

The NSA: ‘The Abyss from Which There Is No Return’ - joeyespo
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_nsa_the_abyss_from_which_there_is_no_return

======
scrrr
> And once the government starts operating outside the law, answerable to no
> one but itself, there’s no way to rein it back in, short of revolution.

Exactly. Or can somebody think of an example in history where a government
gave up some of its rights? These sorts of authorisations (anti-terror laws
and whatnot) don't go away, because they are too convenient for those in
power.

~~~
trebor
And a revolution fighting against modern weaponry is practically guaranteed to
fail. With the government constantly trying to restrict the citizens' access
to weaponry there's no way to even make parody (pun intended) to hold the
government accountable. Add to that the fact we've a standing military,
something the Constitution never authorized, that's professionally trained.
We've had problematic generals before but none of them tried to seize control
of the country, yet.

If a revolution breaks out we aren't talking about a conflict the size of
Syria's or Egypt's. We're probably talking about the biggest civil war ever,
or a military coup. And the outcome of it (no matter if it worked or failed)
would effectively _gut_ the USA.

Tyranny is almost assured. We're on the bubble right now if the outcome hasn't
already been decided (and we won't know except in hind-sight).

~~~
abawany
I hope that just partly like in Syria, the troops would eventually balk at
killing their fellow citizens. However, I admit that such a possibility is
less likely for armed forces that are engaging in war remotely.

*: I believe that at some point, the majority of Syrian resistance was formerly the Syrian army.

------
masswerk
And it's not only about US citizens.

As things are, any non-US-citizen is under suspect by the US gov which is
totally legal in the US. Now, just imagine the US outsourcing surveillance of
homeland communications, say to the UK. Again, it would be totally legal in
the UK — as in most countries — to monitor the communications of a foreign
state. So the American people (same applies to other countries) shouldn't be
concerned with domestic effects only. (As of writing this, most European
democracies are co-operating with the US and are retrieving informations on
their own citizens via US-intelligence.)

~~~
regis
Exactly, this is the weirdest part to me. The US government feels alright with
the fact that they have publicly declared anyone living outside the US a
possible enemy. That is definitely not how I feel at all as a citizen and that
viewpoint is obviously extremely dangerous. It seems like the US is becoming
something like a xenophobic elderly person who isn't able to adjust to the
times.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
>The US government feels alright with the fact that they have publicly
declared anyone living outside the US a possible enemy.

I disagree with this. The people who are tasked to prevent foreign powers from
attacking, destabilizing or hindering U.S. intentions have a stated mission to
prevent them from doing so and as such have that as a minimum starting point.

If you look at the other arms of the USG, namely the State department their
charter is exactly the opposite, building partnerships, making friends etc...

So yes, the DoD and CIA view the rest of the world as hostile to the US by
default. That's what they are there to defend against so it would make sense.
That said, there are tons of building partnerships, humanitarian relief and
international relations missions stemming from the DoD to foreign allies and
partners. Its actually growing quite a bit - and likewise makes defending the
nation against materiel proliferation, attacks, espionage etc... harder.

~~~
masswerk
Sorry for the intervening (as this wasn't exactly a reply to my post).

I really would like Americans to understand that there is a great concern
outside of the US about the directions the US, its government and its arms are
taking.

The US had built a great reputation in 20th century as "the beacon of freedom"
– and lost some of it during the G.W. Bush administration. Remember the very
warm welcome Obama had when visiting Europe just before the inauguration (for
example in Berlin)? This was really an expression of the wish to get back to
terms as they used to be and to close the books over what seemed then to have
been just an episode. Or take Obama's (quite premature) Nobel price as an
example for yet another expression of this wish.

In the meantime things have changed. But it wasn't the change expected. From
outside, it looks a bit like the US became out of balance. When naming the
State department and other arms headed towards foreign policy, not much of
them is perceived outside. (I really can't remember when the US State
department was in the news last time, but it feels like to have been years
ago.) What's perceived, is the intelligence, the DoD, drones, the NSA, etc.
From outside it appears, as if the US with a self-description as the "blessed
nation" has lost interest in co-operation on a large scale as it even targets
its closest allies. What had been the epicenter of freedom, cool, and hip, now
has started to feel a bit like a looming shadow. (It might be worth to note
here that most political parties in Europe have their origins in the
revolutions of 1848, which were essentially a revolt against surveillance and
police control. Even in the social network age there are some of these values
still alive and are nurturing some sensibility on this subject.) There's even
saying of the cold war returning, but this time with the US featuring the bad
guy. This is not, what the allies of the US have learned to expect from their
partner. Nor is it, what its friends would wish them to be. This is not, how
people would like to perceive the US, but eventually they start feeling being
unable to help about it. There's a feeling of disappointment. And there's a
great wish for co-operation and trust.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
I think those are all totally reasonable and justifiable feelings. I agree in
general that our military/intelligence arm has been carrying the US brand the
loudest since 9/11\. I think that was by design. I won't argue whether that is
good or bad, because I could make the case either way.

My intent was to say that yes the self protective parts of the government are
going to be inherently anti-foreign, by design. I think what your comment adds
is basically replying to that with: "Ok, well if you guys make that part of
your government the loudest and strongest part to the rest of the world, we
probably will stop liking you guys, and will stop wanting to play with you."

I think that is a very valid criticism. It is one for the legislators and the
public to take on however, not the arms of the government that are intended to
protect it.

------
Roboprog
I sincerely hope any tech working for NSA is socially outcast. "Pardon us if
we're not thrilled that you work for an unconstitutional institution." While
the NSA is currently less harmful than say, the Mafia, it has the potential to
be far worse.

Contractors on the Death Star?

Bleh, Godwin's Law and all that...

~~~
RougeFemme
I don't think that people who work for the NSA generally acknowledge that they
do. Not necessarily out of shame or fear of being outcast, but just because of
the nature of working in the "black/top secret world". Some name some non-
existent entity as their employer - in a social situation, who would really
know if they were lying? And if they are working for a contractor, they can
quite easily just name the contractor as the employer

~~~
rootbear
I live in the DC area and the people I know who work at NSA typically say they
work "for the Department of Defense". That's a sure sign they work at NSA,
since anyone else who works at DoD would just say more specifically whom they
work for, like I did when I was a contractor at the Naval Research Lab.

