

Newly Declassified Documents Show How the Surveillance State was Born - tokenadult
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114795/declassified-legal-opinions-show-how-surveillance-state-was-born

======
tokenadult
This article is about a collection of previously classified documents spanning
most of the twentieth century about advice to various United States presidents
on secret surveillance programs in the interest of national security. The
article was a more interesting read than I expected when I first saw it on my
Google News page. President Franklin Roosevelt was advised to violate a
specific Supreme Court holding about intercepting telegraph communications
with persons outside the United States.[1] The history, across multiple
administrations, has often been a history of security concerns trumping
individual liberty concerns.

But on the whole the history is also hopeful. A key idea from the article that
really connects to me is "just as the book shows how that apparatus has been
built up, it also tells a second story: of how public outrage, loud and
sustained, can tear it back down." Countries have been in danger from external
enemies before, and countries have been in danger from their own leaders and
complacent citizens before. When the people mobilize, they can still rein in
the government.

[1] From the article: "In his opinion, Assistant Solicitor General Charles
Fahy had little hesitation about validating the president’s authority to
intercept electronic communications to parties abroad. There was just one
problem: The Supreme Court had explicitly held that the Communications Act
barred such a move."

~~~
pvnick
On the mobilization front, this rally is aiming to be a large display of
support for reforming the surveillance apparatus:
[http://rally.stopwatching.us](http://rally.stopwatching.us)

~~~
chinpokomon
Any idea why the SSL certificate for that site would be invalid? I'd rather
not connect to a site, given the nature of the content, if I can't know who
maintains the site and where a valid SSL certificate is a good first step in
due diligence.

~~~
kansface
Why would you care about an invalid cert if you aren't handing over any
credentials?

~~~
nitrogen
An invalid cert could indicate a MITM attack. Even if you're not sending
anything down, who knows what they're sending back?

------
MattyRad
> _When President Obama changed course and decided not to press forward
> unilaterally on planned strikes against Bashar Al Assad’s regime, he was
> effectively heeding that constitutional catechism. Congress and the public
> had signaled their opposition to military action, and Obama responded by
> acknowledging the need for congressional support. After decades of
> presidents ordering foreign interventions without consulting the House and
> Senate, his move represented a dramatic and welcome reversal_

It is disingenuous to claim that Obama is "bold" for not proceeding with a
ridiculously ineffective plan opposed by the overwhelming majority of all
Americans, up to and including his own wife, especially after Obama persisted
in pushing it despite all that opposition. Further, is the author forgetting
Libya? Obama didn't wait for congressional support then. Claiming Obama is
heeding or has heeded a "constitutional catechism" is absurd.

~~~
acjohnson55
To me, the situation appears to have been carefully constructed to have
avoided any realistic probability of warfare against Syria.

~~~
roc
In retrospect it appears almost _orchestrated_ \-- from Obama's push for
strikes, to Kerry's press conference 'fumble' [1] -- given how clearly and
cleanly it allowed Russia/Syria to concede to world demands without losing
face. (Indeed by appearing to be the bigger/better/more sane people.)

[1] Wherein Kerry facetiously offered the supposedly-unacceptable path to
avoiding conflict, allowing Putin to 'call' that bluff by actually agreeing to
it.

~~~
acjohnson55
Exactly. Let's not forget the "oops, sooo the British actually aren't with us
on this one" part either. But everyone sacrifices a little bit to gain
something much more important.

\- Obama took one on the chin and temporarily looked inept, but in the long
run, no one will remember the war he didn't start, and both parties get to
forget about that awkward time they were forced to advocate for positions
opposite of traditional party lines.

\- Russia lost a the ability to prevent any action against its increasingly
isolated stoolpidgeon, but got some much needed diplomacy cred, and a
distraction from its very public human rights issues.

\- Assad doesn't risk provoking a multilateral military action against his
government, but also gains a pretext to prevent proliferation of weapons that
have become a huge liability, and some much needed legitimacy as the "grownup"
in Syria.

I'm not a new world order guy, but I do absolutely think that there are times
when unfriendly nations work through the backchannels to prevent things that
are just awful for everyone.

------
drakaal
>When President Obama changed course and decided not to press forward
unilaterally on planned strikes against Bashar Al Assad’s regime, he was
effectively heeding that constitutional catechism. Congress and the public had
signaled their opposition to military action, and Obama responded by
acknowledging the need for congressional support. After decades of presidents
ordering foreign interventions without consulting the House and Senate, his
move represented a dramatic and welcome reversal

This wasn't about the constitution it was about making sure the blame was well
spread around for any actions taken.

When you are entering a war that will last past the end of your term it is
good for you and the party. People don't like change during war so unless you
really screw up you and your party are safe for that election. If you start a
war that is unpopular and you can't extend it past the end of your term then
you and your party won't win the next round.

I'm pretty party agnostic, and there are things I both like about Obama and
things I very much dislike. But he is a good at playing crowds and making
decisions based on polling. That's what was done here.

------
taproot
Racist fuck.

Oh I can't make baseless claims on the internet? What's your excuse?

Look I don't really like how Obama has handles anything but laying the blame
on him is pretty fucking retarded when these programs have been in the works
for decades.

~~~
sillysaurus2
So I've got to ask... What part of the article did you feel was racist?

~~~
taproot
None of it... I think you missed the part about baseless claims I was getting
at.

~~~
Kudos
Looks like it backfired.

