There’s a Secret Patriot Act, Senator Says (2011)

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/secret-patriot-act/

by cheese1756 • 13 years ago

140 41 13 years ago

cheese1756• 13 years ago

It's pretty interesting to look at the NSA leaks in hindsight, especially with an eye towards the foreshadowing and warning signs that exist today for the countless programs we don't know about. Take a look at this too, from a year ago: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/nsa-spied/

mabhatter2• 13 years ago

But NSA leaks are TREASON, no matter how small. This isnt even military level treason, this is death in a cold ditch treason. To maintain operational discipline they have to kill him... Very horribly.

This only shows that the premiere spying organization has been ruined from reckless expansion and mission creep. They are hiring SPIES that are pretending to be police...

The NSA's charter is signals intelligence. If its a signal, they are EXPECTED to read it, if its encrypted, they are EXPECTED to crack it. Doesn't matter who it's from or to. Advances in computers gave generated more electronic personal communication, and more ability to spy and collect it. The problem comes back to the patriot act and the his guided idea that the NSA was supposed to SHARE its intel. The problem is that the NSA as spies are looking for things that are ILLEGAL for police to look for, they are looking for things that cause blackmail and treason... Bad gambling debts, family medical problems, cheating politicians and executives, religious extremists in people's families... The things that give terrorists and spies leverage over honest people that have access to the government and can be used for blackmailing them into illegal activities.

Regular police have no business with that kind of info, and they have no concept of using it with restraint, they just hurt people with it.

rdl4• 13 years ago

I suppose Wyden/Paul 2016 isn't really feasible, but it would be a good way to solve issues of governmental overreach.

hrkristian• 13 years ago

They'd get some tens of thousands of votes from 4chan, that's for sure. Until you realise most of them can't vote from being underage and/or foreigners. Oh nevermind.

tokenizer4• 13 years ago

I was a little upset at your post, until I realized I was pissed AND from Canada...

So are any Americans actually upset about this, or do us foreigners care more about your country than you guys do?

tokenizer4• 13 years ago

I'd love to see people try get this going. Call it, the bipartisan party!

alan_cx• 13 years ago

You do not want bipartisan. That just means the same old same old, simply pretending to be different. If Obama can't or wont repair the damage of the Bush administration, well, he seems hell bent on out Bushing Bush, why turn to their ilk again? Have Americans not been bitten enough? I know the rest of us are tired of suffering at the hands of both American parties. Remember the world wide joy at the election of Obama? Yep, we are all disappointed.

You need a NEW party. A party that relies on and represents humanity. If The US wants to regain its status as leader of the free world, first it need to embrace that world and all human beings as equals. Get that right and the rest should follow.

eightyone• 13 years ago

It's worth mentioning that Rand Paul isn't a member of Wyden's bipartisan group of 26 senators.

uvdiv• 13 years ago

According to Paul's office, the senator "didn’t think it went as far as it should" and wasn't comfortable signing the letter when his changes weren't adopted.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/06/28/_26_senators_vs...

mtgx• 13 years ago

We definitely need to support someone who actually has a track record for this. We can't vote someone again who "just promises this and speaks well".

Obama has done such a 180 degree that you almost think it was all for show so he gets elected, and it will be difficult to believe anyone who just promises to free us from the surveillance state, if they don't have a strong background of supporting civil liberties and fighting against the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act. Wyden, Udall and Paul I'd say qualify. There may be others, too, but probably not too many.

But even if they stand no chance of winning, we need to stop voting for the "lesser evil". It has solved nothing so far. The only way to change things is to vote for people you'd really want to become president, not for people who you'd rather win instead of the other guy.

jkestner• 13 years ago

We definitely need to support someone who actually has a track record for this.

Ahem. Russ Feingold is best known for his collaboration with John McCain on campaign finance reform, but was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act the first time (joined by a few others the second time). Voted against the Iraq war. One of 3 Democrats to vote against Geithner as Treasury secretary. Fought pork, returned his raises to the government. Voted against dismissal of impeachment charges for Clinton, brought a resolution to censure George W. Bush for illegal wiretapping. After losing his seat to a Tea Partier, he formed a PAC, Progressives United, which has opposed Citizens United, Wall Street and SOPA, and calls out the Democrats when their spine softens, but was just shipped off to an African ambassadorship.

Etc. I love this guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold

frozenport2• 13 years ago

I believe in public education and health care.

pstuart• 13 years ago

So do I, but it would be nice to do it right.

cheald• 13 years ago

Does public need to mean federal?

rdl4• 13 years ago

I don't think a President Wyden would try to repeal ACA or really do too much meddling; he'd be busy for 4 years downsizing the defense-intelligence-industrial complex, which would provide more than enough savings to defer dealing with the other issues for a while.

teeja• 13 years ago

I believe in public education

Based on what evidence?

ambassador451• 13 years ago

If only the mainstream media would stop parroting government lies, then I think we the people could rise up and stop the NSA. It's going to take intelligent people like us on the internet to finally stop Pax Americana from oppressing our freedoms.

Amadou2• 13 years ago

This is what happens when you don't parrot the government lies (from a previous HN article): http://www.thenation.com/article/174851/strange-case-barrett...

The espionage-industrial complex is on the order of a $50 billion/year industry. That kind of money buys a lot of ignoring american ideals.

InclinedPlane3• 13 years ago

Don't peddle this bullshit.

There is a more than strong enough case of government abuse of power and wrongdoing, there's no need to make allusions to shadowy conspiracies that kill people without leaving any evidence. It weakens the argument rather than strengthening it. Stand on the facts, the facts are more than good enough.

frozenport2• 13 years ago

Hi welcome to HN, I see you haven't made many posts.

I am wondering if you could compare how life in Pax Americana with life in Russia or China. I am myself from Russia and can say that Americans enjoy significantly more freedom in the real world.

jgreen10• 13 years ago

Seems like there are two options here:

1. Define laws mathematically

2. Fight corruption

Not sure which one is easier.

InclinedPlane3• 13 years ago

#1 is not possible, so....

jcromartie• 13 years ago

Why not?

just2n2• 13 years ago

I have a few thoughts after reading this article:

1. This (re: citizens violating classified laws or legal interpretations) is definitely a situation where any sane judge/jury would find against the ignorantia juris non excusat principle, so I don't expect the use of any of this to hold up in any court, ever, not just because its effects are potentially unconstitutional. And any judge worth the wood upon which they sit would dismiss any evidence presented that has been gathered as a result in that it wasn't obtained with a legal warrant, or in any manner that is constitutional.

2. This is massive amounts of ammunition for conspiracy theorists, especially truthers. Let me give it a try: 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by the US government under the Bush administration as a false flag operation in order to to get the Patriot Act passed with plans to classify interpretations which would give the government over-reaching powers to violate the constitutional rights of citizens to the point of being able to create a Stasi state.

3. Why don't we demand impeachment if Obama re-authorizes any part of the Patriot Act, obviously knowing about classified secret interpretations which have already been found to be unconstitutional (re: classified findings)? The congress has the ability to decide whether or not the President has committed a "high crime", and I'm fairly certain this fits the historical meaning of that term.. knowingly and willingly violating the constitutional rights of every US citizen, a constitution which the president is sworn to defend (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_Presiden...).

shadowfiend• 13 years ago

Wait… The Patriot Act is passed and reauthorized by Congress first. So you're suggesting that if Congress passes a reauthorization, and Obama signs it, then that same Congress should go back and impeach him? This seems… Unlikely…

The Patriot Act is a law. The buck stops at Congress. They passed it the first time. They reauthorized the parts of it that are still around the subsequent times. Trying to redirect the blame to the administration, which has, by the way, done plenty of things wrong, is a misunderstanding of the system and a distortion that does no one any favors. When we concentrate responsibility in the executive, we support the concentration of power in the executive, as well.

The Patriot Act is Congress's responsibility. And unless we send a strong signal as a nation, from sea to shining sea, to our representatives, that its powers are no longer acceptable (if, indeed, they ever were), nothing will change substantively. Congress is where the blame lies, no matter which administration the act was passed under or which administration it's being administered under now. Congress, Congress, Congress. They pass the laws, no matter whether or not the administration helps write them.

just2n2• 13 years ago

Well of course it was initially passed by Congress. However, because of the nature of the checks and balances between parts of our government, all 3 are equally guilty here since the Executive has enforced the law, and the Judicial since it has not summarily found it unconstitutional and overreaching, and thus killed it with fire. Further, and more to the point, I find that the Executive is more guilty here than any other, because it has classified interpretations which allow for the mass violation of constitutional rights. This isn't something that is up to Congress, and this is where the current President comes into play.

As for impeachment, it's much easier to try to punish a single person, or demand such, than it is to demand the punishment of hundreds. I don't think we should cry foul when a bad law is passed -- it's bound to happen. Rather, when both of the other branches fail to do their duty to balance power, or worse, exacerbate the problem.

mabhatter2• 13 years ago

Simple. A significant portion of long-term, powerful congressmen are in on the story too... They VOTED for it.

Remember too. Since the Cold War, certain amounts of spying are "necessary" that's why we have the NSA and CIA in the first place. The purpose of those organizations is to provide the President with information that cannot be obtained timely and/or legally to use against our nation-state enemies. They find spies and/or people working with spies committing high treason, show up at their door and shoot them in the face... These are not "police", they don't have trials, they act by the rules of war.

It all comes back to the misguided Patriot Act. These two organizations operations don't generally produce evidence legally usable in court. As their purpose was military court wasn't really an issue. But the side effect is that no matter what they spy on they don't have time or executive direction to enforce "civilian" laws. The patriot act was a crybaby act local police wanted to fight drugs. The FBI DIDNT want it, because it put them right back in J. Edgar days they didn't want to repeat. But enough other agencies cried about not getting NSA and CIA level intel Congress felt bad let them have it. Even though they didn't really have the ability to use such information properly for criminal investigation or in courts.

graycat2• 13 years ago

IANAL, so help!

So, as in the OP, suppose I'm in business, and the FBI knocks at my door and says that they want all the data in my server farm.

I say, "Just a minute while I contact my lawyer". Then I turn to the FBI and say, "My lawyer says we'll see you in court. I've got to get back to work. Be seeing you.".

So, in court, the FBI lawyers tell the judge that they are due the data in my server farm because of a double secret, triple top secret, national security, national command authority, black law that can't be talked about because the first rule of black law is never talk about the rules of black law.

Then the judge says what? This is a joke, right? Or, get out'a here. Or. you can take your double-triple nonsense back to your FBI HQ funny farm and use it for intellectual self abuse, but you've got nothing more to do here or with the defendant.

That's the way it would work, right?

Or, maybe as in the OP there are some double-triple secret laws, but as soon as the FBI wants to use one to get all the data in my server farm, we go to court, and the judge starts laughing, right?

mcguire• 13 years ago

"I say, 'Just a minute while I contact my lawyer'."

Wouldn't it be amusing if, by revealing the request to an outside, third-party, your lawyer, you were in violation of the requirements of the request and had therefore committed a criminal act?

"...because of a double secret, triple top secret, national security, national command authority, black law..."

Of course, the judge is privy to the law and the government's evidence, even if you and your defense counsel are, regrettably, not. But he, naturally, can be trusted to understand the gravity of the situation and act in a fair, impartial manner with regards to the laws of this nation, right?

You poor bastard.

graycat2• 13 years ago

Sounds like I will need to program a big red button for my server farm: I see a knock at the door with an FBI badge and then push the big red button. Boom -- my Web site starts putting up circulating arrows indicating an over busy condition; the last of my data for an incremental backup gets encrypted and shipped, in pieces, but with considerable redundancy, to 10 undisclosed, secure, foreign locations; and all the data on my server farm is erased by being written over. Then I open the door with the FBI guys!

Or, I have a really nice looking server farm, totally neat and squeaky clean, behind nice, spotless glass walls, with doors controlled with finger print scanners. So, I let the FBI in to that glass house and let them have all the data. When they come back the next week and demand the private key for the RSA encryption, I object and delay but finally give in and let them have the key.

Meanwhile, there are some optical fibers running to a hidden basement of a run down, ugly, old building where the real server farm is!

When the FBI/NSA/CIA/DHS decrypts the data they got, all they see is "Mary had a little lamb.".

Meanwhile, back at the farm, everything's been moved to Iceland with backup sites in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, etc. And I'm out'a here on my private plane/yacht/submarine, whatever, to my own undisclosed, secure, foreign location. Then my Web site goes live again!

Unfortunately such things may not be entirely a joke.

malandrew• 13 years ago

If I were Wyden, I would just pen an entire new bill that describes exactly what is going on already and send it to the Congress to be voted on. I would be the best way to publish what is happening. Everything in the bill could be written in the future tense, so it can't be seen as declassifying what is going on in the present.

There’s a Secret Patriot Act, Senator Says (2011)

Related Stories