I half agree. The NSA is an important organization. It's people who manipulate and take their power too far that need to be dealt with. All security was built with good intentions. Bad intentions steal the spotlight.
3
deleted
· 4 years ago
Individual people can't do jack when the concept is fucked up from the start. Such a system can only attract such people to run it.
I'm not American so I may be wrong but the NSA's objective is signals intelligence so radiowaves, satellites, and the like. If their job is to intercept and interpret plans to attack the States then I don't see how the concept is wrong. I feel like @guest_ would know more since @famousone is no longer here.
I’d also agree the NSA is an important organization, although like any such organization they are far from perfect or above politics or allure of power. Where the problem comes in as far as American law is concerned is in balance of power. The NSA is primarily responsible for signal intelligence, foreign and domestic. It gets a little nuanced, but in short their is to gather information on threats from things like radio, internet, phones, etc and relay it to other organizations to enact. They also enact cyber security and counter security like cryptography etc. they listen, hack, and prevent hacking more or less as their official mission.
The problem legally is that in 1978 federal law was passed requiring that domestic “taps” of communications require a warrant from a judge. While this law protects US citizens rights to privacy it is mainly intended to prevent the executive branch from abusing its powers. The DOD- which is the parent of many organizations like the NSA, falls directly under the secretary of defense- an executive branch member who’s direct report is the president- chief executive. Common sense and US history such as the “Watergate” scandal, and Hoover’s use of the FBI to amass “dirt” on powerful people and opponents- made clear that the executive branch wielded extreme powers through these intelligence and enforcement agencies.
As we’ve seen debate of in recent news, legal or not, a President can theoretically use federal DOD agencies to circumvent not just the sovereignty of states, but the processes in place to prevent abuses of power or exerting their will without votes from congress or citizens.
The law requiring warrants makes these organizations accountable as they must go before a judge, a legislative entity separate from their own chain of command, and prove that they’ve followed process and have just cause for such actions. It’s like a “sanity check” that forces not only a level of transparency but accountability so that these organizations cannot simply act as they desire and be given a blank check to trust they are following proper procedures and the constitution; and not acting in their own interests or against the law.
Using the patriot act and 9/11- the Bush administration declared a “war on terror” that effectively put war time powers granted to executives into their hands 24/7 against an abstract enemy- they basically said the country was in a state of war against “someone” at all times from now until forever or until “terrorism” was completely eradicated from the earth. Giving the executive branch sweeping powers to bypass checks and balances that were only intended for tires of extreme crisis.
One of those powers the executive branch gave itself was being able to bypass a law passed by congress limiting their powers of domestic surveillance and forcing accountability to someone other than the executive branch.
Tl:dr- it’s illegal in the US to spy on our own citizens without a warrant. This prevents abuses of power, law, and the constitution as we have seen happen in the past. The NSA essentially answers to the president through the secretary of defense. The 3 branches of US government each balance and check each other to help prevent any one branch and its members from having the power to ignore the law or constitution. A major problem with allowing domestic surveillance without warrants is that the “State secrets” clause (which the government attempted to invoke in this court decision) allows the government to literally just say that they don’t have to tell congress or anyone what they are doing because it is imperative to national security.
So if the executive branch invoked the state secret clause when someone believes they are doing wrong, and the clause is granted, the only people who can police what they are doing is themselves. There is a huge problem there as intelligence by its nature is a state secret. Without prevention of domestic surveillance without oversight, the executive branch can spy on anyone without reason- in essence it creates a “secret police” who are at the presidents disposal. The overarching goal is to prevent an organization, the executive branch, or a president from having the power to create a silent take over of democracy.
1. Julian Assange isn't an American
2. Julian Assange put hundreds of American allies and soldiers in danger due to wikileaks' leaking of documents with the identities of several of our spies.
Granted the leaked information was heinous and criminal but the negelgence to remove peoples' names put a lot of people in danger.
2. Julian Assange put hundreds of American allies and soldiers in danger due to wikileaks' leaking of documents with the identities of several of our spies.
Granted the leaked information was heinous and criminal but the negelgence to remove peoples' names put a lot of people in danger.