
New NSA Documents Shine More Light into Black Box of Executive Order 12333 - mo
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/new-nsa-documents-shine-more-light-black-box-executive-order-12333
======
justcommenting
John Napier Tye tried to change these policies and practices before resigning
from the State Department earlier this year. His story is spine-chilling for
anyone who cares about these issues and is well worth reading in full, e.g.:

"Before I left the State Department, I filed a complaint with the department’s
inspector general, arguing that the current system of collection and storage
of communications by U.S. persons under Executive Order 12333 violates the
Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. I have
also brought my complaint to the House and Senate intelligence committees and
to the inspector general of the NSA."

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-executive-
order-...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-executive-
order-12333-the-reagan-rule-that-lets-the-nsa-spy-on-
americans/2014/07/18/93d2ac22-0b93-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html)

~~~
higherpurpose
Yet the administration keeps saying with a straight face that all of the mass
surveillance they are doing is "perfectly legal", all while trying to hide it
even happens, or trying to dismiss cases against them in Courts through bogus
ways.

~~~
justcommenting
The opening paragraphs of the above-linked piece make this shockingly clear:

"The speech was about the impact that the disclosure of National Security
Agency surveillance practices would have on U.S. Internet freedom policies.
The draft stated that “if U.S. citizens disagree with congressional and
executive branch determinations about the proper scope of signals intelligence
activities, they have the opportunity to change the policy through our
democratic process.”

But the White House counsel’s office told me that no, that wasn’t true. I was
instructed to amend the line, making a general reference to “our laws and
policies,” rather than our intelligence practices. I did."

Especially for a public servant working on _internet freedom issues_ , I can't
imagine how Tye must have felt. Tye's story really made one of Snowden's
initial remarks concrete to me: "..but if you realize that _that 's_ the world
that you helped create....you realize that you might be willing to accept
_any_ risk, and it doesn't matter what the outcome is, so long as the public
gets to make their own decisions.."

I hope that the courage of John Napier Tye will inspire others.

~~~
higherthanlow
They've always counted on the citizen doing nothing considerable about it. And
who can blame them?

~~~
wavefunction
I can blame them. I am ready and willing to blame them and hold them
accountable.

~~~
CyberDildonics
In your mind, in your chair, in front of your computer.

------
npkarnik
Extralegal power has always been a mainstay of the federal government. For
20th century examples, the FBI was notorious for monitoring and blackmailing
Civil Rights leaders (associating the movement with communism), especially
MLK. Japanese internment during World War II was authorized by FDR's executive
order 9066.

There is literally no _legal_ basis for most of the NSA's activity. But there
is plenty of extra-legal handwaving that justifies the NSA's
behavior...executive orders, "secret court" FISA rulings, all culminating in
the use of this intelligence to assassinate and indefinitely detain/torture
those (citizens and noncitizens alike) who are a "continued and imminent
threat" to the United States.

"Slippery slope" arguments used to seem weak and contrived. But I honestly
can't help but feel we've reached pretty close to the bottom of that slope. In
the sense that I feel like our government just kind of makes stuff up as it
goes along and only occasionally responds well to the strongest forms of
shame.

~~~
7952
It is perfectly possible that the NSA really do need to damage human rights in
order to fight terrorism. Just because they are acting improperly doesn't
neccessarily mean that their arguments are entirely specious. The internet is
hugely powerful for terrorists and the only answer the government have is to
take away even more privacy. It is a slippery slope because the danger is
real.

Edit. My comment was not excusing the actions of the NSA. I think that human
rights should be protected at all costs and the spying should stop. I just
think that a real threat probably does exist and this creates a catch 22 in a
political sense.

~~~
pjc50
Damaging human rights is itself a form of harm that should go on the other
side of the scales from fighting "terrorism". Ferguson reminded people that in
many places the average person on the street is far, far more likely to be
killed by a cop than a "terrorist".

Terrorism and police brutality are both law enforcement problems, and the
solution is the same: enforce the existing law, _impartially, publicly and
universally_.

The additional problem of terrorism is trying to fight it in other people's
countries, where the enforcement brutality is even more of a problem. If you
count the Iraq war as "anti-terrorism", then the effect of US anti-terrorism
has been to kill, injure, abuse or displace far more people than Al-Quaida.
ISIS are more deadly still, but they should be regarded as a hostile state
rather than a terrorist group.

~~~
7952
Yes I agree.

------
matt_morgan
It's election day in the US. Please join the ACLU

[https://www.aclu.org/secure/become-freedom-fighter-join-
aclu](https://www.aclu.org/secure/become-freedom-fighter-join-aclu)

and remember that we can make this an issue to which politicians must be
sensitive.

~~~
coldpie
I noticed this year that almost every article I read about court cases that I
care deeply about were either defended or brought by either the ACLU or the
EFF. Then I started a monthly donation to both. Both organizations are doing a
lot of good work.

------
freddealmeida
I certainly don't understand why any such authority can be given.

~~~
efoto
EO 12333 ([http://www.archives.gov/federal-
register/codification/execut...](http://www.archives.gov/federal-
register/codification/executive-order/12333.html)) is in place since 1981 -
one of the peaks of the Cold War. In this context one can justify the
provisions of the EO.

But regardless of the context, any bureaucrat would prefer ubiquitous
surveillance. It's up to the concerned citizens to insist on their
constitutional rights and press the government to restrict spying on their own
people.

------
alandarev
But it seems to be absolutely _OK_ to spy on all the people who use Celsium?

~~~
lawlessone
Well if you're not american you're guilty until proven innocent regardless.
You should have thought of that before you decided to not be born in America.

Down vote all you want it's true. A lot of you are only mad and arguing about
it because the same spying you have no problem applying to the rest of the
world is blowing back in your face.

~~~
quantumcoffee
Well, that's sort of the point of having a spy agency. It's supposed to invade
the privacy of other countries' citizens for the benefit of its own. What
country do you live in? I'd bet good money that it has its own signals
intelligence service too. Spying on foreigners is a tool of statecraft, and
statecraft is a shady business.

