadHatter500: HempHead: max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.

Congress does not confirm their appointment to FISA(hence why the judges are all Republicans sans one). Congress confirms all judicial appointments except for the FISA Court, even to SCOTUS. Rand Paul has introduced a bill to allow Congress to do this.

Congress cannot read the FISA court rulings, ergo cannot impeach them.

Their knowledge of what the court is doing is completely independent of their ability to impeach them.  This is a sign of fuzzy thinking on your part, and what you are being hammered for.  And there are many other reasons why a FISA court judge might be impeached - misconduct, security violations, not approving legitimate requests - all of which would have gotten back to congress rather quickly.

Congress (and by proxy the people) should have more oversight of what goes on in those FISA processes, and as currently authorized, Congress has crippled their ability to control the NSA.  But that isn't what you are writing, even if that's what you might mean based on your emotional restatement of inaccuracies.


One thing - it is misleading to say that Congress crippled their ability to control the NSA. Prior to the enactment of FISA, Congress had *no* meaningful oversight of the NSA, nor did any court. Congress enacted FISA to provide some oversight where previously there was none.
 
2013-09-15 01:11:41 PM  

max_pooper: Please cite the section of the United States Consititution that defines "high crimes and misdemeanors".


Trick question!
 
2013-09-15 01:15:36 PM  
http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/13/why-ladar-levison-shuttered-encrypte d -email-service-lavabit-in-the-face-of-government-pressure/

[T]here's information that I can't even share with my lawyer, let alone with the American public.
So if we're talking about secrecy, you know, it's really been taken to the extreme.
 And I think it's really being used by the current administration to cover up tactics that they may be ashamed of.
 
2013-09-15 01:18:48 PM  
Looks like the mods are having a slapfight.
 
2013-09-15 01:21:31 PM  

cman: Hero?

Judge is doing his damn job

/we attach hero to Garbagemen, so that word is about as useless as "racist"


I'm confused, I have you favorited with the tag "a Libertarian I can talk to". Isn't freedom from Government surveillance (4th amendment, common Law, third amendment) and Unreasonable search and seizure (4th amendment, common Law)  rights you are concerned about?  Are your Libertarian tenancies only concerned with the freedom of businesses to do what ever they like in the pursuit of money?

Not trying to pick a fight here, I'm just confused and would like to know why you take this stand.
 
2013-09-15 01:25:38 PM  

Zombie Butler: I'm confused, I have you favorited with the tag "a Libertarian I can talk to".


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-09-15 01:38:04 PM  

max_pooper: Serious Post on Serious Thread: vpb: Honest Bender:

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional.  That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

You have to be crazy, and maybe not so smart, to think that someone who exposes an egregious Stazi style program you ASSUME to be constitutional is AUTOMATICALLY a traitor without trial of either issue.

Nobody needs to assume consitutionality. These laws are consititional. Warrant applications have been brought before a federal court made up of judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and not once have any of the judges ruled the law under which these warrants are issued is unconstitutional.

These laws are, according to the judicial branch of United States, within the allowances set forth by the Consitition of the United States of America. These laws can be challenged infront of the final arbiter of consititutionality: the Supreme Court. But they are unlikely to disagree with the FISA court since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has yet to remove and replace a single judge on said court for erroneous rulings.

The only option is to have these laws changed. That starts with Congress.


I see your GED in Law is serving you well. Shiat tons of warranted surveillance techniques have ultimately been ruled unconstitutional. Spike taps, thermal imaging, regardless, NO the SCOTUS isn't just made up of the Chief Justice, so saying he appoints them so whatever they do is auto-ok is WRONG. Likewise that changing the law by Congressional act is the only option is WRONG. How does it feel to just be so damn WRONG.
 
2013-09-15 01:42:31 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: I see your GED in Law is serving you well. Shiat tons of warranted surveillance techniques have ultimately been ruled unconstitutional. Spike taps, thermal imaging, regardless, NO the SCOTUS isn't just made up of the Chief Justice, so saying he appoints them so whatever they do is auto-ok is WRONG. Likewise that changing the law by Congressional act is the only option is WRONG. How does it feel to just be so damn WRONG.


t0.gstatic.com

A GED in AAAIEEE!
 
2013-09-15 01:57:22 PM  

badhatharry: Amazingly, Clapper has said something that is right.


Everyone makes mistakes. Perhaps he thought he was lying?
 
2013-09-15 02:09:23 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Honest Bender: He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

[i1.kym-cdn.com image 232x223]

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

You might not be, but a LOT of people are. My list of 'chicken shiat bootlicking yellow' farkers went up a millionty % after the Snowden thing. Farkers I general found to be reasonable; from non-insane 'conservatives' to general moderates to kinda progressives to raving lefties LOST THEIR MOTHERFARKING SHIAT over this topic.

Maybe it was the perception of Snowden, a semi-hipster looking guy that triggered some visceral unconscious hate. I don't know.  But it was INSANE. The crazy list of reasons to reject anything to do with the release seemed to include:

1) But you give your info to Google/corporations so this is OK!
2) Only the bad guys will be hurt, so this is OK!
3) No one cares what you are doing so this is OK!
4) Privacy is stupid and quaint so this is OK!
5) We already should have known this was happening so this is OK!
6) The PATRIOT Act makes it legal so this is OK!
7) You're paranoid, so this is OK!
8) But Terrorism, so this is OK!
9) FISA court, so this is OK!
10) Greenwald is a hack, so this is OK
11) Snowden's girlfriend is a stripper, so this is OK!
12) Everyone else is doing it too, so this is OK!
13) Snowden should have stayed for a Kangaroo court trial to be tortured like Manning is, so this is OK!
14) Snowden isn't just like Ellsberg, so this is OK!
15) Stazi style surveillance, COINT ...


yep
 
2013-09-15 02:25:21 PM  

max_pooper: hardinparamedic: thamike: "Troll" has no purpose here.  And SIGINT wasn't the only thing the NSA was doing, which was the case only because there's a limit to how much SIGINT is necessary, which would explain the mess they are in now.  I might have rephrased that as "the NSA has created an obsolete program, or has overcast itself into redundancy" but, again, an intuitive person would have gotten the gist based on the rest of it.

I can see that being a better rephrasing.

As an interesting historical side note, didn't the CIA have a presidential directive issued to them in the 1970s not to do things to American citizens inside the United States, when they were trying to do the same thing?

thamike: Because he's an imbecile. Also, "pot, kettle" serves no purpose here.

I kind of think it does, Mike. There seems to be this prevailing "all or nothing" idea on this topic that you either have to support Snowden 100% in what he did, OR you think the NSA is perfectly OK doing what they did. There is no middle ground to be had.

I don't think you're the kind of person that does that, but there are plenty of them that DO post on FARK.

thamike: I don't know...

MurphyMurphy: the butthurt from the "Snowden is teh Satan!" people is going to be absolutely delicious.

Yeah. You got me there. :)

max_pooper: Snowden is the only one who broke the law.

The only reason the NSA didn't "break the law" is that they found a loophole to exploit. They definitely violated the spirit of the laws created to regulate their activities.

If that is the case, why hasn't congress passed a bill to close those loop holes?

For the record, I stand in that middle ground. I don't believe the NSA should be doing what they are doing but I believe they are operating under the law which is why I believe Snowden is the only one who broke the law. biatching about the NSA or the President or the FISA court doesn't address who is at fault. Congress is the only body that can change the law to specifically ma ...


If I recall correctly, some of the more broad warrants can be interpreted as Bills of Attainder which are specifically prohibited by the constitution. So even is a law says they are legal, they are illegal due to higher law. When I am biatching about big government this is why. Of course when Republicans start hearing me biatch that their anti-gay and anti-abortion laws are big government they start LALALALALAing. Not sure about the Texas Law, as I am a proponent of Evidenced Based Medicine and anti-death penalty, if a fetus that is genetically human can feel pain,there is an argument that at that point it should be illegal. But that is another debate.
 
2013-09-15 02:26:55 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Serious Post on Serious Thread: vpb: Honest Bender:

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional.  That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

You have to be crazy, and maybe not so smart, to think that someone who exposes an egregious Stazi style program you ASSUME to be constitutional is AUTOMATICALLY a traitor without trial of either issue.

Nobody needs to assume consitutionality. These laws are consititional. Warrant applications have been brought before a federal court made up of judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and not once have any of the judges ruled the law under which these warrants are issued is unconstitutional.

These laws are, according to the judicial branch of United States, within the allowances set forth by the Consitition of the United States of America. These laws can be challenged infront of the final arbiter of consititutionality: the Supreme Court. But they are unlikely to disagree with the FISA court since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has yet to remove and replace a single judge on said court for erroneous rulings.

The only option is to have these laws changed. That starts with Congress.

I see your GED in Law is serving you well. Shiat tons of warranted surveillance techniques have ultimately been ruled unconstitutional. Spike taps, thermal imaging, regardless, NO the SCOTUS isn't just made up of the Chief Justice, so saying he appoints them so whatever they do is auto-ok is WRONG. Likewise that changing the law by Congressional act is the only option is WRONG. How does it feel to just be so damn WRONG.


I am not wrong. The NSA surveillance methods are currently legal and consitituional. It does not mean that the Supreme Court could declare it so but that is unlikely due to the current make up of the court.

Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.
 
2013-09-15 02:40:38 PM  

max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.


Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.
 
2013-09-15 02:45:43 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.


This defies even a grammar school education.
 
2013-09-15 02:47:25 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.


Also Home of the Raging Dumbasses who Failed Civics.
 
2013-09-15 03:00:13 PM  

LordJiro: Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.

Also Home of the Raging Dumbasses who Failed Civics.


Apparently wanting the government to changes its policies through the means determined by the constitution is "taking it like a good biatch".

I would like to ask Serious what he believes should happen to open up the FISC to transparency and limit the capabilities of the intelligence agencies if not changes in legislation?
 
2013-09-15 03:01:09 PM  

King Something: Next week's headline: FISA judge found dead from multiple self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the back of the head from a double-action revolver and/or bolt-action rifle.


You mean they are not a rubber stamp like everyone has kept saying?
 
2013-09-15 03:11:51 PM  

thamike: Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.

This defies even a grammar school education.


LordJiro: Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.

Also Home of the Raging Dumbasses who Failed Civics.


You two get a room and lick each other's boots, m'kay.

Your points are no one should say anything about rampant abuse of power, because, apparently vague interpretations of dubious laws haven't been totally and officially struck down from the highest court in the land?

That's not how democracy works, civics boy. It's a lot more messy than that. This pusillanimous apologist rhetoric for state abuse of power by your ilk is sickening. We all know how courts and congress work. Some of us just don't think we should shrug our shoulders, condemn dissidents, and defend the status quo just because it's the status quo.

/BTW, how do you get the taste of that much shoe polish out of your mouth?
 
2013-09-15 03:18:59 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: thamike: Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.

This defies even a grammar school education.

LordJiro: Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.

Also Home of the Raging Dumbasses who Failed Civics.

You two get a room and lick each other's boots, m'kay.

Your points are no one should say anything about rampant abuse of power, because, apparently vague interpretations of dubious laws haven't been totally and officially struck down from the highest court in the land?

That's not how democracy works, civics boy. It's a lot more messy than that. This pusillanimous apologist rhetoric for state abuse of power by your ilk is sickening. We all know how courts and congress work. Some of us just don't think we should shrug our shoulders, condemn dissidents, and defend the status quo just because it's the status quo.

/BTW, how do you get the taste of that much shoe polish out of your mouth?


I do want the status quo. I want the FISC to be more transparent and I want our intelligence agencies to have their scope limited. I understand that the route for this is through legislative means. If you don't like a law you can biatch and moan about it on the Internet or you can try to get it changed.

You have not answered my question: what do you propose be done to open up the FISC to more transparency and to limit the capabilities of our intelligence agencies?
 
2013-09-15 03:23:22 PM  

mofa: Why does the article not capitalize FISA?  It's not a word.


According to The Guardian's style guide, they "use all capitals if an abbreviation is pronounced as the individual letters (an initialism): BBC, CEO, US, VAT, etc; if it is an acronym (pronounced as a word) spell out with initial capital, eg Nasa, Nato, Unicef, unless it can be considered to have entered the language as an everyday word, such as awol, laser and, more recently, asbo, pin number and sim card. Note that pdf and plc are lowercase."
 
2013-09-15 03:28:15 PM  

max_pooper: LordJiro: Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.

Also Home of the Raging Dumbasses who Failed Civics.

Apparently wanting the government to changes its policies through the means determined by the constitution is "taking it like a good biatch".

I would like to ask Serious what he believes should happen to open up the FISC to transparency and limit the capabilities of the intelligence agencies if not changes in legislation?


For starters, how about a few heroic dissidents hack the fark out of the databases and servers containing orders and protocols and dump it all into torrents and wikileaks? Oh, wait, that's already happening, which is why this is even being talked about, but you want to demonize it because it wasn't proper in your judgment, which means we'd never have had this conversation, which means no one would even be thinking of legal and legislative fixes. See how that works?
 
2013-09-15 03:32:00 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: LordJiro: Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.

Also Home of the Raging Dumbasses who Failed Civics.

Apparently wanting the government to changes its policies through the means determined by the constitution is "taking it like a good biatch".

I would like to ask Serious what he believes should happen to open up the FISC to transparency and limit the capabilities of the intelligence agencies if not changes in legislation?

For starters, how about a few heroic dissidents hack the fark out of the databases and servers containing orders and protocols and dump it all into torrents and wikileaks? Oh, wait, that's already happening, which is why this is even being talked about, but you want to demonize it because it wasn't proper in your judgment, which means we'd never have had this conversation, which means no one would even be thinking of legal and legislative fixes. See how that works?


So are you saying we need legislative changes or not?

It seems to that you are very angry and not sure why or what needs to happen to make it better.
 
2013-09-15 03:42:56 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Your points are no one should say anything about rampant abuse of power, because, apparently vague interpretations of dubious laws haven't been totally and officially struck down from the highest court in the land?


I can't speak for the other bootlicker, but my point is that if you are too unacquainted with how government works to form a valid set of solutions, extrapolating a detailed civics discussion into a bare bones philosophical debate about the nature of existence isn't going to fool anyone with an education.

I am truly sympathetic with your plight as an angry guy with a keyboard, but Knowing F*ck All about the Things that Scare You isn't somehow sage in the face of Reason, no matter how many times the angry guy on the TV keeps justifying that sort of behavior.

Having an opinion means absolutely nothing unless it is based on fact and has an actual purpose.  If you want to rant, that's fine, this is Fark.  But please, for your own sake, stop pretending that ranting is some form of valid discourse.
 
2013-09-15 03:47:05 PM  

hardinparamedic: vpb: That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

Actually, I would have thought a lot more of Snowden had he just revealed domestic spying activities. 

In that sense, I've come to the conclusion that he's something we needed. That needed to be thrown back in our faces, as I've made the point time and time again we allowed a continual slide into what we have today through our apathy and fear of "terrorism" over the last decade+.

That said, the point I stopped respecting him is the point that foreign intelligence operations and espionage operations against foreign countries also were leaked.


According to griswald he pretty much leaked everything. What is being leaked is now the decision of guardian not snowdens. That said, I would have respected him if he had just leaked a few documents that proved his case, but he didn't do that, just just dumped everything on guardian and told them to figure it out.
 
2013-09-15 03:50:37 PM  

hardinparamedic: That said, the point I stopped respecting him is the point that foreign intelligence operations and espionage operations against foreign countries also were leaked.


yeah, like the part where they handed internal us government communications to the Israeli's. Someone should lose respect, but it's not Snowden.
 
2013-09-15 03:55:37 PM  

max_pooper: The difference being that the Judicial Branch determined that the Executive Branch did not break the law written by the Legislative Branch. The only next step is for the Legislative Branch to reign in these practices with additional legislation which they have so far refused to do.

Snowden is the only one who broke the law.


Your laserlike focus on how the government doesn't break the laws that it rewrites in secrecy is, well, kind of amusing.

If our government was meant to function this way, a despot can come to power and just let you know he wasn't breaking any laws, they were all just rewritten in secret.
 
2013-09-15 04:03:19 PM  

thamike: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Your points are no one should say anything about rampant abuse of power, because, apparently vague interpretations of dubious laws haven't been totally and officially struck down from the highest court in the land?

I can't speak for the other bootlicker, but my point is that if you are too unacquainted with how government works to form a valid set of solutions, extrapolating a detailed civics discussion into a bare bones philosophical debate about the nature of existence isn't going to fool anyone with an education.

I am truly sympathetic with your plight as an angry guy with a keyboard, but Knowing F*ck All about the Things that Scare You isn't somehow sage in the face of Reason, no matter how many times the angry guy on the TV keeps justifying that sort of behavior.

Having an opinion means absolutely nothing unless it is based on fact and has an actual purpose.  If you want to rant, that's fine, this is Fark.  But please, for your own sake, stop pretending that ranting is some form of valid discourse.


Thanks for setting me straight. We live in a perfect world with no power imbalances, or corruption. To take action outside the proscribed state sanctioned methods or to voice opinions outside a court of law or a legislators office is a rash and foolish act of anger. You are so smart and right.
 
2013-09-15 04:17:21 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: thamike: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Your points are no one should say anything about rampant abuse of power, because, apparently vague interpretations of dubious laws haven't been totally and officially struck down from the highest court in the land?

I can't speak for the other bootlicker, but my point is that if you are too unacquainted with how government works to form a valid set of solutions, extrapolating a detailed civics discussion into a bare bones philosophical debate about the nature of existence isn't going to fool anyone with an education.

I am truly sympathetic with your plight as an angry guy with a keyboard, but Knowing F*ck All about the Things that Scare You isn't somehow sage in the face of Reason, no matter how many times the angry guy on the TV keeps justifying that sort of behavior.

Having an opinion means absolutely nothing unless it is based on fact and has an actual purpose.  If you want to rant, that's fine, this is Fark.  But please, for your own sake, stop pretending that ranting is some form of valid discourse.

Thanks for setting me straight. We live in a perfect world with no power imbalances, or corruption. To take action outside the proscribed state sanctioned methods or to voice opinions outside a court of law or a legislators office is a rash and foolish act of anger. You are so smart and right.


I see you have still avoided my question: what do you propose be done to open the FISC to transparency and limit the capabilities of the US intelligence agencies?
 
2013-09-15 04:22:46 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: thamike: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Your points are no one should say anything about rampant abuse of power, because, apparently vague interpretations of dubious laws haven't been totally and officially struck down from the highest court in the land?

I can't speak for the other bootlicker, but my point is that if you are too unacquainted with how government works to form a valid set of solutions, extrapolating a detailed civics discussion into a bare bones philosophical debate about the nature of existence isn't going to fool anyone with an education.

I am truly sympathetic with your plight as an angry guy with a keyboard, but Knowing F*ck All about the Things that Scare You isn't somehow sage in the face of Reason, no matter how many times the angry guy on the TV keeps justifying that sort of behavior.

Having an opinion means absolutely nothing unless it is based on fact and has an actual purpose.  If you want to rant, that's fine, this is Fark.  But please, for your own sake, stop pretending that ranting is some form of valid discourse.

Thanks for setting me straight. We live in a perfect world with no power imbalances, or corruption. To take action outside the proscribed state sanctioned methods or to voice opinions outside a court of law or a legislators office is a rash and foolish act of anger. You are so smart and right.


Continuing to do so doesn't help your case, whatever that may be.
 
2013-09-15 04:38:36 PM  

thamike: Serious Post on Serious Thread: thamike: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Your points are no one should say anything about rampant abuse of power, because, apparently vague interpretations of dubious laws haven't been totally and officially struck down from the highest court in the land?

I can't speak for the other bootlicker, but my point is that if you are too unacquainted with how government works to form a valid set of solutions, extrapolating a detailed civics discussion into a bare bones philosophical debate about the nature of existence isn't going to fool anyone with an education.

I am truly sympathetic with your plight as an angry guy with a keyboard, but Knowing F*ck All about the Things that Scare You isn't somehow sage in the face of Reason, no matter how many times the angry guy on the TV keeps justifying that sort of behavior.

Having an opinion means absolutely nothing unless it is based on fact and has an actual purpose.  If you want to rant, that's fine, this is Fark.  But please, for your own sake, stop pretending that ranting is some form of valid discourse.

Thanks for setting me straight. We live in a perfect world with no power imbalances, or corruption. To take action outside the proscribed state sanctioned methods or to voice opinions outside a court of law or a legislators office is a rash and foolish act of anger. You are so smart and right.

Continuing to do so doesn't help your case, whatever that may be.


I am reminded of the scene in Back to School where Sam Kinison is yelling in a fit of rage and Rodney Dangerfield turns and says, "He really seems to care, about what I have no idea."
 
2013-09-15 05:09:32 PM  

badhatharry: hardinparamedic: Muta: I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

[Citation needed] - who

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad- is -seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

They admit to spying on Americans. They say it is legal because they only are "targeting" people overseas. In this process they gather up all of the communications. Then they go through it and delete anything not relevant. So what's the problem, citizen?


You didn't answer my question. Who, specifically, is calling Snowden a "traitor", but ignoring the FISA court abuses and NSA spying on domestic citizens? In my experience, even the people who have a flagrant hatred for Snowden are appalled at what the NSA is doing, even if it's only just to hurt the guy in office.
 
2013-09-15 06:02:04 PM  
I wonder if Serious Post on Serious Thread is ever going to explain what he believes should be done to open the FISC to more transparency and limit the activities of the our intelligence agencies.
 
2013-09-15 06:02:58 PM  

hardinparamedic: badhatharry: hardinparamedic: Muta: I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

[Citation needed] - who

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad- is -seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

They admit to spying on Americans. They say it is legal because they only are "targeting" people overseas. In this process they gather up all of the communications. Then they go through it and delete anything not relevant. So what's the problem, citizen?

You didn't answer my question. Who, specifically, is calling Snowden a "traitor", but ignoring the FISA court abuses and NSA spying on domestic citizens? In my experience, even the people who have a flagrant hatred for Snowden are appalled at what the NSA is doing, even if it's only just to hurt the guy in office.


People forget that civil disobedience only works if you are willing to go to jail for it.
 
2013-09-15 06:03:40 PM  

thamike: Looks like the mods are having a slapfight.


where is someone to yell "DUCK SEASON"?
 
2013-09-15 06:32:26 PM  

max_pooper: I wonder if Serious Post on Serious Thread is ever going to explain what he believes should be done to open the FISC to more transparency and limit the activities of the our intelligence agencies.


Listen you pedantic twerp, I'm done being baited by your pointless questions that were never in play. What do you want to hear? "I'll write a sternly worded letter to my congressman!" "I'll start a lobbying effort dedicated to privacy legislation!" "I'll file a pro se lawsuit in Federal court!".

The point was, is, and continues to be that potentially extra-legal actions like those by Snowden are laudable when used against gov't activity that is ethically and constitutionally dubious. Period. That's the point.

You want to curl up into a little boot licking ball and cover yourself with circular semantic platitudes. Fine. Saying a law is "constitutional until SCOTUS says it isn't" accomplishes what? Giving you a warm fuzzy that all is right with the world because it seems so well ordered and just?

Before you get to the letter writing, lobbying, and lawsuit efforts people need to be aware of the issues. Sometimes that means breaking the law, or yelling, or getting pissed the fark off. And I'm fine with that because that is farking reality.

Now I'm done with you and your insincere tropes and inanities. Good day sir. I said GOOD DAY!
 
2013-09-15 07:09:55 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: boot licking


Not really helping your cause here. "Bootlicker" is right up there with "sheeple" on the List Of Words That Instantly Invalidate Any Argument Made By Those Who Speak Them.
 
2013-09-15 07:11:51 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: I wonder if Serious Post on Serious Thread is ever going to explain what he believes should be done to open the FISC to more transparency and limit the activities of the our intelligence agencies.

Listen you pedantic twerp, I'm done being baited by your pointless questions that were never in play. What do you want to hear? "I'll write a sternly worded letter to my congressman!" "I'll start a lobbying effort dedicated to privacy legislation!" "I'll file a pro se lawsuit in Federal court!".

The point was, is, and continues to be that potentially extra-legal actions like those by Snowden are laudable when used against gov't activity that is ethically and constitutionally dubious. Period. That's the point.

You want to curl up into a little boot licking ball and cover yourself with circular semantic platitudes. Fine. Saying a law is "constitutional until SCOTUS says it isn't" accomplishes what? Giving you a warm fuzzy that all is right with the world because it seems so well ordered and just?

Before you get to the letter writing, lobbying, and lawsuit efforts people need to be aware of the issues. Sometimes that means breaking the law, or yelling, or getting pissed the fark off. And I'm fine with that because that is farking reality.

Now I'm done with you and your insincere tropes and inanities. Good day sir. I said GOOD DAY!


Wow. Get a load of that guy.
 
2013-09-15 07:13:10 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: I wonder if Serious Post on Serious Thread is ever going to explain what he believes should be done to open the FISC to more transparency and limit the activities of the our intelligence agencies.

Listen you pedantic twerp, I'm done being baited by your pointless questions that were never in play. What do you want to hear? "I'll write a sternly worded letter to my congressman!" "I'll start a lobbying effort dedicated to privacy legislation!" "I'll file a pro se lawsuit in Federal court!".

The point was, is, and continues to be that potentially extra-legal actions like those by Snowden are laudable when used against gov't activity that is ethically and constitutionally dubious. Period. That's the point.

You want to curl up into a little boot licking ball and cover yourself with circular semantic platitudes. Fine. Saying a law is "constitutional until SCOTUS says it isn't" accomplishes what? Giving you a warm fuzzy that all is right with the world because it seems so well ordered and just?

Before you get to the letter writing, lobbying, and lawsuit efforts people need to be aware of the issues. Sometimes that means breaking the law, or yelling, or getting pissed the fark off. And I'm fine with that because that is farking reality.

Now I'm done with you and your insincere tropes and inanities. Good day sir. I said GOOD DAY!


So you are saying you do believe legislative changes are necessary to correct laws you believe to be wrong or you saying you are better served by people knowingly violating other laws without legislative changes?

Your angry rants don't really coelesce around any sort of recognizable hypothosis.
 
2013-09-15 07:23:42 PM  

Biological Ali: Serious Post on Serious Thread: boot licking

Not really helping your cause here. "Bootlicker" is right up there with "sheeple" on the List Of Words That Instantly Invalidate Any Argument Made By Those Who Speak Them.


That's just what a bootlicking sheeple would say.
 
2013-09-15 07:30:31 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Biological Ali: Serious Post on Serious Thread: boot licking

Not really helping your cause here. "Bootlicker" is right up there with "sheeple" on the List Of Words That Instantly Invalidate Any Argument Made By Those Who Speak Them.

That's just what a bootlicking sheeple would say.


Just to be clear, do believe that the laws as are currently written that give FISC the authority to operate in complete secrecy should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

Secondly, do you believe that the laws as are currently written that give NSA the authority to collect cell phone metadata indescrimenently to hold for future use should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?
 
2013-09-15 07:58:30 PM  

ferretman: What will be released:

[cdn.cultofmac.com image 640x520]


I never understood how that works.  A judge or senator or POTUS says that some group must release a bunch of documents, and we end up with some goddamn black bar shiat.   Protip: THEY DIDN'T RELEASE ANYTHING!

I certainly can't get away with that.  Businesses can't get away with that.  If Microsoft was ordered to release a bunch of documents, and they gave them that shiat, the judge would rake them over the coals.
 
2013-09-15 08:05:25 PM  

ghare: DrPainMD: derpderpderp

Why is it so many Republicans seem to be sociopaths?


I wouldn't know; I'm not a Republican. In 35 years of voting, I've not voted for a single Repub.
 
2013-09-15 08:22:10 PM  

MurphyMurphy: ferretman: What will be released:

[cdn.cultofmac.com image 640x520]

This is all just an elaborate plot to funnel taxpayer dollars to the BPICC (Black Printer Ink Cartridge Cartel) which grew out of the weakening BPMC (Black Permanent Marker Cartel) during the Clinton administration.


They could save a lot of money by using black paper and white ink....
 
2013-09-15 08:38:09 PM  

DrPainMD: ghare: DrPainMD: derpderpderp

Why is it so many Republicans seem to be sociopaths?

I wouldn't know; I'm not a Republican. In 35 years of voting, I've not voted for a single Repub.


So you're a Fark IndependentTM
 
2013-09-15 08:40:50 PM  

max_pooper: Just to be clear, do believe that the laws as are currently written that give FISC the authority to operate in complete secrecy should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

Secondly, do you believe that the laws as are currently written that give NSA the authority to collect cell phone metadata indescrimenently to hold for future use should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?


The funny thing is, these questions wouldn't have even been asked if the law wasn't broken in the first place.
 
2013-09-15 08:43:39 PM  

CourtroomWolf: max_pooper: Just to be clear, do believe that the laws as are currently written that give FISC the authority to operate in complete secrecy should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

Secondly, do you believe that the laws as are currently written that give NSA the authority to collect cell phone metadata indescrimenently to hold for future use should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

The funny thing is, these questions wouldn't have even been asked if the law wasn't broken in the first place.


Alright, I'll ask you since you since you chimed and Serious refuses to provide and answer.

Do believe that the laws as are currently written that give FISC the authority to operate in complete secrecy should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

Secondly, do you believe that the laws as are currently written that give NSA the authority to collect cell phone metadata indescrimenently to hold for future use should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?
 
2013-09-15 08:46:25 PM  
<ThisThreadWasAwesome.jpg>
 
2013-09-15 08:51:28 PM  

max_pooper: CourtroomWolf: max_pooper: Just to be clear, do believe that the laws as are currently written that give FISC the authority to operate in complete secrecy should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

Secondly, do you believe that the laws as are currently written that give NSA the authority to collect cell phone metadata indescrimenently to hold for future use should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

The funny thing is, these questions wouldn't have even been asked if the law wasn't broken in the first place.

Alright, I'll ask you since you since you chimed and Serious refuses to provide and answer.

Do believe that the laws as are currently written that give FISC the authority to operate in complete secrecy should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

Secondly, do you believe that the laws as are currently written that give NSA the authority to collect cell phone metadata indescrimenently to hold for future use should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?


Yes, they should be changed.
 
2013-09-15 09:03:09 PM  

max_pooper: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Biological Ali: Serious Post on Serious Thread: boot licking

Not really helping your cause here. "Bootlicker" is right up there with "sheeple" on the List Of Words That Instantly Invalidate Any Argument Made By Those Who Speak Them.

That's just what a bootlicking sheeple would say.

Just to be clear, do believe that the laws as are currently written that give FISC the authority to operate in complete secrecy should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

Secondly, do you believe that the laws as are currently written that give NSA the authority to collect cell phone metadata indescrimenently to hold for future use should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?


Huh. So in your mind, asking trite questions, with rote answers, that aren't related to the discussion, nor in any way relevant to the points being made, constitutes some flourishing coup of mental acumen, rhetorical skill, and dialectical prowess.

Huh.

You just got shifted from "Trolly Light Blue" to "Fark Special Olympics Medium Grey".

Though I did say I was done with you, and you've managed to make me a liar. So, there's that.
 
2013-09-15 09:47:55 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Biological Ali: Serious Post on Serious Thread: boot licking

Not really helping your cause here. "Bootlicker" is right up there with "sheeple" on the List Of Words That Instantly Invalidate Any Argument Made By Those Who Speak Them.

That's just what a bootlicking sheeple would say.

Just to be clear, do believe that the laws as are currently written that give FISC the authority to operate in complete secrecy should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

Secondly, do you believe that the laws as are currently written that give NSA the authority to collect cell phone metadata indescrimenently to hold for future use should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

Huh. So in your mind, asking trite questions, with rote answers, that aren't related to the discussion, nor in any way relevant to the points being made, constitutes some flourishing coup of mental acumen, rhetorical skill, and dialectical prowess.

Huh.

You just got shifted from "Trolly Light Blue" to "Fark Special Olympics Medium Grey".

Though I did say I was done with you, and you've managed to make me a liar. So, there's that.


Trite question? Rote answers? Not related to the discussion? What the hell is wrong with you? How are questions about methods for illuminating unjust practices not pertinent to a discussion of the very unjust practices. I noticed you still haven't answered the questions...

You seem to be angry that certain things are happening but don't want to change anything. You just want to biatch about it.

I can't comprehend how you believe that these issues with FISC and NSA are so egregious but refuse to make any changes to the law that allow them.

I can only conclude that you secretly love the intrusion of privacy and secracy in which it is carried out since you don't want to make any changes to the system that allows it.

Either that or you now understand the need for legislative changes but won't allow yourself to admit you were wrong when you chastised me for stating it.
 
2013-09-15 10:05:51 PM  
i262.photobucket.com
/hot
 
2013-09-15 10:35:00 PM  

vygramul: Muta: vpb: That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

According to whom?

Oh, yea, Snowden and confirmation bias.


Uh, FISA? They're probably the most objective source of legal opinions on this, right?
 
2013-09-15 10:43:34 PM  

PerilousApricot: vygramul: Muta: vpb: That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

According to whom?

Oh, yea, Snowden and confirmation bias.

Uh, FISA? They're probably the most objective source of legal opinions on this, right?


The Foriegn Intelligence Surveillance Act? A law is a "they" and is a source of legal opinions?
 
2013-09-15 10:57:30 PM  

max_pooper: PerilousApricot: vygramul: Muta: vpb: That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

According to whom?

Oh, yea, Snowden and confirmation bias.

Uh, FISA? They're probably the most objective source of legal opinions on this, right?

The Foriegn Intelligence Surveillance Act? A law is a "they" and is a source of legal opinions?


I misspoke. The FISA Court. Obviously I wasn't speaking about the law itself...

 I was talking about the recently released court opinions where not only did the government admit to screwing up and capturing too much data, but the judge admonished them for repeatedly misrepresenting what they were actually doing

* - I'll willingly accept that 99.999% of that was an honest mistake, but strictly speaking, what they did got the ire of the judge and he got upset about it. I'm neither a judge nor a lawyer, but it seemed like he was saying, "that was not a cool thing you did"
 
2013-09-15 11:16:36 PM  

max_pooper: Trite question? Rote answers? Not related to the discussion? What the hell is wrong with you? How are questions about methods for illuminating unjust practices not pertinent to a discussion of the very unjust practices. I noticed you still haven't answered the questions...


Listen twaddle wit. The discussion/debate/argument/issue was about Snowden's actions and their legitimacy or lack thereof. You thread jacked/shiat with some pointless blather that this is all perfectly fine and constitutional until SCOTUS rules, including further random projections about their possible decision (sans any analysis or point).

I was stupid enough to let you drag me into a non-issue distraction about if unjust laws should be changed. POINTLESS, TRITE QUESTIONS WITH ROTE ANSWERS.

I repeated my beef was with Snowden bashers. You ignored it insisting your vapid BS mental masturbation about CIVICS was somehow an earth shattering insight that nobody is debating.

Your lack of reading comprehension, and willful obtuseness combined with the inability to discern relevant and non-relevant debatable issues now bores me.

Yet again. Good day.
 
2013-09-15 11:19:21 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Trite question? Rote answers? Not related to the discussion? What the hell is wrong with you? How are questions about methods for illuminating unjust practices not pertinent to a discussion of the very unjust practices. I noticed you still haven't answered the questions...

Listen twaddle wit. The discussion/debate/argument/issue was about Snowden's actions and their legitimacy or lack thereof. You thread jacked/shiat with some pointless blather that this is all perfectly fine and constitutional until SCOTUS rules, including further random projections about their possible decision (sans any analysis or point).

I was stupid enough to let you drag me into a non-issue distraction about if unjust laws should be changed. POINTLESS, TRITE QUESTIONS WITH ROTE ANSWERS.

I repeated my beef was with Snowden bashers. You ignored it insisting your vapid BS mental masturbation about CIVICS was somehow an earth shattering insight that nobody is debating.

Your lack of reading comprehension, and willful obtuseness combined with the inability to discern relevant and non-relevant debatable issues now bores me.

Yet again. Good day.


So you don't believe that Congress should change the laws that allow NSA to capture cell phone metadata indiscriminately for future use?
 
2013-09-15 11:39:10 PM  

CourtroomWolf: max_pooper: Just to be clear, do believe that the laws as are currently written that give FISC the authority to operate in complete secrecy should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

Secondly, do you believe that the laws as are currently written that give NSA the authority to collect cell phone metadata indescrimenently to hold for future use should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

The funny thing is, these questions wouldn't have even been asked if the law wasn't broken in the first place.


Nice.
 
2013-09-15 11:45:26 PM  

Kittypie070: thamike: Looks like the mods are having a slapfight.

where is someone to yell "DUCK SEASON"?


WABBIT SEASON!
 
2013-09-16 12:06:17 AM  

max_pooper: You are entitled to your opinions on constitutionality but you have no authority. The judicial branch has deemed these actions constitutional save for any final decision by the Supreme Court. Until that happens or congress passes new legislation the activities of the NSA are constitutional and legal.

This is very basic civics.


This. Congress was scared, and wrote what I consider to be a bad law.  But by current legal standards, it is not necessarily an unconstitutional law.
 
2013-09-16 12:13:42 AM  

quizzical: max_pooper: You are entitled to your opinions on constitutionality but you have no authority. The judicial branch has deemed these actions constitutional save for any final decision by the Supreme Court. Until that happens or congress passes new legislation the activities of the NSA are constitutional and legal.

This is very basic civics.

This. Congress was scared, and wrote what I consider to be a bad law.  But by current legal standards, it is not necessarily an unconstitutional law.


We have no way of ever finding out.
 
2013-09-16 12:21:08 AM  

max_pooper: Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Trite question? Rote answers? Not related to the discussion? What the hell is wrong with you? How are questions about methods for illuminating unjust practices not pertinent to a discussion of the very unjust practices. I noticed you still haven't answered the questions...

Listen twaddle wit. The discussion/debate/argument/issue was about Snowden's actions and their legitimacy or lack thereof. You thread jacked/shiat with some pointless blather that this is all perfectly fine and constitutional until SCOTUS rules, including further random projections about their possible decision (sans any analysis or point).

I was stupid enough to let you drag me into a non-issue distraction about if unjust laws should be changed. POINTLESS, TRITE QUESTIONS WITH ROTE ANSWERS.

I repeated my beef was with Snowden bashers. You ignored it insisting your vapid BS mental masturbation about CIVICS was somehow an earth shattering insight that nobody is debating.

Your lack of reading comprehension, and willful obtuseness combined with the inability to discern relevant and non-relevant debatable issues now bores me.

Yet again. Good day.

So you don't believe that Congress should change the laws that allow NSA to capture cell phone metadata indiscriminately for future use?

 
2013-09-16 12:41:43 AM  

Honest Bender: He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

[i1.kym-cdn.com image 232x223]

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?


Yah, usually when you hand over secrets to foreign countries you get labeled a traitor...go figure
 
2013-09-16 12:48:23 AM  

tbhouston: Honest Bender: He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

[i1.kym-cdn.com image 232x223]

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

Yah, usually when you hand over secrets to foreign countries you get labeled a traitor...go figure


Technically this applies to any information leaked to the general public, which includes people in foreign countries.
 
2013-09-16 01:08:31 AM  

super_grass: Technically this applies to any information leaked to the general public, which includes people in foreign countries.


There's a difference between releasing, "The government is spying on you," and, "The government tried to tap Medvedev's phone."
 
2013-09-16 01:20:26 AM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: LordJiro: Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.

Also Home of the Raging Dumbasses who Failed Civics.

Apparently wanting the government to changes its policies through the means determined by the constitution is "taking it like a good biatch".

I would like to ask Serious what he believes should happen to open up the FISC to transparency and limit the capabilities of the intelligence agencies if not changes in legislation?

For starters, how about a few heroic dissidents hack the fark out of the databases and servers containing orders and protocols and dump it all into torrents and wikileaks? Oh, wait, that's already happening, which is why this is even being talked about, but you want to demonize it because it wasn't proper in your judgment, which means we'd never have had this conversation, which means no one would even be thinking of legal and legislative fixes. See how that works?


And if Congress or the SCOTUS don't change/strike down the law, "heroic dissidents" only accomplish one thing in the long term: They make the NSA tighten their security.  A national dialogue about the whole deal is nice and all, but it will always pass; something else will happen to take the eyes off, and business as usual will resume.

If Snowden was the smart kind of dissident, he would've leaked the intel closer to an election (preferably one of the Presidential elections for maximum impact), so as to force the parties to take a stand on the issue when the outcry is at its loudest. As it is, the parties can more or less ignore the issue, knowing it'll probably be out of the public dialogue by 2014, and will almost certainly be gone by 2016.
 
2013-09-16 07:51:16 AM  

Evil High Priest: quizzical: max_pooper: You are entitled to your opinions on constitutionality but you have no authority. The judicial branch has deemed these actions constitutional save for any final decision by the Supreme Court. Until that happens or congress passes new legislation the activities of the NSA are constitutional and legal.

This is very basic civics.

This. Congress was scared, and wrote what I consider to be a bad law.  But by current legal standards, it is not necessarily an unconstitutional law.

We have no way of ever finding out.


If you believe that the Supreme Court will never hear a case on the constitutionality of laws giving the NSA the power to collect cell phone metadata indescrimenently, do you believe Congress should act to change those laws?
 
2013-09-16 08:21:35 AM  

quizzical: max_pooper: You are entitled to your opinions on constitutionality but you have no authority. The judicial branch has deemed these actions constitutional save for any final decision by the Supreme Court. Until that happens or congress passes new legislation the activities of the NSA are constitutional and legal.

This is very basic civics.

This. Congress was scared, and wrote what I consider to be a bad law.  But by current legal standards, it is not necessarily an unconstitutional law.


Well, the trick of it all is the "hide all of the activities and rulings pertaining to them from the American people and Congress" scheme they pull which makes any clarion calls of "it's legal let congress fix it" and "snowden's a traitor for not telling his bosses about all the naught things his bosses do" pretty silly.
 
2013-09-16 09:03:20 AM  

tomcatadam: quizzical: max_pooper: You are entitled to your opinions on constitutionality but you have no authority. The judicial branch has deemed these actions constitutional save for any final decision by the Supreme Court. Until that happens or congress passes new legislation the activities of the NSA are constitutional and legal.

This is very basic civics.

This. Congress was scared, and wrote what I consider to be a bad law.  But by current legal standards, it is not necessarily an unconstitutional law.

Well, the trick of it all is the "hide all of the activities and rulings pertaining to them from the American people and Congress" scheme they pull which makes any clarion calls of "it's legal let congress fix it" and "snowden's a traitor for not telling his bosses about all the naught things his bosses do" pretty silly.


So if calls for Congress to make legislative changes opening the FISC to more transparency are "silly" what should be done?

What is your plan for opening the FISC to more transparency?

I hear a lot of people biatching about these programs and naysaying calls for it to be fixed without providing any alternative methods for doing away with them. Please tell, what the hell do you want done?
 
Displayed 166 of 166 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report