Hacker News Reader

Comment by saosebastiao | Hacker News Reader

Cool. Now just let us know when the criminal trials begin.

Time for the cuffs to come out and the trials to begin.

Finally, as recently March 12, 2013, in a hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Wyden had this exchange with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who was under oath:

Wyden: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?

Clapper: No sir.

Wyden: It does not?

Clapper: Not wittingly.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/seanlawson/2013/06/06/did-intell...

Simple defense: "Your honor, the NSA simply doesn't know what we're doing."

Senator: "You're saying noone knows what the NSA is doing?"

NSA: "Correct"

Senator "Good, I'd been hearing something about some Snowden guy"

> Leon wrote that the government was justifying its counterterrorism program based on a 34-year-old Supreme Court precedent that has been eclipsed by “technological advances and a cell phone-centric lifestyle heretofore inconceivable.”

It's insane to suggest criminal prosecution for actions taken pursuant to a reasonable interpretation of Supreme Court precedent, even if ultimately that interpretation is rejected (and I'm not confident that this will hold up on appeal).

Or should we start criminal prosecutions for the people in the government responsible for trying to enforce the campaign finance laws found unconstitutional in Citizens United?

This is the fourth occasion that a federal court has found NSA actions to be unconstitutional. Apparently some people think that it is okay to play the NSA's game of pushing the limits and making tiny corrections whenever they get scolded. I do not.

For a criminal trial, a specific law must be broken. We can't retroactively prosecute violators under a new interpretation of the law.

On the other hand, I would like to see a serious investigation into the NSA's behavior conducted, possibly with top jobs on the line.

Ok, how about the law that makes it a felony to lie to Congress. Let's start with that one!

That law already exists[1]. Also, Clapper could potentially be held in Contempt of Congress[2].

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

Right so is any action being taken against him? This has seemed fairly clear cut from the time of the first Guardian/Greenwald/Snowden release.

Not really. A bunch of tea partiers sent a letter suggesting that he resign or be held on perjury charges, which prompted him to apologize. His apology asserted that he forgot about the existence of the PATRIOT Act, which is why he accidentally said what he said, on accident.

It is really fucked up that what we hope for is for jobs to be on the line, when we should be talking about decades in jail at the least.

Decades in jail? For what? I do not like the NSA's overcollection, but decades in jail ought to be reserved for violent types and people who you can easily demonstrate have ruined people's lives (through ponzi schemes and fraud).

The rule of law is government's fundamental contribution to civilization. It may not be sufficient, but it's definitely necessary. In context, it's sacred.

Most government employees, particularly members of the military, directors of agencies (Alexander is both), cabinet secretaries, judges, members of Congress and the President, take an oath of office. The first or second thing in the oath is usually an affirmation to protect and defend the Constitution. In the President's oath, it's one of only two things: do your best at being President, and protect and defend the Constitution.

I swore that oath when I joined the Navy. I was only in for six years, I've been out more than thirty years, but I still consider myself bound to that oath. I've long been disenchanted by my government, but I still hope for the Constitution's health and longevity. It may be "just a goddam piece of paper," but it symbolizes our commitment to each other.

I'm tired of watching the NSA and the rest of the government treat the Constitution as just a piece of scrap paper.

Yes, decades in jail are appropriate for fundamental crimes of such depth and sweep.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=oath%20o...

There's a lot of personal anecdote in your reply but little justification for why decades of jail are appropriate responses. It just seems like you think if you feel it intuitively that everyone else should just accept it. Sorry, I don't agree, and you're not very convincing.

"The rule of law is government's fundamental contribution to civilization."

"Most government employees, particularly members of the military, directors of agencies (Alexander is both), cabinet secretaries, judges, members of Congress and the President, take an oath of office."

Yes, most of my post was anecdotal. Those two points above are my case. I'm sorry it's not good enough.

It's not good enough because taking an oath and breaking it does not automatically equate to the horrors of imprisoning people for long, live changing lengths which is a pretty fucking horrible thing to do to individuals and their families. Especially not if they had good intentions. And not only that I don't agree with the first claim regarding "rules of law" and "civilization". It sounds like some historian's quote from the 19th century completely unaware of a century's worth work in the social sciences.

when is ignorance of the law ever an excuse for citizens? yes officer I didn't know the speed limit.. does that work for you? or yes sir I didn't know you would object to fondling your ass! No harm no foul right?

At no point did I ever make any kind of argument about ignorance of the law. Do you see that in my post? Perhaps point it out, because you're reading something that isn't there.

>>good intentions

Prove it. I mean, how are you going to prove this? Exactly. Which is why "good intentions" doesn't mean anything to anyone with sense in their head, especially not a legal court.

Counterfeiting laws in the US seem to be unreasonably harsh, the reasoning is, that it is such an insidious crime due to the fact it can undermine the fundamental trust in our economy and government. The NSA scandal has done at least one of those things.

> but decades in jail ought to be reserved for violent types and people who you can easily demonstrate have ruined people's lives (through ponzi schemes and fraud).

Like Manning?

Actually we can, what you can't do is retroactively prosecute based on a new law.

I don't know if Clapper was under oath at the time, but if he was, isn't lying to Congress a crime?

Edit: Actually read the Forbes article and it states that Clapper was under oath when responding to Sen Wyden's questions.

> For a criminal trial, a specific law must be broken.

Perjury. I don't understand the subtleties of this law, but my ordinary man interpretation is telling me that if you are a government official, you are allowed to lie under oath in a court, with no repercussions.

Quoting Wikipedia,

Wyden then asked Director Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded, "No, sir." Wyden asked "It does not."[31] and Clapper said "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertantly perhaps collect, but not wittingly."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper

The law in question: The 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.

No, I think the principle of law they have violated is the use of State Intelligence against its own citizens. Similarly, we do not use our armed forces against our citizens, because those two bodies are intended to be used against the enemies of the country. To the degree to which it can be said that warfare obeys any moral or legal imperatives, it rarely rises above the level of avoiding killing civilians out of hand. One may reflect on the degree to which the right to private communications is violated in warfare, but summarizing is beyond my abilities. The employment against citizens of these same tools, honed for deadly violence, is calamitous.

More succinctly, what on earth is the use of a polity having military specialists employed against itself?

That they have violated our right to freedom from investigation without cause as guaranteed by the 4th Amendment is secondary to the concern of the military running an operation against its own people. It is rather unfortunate that this Agency happens to be extremely well-funded, terrifyingly effective, and employing geniuses, but clearly in Snowden they are hoist on their own petard. Through his actions it has become plainly evident that the National Security Agency administrators are not merely engaged in un-Constitutional aims, but in conducting military action against the People of the United States themselves, have committed an awful treason. We should not let them plead against a lesser charge.

This is true, but that's not how you get these scumbags:

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/192241-p...

"Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the original author of the Patriot Act, says Director of National Intelligence James Clapper should be prosecuted for lying to Congress."

"Lying to Congress is a federal offense, and Clapper ought to be fired and prosecuted for it," the Wisconsin Republican said in an interview with The Hill.

False testimony is against the law.

If you actually think something of substance will happen, you are delusional. At this point it's just the worlds biggest PR game.

The systems are in place. The staff is untouched. Nobody is getting penalized. It's already over and we've lost by a huge margin. Every corp is in on it.

It's just a new reality we have to face. Secure and encrypt everything or have your data stolen. Simple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com