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  
•       •       •

2018 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 16 of 166 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report