Posted on 07/16/2013 3:31:14 PM PDT by arthurus
In order to collect data about nuclear attacks, you must also collect vast amounts of data that have nothing to do with nuclear attacks. The Cold War with the Soviet Union had to do with more than just nuclear exchanges, and the information on what the Soviets were doing -- what governments they had penetrated, who was working for them -- was a global issue. But you couldn't judge what was important and what was unimportant until after you read it. Thus the mechanics of assuaging fears about a "nuclear Pearl Harbor" rapidly devolved into a global collection system, whereby vast amounts of information were collected regardless of their pertinence to the Cold War.
There was nothing that was not potentially important, and a highly focused collection strategy could miss vital things. So the focus grew,
Read more: Keeping the NSA in Perspective | Stratfor Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook
(Excerpt) Read more at stratfor.com ...
New Stasi Agency.
Stratfor...
It metastasized into monitoring every person in America, possibly every person on Earth. That’s dangerous, no matter how noble the intent (and it probably wasn’t entirely noble.)
NSA=National Socialists of America
oversightby a court that operates completely contrary to the 6th Amendment? How should we take this when we realize that the NDAA is really both a suspension of Habeus Corpus and the 5th Amendment?
Seriously, this is in perspective.
All of these three, taken together should make you shit-a-brick and say Screw that!
to the NSA.
Remember, this program did NOTHING to bring the Boston terrorists to light.
Remember, the Department of Homeland Security has identified Constitutionalists as possible “terrorists”.
Remember, the IRS also “did nothing wrong” in its procedures.
Remember, the law prohibits creating a database about gun-users — they can simply use the “total information awareness” on your purchases and communications to target you now.
B. Franklin had it right.
The real issue here is “the law of diminishing returns”, which applies to most things in life.
Americans have long been caught up in the attitude that, “if a little is good, more is better.”
In this case, some surveillance of our enemies, and even our friends, is a good thing. Likewise, there are some criminals that need to be kept an eye on, as long as we are clear that they *are* criminals, and *are* involved in criminal acts. Because it can be difficult to tell, we have judges to determine if a search or surveillance is appropriate, and who issue search warrants.
But over the course of many years, surveillance and search has transcended “need”, to become meaningless voyeurism. Vast amounts of surveillance and dossiers and databases and data mining operations. And the more and more they collect, the less valuable it becomes.
Eventually they are compiling mountains of data about useless trivia, and are *missing* the important stuff.
This was the situation in old East Germany. Their nation was falling apart, but half the population was spying on the other half for just crap data. How many spoonfuls of soup did they consume for lunch? Does their hair look just like it did yesterday? Are they using all their ration of toilet paper, or are they saving some (for some illegal purpose, no doubt!)
And that is a big indicator of government efficiency. A simple ratio of what a government promises vs. what it delivers. If it promises a few things and delivers them, it will survive, no matter what those few things are. But if it promises to be all things to all people, and fails, it is destined to fall.
And inefficient government prefers to ignore the big things that government is supposed to do, in favor of an obsessive focus on unimportant, trivial things.
If they need information desperately enough, the NSA should get a narrow search warrant, one "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things (or records) to be seized". Records on all phone calls and text messages at Verizon, AT&T, and eight other providers do not qualify as "particularly describing" the intrusion into our privacy.
Stratfor = Government controlled.
Please dont throw out the baby with the bath water. Whether its NSA, CIA, DoD, or any of a whole list of govt agencies that are part of our national security apparatus, by and large these organizations are here to look for bad actors and keep these bad actors from harming Americans.
You have to point to the politicians who abuse the powers they are entrusted with. Any good tool or weapons systems or intel system can be misused. That does not mean we toss them all out and live in a make believe world. It means we have to have checks and balances on the people we entrust these tools to, and make sure they are following the laws.
The problem is today we dont have those checks anymore. Congress is in large part to blame in abdicating power to the executive branch, and the current executive is exploiting power to its own gain.
Did you read the last line?
The last line, a B.Franklin quote, is what puts the NSA into perspective. I don’t think very many readers got that far, though.
My experience is that if you talk to almost ANY person currently connected with the intel world, they will aver that doing ANYTHING in the name of intel and nat sect’y is 100% OK and they can assurrrrrrrrre you that it’s SUPER important.
The world will fall apart 5 min after they fail to get EVERYTHING about you (and everyone else), and slide and dice it a jillion different ways.
And it doesn’t matter how gently you couch your reasonable questions, does not matter how squared away and patriotic you are —your questions ipso facto make you a flag-burning HIPPY who hates the military and intel world, and you prolly smoke lots of pot and harbor homo impulses.
And they will get hurt and personally angry at you —it’s like you just keyed their car, or needlessly struck a puppy.
I think almost NONE of them are questioning ANY of their orders, ever.
They will not enter into any kind of reasoned argument about it —it’s like talking to a radical feminist about abortion.
You simply get lots of anger and emotion and the discussion goes NOWHERE.
How can something that is a complete state secret be kept in “perspective”? You have to know something before you can put it into perspective.
Sheesh what a dope.
National Security
cannot be allowed to fundamentally alter the structures or strictures of the government. To do so is to declare the Constitution Null and Void. Which, incidentally, the multitude of extra-constitutional [some of which are contra-constitutional] absolutely are.
The don't throw the baby out with the bathwater
assumes that the baby is in all actuality living: what we have here is a rotting corpse that will be chained to every subject (formerly citizen
) — that is no exaggeration, what you are talking about is removing the absolutes that constrain the government.
You have to point to the politicians who abuse the powers they are entrusted with. Any good tool or weapons systems or intel system can be misused. That does not mean we toss them all out and live in a make believe world. It means we have to have checks and balances on the people we entrust these tools to, and make sure they are following the laws.
No, you are absolutely wrong. The whole point of the Constitution is that mankind is drawn to do evil things when put into power; therefore the founders put into place what was to be the absolute constraints and limits on government power that way those in charge would be unable to do [much] evil precisely because they had no power to do so.
The problem is today we dont have those checks anymore. Congress is in large part to blame in abdicating power to the executive branch, and the current executive is exploitin
The reason we don't have checks anymore
is because there is no consequence when any government agent/agency violates the Constitution. Do you think Fast & Furious would have happened if there were? Do you think that Benghazi would have happened if the ATF/DEA/FBI agents involved in Fast & Furious had been killed for their treason (they were arming the drug-cartels while protecting them from legal repercussions: that is aid and comfort to the enemies of the several states)? Do you think either of those two would have happened if the 111th Congress were held to account for certifying-as-president someone whose Constitutional qualifications were in question? Do you think we would have these amnesty bills if the politicians were in real danger of being hanged for treason because they vote yes
on it? (Their immunity does not extend to treason, and amnesty is Treason: link.)
I dont have the time to continually re-educate folks who already have made up their minds to the contrary that national defense is the PRIMARY reason for a Federal govt and that certain agencies play major roles in that mission.
The people I work with, regardless of political leanings, are all patriots.
However, our political leaders, and their appointees, are being elected by selfish, non-patriots. As long as that continues, and as long as there are no repercussions (jail time) for their illegal use of power, the situation wont change.
Eliminating the very national jewels that allow us, or at least give us a chance, to 1) stay ahead of our adversaries, 2) see into the thought processes of our enemies, 3) possibly anticipate and cut off either strategic moves to hurt our nation or even actual attacks on our people, will not make our nation safer when saner leaders have been restored to elected office.
Now you're just talking out of both sides of your mouth: either the 4th amendment (and 5th and 6th) actually legally and lawfully mean something and the NSA (and FISA court, and IRS, and ATF, senators, reps., justices, and judges, etc) should be severely punished or they do not and the abuses of our leaders are not violating the law precisely because the 4th, 5th, and 6th mean nothing.
IOW, to not throw the baby out with the bathwater
is precisely to overthrow the Constitution in the name of expediency.
I took an oath to defend the Constitution, not the Congress, not the President, not the Supreme Court: the constitution. If those people are not for the Constitution, then I am against them; that is what it means to protect the Constitution from domestic enemies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.