
Rep Justin Amash: Strip NSA Of Power To Collect Phone Data On Innocent Americans - peterkelly
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130720/19092823875/rep-justin-amash-now-looking-to-strip-nsa-its-power-to-collect-phone-data-innocent-americans.shtml
======
jivatmanx
I would hope that congress could be united in perturbation at what seems to be
a clear pattern of contempt officials of the Executive branch has shown for
them, starting with the last presidency.

And I'm not referring to the president or his political appointees, but the
permanent security state. In particular, "Emperor Alexander" and the fiefdom
he has accumulated [0], without anyone noticing, and unprecedented for any
American military official, and clearly contrary to basic republican
principles.

If we continue the pattern of echoing the Executive's contempt for Congress,
clearly intended as the principal branch of our democratic government, it will
just continue it's pattern of delegating increasingly vague and arbitrary
powers to that Executive, and offering no oversight whatsoever. And those
powers are going somewhere. To "Emperor Alexander" or his successor.

I don't like to see so many people echo of the contempt the executive has
shown for congress. It doesn't help Democracy to attack it's principal branch.

[0][http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/general-keith-
alexa...](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/general-keith-alexander-
cyberwar/)

~~~
s_q_b
While I don't share your fury on this point, I am equally confused by
Congress's lack of ability to see one step ahead.

Should the executive ever decide to use intelligence information for political
gain, members of Congress would likely be among the first blackmail targets of
an American surveillance state.

Few people remember that former governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by the
PATRIOT Act. Congress really can't see that a security state is actually bad
for politicians first and foremost?

------
rayiner
Let's hope some of the liberals who oppose the NSA's surveillance can put
aside their differences and support this pro-gun, anti-abortion, religious Tea
Party republican in his efforts.

~~~
technifreak
If you paid more attention to what Amash is doing, rather than hating him for
his party affiliation, you would see he is much more than what you claim he
is.

Amash is one of the few in Congress that posts his votes and reasoning on his
Facebook page. Very transparent. I would say he is also a lot more Libertarian
than he is Tea Party. He is for protecting us and (what's left of) the
Constitution.

As my representative, I will continue to vote for him and his run for Senate,
regardless of his pro-gun, anti-abortion views, religion, or party. We need
more Amash's in our government to protect the people and the Constitution.

~~~
rayiner
I'm not hating on him at all. I'm being serious when I say that I hope
liberals who disagree with his other views can nonetheless support him in this
one.

I think that as a practical matter, reform of the NSA has to come from the
right. Candidates on the right are less susceptible to charges of being "weak
on terrorism" and also can appeal to constituents (pro-gun, anti-abortion,
religious) that have historically chaffed at government
registration/monitoring type efforts (e.g. opposition to national ID cards has
always come mostly from the right). And that means that liberals who want to
see reforms to the NSA will have to get on board with any conservatives they
can find who are willing to push the issue.

~~~
Apocryphon
Only Nixon could go to China, after all.

------
ferdo
The problem is the existence of the humungous centralized Federal government
with its Central Bank and its spying apparatus. Politicians and The Money that
buys them created the problem. They're certainly not going to fix it.

The way to fix it is to cooperate with the central State as little as possible
while also working towards decentralizing our own lives and economic activity
as much as possible. This is going to take generations to fix, not years or
decades.

~~~
rayiner
The Central Bank is a red herring. It's totally irrelevant here. The central
federal government is obviously what allows the NSA to overreach, but
centralized defense is one of the primary purposes of government in nearly any
philosophical framework. The problem is that any government powerful enough to
beat back China or Russia in a shooting war is going to be powerful enough to
spy on you.

~~~
ferdo
I'd posit that the only reason for the existence of agencies such as the NSA
is exactly what Eisenhower warned us about on his way out the door (sorry for
textwall but its all relevant to my point):

"...Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no
armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as
required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency
improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a
permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a
half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment.
We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United
States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms
industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic,
political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every
office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this
development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our
toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of
our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial
complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and
will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or
democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and
knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial
and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that
security and liberty may prosper together."

>
> [http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html](http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html)

The Federal Reserve, the central bank, is the engine of the military-
industrial complex (Eisenhower wanted to call it the military-industrial-
congressional complex but his speechwriters advised against it) and is the
core reason for the imposition of this complex in our lives.

It's a private bank run along the lines of a public utility, which ensures
that the worst parts of both the public and the private sector will be
emphasized. Until we remove private interests from the middle of government,
ain't nothing gonna change.

Always follow The Money.

~~~
rayiner
The quote is relevant, but nothing in it supports your claim that the central
bank is the "engine of the military-industrial complex."

The permanent defense establishment is not the result of the Federal Reserve,
it's the result of technology. It's the result of factors that are clearly
contemplated in the by the framers, but the balance of which has shifted as a
result of modern technology.

The Constitution provides for a permanent Navy, and the U.S. realized the
importance of one very early. In his second term, George Washington said:
"There is a rank due to the United States among Nations, which will be
withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire
to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace,
one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be
known, that we are at all times ready for War."
([http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/union/state5.html](http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/union/state5.html)).

In the 18th century, it was a powerful navy that was required to maintain the
"rank due to the United States among Nations." A navy was the ultimate tool
for projecting military power at the time.

Technological progress has changed the specific tools, but the principle
remains. The statements George Washington made with respect to a navy in 1793
are today applicable also to an air force and a nuclear deterrence.

~~~
ferdo
> The permanent defense establishment is not the result of the Federal
> Reserve, it's the result of technology.

The permanent defense establishment is the result of Money, as is technology.
The control of the issuing of currency and credit in the US is held in the
hands of privately held banks. Those same banks also own the Federal Reserve
and so in turn, own the US government and its spying apparatus.

Those same banks are also who all of us have to go to, be we an individual or
a corporation, to get our loans. Defense contractors, farmers, students,
families and the US government are all ultimately in debt to the same coterie
of financial interests.

Justice Brandeis said in 1928:

"Instrumentalities like the national banks or the federal reserve banks, in
which there are private interests, are not departments of the government. They
are private corporations in which the government has an interest."

> [http://openjurist.org/275/us/415](http://openjurist.org/275/us/415)

As you brought up Washington, he also said:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a
dangerous servant and a fearful master."

When we allowed private interests to take government, we become servants to
the master. The NSA and other such outrages are just those private interests'
way of keeping tabs on their inventory.

A small piece of anecdotal history re: George W.Bush's grandfather during WWI:

"In the spring of 1918, banker Bernard Baruch was asked to reorganize the War
Industries Board as the U.S. prepared to enter World War I, and placed several
prominent businessmen to key posts. Bush became chief of the Ordnance, Small
Arms, and Ammunition Section, with national responsibility for government
assistance to and relations with munitions companies.

Bush served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (as well as
of the Huntington National Bank of Columbus). In 1931, he was appointed to
Herbert Hoover's President's Committee for Unemployment Relief, chaired by
Walter S. Gifford, then-President of AT&T. He was once recommended to serve on
the board of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, but Hoover did not feel
he was sufficiently known nationally."

>
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Bush#Political_promin...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Bush#Political_prominence)

When we allow private interests to take the reins of government at our
expense, and allow it for generations, we end up with things like the Bush
family.

------
astangl
In order for this to work, it would have to have some real teeth, i.e., spell
out real jail time penalties for NSA staff if collection occurs beyond the
cutoff date. Jail time for top staff, not just low-level scapegoats.

Also, eliminate their loophole -- spell out explicitly that any capture +
storage of communications qualifies as collection, not that it requires a
human to listen to qualify.

Alas, it will never happen.

------
jamieb
Side question: has the State now successfully argued that I can secretly
record all conversations provided that I do not listen to them until I later
get a warrant or court order?

Personally I think the two-party consent laws for recording are a great boon
for corruption, and having the ability to record everything just in case I
might later need to prove what was said in court would be immensely useful.

~~~
nitrogen
Many states only require one-party consent.

------
bitteralmond
Somebody's having some fun with the Speaker of the House's name...

"...you can imagine the Speaker's office will be quickly filling up with
agency heads looking to get their hands on an impotent Boehner."

------
gesman
Would be nice to give every american the right to choose whom to strip and
whom to have NSA relationship with....

------
chris_mahan
It's all about how you define "innocent".

