Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No Place to Hide by progressive writer Glenn Greenwald is about his collaboration with Edward Snowden, who leaked documentation of activities of the NSA.
The First Amendment of the Constitution states "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...." and the Fourth Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...."
The book quotes former NSA chief Edward Alexander's personal motto as "collect it all"--phone calls, texts, emails Facebook chats, google searches, CD posts, etc. In a visit to Britain's equivalent agency, GCHQ, Alexander asked, "Why can't we collect all the signals, all the time?" A GCHQ spokesperson called this a 'lighthearted quip' according to Greenwald. The NSA boasts 90,000 workers, many of them contractors working for private companies. Snowden worked for consulting giant Booz Allen Hamilton.
Before spying on US citizens, the NSA must technically get a warrant from the FISA court. For surveillance of foreign nationals, even if they are communicating with Americans, no warrant is needed. Moreover, Greenwald says that from 1978 (when the court was created) to 2002, zero applications from the NSA were rejected by the court. From 2002-2012, 11 of 20,000 applications were rejected.
Greenwald has an interesting section on the side effects of surveillance, especially self-censorship. Experiments by academics in psychology have shown that when people believe they are being watched, they tend to self-censor. Dissent is quelled, and subservience is boosted. In short, where there is surveillance, there is not full freedom of speech, as required by the 1st Amendment.
Personally I don't really care if the NSA monitors me 24/7. They will be soon very bored. But I am a stickler for following the rules that are in place, in this case the 1st and 4th Amendments. For me goes back to a job I once had enforcing labor contracts. I found out how people would try to skirt language whenever they could.
How does any of what the NSA does pass muster under the Constitution?
Greenwald seems to think that while W. Bush was bad in this regard, Obama was actually even worse. He says that Bush-era NSA chief Michael Hayden, who carried out operations that were flatly illegal, suffered "heartburn" over the no-holds-barred approach of the NSA under Obama/Alexander.
Greenwald seems to think that while W. Bush was bad in this regard, Obama was actually even worse. He says that Bush-era NSA chief Michael Hayden, who carried out operations that were flatly illegal, suffered "heartburn" over the no-holds-barred approach of the NSA under Obama/Alexander.
It is a federal alphabet soup bureacracy that costs tax dollars to opperate.
Know how people here complain about wall street, banks, and automobile industries "too big to fail" getting bail out money?
If only they knew what .gov burns in cash daily to keep an alphabet soup agency afloat under the disguise of "public safety".
Remember. Government does not run like a business. It does not operate for profit. This is a problem when cheap suits on capitol hill can start out at 6 figure salaries and retire multi, multi millionaires at we the people's expense.
The founding fathers would be appalled if they saw what this nation has degraded to.
No, it is not constitutional.
Sadly, there are too many that only support those parts of the constitutional when it benefits them in some way and throw away the rest so Ill be surprised if you get many replies.
If it was about guns and freedom of speech for corporations, you would get hundreds of replies.
You may get some in here that say the Supreme Court Judges rule it Constitutional but that is the height of idiocy since they are appointed by the same state apparatus. No conflict of interest there, no siree.
No, it is not constitutional.
Sadly, there are too many that only support those parts of the constitutional when it benefits them in some way and throw away the rest so Ill be surprised if you get many replies.
If it was about guns and freedom of speech for corporations, you would get hundreds of replies.
You're exactly right. The gun and corporate lobbies must hire people to post here.
I voted "no" by the way, and had there been a "not just no but h**l no" option, I would've picked that one.
No, it is not constitutional.
Sadly, there are too many that only support those parts of the constitutional when it benefits them in some way and throw away the rest so Ill be surprised if you get many replies.
If it was about guns and freedom of speech for corporations, you would get hundreds of replies.
I don't know... did you see the poll results?
42% conservatives so far say No not constitutional...
Legal under "The Patriot Act". They even tried to get libraries to keep track of the books checked out and video stores to keep track of movies watched. Of course I think the Act is unconstitutional.
42% conservatives so far say No not constitutional...
Ok, we'll see how many reply.
But, there were threads on other Constitutional matters, and some openly said they do not care about other parts of the Constitution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
