TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

224 pointsby gagan2020almost 12 years ago

11 comments

christkvalmost 12 years ago
reminds me off the Hermann Goering quote from the Nuremberg trial in 1947.<p>&quot;Why of course the people don&#x27;t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don&#x27;t want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.&quot;
评论 #5929664 未加载
评论 #5929533 未加载
评论 #5929823 未加载
评论 #5929566 未加载
venomsnakealmost 12 years ago
This was common in Eastern Europe and USSR during the purges - they were &quot;Enemies with a Party Ticket&quot;.<p>It is disturbing how easily this rhetoric comes.
评论 #5929065 未加载
评论 #5929127 未加载
评论 #5928849 未加载
crististmalmost 12 years ago
That raises the question: who is US after all? Is it the officials or is it the people?
评论 #5929037 未加载
评论 #5928747 未加载
DanielBMarkhamalmost 12 years ago
A bit off-topic, but related: there&#x27;s also a huge increase in the number of federal agencies who are outfitting their own SWAT teams. (This type of service, if really needed, could be delivered by the FBI or local law enforcement)<p>SWAT teams traditionally have been there to diffuse potentially violent confrontations -- to reduce violence. But in the last decade or so [correction: three decades], we&#x27;ve seen a change in the nature of SWAT. Now the teams are being used increasingly as shock police forces, bringing an escalated level of violence to a situation in order to overwhelm any possibility of danger to the officers or general public.<p>Seeing guys like the FDA, DOE, or EPA with their own SWAT teams is a bit unsettling, to say the least. One wonders where this will all stop.
评论 #5928182 未加载
评论 #5928084 未加载
评论 #5928909 未加载
评论 #5929732 未加载
评论 #5928175 未加载
shaunrussellalmost 12 years ago
one must ask, why does the US have enemies?
评论 #5928645 未加载
评论 #5928458 未加载
评论 #5928596 未加载
评论 #5928773 未加载
graycatalmost 12 years ago
I suggest that, on the question prominent in this thread, &quot;what should the US do about terrorism and the claimed excesses of the NSA&quot;, there is now an answer that is unavoidable, rock solid, quite clear, maybe crystal clear, even if it does not address all concerns.<p>Here in logical steps is the unavoidable answer:<p>(1) Due to whatever in history before 1776, the US founding fathers gave us the Constitution. Soon they gave us the Bill of Rights. In particular we have the Fourth Amendment.<p>(2) Congress, the FISA &#x27;court&#x27;, the Intelligence committees of Congress, the president, the NSA, etc. may have done this and that, but there are claims that the Constitution has been violated.<p>(3) Law suits are being brought claiming that the Constitution has been violated. Apparently there will be suits from Google, EFF, and the ACLU, and there&#x27;s little to stop more suits from being brought. It appears that quite generally lots of lawyers will be burning midnight oil, word processing, filing cases, etc.<p>(4) Very likely some of these law suits will make it to the steps of the Supreme Court, be taken in by the court, studied, argued, and decided. If the Constitution has been violated as clearly and strongly as it is easy to guess from the recent news, then the court will likely strike down at least some of the laws that enabled the violations. Really, for this process, nothing can stop it now -- not the president, the NSA, the FISA court, Congress. People can argue this and that, that we need what the NSA has been doing or we don&#x27;t, but still the Supreme Court will take this issue and address it.<p>(5) The founding fathers made sure that the Supreme Court was not just a bunch of kids playing tag on a playground. Instead the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) is about as serious as anything in this solar system. The court is absolutely, positively 100% aware of the Constitution, their role in defending it, and threats to it. Arguments of short term expediency, the threats of Boston loser wackos with backpacks with pressure cookers, Jihaders with chembio in public places, or well funded efforts to sneak a nuke into a major US city will not be seen as repealing the Bill of Rights or even one comma in the Constitution. And the SCOTUS is just awash in power, both in principle and in practice, to strike down as unconstitutional whatever parts of the Patriot Act, the FISA court, etc. they conclude, with considerable study and wisdom, is appropriate.<p>The process of (1)-(5) has now started and will move forward &quot;with all deliberate speed&quot; which might be 1-2 years.<p>In simplest terms, the SCOTUS can, yes, understand the threats of terrorism but can understand with much greater concern the threats to the Constitution. The SCOTUS has no choice but to pay essentially all their attention just to the threats to the Constitution.<p>It&#x27;s the process: The Executive branch is supposed to follow the laws and, really, can&#x27;t change the laws. If the laws are too limiting for the important work of the Executive branch, then have Congress pass some new laws. We did that. If the new laws are unconstitutional, then bring suits before the SCOTUS to have the unconstitutional laws struck down. We&#x27;re now in the process of doing just that. The SCOTUS has to protect the Constitution and can&#x27;t change it. If the Constitution needs changing, then that&#x27;s 2&#x2F;3rds of the House, 2&#x2F;3rds of the Senate, and 3&#x2F;4ths of the states.<p>So, in 1-2 years we will know. The smart money is on the Constitution coming out whole. And the chances of an amendment to the Constitution are as usual from slim to none.<p>So, where will the SCOTUS defending the Constitution leave Congress, the Executive branch, the NSA, the FBI, local police, etc.? They will have to put their thinking caps on and find ways to protect the US from the Jihaders within the Constitution. Or the Executive branch will find more ways to violate laws and&#x2F;or the Constitution, and then there may be more leaks, law suits, etc.<p>Whatever, and it may take time, in this mud wrestling the Constitution stands to come out whole. Thank you founding fathers.<p>Did the founding fathers see this coming? Absolutely. Been there; done that; got the T-shirt, 200+ years ago.<p>Or, we need to defend the US. One of the best parts of the US is the Constitution. So, it is logically impossible to defend the US and trash the Constitution. Instead, in defending the US, it is in particular necessary to defend the Constitution. For also defending the rest of the US, that&#x27;s a problem we have to work to solve; I have no doubt at all we can solve it.<p>In simple terms, the problem is not finding ways within the Constitution to stop the Jihaders. Instead, the problem is stopping intellectually lazy, empire building bureaucrats and CYA politicians from using the Jihader threat as an excuse to trash the Constitution, build empires, and CYA.
评论 #5929995 未加载
评论 #5930033 未加载
评论 #5930115 未加载
评论 #5930155 未加载
评论 #5932527 未加载
D9ualmost 12 years ago
Denying the right of &quot;We the People&quot; to know what is being done in OUR name is anathema to the ideal of &quot;the consent of the governed.&quot;<p>Unfortunately there are many who believe that because of the ethnicity of the POTUS he can do no wrong. I spoke to a neighbor yesterday who is a staunch Obama supporter and he parroted the Cheney line completely. When I mentioned the Bill of Rights he justified the spying as a necessary evil.<p>If the 4th Amendment is to be abrogated then it should be amended to reflect the current state of affairs.<p>There goes that fabled <i>&quot;Moral High Ground,&quot;</i> again...<p>If the government was <i>really</i> concerned with our safety alcohol would be outlawed. Compare the statistics regarding deaths attributed to <i>&quot;terrorism&quot;</i> and deaths attributed to alcohol.
评论 #5930536 未加载
philliphaydonalmost 12 years ago
I wonder if we will see a non-corrupt America within our lifetime.
评论 #5928865 未加载
评论 #5928470 未加载
teejaalmost 12 years ago
I guess I no longer need to pretend that Obama is pretending to be an a-hole in order to get re-elected.
aspensmonsteralmost 12 years ago
&gt;But R. Scott Oswald, a Washington attorney of the Employment Law Group, called the Obama administration “a friend to whistleblowers,” saying it draws a distinction between legitimate whistleblowers who use internal systems to complain of wrongdoing vs. leakers, who illegally make classified information public.<p>Jesselyn Radack, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Peter Van Buren, and William Binney didn&#x27;t seem to think that those &quot;internal systems&quot; were effective. Judging by their treatment, I can&#x27;t blame Edward Snowden for not deciding to become another body amongst foundations.
评论 #5929474 未加载
spitxalmost 12 years ago
This is Bill Clinton speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative - whose spouse, from all accounts, will most likely be running for the office of President in 2016 - on NSA Security Leaks and Snowden.<p><pre><code> &quot;They (NSA) have prevented a very large number of harmful actions&quot; &quot;I don&#x27;t see any alternative to trying to track all these groups around the world who are trying to wreck the ordinary operations of life in America and probably kill a lot of people. I am not persuaded that they (NSA) have done more harm than good&quot; </code></pre> In an increasingly uncertain world, the opinion among most American leaders and figureheads, on either side of the aisle, about the need for increased domestic and international surveillance, has already calcified.<p>For better or worse, they are overwhelmingly in favor of it. The debate being precipitated here and in mainstream media is largely symbolic.<p>It is time for privacy advocates to leave their dens and organize formally ( as in politically ) to advance their agendas. Washington only understands political clout whether it is a PAC or a lobby group.<p>Grassroots organizations will always go the way of Occupy Wall Street without formal leadership and a political consensus - lots of Zuccotti drama and nothing to show for it except for your obligatory iconic pepper spray photo.<p>You can mobilize politically in formal ways or bask in the warm glow of all the emotional outrage being voiced now and get your iconic photo spread.<p>Guess what?<p>The riots in Brazil have one too:<p><a href="http://25.media.tumblr.com/a3b0bc19184f467fb7a70a2df6ee81a5/tumblr_molaxlscWT1r44q44o1_1280.jpg" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;25.media.tumblr.com&#x2F;a3b0bc19184f467fb7a70a2df6ee81a5&#x2F;...</a><p>and nothing will come off those riots either. Wanna wager a candy bar?<p>Let&#x27;s check back 3 months from now and I bet things will have gone back to where they were without any concrete action taken and the crowds going back to their usual quotidian lives.<p>Source:<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-JdjIxjeUs" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=2-JdjIxjeUs</a>
评论 #5928903 未加载