One might have thought that before those two veteran legislators opened up their vomit-holes and began spewing legalistic opinions, they have bothered to go read the fucking law. This is the law on treason:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.Snowden neither waged war against the United States nor did he adhere to the enemies of the United States. Without either of those two elements, he cannot be found guilty of treason. One would think that maybe either Boehner or or Feinstein would have a passing familiarity with the elements of a crime that they are accusing someone else of, but one would be wrong.
Which leads me to propose the Boehner-Feinstein Rule: Whenever those two agree on something, they're likely both wrong.
Second up is Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Ratfuck), who said that because Congress redid the Patriot Act to authorize the NSA to go into datamining against American citizens, what the NSA did under Obama was legal.
Hoyer does not get it. It's the fact that the NSA has been collecting data on Americans for seven something years (probably closer to a dozen years) that is the problem. That Congress is OK with it and that a rubber-stamp-wielding court is the problem. It's even worse that the government is now not breaking the law.
What Feinstein, Boehner, Lindsey Graham and the President are saying in this whole thing is: "You can trust us. We won't grossly invade your privacy." That is a near complete reversal of the bedrock principles of our nation. The foundation of our system of government is that government cannot be trusted to not trample on the rights, liberties and freedoms of the citizens. That's why most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights were written into the Constitution.
We have the right to be secure in our homes and effects, not that we can be secure in our homes and effects unless some faceless terrorcrat feels like listening into our phone calls or reading our emails. The Congress, the Executive and the FISA court have completely gutted the Fourth Amendment with permitting one stinking court order to authorize surveillance on every person with a telephone. Hell, they apparently didn't even bother going to the Rubber-Stamp Court to get an order to turn Google, MSN, Yahoo, Facebook, AOL and the rest into Stasi-style informants.
I am not sure that the standard political labels apply anymore. What we have, now, are people who want their individual freedoms back and those who are pro-police/surveillance statists, who are just fine with being watched by the authorities. Those of us who believe in the right to be left alone need to start speaking up and, we need to start making it harder for them to track us.
And finally, if you are trusting that cloud computing and data storage are safe and that your data will be secure in the cloud, I respectfully suggest that you rethink that.
7 comments:
Since the late gun control push, a quote's been rattling around in my head, making me wonder if I'm the only one who remembers it being said:
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals...Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake."
-Barack Obama, Inaugural Address, 2009
"Meet the new boss,
Same as the old boss."
-The Who
Comrade EB - -
You're the lawyer, but I always thought the Constitution defined Treason - -
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Has it changed ???
Agree with your view,but just curious. Thax
So, what do we do about it? I suggest that Congress should give either Intelligence Committee the supreme authority to declassify any document, by majority vote.
Would that do any good?
Bearsense, the Constitution sets out the minimum for the charge of treason. It still takes a criminal statute to formalize the elements and set out the penalties.
Joe, we start by repealing the Patriot Act. It is a set of laws passed when this country was collectively shitting its pants. We need to have a discussion about what the government can do that is more nuanced than the Feinstein/Graham argument of "wiretapping everyone or terrorism".
Comrade, I suspect it is too late. I have assumed for some time that the change from Republic to Empire was underway, and I was hoping it would be more prolonged...hence my willingness to go suggest some gun control. However, the accelerating pace of the change makes it clear that we may already be well on the downhill. That being the case, the question is simply one of what's at the bottom of the hill. I have a nasty feeling the sheer volume of weapons in the country makes a smooth transition to an Empire in decline unlikely.
Given the recent data on food insecurity, poverty, healthcare gaps, discontent and such, the most likely nexus for the explosion would appear to be Arizona or Texas. Cynically, two to five years...honestly, probably ten to fifteen.
CP88, you left out drinking water. I suspect Arizona will fall apart for that before anything else.
"That Congress is OK with it and that a rubber-stamp-wielding court is the problem. It's even worse that the government is now not breaking the law."
That and the complete lack of any independent oversight of any kind. One of the worst things about this is that we really don't know what they're doing with our data. Snowden's statements provide some clue, but even then you really don't have to have a powerful imagination to realize where that could lead. This story is a case in point - EU is not happy with the idea of storing its data someplace where it can end up in the wrong hands. I can't blame them for worrying.
Post a Comment