Hacker News Reader

Comment by ihsw | Hacker News Reader

Some congressional representatives are working hard to put an end to mass-surveillance programs, however their options are limited to talking to the media. Their Senate votes have to follow the party line, otherwise they risk retaliation against their political careers.

View on HN

You're right that Wyden and Udall (and earlier Feingold) have been working hard on this, and have repeatedly expressed frustration about what they can't discuss. So it's good to see their offices now feel they can confirm that this is what they were getting at. But what I was calling attention to is the "current and former administration officials", similar to Eric Lichtblau's NY Times description of the people who had seen the FISA court orders. If they're talking with permission, it's a decision by the administration to have a little more transparency (either as spin or because they really believe their rhetoric that the American people will approve once they have the facts). If not, then it's new people taking whistleblower-like actions. Either way, interesting.

EDIT: Orin Kerr speculated about Lichtblau's story:

I would guess that this leak coming from “current and former officials” is an authorized leak designed to see if revealing some information will take the pressure off to reveal more. If I’m right, we’ll see if it works, or if this leak only creates more pressure to release the opinions or at least reveal more about them.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/07/hints-and-questions-about-t...

"anonymous leaks" are not transparency.

>Their Senate votes have to follow the party line, otherwise they risk retaliation against their political careers.

Saying things like this only serves to validate the action. They are elected to serve the people, if they choose to be a terrible person and throw millions of people under the bus for personal gain, then lets call them on it. Call them a terrible person, don't let them off the hook with "they might lose their job".

i think that it's beyond that. I think that someone suggested the idea of limited elections. People make careers out of being politicians, and that wasn't the intent. If they can only be in a political position for a limited time, they would then be likely to focus on their lives outside of the government, and hopefully consider what the laws they pass will do to their lives after they are done "serving"

There's the flipside to that: if there is no concern for re-election then they'll quite happily throw others under the bus. We may yet see the worst of Obama since he has no concerns over re-election.

Senators (and others) enjoy comfortable lives insulated from the consequences of their actions, especially after having retired from politics.

Politics in America may have descended to the point of "suicide elections" where they -- those who seek to subvert democracy to further their own means and ends -- use everything in their power to maximize public support for a particular candidate. The candidate knows that their political career will have been destroyed in the process, however they're promised protection, great wealth, and influence. This process, from recruitment to "execution," requires a great deal of planning but the reward greatly outweighs the risk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com