Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Another]

In my opinion the executive branch can choose to keep things secret from anyone if they believe it is better for national security. On the other hand legislative branch could and should flat out stop financing of anything they don't have good reasons to trust.

In absolutely no case should one branch of the government try to deceive any other branch.

[palsch]

On the other hand legislative branch could and should flat out stop financing of anything they don't have good reasons to trust.

On that note, I've actually seen arguments that efforts to defund the NSA metadata collection schemes may be unconstitutional. Explicitly;

Constitutional Concerns

Perhaps most importantly, the amendment comes perilously close to being a violation of the principle of separation of powers. Congress can, of course, change a law that a court construes and enforces, but Congress cannot by law command that a court put particular language into a court order. The amendment’s sponsors may respond that they are not directing the Court to act but rather only directing the executive branch to not act if the court declines to include the mandated language. But that is a scant distinction: In either case, Congress is using the power of its purse to force a particular judicial result.

Admittedly in a Heritage Foundation article, but by a respected voice on national security issues (who I'd note has voiced opposition to the collection in the first place) and with every chance of getting taken seriously by courts and lawyers.

[GlyphGryph]

In my opinion the executive branch can choose to keep things secret from anyone if they believe it is better for national security.

It is of paramount importance to the structural foundation of American governance that the executive branch is limited to conducting activity authorized by congress and the constitution - that any action they take be conducted with explicit legal permission. Now, yes, American history has pretty much been the story of the ever-expanding role of the executive, but I think not only acting outside of the bounds decided upon by congress (and those who wrote the legislation being quoted say it does not cover what's being done), but outright robbing the ability of congress to repeal laws that are being abused, is very much a step too far.

[Loud Whispers]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130806/12154724080/former-nsa-director-calls-snowdens-supporters-internet-shut-ins-equates-transparency-activists-with-al-qaida-terrorists.shtml

What is says on the tin.

[Mrhappyface]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130806/12154724080/former-nsa-director-calls-snowdens-supporters-internet-shut-ins-equates-transparency-activists-with-al-qaida-terrorists.shtml

What is says on the tin.

I have to say, those comments are highly amusing.

[kaijyuu]

"If and when our government grabs Edward Snowden, and brings him back here to the United States for trial, what does this group do?" said retired air force general Michael Hayden, who from 1999 to 2009 ran the NSA and then the CIA, referring to "nihilists, anarchists, activists, Lulzsec, Anonymous, twentysomethings who haven't talked to the opposite sex in five or six years".

You know what you need to get respect in the mature, adult world? Get laid!

[SalmonGod]

Of course, the NSA would know us internet types are all pathetic basement dwelling men who go for years without talking to women, because the NSA would know there's no women on the internet!

So the recent former head of two of the most powerful organizations in the world talks like a combination 80s movie stereotype psychopathic meathead high school jock and McCarthy era red scare-monger.  Comforting to know we have such reasonable people looking out for our well-being.

[Zangi]

Well.... it could be worse... people in our gov't are trying to make it so it is legal to use propaganda on US Citizens.
(I think this was originally linked in the US thread.)

EDIT: The implications of this can be pretty chilling.

Ya know, kick up that there Nationalism and the Fear of UnAmerican things... makes it much much easier to go to war don't it?  And that is just 3 of the things federal enacted Propaganda can do.
What of the media and journalism with this?

Oh right, its passing may just be a secret, cause ya know, bad publicity.

[Criptfeind]

I don't understand. We already have a massive natural propaganda machine in the US. Most politics and not a little bit of news works on it. Do they think they can do better artificially?

[Zangi]

I don't understand. We already have a massive natural propaganda machine in the US. Most politics and not a little bit of news works on it. Do they think they can do better artificially?

Propaganda implies that the gov't can legally compel news organizations to only say what the government wants them to say and disallow them from saying anything contradicting that, does it not?
It is basically free reign to lie and to shut out dissenting input.

[Frumple]

Think Cript's point is the news/politics machine as is already does plenty of that, and the government stepping in to interfere (more/more blatantly) wouldn't change the status quo all that much, if at all.

[Criptfeind]

Ah. Perhaps. I was under the impression that Propaganda meant simply the spreading of untruths and lies to deliberately support your cause. Actual shutting down of other sources of information I thought lay under censorship or some such term.

[palsch]

Propaganda implies that the gov't can legally compel news organizations to only say what the government wants them to say and disallow them from saying anything contradicting that, does it not?
It is basically free reign to lie and to shut out dissenting input.

Also absolutely nothing to do with the law referenced.

That amendment allowed the State Department's existing broadcast organisations (under the BBG) to transmit in the USA. Hell, one of the big arguments in it's favour was increased transparency by allowing Americans to see and hear the programs being broadcast by their government.

A detailed look at the affair at Foreign Policy.

[Zangi]

Propaganda implies that the gov't can legally compel news organizations to only say what the government wants them to say and disallow them from saying anything contradicting that, does it not?
It is basically free reign to lie and to shut out dissenting input.

Also absolutely nothing to do with the law referenced.

That amendment allowed the State Department's existing broadcast organisations (under the BBG) to transmit in the USA. Hell, one of the big arguments in it's favour was increased transparency by allowing Americans to see and hear the programs being broadcast by their government.

A detailed look at the affair at Foreign Policy.

Huh, I see...  but doesn't it still open the gov't to being able to use propaganda in the future?  Or is the legislation only opening this one thing up?

Also, I that website wants you to sign up.
F5, Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C saved me from having to bother sign up.

[Baffler]

@former nsa director
0/10 troll harder.

anyway...
I am actually okay with the BBG transmitting in the USA. It would be like PBS except it would be all news and political stuff so nobody would watch it. Either that or it eventually morphs into our very own version of the BBC. Which would be awesome.