[HN Gopher] U.S. court upholds dismissal of lawsuit against NSA ...
___________________________________________________________________
U.S. court upholds dismissal of lawsuit against NSA on 'state
secrets' grounds
Author : commoner
Score : 141 points
Date : 2021-09-16 18:42 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| Glyptodon wrote:
| I think government should be permitted to say "National
| Security," but it should come along with a presumption that the
| evidence would have been adverse to the government's case just
| like spoliation, and the case should proceed, not a blanket get
| out of jail free card.
| einpoklum wrote:
| Why do you believe the (US) government be permitted to say
| "National Security" to excuse severe, widespread and continuous
| breaches of constitutional rights?
| Glyptodon wrote:
| I don't. Treating witheld/secret information as like
| spoilation would mean an assumption that whatever cannot be
| presented would be adverse to their side of the case. Which
| is to say they could basically say "we can't have this info
| in courts," and the courts would say "okay, we believe you,
| but because this information is effectively withheld, and
| that information would be crucial to the case, we will
| proceed with summary judgment favoring the other side in
| areas impacted by said evidence" or something similar.
|
| I'm saying they can make the excuse, but there'd be cost
| pretty much.
| sneak wrote:
| If the executive branch can classify things as sensitive to the
| national security, and there is a state secrets exception to
| trial, then how on Earth are the judiciary and executive on equal
| footing if the executive can simply cause a default outcome of
| any trial against it?
|
| The programs in question here are also clearly not national
| security matters. They were made public, are illegal, and the
| security of the nation was not affected in any way.
|
| The whole house is built on a foundation of lies.
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| >> If the executive branch can classify things as sensitive to
| the national security, and there is a state secrets exception
| to trial, then how on Earth are the judiciary and executive on
| equal footing if the executive can simply cause a default
| outcome of any trial against it?
|
| This is the meat of the problem with pervasive surveillance.
| Until this matter is resolved in such a way that makes any
| surveillance without a warrant be deemed unconsitutional, the
| idea of 'freedom' is only a ghost in the U.S.
| xxpor wrote:
| >how on Earth are the judiciary and executive on equal footing
| if the executive can simply cause a default outcome of any
| trial against it?
|
| You have to remember, the default answer to "Can I sue the
| government?" is No. The only suits you're allowed to take to
| trial are ones the government has allowed themselves to be sued
| for.
|
| For example:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act
|
| While I think the entire idea of sovereign immunity is
| bullshit, the chance of the doctrine being overturned is next
| to 0. So we have to live with it. The point is, you're kind of
| lucky to even get as far as getting this dismissed over state
| secrets.
|
| The _real_ problem with the state secret doctrine is when the
| feds intervene in a suit between two private parties.
|
| https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2014/09/uani-state-secrets/
| einpoklum wrote:
| I believe you're quoting an irrelevant rule.
|
| AFAICT, this was _not a torts lawsuit_. Wikimedia was not
| suing for damages, it asked the courts to declare certain
| government practices illegal and /or force the government to
| desist these practices.
| happythomist wrote:
| The judiciary and executive are not on an equal footing. The
| judiciary is the weakest branch of government, and the
| legislature the strongest.
|
| These kinds of abuses must be addressed by Congress, not the
| courts.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| The legislature is _supposed_ to be the strongest. But it 's
| so busy infighting that more and more power falls to the
| executive, so that things actually get done.
| KittenInABox wrote:
| Is my understanding correct that, essentially, you can violate
| people's constitutional rights and then if you're sued claim
| investigating the violation would be a national security threat
| and therefore you should continue to be allowed to violate
| people's rights without oversight?
| erellsworth wrote:
| Sounds pretty accurate.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| State secrets has long been the get out of jail free card from
| the US constitution
| nickysielicki wrote:
| Not _that_ long:
|
| > While precise numbers are hard to come by (because not all
| cases are reported), a recent study reports that the "Bush
| administration has invoked the state secrets privilege in 23
| cases since 2001." By way of comparison, "between 1953 and
| 1976, the government invoked the privilege in only four cases."
| - John Dean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dean
| java-man wrote:
| And to cover up crime.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Reynolds
| btilly wrote:
| I never see "state secrets" invoked without thinking that
| corruption is probably involved, and sunlight is the best
| disinfectant.
|
| State secrets have always been problematic. Take the very first
| case:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Reynolds#Subs....
| As was later discovered, the biggest secret was how much the
| government didn't want to be embarrassed.
|
| But, common law is common law. If the privilege is invoked,
| courts get bound by precedent. Regardless of what the personal
| opinions of the judge may be.
| 3pt14159 wrote:
| Well, we need state secrets and we only really hear of their
| invocation when its in the news. Theres a podcast[0] I used to
| listen to with some frequency about the cases the lawyers
| working in Canada's intelligence services have to handle and
| how they balance the need for a democratic society with the
| rule of law, an needing to keep some things secret. I came away
| with the feeling that it's not all bad. We hear about some
| misuses, but I don't think it's mostly corruption.
|
| [0] https://www.intrepidpodcast.com/podcast
| btilly wrote:
| The United States was able to survive for the better part of
| 200 years without any such doctrine, including fighting a
| number of major wars. Why is it necessary for us to have this
| authority now when it was not needed in the Civil War or
| during either World War?
|
| The way that state secrets used to be handled was simple. The
| government chose on a case by case basis whether or not they
| were willing to not present their evidence (potentially
| losing the case because of it), or whether they wished to
| present their facts to the judge _in camera_ (meaning in
| private, in chambers, relying on the judge to maintain
| confidentiality).
|
| There is no particularly good reason that we could not have
| maintained that system. But conversely, now that the States
| Secrets privilege exists, there is no reason why the
| government shouldn't be aggressive about asserting it.
| HenryKissinger wrote:
| Trying to litigate a matter of national intelligence through the
| courts is the wrong approach to use. The government has nearly
| unlimited powers in matters of national security, which includes
| the collection of intelligence. The right approach for those who
| believe to have standing is to write to your congressman or
| senator, especially if they sit on the House or the Senate
| Intelligence committees. Or, better, to run for office yourself.
| The latter advice applies to a host of other issues.
|
| If you want to save the environment, do not study environmental
| science. Study politics, and become a politician, at the local,
| state, or federal level. Gain some hard political power to make
| or break laws and policies.
|
| If you care about voting rights, do not become an activist.
| Become a politician, and marshal support for a bill.
|
| If you care about government surveillance, do not try to fix the
| problem through your lawyer. Become a member of Congress and
| marshal support for a bill.
|
| We want to have our cake and eat it. To solve the problems of
| society without making sacrifices. To go home at 6pm and tell the
| wife that you won in court against the government, have
| successfully nullified the government's surveillance powers, go
| to bed at 10, and go to work in the morning. Rather than leave
| your field to run for office, and possibly make a permanent
| career change. How many software engineers on this forum would
| consider becoming full time politicians for the remainder of
| their career and leave the tech field entirely? Few. Because as
| much as we like to write walls of text about the issues we
| pretend to be passionate about, few of us consider these problems
| to be little more than fictional annoyances that we don't
| seriously, really care about enough to make personal sacrifices
| to change. /rant
| gorwell wrote:
| The sacrifice element is key. To quote Douglas Adams,
|
| "The major problem--one of the major problems, for there are
| several--one of the many major problems with governing people
| is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to
| get people to let them do it to them.
|
| To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who
| must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to
| do it.
|
| To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting
| themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do
| the job.
|
| To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
| And so this is the situation we find: a succession of Galactic
| Presidents who so much enjoy the fun and palaver of being in
| power that they very rarely notice that they're not. And
| somewhere in the shadows behind them--who? Who can possibly
| rule if no one who wants to do it can be allowed to?"
| nescioquid wrote:
| Of course, that is the correct answer!
|
| But, if you actually want to change the country, you must first
| go into finance or otherwise accumulate the wealth and
| influence needed to "corrupt" enough legislators into
| abolishing the current campaign financing and lobbying rules,
| so that all those whom you exhort might actually have a chance
| of winning office. Note this also immediately removes your
| source of power (not something people often do voluntarily).
|
| I really don't see an obvious way to change things from within
| the system. I hope there is, otherwise we get either unending
| corporate feudalism or revolution.
| FpUser wrote:
| Translation - everyone who wants to have their rights respected
| must quit doing whatever they do and become a politician. And
| we of course would leave it to a career politicians to bake our
| bread, write software etc. etc.
| rmah wrote:
| I find it sad that the above comment was heavily downvoted
| given that he's is correct.
| nickysielicki wrote:
| Hardly.
|
| > Trying to litigate a matter of national intelligence
| through the courts is the wrong approach to use. The
| government has nearly unlimited powers in matters of national
| security, which includes the collection of intelligence. The
| right approach for those who believe to have standing is to
| write to your congressman or senator, especially if they sit
| on the House or the Senate Intelligence committees.
|
| This isn't the way the government is supposed to work. We
| cannot count on the legislature to pass constitutional laws
| in all circumstances, that's why we have these landmark court
| cases that overturn bad laws. To say that the real solution
| is to just hope and pray that the legislature comes to their
| senses and reforms the laws themselves completely circumvents
| the role of our courts. If that was realistic, why do we have
| courts at all?
| riversflow wrote:
| >This isn't the way the government is supposed to work.
|
| But clearly this _is_ how the government currently works.
| If you don 't want it to work that way, you'll need to
| change it.
|
| >To say that the real solution is to just hope and pray
| that the legislature comes to their senses
|
| No, the solution isn't hope and prayers, its activism,
| donations and getting others politically involved
| (especially about things that aren't the president).
| nickysielicki wrote:
| The courts are an independent body of government, the
| legislature has (and should always have) zero impact on
| the way that the courts make decisions. That's by design.
| This decision was rooted in common law. The onus is on
| the courts to reassert authority to review these cases,
| not on anyone else. There are no elections or legislation
| that will impact this.
| pas wrote:
| Clearly the elections end up influencing who sits on the
| bench.
| nickysielicki wrote:
| In this decision, there were three judges:
|
| > Judge Diaz [Obama] wrote the majority opinion, in which
| Judge Motz [Clinton] joined as to Parts I and II.A, and
| in which Judge Rushing [Trump] joined as to Part II.B.2
| and C.
|
| > Judge Motz [Clinton] wrote an opinion concurring in
| part and dissenting in part. Judge Rushing [Trump] wrote
| an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment.
|
| https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201191.P.pdf
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appe
| als...
|
| Three judges from three administrations and both parties,
| all in agreement and disagreement. It's that way because
| they're a circuit court and they're applying law and
| precedent.
| Supermancho wrote:
| > It's that way because they're a circuit court and
| they're applying law and precedent.
|
| There was dissent because it's not about applying law and
| precedent, but interpretation and choosing to apply or
| not.
|
| > that's why we have these landmark court cases that
| overturn bad laws.
|
| Because the court is subject to the population's
| prevailing opinion, in part. As public opinion shifts, so
| do courts (over longer cycles ofc).
|
| > The courts are an independent body of government, the
| legislature has (and should always have) zero impact on
| the way that the courts make decisions
|
| Wrong on all counts, around the world, throughout time.
| Pointing to concepts of "court impartiality" is like
| arguing about "pure democracy", discounting the human
| behavior when discussing the reality, is not compelling.
|
| Philosophers since (at least) Plato have tried to
| _theorize_ a system for impartial philosopher kings, much
| less declare a profession to point to and say "that
| person is completely objective". https://midnightmediamus
| ings.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/plato-...
| ziddoap wrote:
| "Just become a politician, gain political power, and change
| everything"
|
| What about the rest of the owl?
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Did you expect changing the way an entire country does
| something would be easy?
| ziddoap wrote:
| Quite the opposite, which is why my comment is poking fun
| at the parent post which summarizes to "just become a
| powerful politician".
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| But the "joke" only works if parent had presented the
| solution as something that shouldn't be difficult or that
| was the expectation. If the expectation is that changing
| this thing is difficult, and parent gave solutions that
| are indeed difficult, how does pointing out that it is
| actually difficult add up to humor?
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _only works if parent had presented the solution as
| something that shouldn 't be difficult_
|
| Sort of like presenting a decades long journey of
| politics as:
|
| > _Become a member of Congress and marshal support for a
| bill._
|
| Or telling people they should just:
|
| > _Gain some hard political power to make or break laws
| and policies._
|
| Because it certainly read to me that the parent is
| grossly understating the effort, time, commitment, and
| luck required to just "become a member of congress" and
| wield "some hard political power to make or break laws".
|
| They make it seem like tomorrow I can walk into Congress
| and get to changing laws by Monday. Hence, _where 's the
| rest of the owl_?
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| > They make it seem like tomorrow I can walk into
| Congress and get to changing laws by Monday.
|
| I didn't get that impression at all.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _Or telling people they should just:_
|
| Nowhere in the original post does the word "just" appear.
| I don't think the poster was being flippant at all, or
| was suggesting that taking this path is easy, or one to
| be taken lightly. Just that it should be no surprise that
| trying to take the "easy way" to change public policy is
| not one that's likely to work. (Or, rather, that trying
| to change the government from the outside, on a part-time
| basis, is going to give you limited results.) Doing so is
| very hard, and might require a career change if you are
| serious about making a difference.
| lsiebert wrote:
| If you care about an issue, any issue, the answer is to find
| like minded people and build or attend a meeting, a coalition,
| a movement, or some other form of solidarity between
| individuals to pursue it. Maybe that means you get elected,
| maybe it means candidates seek your support, but unless you
| have millions of dollars to donate, your biggest power is not
| as an individual, but as part of a group.
| waiseristy wrote:
| Don't know why you were immediately down-voted, litigation is
| the wrong approach to use, since the litigation process is
| already captured by our national security cabal. I think many
| of us here writing walls of text plan to run for office, but do
| not have access to the kind of capital that it would take to
| actually have a chance
| WealthVsSurvive wrote:
| Yes, I'd like to know exactly what part of our current US
| government is tenable even from within. The only office I can
| think of is the unitary executive. The Senate was created in
| the founding father's own words to protect the "opulent from
| the many". The house is perpetually obstructed by this
| Senate, the likes of which smarter nations have discarded.
| But, even the house is captured in such a manner that
| citizens in more populated states have less representative
| voting power than slaves during the 3/5 compromise.
|
| What other option is left, aside from rebirth? It's no
| coincidence that dark forces conspire to now "get out in
| front" of this zeitgeist and swap the baby in its cradle for
| something ugly.
| kelnos wrote:
| Unless you are rich, you can't just decide to run for
| President (or Congress) tomorrow without having any existing
| political experience.
|
| First stop would be to run for a local elected office, like a
| school board, county/city treasurer, or something like that.
| If your city has some sort of city council, work your way up
| to that. From there, give mayor a go. Next stop might be your
| state legislature. From there, you might have enough
| popularity and name recognition to run for the US House. If
| the US Senate is your goal, you may have to spend more time
| at the state level -- controller, secretary of state, perhaps
| lieutenant governor or governor -- before you'll have the
| backing for a US Senate run.
|
| And that's the thing. Even if everything goes to plan, you're
| looking at 10-20 years before you're competitive enough to
| get into US Congress (either chamber, but the Senate will
| take more work and time). I'm not surprised that it's hard
| for people to go from "I'm really upset with how the US is
| turning into a surveillance state; I wish there was something
| I could do to change that", to "I'm gonna ditch my existing
| career and dedicate the next several decades of my life to
| politics". And consider that doing all that is no guarantee
| you'll be successful! Even if you make it to the House or
| Senate, it'll still be a hugely uphill battle to get any kind
| of surveillance reform bill passed and signed into law.
| tdeck wrote:
| It seems this is the problem with our representative
| democracy. The system is designed to impede and frustrate
| good-faith efforts by throwing up a bunch of barriers and
| then offering opportunities to compromise your principles
| to get past them.
|
| It's like a freemium game that you pay for by gradually
| selling out to those who already have power. Sure,
| theoretically it's possible to win the freemium game
| without selling out, but that theoretical possibility
| serves only as marketing for the game itself.
| deathanatos wrote:
| The legislative branch asked:
|
| > _" Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions
| or hundreds of millions of Americans?"_
|
| To which, of course, Clapper answered, under oath,
|
| > _" No, sir."_
|
| And then, later, as the article recounts:
|
| > _Upstream 's existence was revealed in leaks by former NSA
| contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 and the lawsuit was filed in
| the aftermath of those revelations._
|
| Or as Snowden puts it:
|
| > _" seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James
| Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress"_
|
| The legislative branch cannot check the executive branch if the
| executive branch simply lies when asked "are you violating the
| Constitution?". I have no idea why Feinstein herself (as then
| chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee) doesn't laud
| Snowden as a hero for revealing the truth: that the committee
| she chaired got lied to. I have no idea why California
| continues to re-elect her, beyond they see "Democrat" and vote.
| Choose a different democrat.
| gweinberg wrote:
| Yes. The courts can't control the executive branch, the
| legislature can't control the executive branch, the president
| can't control the executive branch.
| throwawaylinux wrote:
| It sounds like you're bordering on deep-state conspiracy
| theory wrongthink here.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _The legislative branch cannot check the executive branch
| if the executive branch simply lies when asked "are you
| violating the Constitution?"._
|
| I imagine the Senate could have ordered Senate's Sergeant-at-
| arms to take Clapper into custody. The Senate probably
| decided not to do that for reasons they thought were good
| ones, even if you or I might disagree with those reasons. I'm
| not exactly sure how things would have worked from that
| point; I expect it's really hard to arrest and try someone
| for a crime when the executive branch doesn't want to pursue
| things.
|
| > _I have no idea why California continues to re-elect her,
| beyond they see "Democrat" and vote. Choose a different
| democrat._
|
| I've done so, every time she comes up for re-election, but so
| far for some reason the majority likes her...
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| The lie is now well known, and the legislature is still free
| to check the executive branch and the NSA.
| DudeInBasement wrote:
| "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community,
| they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you" -
| Schumer.
|
| Please site 1 example of them using their power of ledger
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Cite a source where the NSA is shown to have records on
| millions of US citizens please.
| chris37879 wrote:
| Do you not remember the leaked documents that Snowden
| showed us confirming that? Or the fact that congress
| literally passed a low to ban the NSA doing that practice?
| Well, if they were doing it secretly before, who's to say
| they aren't now. You can't audit something that's being
| intentionally obscured by a spy agency.
| toufka wrote:
| The (now open) secret is the NSA possess those records on
| hard drives and in a database, but that those records are
| (via a legal fiction) "uncollected" until a query is made
| that returns those records. And if the NSA wants to return
| _those_ records from a query, a user needs to fill in the
| field alongside the request with a good justification, and
| (most of the time) that query is logged.
|
| I don't think there is any dispute that such records
| actually exist.
| chris37879 wrote:
| Right? That was a such a toothless law. "Oh yeah, that
| thing you were doing in secret? Well now you better not
| get caught."
| [deleted]
| dathinab wrote:
| Honestly in a healthy system lying under oath to the congress
| should put you into prison no matter weather it's about
| national security or not.
|
| Also not on discretion of the senators or anything, basically
| the state should be by its own law required to act
| immediately with high priority and trying to avoid that
| should also handled with penalties the same way.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| At the risk of sounding defeatist, I don't think this strategy
| works. It's a static view of what is a dynamic system with
| strong feedback loops. Feedback loops that all but ensure one
| of the following outcomes:
|
| - You succeed in becoming a politician with the power you need,
| but in the process you either no longer care about your
| original goal, or are bound by enough deals with other people
| that you _can 't_ do anything about your goal.
|
| - You succeed in becoming a politician, but you get
| marginalized because your co-workers realize you can't be
| trusted to play along.
|
| - You fail at becoming a politician, because your co-workers
| realize you _won 't_ play along, and ensure you never get
| anywhere close to any power.
|
| The way I see it, the whole system has evolved to protect
| itself from changes that hurt its participants.
| danielrpa wrote:
| I thought that our representative system existed exactly so we
| don't all need to become politicians or have to vote on every
| issue through direct democracy.
|
| There is hope for software engineers working together to
| improve access to information instead of, argh, becoming all
| politicians. That also would be to the detriment of the entire
| human race which wouldn't have as many software engineers.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Secrets are the antithesis of democracy.
|
| You cannot make an informed choice without transparency.
|
| How this balances with things that actually need to be secret is
| the difficult part, but clearly, the US is failing to find that
| balance.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| It is more than just democracy - secrets are outright the
| antithesis of good service regardless of whom is served.
| Theranos kept secrets from its investors. Look at any other job
| - say a mechanic telling you not to look under your hood or an
| accountant telling you not to look at your account. That would
| rightfully raise massive suspicion of being out to screw you
| over.
| erellsworth wrote:
| We've investigated ourselves, and concluded that we did nothing
| wrong.
| gego wrote:
| ...why sue in the US? Wikimedia Germany would have been much
| better...
| xxpor wrote:
| Who would they sue?
| gego wrote:
| The US Govt under Espionage and Computer Crime law (Germany
| ex officio), possibly breach of int treaties (FCN treaties,
| Germany) and ECHR for individual violations (individuals)...
| luckylion wrote:
| There's no way a higher German court would rule against the
| US government on a major issue.
| gego wrote:
| ...possibly... but the discovery phase, witness testimony
| and and and ... would have more effect than a simple
| secrecy clause in any us court...
| rtkwe wrote:
| The US can and would just refuse to respond.
| optimiz3 wrote:
| In general the check here is the Legislative branch, where select
| members have access to classified data and can exert corrective
| pressure on the Executive.
|
| Not perfect, but allowing any member of the public to expose
| classified secrets via lawsuits would certainly be an attack
| vector for foreign adversaries.
| lisper wrote:
| Security and freedom always have to be traded off against each
| other. The U.S. likes to portray itself as a country that errs
| on the side of freedom, but that self-image seems to be more
| and more at odds with reality. Alas.
| nickysielicki wrote:
| The legislative branch [ie: the people writing the laws] are
| the "check" on... the people writing the unconstitutional laws?
|
| The courts must have the authority to review these cases,
| anything else is completely incoherent.
|
| > Not perfect, but allowing any member of the public to expose
| classified secrets via lawsuits would certainly be an attack
| vector for foreign adversaries.
|
| If foreign adversaries are trying to overturn illegal domestic
| dragnet surveillance, maybe I should be paying my taxes to
| them.
| optimiz3 wrote:
| > maybe I should be paying my taxes to them
|
| This is possible via emigration. The highest profile
| adversaries of the US don't have a better track record when
| it comes to domestic surveillance however.
| mabub24 wrote:
| In principle, the legislative branch represent the people and
| are checked by elections. In practice, there are party lines
| and the influence of far too much money; but, the logic is
| that legislators pushing unconstitutional laws would be voted
| out, or limited by the other legislators.
|
| A lot of the foundational concepts in liberal democracies are
| justified on the assumption that citizens are engaged and
| conscientious electors (that is, intelligent and able to make
| up their own minds), and as a result unconstitutional
| legislation is a form of political suicide, or a real
| manifestation of democratic will which lead to constitutional
| amendments. It operates on the idea that doing _x_ in that
| particular way "is not who we are". Because you can see that
| they are unconstitutional laws, means that you can vote and
| engage politically to stop or pull back that law.
|
| Modern political realities have tested those assumptions. A
| two party deadlocked system, decline of civic education, and
| unchecked money in elections, are amongst many culprits.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Just finished last night a series of lectures on Thomas
| Jefferson[0] and I believe he felt the primary
| countermeasure to this problem was a limited federal
| government. In his time the federal government was
| dramatically smaller and the average person had nearly zero
| interaction with it during their lives. State and local
| governments can be moved away from, and this voting with
| your feet is an effective deterant to tyranny. The US long
| ago shrugged off the sort of republicanism Jefferson
| witnessed in his time and never really replaced it with
| anything else.
|
| [0]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1966657.Thomas_Jeffe
| rson
|
| [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > State and local governments can be moved away from, and
| this voting with your feet is an effective deterant to
| tyranny.
|
| This is not an option for the people who would be most
| affected by policies where they would benefit by moving,
| the poor.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| Poor people move. The dust bowl migration is the largest
| example of it. Geographic mobility has declined, but the
| poorest are still the most likely to move.
|
| _Men who moved to another county or state, by age group:
| Overall and by selected earnings quartile, various
| periods 1994-2016 (annual average percentages)_ https://w
| ww.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v80n2/v80n2p1-chart01.gi...
|
| https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v80n2/v80n2p1.html
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I would expect them to be a large portion of those that
| do move, but as you can see, their mobility has
| collapsed, even during years of overall economic growth.
| I assume it has continued to go down beyond 2016.
|
| I think population differences and pretty much all land
| having been settled/allocated now compared to the Dust
| Bowl period make them incomparable.
| willcipriano wrote:
| The nation the put together the underground railroad
| can't chip in for some bus tickets and U-Haul rentals?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I do not know what your comment is exactly meant to
| imply, but the biggest hurdle in moving is cost of
| housing, which usually requires proof of income to
| secure.
| willcipriano wrote:
| When neighboring states held slaves, their fellow
| Americans risked their own lives, reputation and
| property, in order to take as many as those slaves as
| possible into the northern states where they would be
| free. If some tyrannical bastard, in lets say New Jersey,
| was causing your fellow man harm, would you not join with
| me in attempting to free them?
|
| It is by no means a perfect system, but I think a release
| value like it would be helpful in diverse times like
| these.
| mabub24 wrote:
| There is obviously debate, but Michael Lind argued that
| Jeffersonianism lost to Hamiltonianism, or the idea of a
| strong central government. It has been effective, America
| is a superpower. But it has also shaped the way Americans
| see themselves and the role (or threat) of government in
| their lives.
|
| https://bostonreview.net/michael-lind-john-stoehr-a-new-
| hami...
|
| Personally, I think the inability for America to move
| beyond a 2 party system hampers it far more.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Michael Lind argued that Jeffersonianism lost to
| Hamiltonianism, or the idea of a strong central
| government. It has been effective, America is a
| superpower.
|
| But... that doesn't conflict with the ideas above.
|
| >> I believe [Thomas Jefferson] felt the primary
| countermeasure to this problem was a limited federal
| government. In his time the federal government was
| dramatically smaller and the average person had nearly
| zero interaction with it during their lives.
|
| Those descriptions, "limited" and "strong", are
| independent of each other. The government of Ming China
| was a superpower. It was strong and centralized in the
| Hamiltonian sense. It was also quite sharply limited in
| the Jeffersonian sense. How limited? When the dynasty
| fell, the conquering Qing had to deal with a Ming
| loyalist who just happened to control all of China's
| oceangoing shipping via his own private navy.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koxinga
|
| They eventually defeated him by evacuating the coast. The
| entire coast. The government had the _power_ to do
| completely absurd things. But they didn 't, as a rule,
| involve themselves with much.
| stonemetal12 wrote:
| Isn't a strong central government one of the reasons we
| only have 2 parties? Aiming to control the national
| government is the only reason to have a party that
| crosses state lines.
| kelnos wrote:
| I don't think so. Many other countries have strong
| central governments and more than two political parties.
| I think the way they make that work is that _parties_
| generally don 't amass majority power, but they form
| coalitions in order to gain control.
|
| My take on it is that our voting system is what leads to
| two parties. Something that allows people to vote their
| conscience rather than having to strategically vote for
| the lesser of two evils, like ranked-choice voting or
| approval voting, could allow more parties to win
| representation at the national level.
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| The check against bad laws is voting public. The check
| against misuse of a dragnet law by the executive is the
| legislative branch and not the court - that's what the OP
| seems to be saying. Courts can't keep state secrets by
| design.
| chitowneats wrote:
| The executive branch, particularly in the contemporary U.S.,
| largely decides what policy outcome they would like first.
| Then they go digging for an existing statute or 3 letter
| agency they can use to implement it.
|
| The legislative branch is at fault here for punting on their
| governing responsibilities. But it is true that via their
| oversight committees, they have constrained the actions of
| the executive, via new laws, based on classified intel.
|
| Foreign adversaries have no interest in domestic
| surveillance. There are many other things they'd like to get
| their hands on via discovery, though.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Yeah, except it turns out that the surveillance agencies are
| spying on congress and lying during testimony. Not exactly a
| good sign if we're going to count on congress to reign in the
| NSA.
| waiseristy wrote:
| > ...dismissed for lack of standing. In particular, the
| government argued that we had not provided sufficient evidence of
| the government's surveillance for the case to proceed. It also
| claimed that the case could not proceed because it would require
| the Court to consider information the government claims is
| protected by the state secrets privilege. In other words, the
| government contended that the case cannot be litigated without
| disclosing information about Upstream surveillance that would
| harm U.S. national security--and, accordingly, in its view, the
| entire case must be dismissed.
|
| The classic "you can't prove we did anything illegal, and if you
| did, that in itself would be illegal" defense. Fuck these people,
| seriously
| ajay-b wrote:
| Is there a general consensus in the technological community on
| the purpose of the National Security Agency?
| einpoklum wrote:
| "In Soviet Russia, government always spy on communications. In
| Capitalist America, communications always spy for government."
|
| Ah, hell, I can't make these Yakov Smirnoff jokes work any more.
| I guess that's when you know things are getting pretty bad.
| literallyaduck wrote:
| There is no greater threat to our people than opaque government.
|
| Democracy and secrecy are mutually exclusive.
|
| We need you to vote on this issue but we will hide all the
| relevant facts.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Democracy has and always will exist in balance with secrecy.
|
| In fact, the polarization we often decry is largely _because
| of_ transparency. It 's harder to nail someone to a cross on
| partisan radio if it's "the committee decided this" instead of
| "x voted y."
| dane-pgp wrote:
| Do you think committees would make better decisions if their
| members could lie about how they voted? You might "solve" the
| polarization problem by making it harder to know who to
| blame, but I don't think that would solve the root cause of
| people's frustrations.
| einpoklum wrote:
| Democracies need to ensure the vote doesn't become too much of
| a danger to the established social order, the privileges of the
| property owning classes etc.
|
| One of the mechanisms for this is secrecy; others are selective
| information disclosure, propaganda, cultural and religious
| signaling etc. And then there's more direct application of
| economic or physical pressure.
|
| If these weren't in place and effective, well... I am reminded
| of the famous maxim:
|
| > _If voting could change anything, it would be illegal._
|
| I first heard this from Jello Biafra, but apparently it has
| been attributed to Emma Goldman, Mark Twain and is probably
| even older than that.
| autoliteInline wrote:
| It seems safe to me to assume that US government security is
| mostly to keep secrets from it's own citizens. Foreign
| intelligence agencies know about pretty much everything.
| [deleted]
| ihusasmiiu wrote:
| I hate USA so much it's unreal.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-16 23:00 UTC)