Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Yard Dart, Jul 13, 2014.
The NSA and you: Spying on innocents | Fox News
...Because there is no Constitution and we live in a corporate run Orwellian police state?
Only the CEO himself, the "President" can rescind the Emergency War Powers and Congress specifically granted dictatorial control to the "President", a vague term which means any "President" in 1933. This action suspended Constitutional authority and it can only be removed by the "President", no other. -link-
Folks can take up the patriotic flag and cite Constitutionality all day long, it won't change the course we are on.
Congress could repeal the War Powers Act.
Only if the Pres. signed the Repeal Bill, or they could muster a Veto Override.... That is NEVER going to happen as long as the Dem's control the Senate..... Same reason Impeachment will never happen.....
Well the idiots in the madhouse of congress best see the light soon or the sun is going to melt their A-holes.
I didn't say it was likely. No more likely than this president giving up power voluntarily. But they are the only two paths I know of, that do not include bloodshed.
Kind of like playing 6 degrees of kevin Bacon
Yeah, I see your point. We 'could' try to use Congress to muscle the POTUS to rescind the EWP, but which side will the corporate media take? And we still can't ignore the fact that it would require the POTUS to acqiesce in the end. That's why the electoral system in America is entirely controlled, and also why it is so important to create the illusion of it being legitimate in the eyes of the people. As long as folks believe the system works, even in an incompetent way, as long as the majority continues to believe there is still HOPE, there will be no change. It's a nasty and very serious game being played, and I really wish more alternative media would cover it. Everything makes sense when you factor in the TRUE state of the union, as I have been trying to illustrate for a very long time now. We don't need to focus on Alex Jones updates about the elites cannibalizing countries or the IMF and World Bank destroying free trade, nor the Bilderberg Group collectively conspiring to control the money markets and the Council on Foreign Relations dictating war policy or the plethora of other things talked about daily. Most people just cannot grasp that much context and try to organize it all, because it isn't a "grand conspiracy" comprised of thousands of elites working together at all. It's separate cartels vying for supremacy to institute globalist control for world domination, with independent investors and corporate interests each trying to gain power to get what they want. It's royal dynasties and elite religious combines secretively undermining existing governments to transform them into socialist states (the purpose of communism), with absolutely no regard to the well being of the people. It all makes sense once we find out that there is absolutely NOTHING the people or the Congress can do short of violent revolution, to stop a private takeover which has been empowered to run the show for over 80 years. The "power" has long been concentrated in the hands of private interests, and their appointed CEO, the "President" simply keeps the ball rolling along. This model of the United States isn't the only one, either. The same private corporate takeover has occurred in many countries, including China, Russia, all of Europe and most S. American nations.
Imagine what could happen if the EWP information I linked could be distributed and disseminated in proper fashion, not to be treated like a crazy conspiracy theory, but calmly explained, citing every FACT in law, using every factual notation and tracing the steps using the Senate Report included as a guide.
Honestly though, the article is intentionally inflammatory. People are going to have to ask themselves, "Do we want the protection that the NSA affords American citizens through their control and surveillance of the world of communications, or do we not?" I personally believe that answering "not" would be a pretty ignorant answer, and would reveal a true lack of understanding of the types of existential threats faced by this nation.
I see little difference between the fear mongering of this article, and someone saying, "I want a standing Army and the protection it affords, but I don't want their weapons based in the US. They might turn them against us." We're good with the fact that every state has multiple military bases, and that most of those bases house weapons of staggeringly destructive potential. But, by and large, we're good with those weapons being there, because we believe, or hope, that they will not be turned against us; and because we've seen our standing Army grow from a few battalions armed with flintlocks, to divisions armed with the weapons of modern warfare. We're used to that force being stationed on American soil.
Telling NSA to collect only the communications of foreigners, in this digital age, when many of those foreigners are living in the US, or communicating with others living in the US, is ridiculous. It shows a lack of understanding of digital communications. It would be the equivalent of demanding that the US military continue to protect the US, but to move all of their offensive weapons off of US soil. We fear the activities of the NSA, primarily, because they have, out of necessity, been conducted behind closed doors, in secret. Had we been able to watch the growth of the NSA from its inception, and been able to see the challenges produced by changing modes of communication, and been able to see the NSA adapt to deal with those challenges, we would, by and large, have a less hostile view of this "evil" agency. In fact, they serve a very useful, and necessary purpose; and are an integral piece of the armor with which the nation attempts to defend itself.
Collection of communications intelligence, in general, is not like bow fishing. It is more like shrimping. You haul in your net, and see what you have. You take what you're interested in, and discard the rest. If it was a particularly productive hole, you may fish those waters again.
The NSA does in fact rake in millions of communications that are not what their analysts are looking for, but I don't think those records represent any more of a threat to American citizens than do the military weapons based in our nation. Debating the threat that those weapons do in fact pose, is another conversation entirely.
The biggest reason that these communication records have created a national conversation is that most Americans really think they're important enough for NSA to give a crap about their communications. Why someone would think that an NSA analyst would sit and pour over the inane driveling that emanates from most people's smart phones and computers (including mine) is beyond me. They have more important things to be looking for.
And blaming anything that NSA does on Obama, while it may be fun, may not be sound reasoning. Richard Nixon was once on an NSA communications watch list, and Jimmy Carter was removed from the distribution of many of the highest level intelligence reports, because he was deemed a security risk. NSA works for the nation, not the office of the President, be that good or bad.
I am not as certain. The NSA isn't really being investigated fairly, and we are dealing with a corrupt privately run corporate version of government. The days of an actual government by the people and for the people are long, long gone.
Now, I see your point --who really cares about most of our silly texts and emails? I think it's more of a conditioning than an actual necessary strategy for the NSA to spy on Americans. If they can legitimize this type of behavior early on, collect data on as many citizens as possible, then when it comes time for civil unrest and *gasp* revolution, who holds the cards? We are talking about real-time tracking and patterned behavior analysis, which are invaluable tools for any self respecting dictatorship. Let's not forget about drones, the Fusion Centers, FEMA and the massive police state, either.
This is NOT about civil rights, it is about targeting people based on their political, religious and patriotic beliefs and shutting down any opposition to the establishment, not just NOW, but for the FUTURE. Always try to look where this is going, not just where it is in the moment.
I believe this following video says it all...
The article is inflammatory although most are these days.
For the record: I am neither a democrat nor a republican. That shouldn't really matter as this isn't a partisan issue and both prevailing parties are guilty. I believe what's being done is illegal.
Maybe I'm old fashioned but I believe in the 4th Amendment as written:
The wholesale collection of data in a wide cast net (I like the shrimping metaphor above ) forces me through the net of collected data without my knowledge, consent, a warrant or probable cause that I've committed a crime. Add in FISA courts and something I say online may be interpreted by a data analyst somewhere and flagged for review. Maybe it's out of context. Maybe it's a statement about current leadership. Maybe it's tongue in cheek sedition. Whatever the case, it's possible for me to get in trouble with a FISA court and be stripped of my right to due process.
What's happening now is akin to a checkpoint on a busy freeway that stops everybody, not just those presumed to be doing something wrong.
Patriotism to one's country does not = the blind following of whatever party happens to be in charge of the country at a given time. Love of country does not = love of it's government. I can be a flag waving, patriotic American who despises his government.
Much of what we see done to the skewing of the Constitution FOR the United States of America has been through an often exploited loophole called the Necessary and Proper clause. Both Reps and Dems have abused this hole and declared all manner of emergencies, needs and states of the nation to expand federal powers in areas that were not specifically enumerated to the Feds by our Constitution.
I tend to follow the older, more strict interpretation of Our Constitution which leaves me at these:
Marbury v. Madison, 1803
“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
With these words, Chief Justice John Marshall established the Supreme Court’s role in the new government. Hereafter, the Court was recognized as having the power to review all acts of Congress where constitutionality was at issue, and judge whether they abide by the Constitution.
Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
Evidence that is illegally obtained by the state may not be used against a defendant in court.
Until Mapp, only the federal government was barred from using illegally obtained evidence. So when local police entered Dolly Mapp’s home without a search warrant and arrested her for possessing obscene books, her conviction initially stood. The Court overturned her conviction, however, and extended the Constitutional rule to apply to the states and their subdivisions.
More from the same author -
From Judge Napalitano: Is the FISA Court Constitutional? by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
So, do we still have a reasonable assumption - as American citizens - of protection under the 4th amendment? If we don't, the rest of the discussion is mostly moot other than a cursory look at how we might gain it back.
Nicely presented. And well reasoned.
Separate names with a comma.