Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPut the NSA on trial
Put the NSA on trial
With potential perjury by top officials, and new questions about spying, let's stop assuming everything is legal
When the president does it that means it is not illegal. These infamous words from Richard Nixon appear to summarize the public legal justification for the Obama administrations unprecedented mass surveillance operation. Perhaps worse, Permanent Washington would have us believe that this rationale is unquestionably accurate and that therefore the National Security Administrations surveillance is perfectly legal.
...
The idea here, which has quickly become the standard talking point for partisans trying to defend the NSA program and the Obama administration, is that while you may object to the NSAs mass surveillance system, it is nonetheless perfectly legal as is the conduct surrounding it. Therefore, the logic goes, Snowden isnt an honorable whistle-blower hes a traitorous leaker, and the only criminal in this case is Snowden and Snowden alone.
The first and most simple way to debunk this talking point is to simply behold two sets of testimony by Obama administration national security officials. In one, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper categorically denies that the government collect(s) any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans. In another, the Guardian reports that NSA Director General Keith Alexander denied point-blank that the agency had the figures on how many Americans had their electronic communications collected or reviewed.
Both of those claims, of course, were exposed as lies by Snowdens disclosures. So at minimum Snowden deserves the title whistle-blower (and the attendant protections that are supposed to come with such a title) because his disclosures outed Clapper and Alexanders statements as probable cases of illegal perjury before Congress. In other words, in terms of perjury, the disclosures didnt expose controversial-but-legal activity, they exposed illegal behavior.
...
No doubt, all these statutory and constitutional questions surrounding the NSAs surveillance operations are why when publicly claiming that the program is perfectly legal, Obama officials also, according to Businessweek, refuse to make public their jurisprudential justifications for such a claim. They clearly fear that when subjected to scrutiny, the program will be shown to be, as Sen. Merkley put it, Out of sync with the plain language of the law.
Thus, the administrations strategy is to at once stonewall on the details and insist ad nauseam that everything is perfectly legal, when that assertion is, at best, a fact-free assumption, and more likely a devious misdirect. That Permanent Washington and so many Obama loyalists would nonetheless echo such a misdirect is a commentary on how political self-interest and partisanship now trumps everything else even the law of the land.
much more: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/put_the_nsa_on_trial/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 482 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Put the NSA on trial (Original Post)
DesMoinesDem
Jun 2013
OP
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)1. bump
Laelth
(32,017 posts)2. Um ... that would be very difficult.
This essay might explain why: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/general-keith-alexander-cyberwar/all/
-Laelth