Eugene Robinson: What NSA Reforms?

[marmar]

from truthdig:



What NSA Reforms?
Posted on Aug 13, 2013

By Eugene Robinson


President Obama’s message about the government’s massive electronic surveillance programs came through loud and clear: Get over it.

The president used more soothing words in his pre-vacation news conference Friday, but that was the gist. With perhaps the application of a fig leaf here and a sheen of legalistic mumbo jumbo there, the snooping will continue.

Unless, of course, we demand that it end.

The modest reforms Obama proposed do not begin to address the fundamental question of whether we want the National Security Agency to log all of our phone calls and read at least some of our emails, relying on secret judicial orders from a secret court for permission. The president indicated he is willing to discuss how all this is done—but not whether.

“It’s not enough for me, as president, to have confidence in these programs. The American people need to have confidence in them as well,” Obama said. But if this is truly what he believes, he should have kicked off this confidence-building debate years ago, long before former NSA analyst Edward Snowden blew the whistle. ...................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/what_nsa_reforms_20130813/

[xchrom]

1. du rec.

[AzDar]

2. Sorry, Barack...

This chick ain't gettin' over it.

[Eric J in MN]

3. We still don't know how many of our emails the NSA is storing.

And whether the Utah Data Center is being built to store all of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

[DCBob]

4. I think its obvious President Obama isnt going to encourage defanging the NSA.

If thats going to happen it will need to come from congress.

[snappyturtle]

5. One of the scariest parts of the 'reform' is that only

"some cases" will have advocates when heard. Can you imagine a
U.S. court where only the prosecutor's side is presented?

From the truthdig article by Robinson:

Proceedings before the court are not adversarial; only the government side is presented. Obama acknowledged that this “may tilt it too far in favor of security, may not pay enough attention to liberty.” He proposed changing the law so that “privacy advocates” could argue the other side in some cases—an idea that already has advocates on Capitol Hill.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. Did you know …

That they is never an “advocate” to argue the cause of “(your) liberty” when law enforcement seeks a search/arrest warrant?

[JDPriestly]

12. True. But the judge is usually not such a rubber stamp that every subpoena/arrest warrant

is signed even without a showing of probably cause, however cursory, however worthless.

And at least in real cases in which real law enforcement officers are seeking the warrants, the attorneys who will prosecute the cases, the police officers who will testify, or one of their close colleagues petitions the court. And in real, ordinary cases, knowing there will be a moment of truth, that hearing when the subpoena can be challenged at trial causes prosecutors to be somewhat cautious.

That is not at all comparable to these blanket orders that the FISA Court has pretty much handed out like candy to the curious and apparently for sundry reasons or no reason at all. If we are to believe in a bit of what Snowden claims and what we saw from the Verizon order.

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. Not true ...

on many counts. First, L/E routinely seek out particular judges that "rubberstamp" warrants. Secondly, each and every request submitted to the FISA court met the very low bar of establishing probable cause. Next, because a warrant is issued does not mean that there will be a "moment of truth" (presumably, you are referring to an arrest, grand jury appearance or trial).

[JDPriestly]

16. The blanket order to maintain all Verizon records was based on probable cause?

Last edited Wed Aug 14, 2013, 03:36 PM - Edit history (1)

U.S. Constitution

Amendment IV

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

"and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Verizon phone records, that massive collection of numbers does not particularly describe the place to be searched. That is especially true when the government is getting this same kind of broad order for virtually every communications company in the US.

The term, "probable cause" has to require far more specificity than the Verizon order to be meaningful.

Men like Washington and Thomas Paine did not fight a revolution in order to have blanket orders like the Verizon order issued by our courts.

I hope that you and all DUers read this. It was posted on another thread by someone other than me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. We keep arguing back and forth on this ...

The SCOTUS already has ruled on the controlling issue ... you, and all the Con Law professors, saying that they got it wrong or trying to distinguish this matter from the controlling case, matters not.

[JDPriestly]

19. I've answered you before that what you consider to be the "controlling case" does not necessarily

control at all because it was decided long before the internet became a major channel for communications. And if you read that case, you know it concerned a very limited and reasonable amount of records that were related to a specific case.

The circumstances of the current program do not resemble those in that case at all.

Different facts and different times may mean a different outcome. There is no guarantee, but I think there is a good chance that this program will be deemed unconstitutional and therefore illegal. I understand that a couple of federal appellate courts have already ruled against the program, but I have not read the cases so I don't know for sure.

[BlueManFan]

6. Sure TO Be Hidden By A Jury Decision.....

and he doesn't even kiss us when it's over.

[nashville_brook]

7. k and r

[reformist2]

8. Is it still considered wooo conspiracy to wonder if Obama is/was deep-cover CIA?

[Enthusiast]

14. Do not step outside the perimeter of the cardboard cubical.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

9. Prepare to welcome well-known racist and Paul-bot, Eugene Robinson, under the bus.

From the linked article:


"Snowden’s disclosures do look increasingly like whistle-blowing, by the way, rather than espionage or treason. If administration officials really welcome the discussion we are now having, shouldn’t they thank Snowden rather than label him an enemy of the state?"

..........................................

[KoKo]

10. K&R!

[blkmusclmachine]

13. Reforms. Change. Transparency.

[99Forever]

18. I'm not "getting over it."

I am getting over the people sworn to uphold the Constitution and not doing it, Barack.