Former CIA and NSA employee source of intelligence leaks

[Valmy]

Even democracies need state secrets.

Sure...but not general policies impacting every single citizen in the country.  That stuff needs to be known so the voters can appropriately inform their representatives.

Joan is right I'm sure there's more to come out. But from what I've read this program was set up under a law passed by Congress, during a Republican President's tenure. It's now operating under a Democrat, with judicial and Congressional oversight. From what I understand the Supreme Court has upheld (or not taken a case about) the laws on which this is all based. To me that seems like how intelligence should operate in a democracy.

I disagree.  Congress is not effectively overseeing these things and the representatives of the executive branch freely hide things and outright lie.  The judicial oversight is a rubber stamp.  The only way these things operate appropriately in a democracy is for the voters to know about it.

[Berkut]

I think there are times when members of the Executive should in fact hide things, and even outright lie.

So what?

How can you argeu that Congress is not effectively overseeing these things? I would not argue that they *are* doing so, but it doesn't seem like there is really any definitive information either way.

This falls rather squarely into the realm of "At some point, you simply have to trust the system". Shelf is right - this is a program set up under a Republican, operating under a Democrat, and with the oversight in place that is typical for matters of NSA/CIA. Whether or not it is being properly vetted, I don't know, nor do I really think I *can* know. Some singular guy leaking information is =certainly a source for information, but the quality, accuracy, and completeness of that information is also totally unknown.

[Sheilbh]

I disagree.  Congress is not effectively overseeing these things and the representatives of the executive branch freely hide things and outright lie.  The judicial oversight is a rubber stamp.  The only way these things operate appropriately in a democracy is for the voters to know about it.

How do you know Congress isn't effectively overseeing it, that the executive just lies and that judges are just a rubber stamp? I mean what's the point of representative democracy with the rule of law if the default position is that the're all lying anyway?

The reason I'm not sure about this leak is that if there was any evidence here that this was beyond the law, that the NSA were doing more than they were allowed then that's justification for a leak. Similarly if there was evidence that that was happening and Congress didn't care, or the executive was routinely lying, or that the judiciary was just rubber-stamping things. But so far none of that seems to be the case.

It reminds me of Wikileaks in that after all of the emotional venting what those embassy cables suggested was that the US foreign service wasn't evil and was actually generally trying to do their job. Similarly here - I know Glenn Greenwald's promising lots more stories over the summer - but it just looks like once the hyperbole's gone, that it's an example of the system working. An intelligence agency is operating within its mandate, with bipartisan Congressional and judicial oversight.

[Valmy]

I think there are times when members of the Executive should in fact hide things, and even outright lie.

So what?

How can you argeu that Congress is not effectively overseeing these things? I would not argue that they *are* doing so, but it doesn't seem like there is really any definitive information either way.

So how can Congress be properly informed if the people supposedly informing them are lying and withholding information?

As for the second part I am only saying this because Congress people and insiders have been saying the Executive Branch is going far beyond their mandate and Congress is not properly overseeing it for years.  So I see something like this and I just say 'hey look all those people in the know were in the know!'

This falls rather squarely into the realm of "At some point, you simply have to trust the system". Shelf is right - this is a program set up under a Republican, operating under a Democrat, and with the oversight in place that is typical for matters of NSA/CIA. Whether or not it is being properly vetted, I don't know, nor do I really think I *can* know. Some singular guy leaking information is =certainly a source for information, but the quality, accuracy, and completeness of that information is also totally unknown.

Well I consider my job as a voter in this country is to not "trust the system" and be informed as to what is going on.  That is, after all, the only way the system works at all as DGuller is insisting.  I have do not have much confidence in either the Republicans and Democrats so the fact they both agree on something is not particularly compelling.  Besides they generally agree on most things in this area.  As far as the last point I am not really sure what to tell you, this stuff has been talked about for a long time we just now have a source that for whatever bizarre reason is important enough to be covered by the big media outlets.

[Valmy]

How do you know Congress isn't effectively overseeing it, that the executive just lies and that judges are just a rubber stamp? I mean what's the point of representative democracy with the rule of law if the default position is that the're all lying anyway?

Primarily because various Congressmen and other insiders have said so.

That is not my default position, only when evidence points to it being so.

I mean for Godsake I did not think this was some sort of secret knowledge Obama freaking campaigned on stopping these sorts of Executive abuses in 2008.

[Tamas]

Thank you guys. For quite a while I was thinking that I was living under a regime which is creeping into a dictatorship, with all the centralising, private life invading laws an whatnot.
By reading the arguments here I now can safely conclude that everything is alright since all of these things are done
BECAUSE THERE IS A LAW WRITTEN TO DO THEM!

[Berkut]

I think there are times when members of the Executive should in fact hide things, and even outright lie.

So what?

How can you argeu that Congress is not effectively overseeing these things? I would not argue that they *are* doing so, but it doesn't seem like there is really any definitive information either way.

So how can Congress be properly informed if the people supposedly informing them are lying and withholding information?

I wasn't aware that was the case - are you? What evidence do you have that people are lying and withholding information from Congress?

If that is the case, then yes, there is a problem, because then the system is NOT working.

As for the second part I am only saying this because Congress people and insiders have been saying the Executive Branch is going far beyond their mandate and Congress is not properly overseeing it for years.  So I see something like this and I just say 'hey look all those people in the know were in the know!'

"Congres people and insiders". That is some compelling evidence. Which Congress people? Which insiders?

I must not be privy to the same information sources as you, because I have not seen any serious evidence previously that the executive was lying to teh Congressional oversight committees as a matter of routine. What do you know that I do not?

This falls rather squarely into the realm of "At some point, you simply have to trust the system". Shelf is right - this is a program set up under a Republican, operating under a Democrat, and with the oversight in place that is typical for matters of NSA/CIA. Whether or not it is being properly vetted, I don't know, nor do I really think I *can* know. Some singular guy leaking information is =certainly a source for information, but the quality, accuracy, and completeness of that information is also totally unknown.

Well I consider my job as a voter in this country is to not "trust the system" and be informed as to what is going on.

So if this were 1944, would you be demanding that the Army Chief of Staff tell you why all those men are sitting in England, and where they are heading and why, because damnit this is a democracy and you can't make an informed decision in the upcoming election unless you are FULLY informed about what the military is doing, when they are doing it, and how?

  That is, after all, the only way the system works at all as DGuller is insisting.

Not true at all. When it comes to matters of national security, the system is one where we check our normal demand for complete transparency and information in order to allow those we hire to protect us to do their jobs, since they categorically CANNOT do so without the need for secrecy.

So no - that is NOT the only way the system works, and in fact complete transparency clearly will NOT work.

Which is why we have a system of oversight, both legislative and judicial, and checks and balances on executive power.

[Sheilbh]

Which Congress people? Which insiders?

Ron Paul?

[The Minsky Moment]

IF the phone program is being run the way being claimed (a big if) it doesn't seem unreasonable.

FISA clearly allows a search of phone metadata records under a variety of circumstances.  This is data that private companies -- the telecom companies already hold and collect; it is also the same kind of data that private litigants can secure by subpoena under certain circumstances.  There is some reasonable expectation of privacy, but only some.  So for me it doesn't induce hysterics that a government agency could obtain limited access under court order for a proper purpose ( or even absent court order with exigent circumstances).

The unusual wrinkle here is that the courts appear to have approved the systematic copying of ALL phone record metadata, but only on the proviso that the government can't actually access it without getting a much more narrower, targeted order, or satifying the more strict FISA requirements for searching without an order.  That makes sense: it is more efficient to have all the records ready to search when necessary, and eliminates the risk of data being deleted or lost by the carriers.  So common sense this doesn't seem to be a big problem.  It does, however, seem to violate the literal requirements of the law.

[Zanza]

No, it would not be a bigger scandal if the US government actually upheld its constitution.

I don't think any of this seems unconstitutional and it's all following the law.

Laws can be unconstitutional as well, so following the law alone doesn't say anything. I can't discuss the issue of constitutionality though as I have no clue about US constitutional law. 

That said, I feel that this program violates the spirit of the 4th Amendment. The US government should not wholesale collect this kind of data. Governments, including intelligence services, should only collect data selectively based on suspected threats or crimes. With judicial or parliamentarian oversight - the former on a case-by-case basis and not just wholesale for all communication. That's not what I consider due process as it makes everybody a suspect.

It's funny how people are up in arms (literally) when the government wants to ban assault rifles, but don't seem to care much about the same government collecting virtually every communication they have and not just the metadata, but also the content. The latter seems to be a much bigger violation of freedom to me.

By the way, I find the lack of a European response disheartening too. Our politicians should force Google et al. to actually adhere to our data privacy laws. And if they don't, fine them and prosecute their executives. And don't get me started on the EU data retention laws.

[Zanza]

Thank you guys. For quite a while I was thinking that I was living under a regime which is creeping into a dictatorship, with all the centralising, private life invading laws an whatnot.
By reading the arguments here I now can safely conclude that everything is alright since all of these things are done
BECAUSE THERE IS A LAW WRITTEN TO DO THEM!

This. Not everything that is put into law is actually constitutional - or legitimate. I guess just about every dictatorship is somehow legalistic and puts their undemocratic, illiberal policies into law.

[Berkut]

SO the concern here is that the US is turning into a dictatorship?

[Zanza]

No, the concern is that it is turning less liberal than it used to be. I don't think it will turn into a dictatorship.

EDIT: Actually I think it is no longer a concern, it has already happened. The US is no longer the liberal bastion it used to be.

[fhdz]

No, the concern is that it is turning less liberal than it used to be.

How quickly we forget the Cold War.

[Berkut]

OK, I think that is a very reasonable concern.

I hate (again) the people immediately put these kinds of things into terms of constitutionality. That is such a high bar to violate - honestly, just because something doesn't violate the Constitution doesn't mean it is a good idea. And once you bring that up, then the other side just has to suddenly meet that standard, and whether or not the law is actually beneficial for our society gets lost.

A lot of the BS in the Patriot Act might be constitutional, but that doesn't mean it is ok.