Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
8. Secret domestic surveillance is not analogous to healthcare.
Tue Jun 18, 2013, 07:23 PM
Jun 2013

We don't have a Bill of Rights to protect us from unwarranted healthcare.

This is supposed to be the difference between rightwingers and Democrats and progressives.

Conservatives don't "trust government" to limit the power of private business entities to exploit people for profit. They don't want environmental regulations or limits on how financial institutions can gamble with depositor money, or the possibility of large jury verdicts when someone is injured by a defective product.

In short, conservatives seek more power for the already-empowered, and distrust government interference in that.

Progressives / liberals / Democrats typically favor regulation aimed at preserving the common good and protecting people without the leverage provided by money or class, or race or gender.

Domestic surveillance programs have not just a history, but a nearly exclusive history, of being abused -- to the precise extent they operate without accountability to the public -- to attack political dissidents, which typically includes progressives.

The FBI has a disgusting criminal history here, trying to threaten and torment MLK into suicide after learning of his affairs, and pursuing all manner of civil rights proponents, supposed "communists," and even longhaired musicians like John Lennon.

The NSA has not a leg to stand on in terms of benefit of the doubt. It's supposed to be surveilling FOREIGN signals, not domestic, in the first place, And when the Bush administration decided to interpret the law *IN SECRET* to permit it warrantless wiretapping, what was the NSA's response?

Well, of course, they immediately set about warrantless wiretapping without an eye batted. Then they went a little further and started passing around "sex calls" for their own amusement. Not a thousand years ago -- during the Bush administration.

And it's not like the view that lefties are possible "enemies of the state" has changed. Homeland Security apparently spent so much time checking out what OWS was doing on Facebook and writing reports estimating its possible "damage to the financial industry," that no one paid much attention to the conversations they were having with Russia about the Boston bomber.

This is what government does when it can spy on people in secret. It worries a lot about embarrassment to itself and damage to the powerful, and then maybe looks for "terrorists."

The issue now continues to be secrecy. A FISA court ruled as recently as 2011 that the law used to justify the PRISM program had been ... wait for it ... applied in an unconstitutional manner. We think, anyway, because the Obama administration has fought tooth and nail to make sure no one ever reads that ruling.

This is the problem. The conceit invented by Bush, with obvious bad faith, was that Executive Branch can claim state secrets privilege and hide behind supposed "national security interest" as to not only what it's DOING, but whatever it may be doing WRONG. No investigation, no courtroom discovery, nothing. Zip.

And the Obama administration, which came into office riding a wave of, at the very least, very sweet-sounding talk about "transparency," has, at the very most, done not one single thing to change that conceit. It still takes the position that we not only can't know who's being spied on, but we can't even know what legal interpretations it's using to define how and to whom it's doing that.

That's not a situation that can be cured by "trust." There's only one cure for government secrecy regarding what it thinks its own powers are, and that is DAYLIGHT. Transparency. Accountability. Examination.

The argument that it would somehow destroy our ability to watch "the bad guys" by simply coming clean about what the rules are is specious and unworkable.

So it's not a matter of "trust," which is why it isn't cured by however much anyone likes Obama or any other President.

This is the way government power works, and it's the reason we have safeguards like the Fourth Amendment. Safeguards that mean nothing if they are applied "in secret," because that means that as far as anyone knows, they're not being applied at all.
Make the rich stop stealing our resources leftstreet Jun 2013 #1
How? Would you make a database to see who might be exploiting our resources unfairly? Liberal Veteran Jun 2013 #2
No dragnet data collection. Access through warrant with probable cause. dkf Jun 2013 #3
What constitutes probable cause for data collection? Liberal Veteran Jun 2013 #5
If you've been in contact with a terrorist, I think they should be able to get a warrant to look dkf Jun 2013 #10
If no one is looking, however, how would one know? Liberal Veteran Jun 2013 #18
It's fine to examine the web of known terrorists. dkf Jun 2013 #23
Your essay is based on a false statement of fact PSPS Jun 2013 #4
As I recall, on this very board, most of us were arguing in favor of FISA when Bush... Liberal Veteran Jun 2013 #6
FISA has now been shown to be a fig leaf PSPS Jun 2013 #19
Actually Bush did not want to wait for FISA Court time frame for an answer, he wanted to make the Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #26
Exactly my point. And the majority here at least was against bypassing FISA. Liberal Veteran Jun 2013 #30
I want their activities scaled back to off-shore and direct military support only. 1-Old-Man Jun 2013 #7
DITTO! marions ghost Jun 2013 #11
according to a Teabagger. Let's not forget the source. n/t Whisp Jun 2013 #15
So what? If I do agree with a teabagger for once marions ghost Jun 2013 #24
Secret domestic surveillance is not analogous to healthcare. DirkGently Jun 2013 #8
Excellent post! marions ghost Jun 2013 #13
You know, any questions marions ghost Jun 2013 #9
I see. So what do you do about overlap? Liberal Veteran Jun 2013 #14
There are established protocols marions ghost Jun 2013 #21
Information is property now, so we need a clear definition of who owns it. bemildred Jun 2013 #12
The depth and breadth of the topic warrants transparency on behalf of the NSA first... Earth_First Jun 2013 #16
Well, there is that. Perhaps a dismantle and complete rebuild is order. Liberal Veteran Jun 2013 #28
Contractors removed from the system entirely. Data held for only 5 years by telecom co's. KittyWampus Jun 2013 #17
That is the beginning of good... Pholus Jun 2013 #22
It's called the National Security Agency reteachinwi Jun 2013 #20
Put more women in positions of authority. It's worth a try. nt FLyellowdog Jun 2013 #25
Two suggestions. moondust Jun 2013 #27
Good suggestions. Both of them. Liberal Veteran Jun 2013 #29
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What is it you want to se...»Reply #8