7 ms·

> Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise Just curious, how much of the constitution would the NSA have to violate for you to consider it

> Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise Just curious, how much of the constitution would the NSA have to violate for you to consider its actions illegal? Maybe if its employees engaged in intimidation of journalists, or lying under oath? Or would they need to burn a flag and strangle a bald eagle?

krapp 11y ago
I do consider its actions illegal, but I don't consider the agency illegal. I'm also not a member of the US government, though, so even if I wanted to see the NSA burned to the ground, it wouldn't really be relevant. For a senator, much less a theoretical president, not having a close relationship with intelligence agencies really isn't an option, especially if he intends to change or reform them.
- Ironchefpython 11y ago
  > I do consider its actions illegal, but I don't consider the agency illegal So it's like a waste management company that's a front for Mafia activity like extortion and racketeering. The company isn't illegal, just the activities of a tiny fraction of its employees.
  - krapp 11y ago
    Yes, probably. Which implies Rand Paul is running for Godfather.
irishcoffee 11y ago
> Just curious, how much of the constitution would the NSA have to violate for you to consider its actions illegal? This. What was violated? What has been done that is illegal? Please, I beg you, give me something.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > What was violated? What has been done that is illegal? The whole mass metadata surveillance program was illegal; what was violated was the Constitution, insofar as, even assuming that the government could Constitutionally act in the manner the executive did, such authority of the Government as a whole would rest on authorities granted to Congress under the Constitution, not to the executive independently. Or have we already forgotten that the mass metadata surveillance program was ruled by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to not have been authorized by the Patriot Act provisions the NSA relied on for it? [0] [0] https://www.epic.org/amicus/fisa/215/aclu/Opinion-2nd-Cir.pdf https://www.epic.org/amicus/fisa/215/aclu/Opinion-2nd-Cir.pd...
  - irishcoffee 11y ago
    You didn't really answer my question. Actually, you didn't answer it at all. Because I'm not very bright, can you please spell out, in very simple terms, what right was violated? > SENATOR TOM COTTON: The program has been approved 40 times by 15 different, independent federal judges based on 36 years of Supreme Court precedent. It has been approved by two presidents of both parties. [0] [0] http://www.npr.org/2015/05/07/404994217/appeals-court-rules-nsas-bulk-collection-program-is-illegal http://www.npr.org/2015/05/07/404994217/appeals-court-rules-...
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > You didn't really answer my question. Actually, you didn't answer it at all. Yes, you asked two questions, and I answered both of them: Q. What was violated? A. The Constitution, in that even if the bulk metadata collection program did not intrude on reserved rights and therefore could Constitutionally be done by the government, it would require authorization by Congress for the Executive Branch to have authority to do it, and, although the Executive has claimed it was authorized by Section 215, it was not, as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. Q. What was done that was illegal? A. The entire bulk metadata collection program, for the reasons stated above. > Because I'm not very bright, can you please spell out, in very simple terms, what right was violated? The most fundamental political right on which the entire American system is based: the right to popular sovereignty, that is, the right to a government in which each part of the government exercises only those powers assigned to it by the people (in the case of the US, either directly through the Constitution, or through acts of other parts of government themselves acting through their Constitutional powers.)

krapp 11y ago

I do consider its actions illegal, but I don't consider the agency illegal. I'm also not a member of the US government, though, so even if I wanted to see the NSA burned to the ground, it wouldn't really be relevant. For a senator, much less a theoretical president, not having a close relationship with intelligence agencies really isn't an option, especially if he intends to change or reform them.

Ironchefpython 11y ago
> I do consider its actions illegal, but I don't consider the agency illegal So it's like a waste management company that's a front for Mafia activity like extortion and racketeering. The company isn't illegal, just the activities of a tiny fraction of its employees.
- krapp 11y ago
  Yes, probably. Which implies Rand Paul is running for Godfather.

irishcoffee 11y ago

> Just curious, how much of the constitution would the NSA have to violate for you to consider its actions illegal? This. What was violated? What has been done that is illegal? Please, I beg you, give me something.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> What was violated? What has been done that is illegal? The whole mass metadata surveillance program was illegal; what was violated was the Constitution, insofar as, even assuming that the government could Constitutionally act in the manner the executive did, such authority of the Government as a whole would rest on authorities granted to Congress under the Constitution, not to the executive independently. Or have we already forgotten that the mass metadata surveillance program was ruled by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to not have been authorized by the Patriot Act provisions the NSA relied on for it? [0] [0] https://www.epic.org/amicus/fisa/215/aclu/Opinion-2nd-Cir.pdf https://www.epic.org/amicus/fisa/215/aclu/Opinion-2nd-Cir.pd...
- irishcoffee 11y ago
  You didn't really answer my question. Actually, you didn't answer it at all. Because I'm not very bright, can you please spell out, in very simple terms, what right was violated? > SENATOR TOM COTTON: The program has been approved 40 times by 15 different, independent federal judges based on 36 years of Supreme Court precedent. It has been approved by two presidents of both parties. [0] [0] http://www.npr.org/2015/05/07/404994217/appeals-court-rules-nsas-bulk-collection-program-is-illegal http://www.npr.org/2015/05/07/404994217/appeals-court-rules-...
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > You didn't really answer my question. Actually, you didn't answer it at all. Yes, you asked two questions, and I answered both of them: Q. What was violated? A. The Constitution, in that even if the bulk metadata collection program did not intrude on reserved rights and therefore could Constitutionally be done by the government, it would require authorization by Congress for the Executive Branch to have authority to do it, and, although the Executive has claimed it was authorized by Section 215, it was not, as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. Q. What was done that was illegal? A. The entire bulk metadata collection program, for the reasons stated above. > Because I'm not very bright, can you please spell out, in very simple terms, what right was violated? The most fundamental political right on which the entire American system is based: the right to popular sovereignty, that is, the right to a government in which each part of the government exercises only those powers assigned to it by the people (in the case of the US, either directly through the Constitution, or through acts of other parts of government themselves acting through their Constitutional powers.)