The problem is that, in spite of his happy talk, Obama has always been as bad as Bush on the first and fourth amendments, arguably worse. Remember, he voted for telecom immunity in 2008, when he was a senator.
From the article: "In the wake of Watergate, Democrats won large majorities in both houses of Congress in the midterm elections of 1974. One of the first items on the new Congress’ agenda was to investigate the intelligence abuses of Richard Nixon and his predecessors."
From another article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/11/obama-leaves-door-o...): "Responding to the most popular inquiry on the "Open for Questions" feature of his website, Barack Obama said on Sunday that he is "evaluating" whether or not to investigate potential crimes of the Bush administration, but that he was inclined to "look forward as opposed to looking backwards."
And even if Obama weren't so awful in this regard, Congress is not capable of doing anything with real teeth.
> Congress is not capable of doing anything with real teeth.
Congress has the power, and is legally capable. They just don't want to, for some fucking reason.
Someone explain to me why the Republicans don't get all up in arms about this mess? They could easily blame it on Obama's administration to win support for the next election. Even though they voted for the PATRIOT act, they can at least put on an act of hating that one part where everyone gets spied on. It's really not hard to put a spin on it where you can gain a ton of public support.
Instead, the ONLY people we see who are angry about the whole situation are the "fringe/crazy" ones: Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, etc... which, interestingly enough, lowers the credibility of outrage.
Meanwhile, everyone else in Congress and mainstream media proclaims Snowden a traitor.
I've never been one for conspiracies (seriously, never in my life), but I'm finding it more and more difficult to shake the feeling that there's something going on with our government and media that we're all completely unaware of. Their actions make absolutely no logical sense from an individual self-interest perspective.
The difference between now and 1970 is clear: NSA surveillance doesn't affect the lives of the average american. Spying or not spying, the lives of most people are the same as they have been. The NSA has been doing what its doing for years, and most people have suffered no ill effect. We can't expect Congress to be up in arms about philosophical privacy issues.
In the 70s on the other hand, Watergate was a really really big deal. It did have an effect on the daily lives of most americans. A US President had never resigned in disgrace before, and it was very much on peoples' minds. Congress was fulfilling it's role to help the nation heal in a time of crisis.
The problem with this NSA story is that there hasn't been anything to make it "real" in the minds of the average citizen. If people thought that Obama was using surveillance to keep tabs on and punish his political enemies, people would be up in arms. If the government was kicking down doors and arresting people for thought crimes, Republicans in Congress would be out of their minds with rage. Given the current political situation, it would only take evidence of one abuse to make most americans rise up in protest. But we haven't seen that yet.
This is why I think that Snowden overplayed his hand. Evidence of surveillance is shocking, but it's not enough to incite people to action. If he could have provided proof of just one actual abuse due to government surveillance, he would have made the impact that he wanted and so much more. As it is, I'm afraid that he might have thrown his lifestyle away for nothing.
I've said this before, but privacy activists need to get in bed with the hardcore conservatives on this one. Surveillance could be used to impose more aggressive policing of taxes, it could be used to track gun purchases and use, it could be used to track anti-abortionists, it could be used to spy on religious groups, etc. Is the NSA spying on state and local governments? Could surveillance be used to get a "47%" type soundbite to torpedo a future conservative candidate?
Couching this debate in national security terms is a losing proposition, because conservatives tend to want to defer to the federal government in national security situations, and liberals are just ecstatic to finally have a President who isn't seen as "weak." And hanging out with the libertarians is pointless, because they do not and never will have any voting power in the U.S. But there is tremendous potential here for an appeal to the frothy Tea-party base of conservatives because there is a lot about NSA surveillance that is contrary to their interests, or at least they would understand so if the message were cast in their language.
As opposed to taking a chance at preventing that abuse? Perhaps not as dramatic, but on the whole better to curtail it before. Once the level is abuse, it's much harder to correct.
I do see what you're saying, though. The surveillance could just get more subtle, the secrecy of it better to prevent future leaks, so that the lying about could continue. And then the chance of abuse is still there.
Who knows, maybe there are already cases of abuse, such as the Barrett Brown story. Maybe there are are others waiting to come out, or it will be easier to get them out after this first revelation.
That's a good point. If Snowden had, for example, released proof that Obama defeated Romney with the help of the NSA snooping, the Republicans probably would have sacked the White House by now.
No. The congress/president are so scared of having another terrorist attach on their watch that they are 100% sold on letting the NSA/FBI/CIA/NYPD do anything they want to do in the name of safety/security.
This stems from the fact that the average American demands that they be safe and anyone that "drops the ball" will bear their wrath next election cycle. The average American values an illusion of safety/security FAR HIGHER than their privacy.
To me this seems like the root of the issue. Politicians give the voters what the want; If most are willing to trade civil liberties for security (or at least the illusion of security) than that's the way it will be :(
Exactly. The last time there was an open debate (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Awareness_Office) about mass surveillance, Congress realized it was a bad issue with the public. So what did they do? Government simply moved these programs into black budgets or granted retro-active immunity, or modified the FISA rules to make sure everything fit into a legal framework that is Congress Approved. They wrote the laws and fund the programs. They want these programs. Why would they care to have a public debate about them?
"Congress has shown once again a remarkable willingness to reach across party lines to ensure that no problem is ever reported again. Time for a raise!"
I believe that government can work well for us, it's just the individuals in there now in both major parties are by-and-large the worst sorts we could hope for real oversight.
The difference is that the president and congress are in on it, they approved these measures and had been briefed (at least supposedly to some extent).
Also, based on what I currently know from watching and reading about the current situation, there is suppose to be SOME form of checks and balances between the FBI, NSA, CIA, some members Congress, judicial committees set up, and the president. What is that committee going to find? That a large portion of the government was doing something wrong, I doubt it.
So did the people of the US though. There haven't been intelligence abuses because this is all legal to do, and the laws are publicly available knowledge if anyone would care to look.
If the issue is people think some of these things should be illegal, then the challenge is to get the appropriate legislation changed. But if you're only champions are people who think foreign intelligence should be shutdown altogether (as Snowden has been moving his message towards), you're not going to get very far (because it's an obviously stupid idea).
Back then, it was easy to form a coalition because the guilty party (and his party) was clear, so the other party could make political hay by pursuing an investigation.
In this case, both (major) parties have a lot of blood on their hands. There's no meaningful coalition in Congress that stands to win from such an investigation.
The last poll I saw on this was that over 75% want a committee to investigate, and roughly the same percentage cross party lines. "A new Church committee" is one of the demands from StopWatching.us and from EFF et. al.'s open letter to Congress.
In the current political climate I think the best chance to stop it would be for the Supreme Court to rule on the merits. That would require the courts to allow the lawsuits to proceed, which might happen now thanks to Snowden.
If not, then the next best chance would be some Nixon-level scandal over partisan spying abuses that spurs congress into action. Though that could take decades before it happens.
The chairman of that committee, Frank Church, warned about the NSA in 1975:
> "That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide."
> "I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge... I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
It doesn't seem like anyone outside of HN considers these abuses. If anything Congress will investigate how to stop all these leaks, not the programs being leaked.
I'm all for it. But hopefully the Congress people that will be part of the investigation team won't be the same people that butt-kissed the intelligence chiefs at the past 2 hearings.
Put Wyden and Udall in charge, or even better - some people from EFF/ACLU.
I'd be contempt with just EFF being one of the 3rd parties to observe and cover in detail congressional investigation of the issue, in some official account of transparency.
I'd actually be quite happy if there was a permanent oversight committee containing members of either or both of the EFF/ACLU, with the exception that they're not allowed to leak programs, but are allowed to call for an independent Special Prosecutor to investigate abuses at any time. In fact I think the government could do a better job in general with liaising with non-profit NGOs.
I dislike the idea of "private contractors" having access to my data, much less government secrets.
These private spies provide a layer of insulation between their actions and the checks & balances which are supposed to protect us from civil rights abuses by the government.
I'm not sure how many "private contractors" the NSA had in the 1970's but I'm sure that the recent revelations would not have gone without public outcry in the 70's, and just as the use of mercenaries in wartime was once frowned upon in the USA, so would the news of "mercenary-spies" operating outside the direct oversight of the US government be frowned upon.
His committee examined the actions of the FBI, CIA, NSA and other agencies between World War II and the 1970s.
Let's hope that it doesn't take another 30 years for these issues to be resolved. Though given the attitudes of the people on these committees, I don't give that good odds.
We absolutely need this, but for this to happen you are going to need one of the leaders of either the senate or house to buy-in. Not likely without kicking the current yahoos out. Remember, it's mostly these same guys who put us here in the first place.
[+] [-] geophile|12 years ago|reply
The problem is that, in spite of his happy talk, Obama has always been as bad as Bush on the first and fourth amendments, arguably worse. Remember, he voted for telecom immunity in 2008, when he was a senator.
From the article: "In the wake of Watergate, Democrats won large majorities in both houses of Congress in the midterm elections of 1974. One of the first items on the new Congress’ agenda was to investigate the intelligence abuses of Richard Nixon and his predecessors."
From another article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/11/obama-leaves-door-o...): "Responding to the most popular inquiry on the "Open for Questions" feature of his website, Barack Obama said on Sunday that he is "evaluating" whether or not to investigate potential crimes of the Bush administration, but that he was inclined to "look forward as opposed to looking backwards."
And even if Obama weren't so awful in this regard, Congress is not capable of doing anything with real teeth.
[+] [-] fragsworth|12 years ago|reply
Congress has the power, and is legally capable. They just don't want to, for some fucking reason.
Someone explain to me why the Republicans don't get all up in arms about this mess? They could easily blame it on Obama's administration to win support for the next election. Even though they voted for the PATRIOT act, they can at least put on an act of hating that one part where everyone gets spied on. It's really not hard to put a spin on it where you can gain a ton of public support.
Instead, the ONLY people we see who are angry about the whole situation are the "fringe/crazy" ones: Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, etc... which, interestingly enough, lowers the credibility of outrage.
Meanwhile, everyone else in Congress and mainstream media proclaims Snowden a traitor.
I've never been one for conspiracies (seriously, never in my life), but I'm finding it more and more difficult to shake the feeling that there's something going on with our government and media that we're all completely unaware of. Their actions make absolutely no logical sense from an individual self-interest perspective.
[+] [-] hooande|12 years ago|reply
In the 70s on the other hand, Watergate was a really really big deal. It did have an effect on the daily lives of most americans. A US President had never resigned in disgrace before, and it was very much on peoples' minds. Congress was fulfilling it's role to help the nation heal in a time of crisis.
The problem with this NSA story is that there hasn't been anything to make it "real" in the minds of the average citizen. If people thought that Obama was using surveillance to keep tabs on and punish his political enemies, people would be up in arms. If the government was kicking down doors and arresting people for thought crimes, Republicans in Congress would be out of their minds with rage. Given the current political situation, it would only take evidence of one abuse to make most americans rise up in protest. But we haven't seen that yet.
This is why I think that Snowden overplayed his hand. Evidence of surveillance is shocking, but it's not enough to incite people to action. If he could have provided proof of just one actual abuse due to government surveillance, he would have made the impact that he wanted and so much more. As it is, I'm afraid that he might have thrown his lifestyle away for nothing.
[+] [-] rayiner|12 years ago|reply
Couching this debate in national security terms is a losing proposition, because conservatives tend to want to defer to the federal government in national security situations, and liberals are just ecstatic to finally have a President who isn't seen as "weak." And hanging out with the libertarians is pointless, because they do not and never will have any voting power in the U.S. But there is tremendous potential here for an appeal to the frothy Tea-party base of conservatives because there is a lot about NSA surveillance that is contrary to their interests, or at least they would understand so if the message were cast in their language.
[+] [-] 205guy|12 years ago|reply
I do see what you're saying, though. The surveillance could just get more subtle, the secrecy of it better to prevent future leaks, so that the lying about could continue. And then the chance of abuse is still there.
Who knows, maybe there are already cases of abuse, such as the Barrett Brown story. Maybe there are are others waiting to come out, or it will be easier to get them out after this first revelation.
[+] [-] sliverstorm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frozenport|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dvmmh|12 years ago|reply
This stems from the fact that the average American demands that they be safe and anyone that "drops the ball" will bear their wrath next election cycle. The average American values an illusion of safety/security FAR HIGHER than their privacy.
[+] [-] fnordfnordfnord|12 years ago|reply
This is an excuse. I'm more inclined to think it is the fantastical amounts of money they get to play with, spoils for their districts and such.
[+] [-] jamesjporter|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnaritas|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a3n|12 years ago|reply
If they do anything, it will be to enact legislation to make what's going on appear more legal, in a chorus of harumphs.
[+] [-] gavinlynch|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wavefunction|12 years ago|reply
"Congress has shown once again a remarkable willingness to reach across party lines to ensure that no problem is ever reported again. Time for a raise!"
I believe that government can work well for us, it's just the individuals in there now in both major parties are by-and-large the worst sorts we could hope for real oversight.
[+] [-] rfnslyr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lettergram|12 years ago|reply
Also, based on what I currently know from watching and reading about the current situation, there is suppose to be SOME form of checks and balances between the FBI, NSA, CIA, some members Congress, judicial committees set up, and the president. What is that committee going to find? That a large portion of the government was doing something wrong, I doubt it.
[+] [-] XorNot|12 years ago|reply
If the issue is people think some of these things should be illegal, then the challenge is to get the appropriate legislation changed. But if you're only champions are people who think foreign intelligence should be shutdown altogether (as Snowden has been moving his message towards), you're not going to get very far (because it's an obviously stupid idea).
[+] [-] CWuestefeld|12 years ago|reply
In this case, both (major) parties have a lot of blood on their hands. There's no meaningful coalition in Congress that stands to win from such an investigation.
[+] [-] jdp23|12 years ago|reply
The last poll I saw on this was that over 75% want a committee to investigate, and roughly the same percentage cross party lines. "A new Church committee" is one of the demands from StopWatching.us and from EFF et. al.'s open letter to Congress.
[+] [-] uvdiv|12 years ago|reply
[Senate, ex Church] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Select_Co...
[House, ex Pike] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Permanent_...
The current chair is Dianne Feinstein, who apparently supports everything the NSA is doing.
[+] [-] guelo|12 years ago|reply
If not, then the next best chance would be some Nixon-level scandal over partisan spying abuses that spurs congress into action. Though that could take decades before it happens.
[+] [-] ferdo|12 years ago|reply
> "That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide."
> "I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge... I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Church#Warning_about_the_...
[+] [-] superuser2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] badman_ting|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|12 years ago|reply
Put Wyden and Udall in charge, or even better - some people from EFF/ACLU.
[+] [-] uvdiv|12 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Select_Co...
They have been for years, if anyone's been paying attention.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/politics/democratic-sen...
[+] [-] dsirijus|12 years ago|reply
That's also more realistic goal.
[+] [-] mpyne|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] D9u|12 years ago|reply
I'm not sure how many "private contractors" the NSA had in the 1970's but I'm sure that the recent revelations would not have gone without public outcry in the 70's, and just as the use of mercenaries in wartime was once frowned upon in the USA, so would the news of "mercenary-spies" operating outside the direct oversight of the US government be frowned upon.
[+] [-] saosebastiao|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dllthomas|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] j_baker|12 years ago|reply
Let's hope that it doesn't take another 30 years for these issues to be resolved. Though given the attitudes of the people on these committees, I don't give that good odds.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Thiz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pawrvx|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stackedmidgets|12 years ago|reply