|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Treason | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
Secrecy is morally ambivalent. It is when we use secrecy as the means to an immoral end that it becomes immoral. The problem with secrets is that they usually require more secrets to protect them. Give it enough time and the rights that you were trying to protect with the original secret become a crime against the State. They really are like a cancer. Also, I do not think that it is valid to compare the privacy of an individual with the secrecy of a State. While the State may certainly keep secrets it has no right of privacy.
The problem with the Snowden case is that the NSA went through proper channels. They went through Senate oversight and the FISA court. Why is the FISA court authorizing the collection of domestic information and why didn't the Senate overseers object?
Here is an illuminating discussion with 3 former NSA employees who attempted to reveal what Snowden has revealed. They used internal channels and tried to follow all the rules for whistleblowing. It seems to me that this type of govt behaviour is one of the reasons that we are supposed to hate the communists and fascists. It sort of detracts from the credibility of the govt's complaints about Chinese spying. The real harm done is to the confidence of the people in their system of govt. Unless of course that is no longer a requirement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Taq writes:
Not necessarily so. Client-lawyer confidentiality, for example. Even if the client is a mass murderer, if his lawyer tells the world what his client has told him, we would consider that a pretty darn immoral act, let alone all the legal implications.
Secrecy in the name of covering up corruption, incompetence, or criminal activity is quite different. When someone brings these secrets to light we consider it to be a moral act.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Jon writes:
Treason is doing something the government doesn't like. It originated with doing something the King didn't like, such as failing to take your hat off in his presence. Unfortunately, treason is one of the aspects of the feudal system that modern governments have decided to continue. Treason is treason. Not by design, but by simple reason. "Treason" often has little to do with what's bad for the nation. My policy has always been to keep my own secrets. I don't tell you a secret and then blame you for leaking it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2
|
My policy has always been to keep my own secrets. I don't tell you a secret and then blame you for leaking it. "Three can keep a secret if two are dead." Sometimes I think people, and governments in particular, should consider the ramifications of the eventual revelation of a secret, and determine whether they should still take the secret action assuming that the secret will eventually be revealed. Some secrets would still be kept. It was important, in the late 40s, to keep the secret of nuclear weapons. Everyone knew that the secret wouldn't remain so, whether through espionage (as actually happened) or scientific research, since the latter had revealed the secret to the US in the first place. But delaying the revelation of that secret for as long as possible had a real benefit. But other secrets...other secrets benefit only the secret keepers. They serve to delay or circumvent criminal prosecution or public outcry. Their purpose is not to protect the public, but to protect those who commit what the rest of us would often consider to be crimes...and if not actual crimes, then actions that should be made criminal. The revelation of the secret of NSA spying did absolutely nothing to limit the abilities of that program from continuing to gather information and, to borrow words from the director of the FBI, "connect the dots." They still have all of the phone conversations. They still have all of the emails. They're still monitoring them right now. They're still intercepting data at the physical layer as it's carried over fiber optic trunk lines. The only threat posed by the revelation of the secret is that the public and the courts (other than the rubber-stamp FISA court) might declare those activities to be illegal or simply wrong. The secret did not protect the capabilities of the NSA directly. Revealing that the spying is happening is not going to magically make Jim-Bob the Terrorist stop using his phone or computer to communicate with his cohorts...and if it does, then that's yet another victory anyway, because his alternatives for coordination are severely limited without those modern miracles of nigh-instant global communication. The secret protected the NSA's capabilities only indirectly, because obviously now that the public is aware, the NSA is facing a massive public backlash against it. Keeping nuclear weapons secret served the people of the US and indeed the world, as proliferation resulted in near annihilation on more than one occasion. Keeping the NSA activities secret served only the NSA. To paraphrase Elizabeth Warren (who was speaking on a matter of secret trade policy, but the sentiment applies well in this instance): "If performing these activities out in the open would cause the American people to lash back and immediately seek legislation to stop it, then perhaps these activities should not be the policy of the United States."The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995... "Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1025 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
Treason is doing something the government doesn't like. It originated with doing something the King didn't like, such as failing to take your hat off in his presence. Unfortunately, treason is one of the aspects of the feudal system that modern governments have decided to continue. Nonsense. As I wrote earlier to Jon, the overwhelming majority of things you do that the government doesn't like are not treason. Treason has a a definition. The exact definition varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but it is usually restricted specifically to conspiring with foreign enemies in time of war; or conspiring to bring down the constitutional order. That's it. Anything else you do that the government doesn't like may be a crime, or it may be legal, but it's not treason. Nor is treason a product of feudalism. The idea of treason is as old as the idea of an organised state. Thus we can read in Plutarch of the execution of Archeptolemus and Antiphon for treason by the government of Athens. This, note, was the democratic government of Athens - their treasonous offence being to launch a coup with the support of foreign agents to overthrow Athens' democracy. It's true that in feudal times the act of merely murdering the king, or in many places other nobles, would be considered treasonous; but in modern democracies the definition is usually much more restrictive*. In the US, it's explicitly defined in the Consitution:
quote: The fairly vague notion of 'Aid and Comfort' does make US law a little less clear than most European jurisdictions, though. *Although note that British law does still contain a very old-fashioned definition of treason, such that attempting to murder the king or his ministers can be considered treason. In practice, though, no one has been convicted of treason since the Second World War, and crimes that could technically be classed as treason according to statute are nowadays treated as murder or terrorism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
caffeine writes:
Exactly. The government can construe "aid and comfort" to be virtually anything that it doesn't want you to do. Thus, treason is effectively defined as anything the government doesn't want you to do. Of course, it could be difficult to get a conviction using a questionable notion of "aid and comfort" but we're not talking about convictions, are we? We're talking about casually throwing accusations around.
The fairly vague notion of 'Aid and Comfort' does make US law a little less clear than most European jurisdictions, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
but we're not talking about convictions, are we? We're talking about casually throwing accusations around. We aren't even talking about indictments. Just idle talk without substance. I don't think that kind of talk makes those accusations correct or even meaningful. And yet, there is this in America's history. List of people convicted of treason - Wikipedia
quote: Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Again - to go back to my OP, in this fantasy world I was thinking of, there would never be any War, so troop deployments would never happen. There would be no military secrets, because there would be no military. In this same fantasy world, medical secrets wouldn't be necessary, because it would be against the law to discriminate in any way on any medical conditions right out of the gate in then first place.
Yeah, some fantasy world. I wont be holding my breath.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
medical secrets wouldn't be necessary, because it would be against the law to discriminate in any way on any medical conditions right out of the gate in then first place. Laws against discrimination would not be an adequate substitute for privacy. No matter what the laws were against discrimination, people would still want to keep details about their medical conditions to themselves. People would not want pity, or to be shunned, or to have unwanted/unneeded protections offered, and none of those things would constitute anything that the law could help with. In your fantasy world, you would need to eliminate all human foibles and weaknesses.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
NoNukes observes:
In your fantasy world, you would need to eliminate all human foibles and weaknesses. Yup. Exactly.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
For another, the legal opinions on the application of the laws that made the programs "legal" are themselves secret. Passing a law and then assuming that the law would function as intended are two different things - many laws result in unforseen consequences, including overreaching by an agency taking the law farther than Congress had intended. Normally, it would be easy for Congress to revisit the issue. But when the legal opinions defining the Executive branch's interpretation of the law are themselves secret...well, it's rather difficult for Congress to know that there is a problem. Is Congress incapable of forming their own opinion? As you have already shown, this is being done in the light of day. We know that the FISA courts have not turned down a single application. We know that the NSA went through all of the proper checks that it is required to go through by law. What the NSA did was entirely legal. Hell, I don't even think anyone is bringing a case before the courts to challenge these laws.
Obama keeps going back to the point that "checks and balances were in place." The point is that those checks and balances utterly failed. Then elect representatives that will change the law. From all appearances, the checks and balances are working just as they were intended to work when they were passed. What we have is a case of buyer's regret.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
Taq writes: From all appearances, the checks and balances are working just as they were intended to work when they were passed. What we have is a case of buyer's regret. Sorry no. The Director of National Intelligence lied to Congress about NSA surveillance. quote: Fire James ClapperThe Director of National Intelligence lied to Congress about NSA surveillance. What else will he lie about? Fire DNI James Clapper: He lied to Congress about NSA surveillance. Edited by dronester, : clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2
|
Is Congress incapable of forming their own opinion? TO that point, I can say only that there are significant discrepancies between the information being leaked, the testimony of the head of the NSA, and the words of various Congresscritters. Not to mention the fact that many members of Congress elected to simply leave for the weekend when an NSA briefing was scheduled after the scandal broke. In short, if I were to attempt a description of the Legislative branch of the United States government in but a single word, I would have to go with "incompetent." The word lacks sufficient nuance to precisely describe all that is wrong with our representatives, but in my estimation it is the most significant factor.
As you have already shown, this is being done in the light of day. To a degree. Not entirely. The laws were enacted int he light of day. Their interpretation, in the form of DOJ opinions and court rulings (you know, those other two branches of government) were not performed in full view of the public. You still, today, cannot as a private citizen acquire a copy of those legal opinions or the rulings regarding them.
We know that the FISA courts have not turned down a single application. We know that the NSA went through all of the proper checks that it is required to go through by law. What the NSA did was entirely legal. Hell, I don't even think anyone is bringing a case before the courts to challenge these laws. Indeed - though the latter is in large part because the entire scheme ensured that nobody would ever actually be able to provide evidence that they had standing upon which to sue. Again - the issue here is not the violation of the law. Rather, it is the careful and partially (though not wholly) secret methodical circumvention of Constitutional rights (at least as the public has tended to interpret those rights such as the Right to Privacy and Free Speech) through the passing of new laws that are, by design, virtually impossible to challenge in court.
Then elect representatives that will change the law. From all appearances, the checks and balances are working just as they were intended to work when they were passed. What we have is a case of buyer's regret. Certainly I have "buyers remorse" with regard to Obama - the extent of abuses that could be stopped with a single stroke of the Presidential pen, abuses Obama ran for office on the pretense of eliminating, has grown only worse. Exactly which representatives are available for me to vote for, Taq? I know of very few candidates who would actually work toward the end of terminating these projects and revising policy. None of them ran for election in my disctrict. The one who did was Obama, and he turned out to be the opposite of what he promised regarding things like transparency.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995... "Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
In short, if I were to attempt a description of the Legislative branch of the United States government in but a single word, I would have to go with "incompetent." Who elected them?
Again - the issue here is not the violation of the law. Rather, it is the careful and partially (though not wholly) secret methodical circumvention of Constitutional rights (at least as the public has tended to interpret those rights such as the Right to Privacy and Free Speech) through the passing of new laws that are, by design, virtually impossible to challenge in court. If they are violation of constitutional rights then bring it in front of the courts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Sorry no. The Director of National Intelligence lied to Congress about NSA surveillance. Mr. Goebbels, err, Mr. Clapper: Then he is guilty of perjury. Doesn't change the fact that these surveillance programs do follow the laws written to govern them. What we should be focused on is finding candidates that will get rid of these laws. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024