undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdeclan11y ago0 comments

> Where are all the NSA "reforms" now?

Yep. It's been ~18 months since we first heard of Edward Snowden, and there have been no significant policy (as in, presidential executive order) or legal changes to NSA surveillance authority.

I don't know why there's no modern-day Church committee, but here are a few hypotheses:

1. Sen. Church was running the investigation circa 1975, a few years after Watergate was exposed and a year after Nixon resigned. I suspect there was much more public concern about executive abuses than there are today, and the GOP's willingness to defend the Nixon administration was limited post-Waterage (compare to now, where nearly all Dem politicos will defend to the hilt a D in the White House).

2. Much of FedGov's surveillance abuses pre-Church were clearly illegal and criminal. The lesson intelligence agencies learned is that, no matter how dodgy the behavior, as long as there's an AG opinion theoretically blessing it, you won't be prosecuted. So the surveillance abuses today may violate the 4A and our sense of proportionality, but they aren't clearly indictable offenses. Instead of "clearly illegal" you have "AG blessed in a written opinion and lawyers may disagree."

3. There was no Intelligence Committee back then, so TLAs were more limited in being able to get congressional buy-in for warrantless surveillance. Now there is, and Feinstein (and Rs on it as well, to be sure) have been the biggest defenders of the NSA post-Snowden. They have to be: they were read in on the programs and were complicit in any wrongdoing. Answer: argue there was none!

4. Forty years after the Church Committee, people now may expect to be under surveillance (sadly) and expect FedGov to be corrupt. Look at post-1970s movies like Enemy of the State, Gattaca, Minority Report, A Scanner Darkly, V for Vendetta, etc. So what would have shocked the average American's conscience 40 years ago may now be almost expected. (This is the boiling-frog theory.)

5. There's a lot more inflation-adjusted $$$ to be made from the surveillance-industrial complex now especially post-9/11 than there was 40+ years ago. It may be an order of magnitude higher. More tax $$$ kicking around == more support in Washington officialdom.

I'm sure there are other explanations too but those are the first that come to mind...

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

disposition211y ago· 1 in thread

> (compare to now, where nearly all Dem politicos will defend to the hilt a D in the White House).

While the sitting POTUS is in fact a Democrat, a lot of the revelations presented by Snowden (and the AG opinions blessing the illegal spying (and torture, etc)) where initiated under a Republican POTUS and for most of his tenure a Republican majority in Congress. And while we didn't have solid evidence before Snowden, it was fairly common knowledge that rights were being infringed upon in the guise of security (and ironically 'protecting our freedoms'). And I cannot really recall a GOP member being outraged about this then or now.

Regardless, both parties have been pretty absent in this debacle and typically, when a congress-person steps out from the herd and starts to question the legitimacy of it all, they typically get displaced in the next election.

declanOP11y ago

This is the rule: Party X will defend unconstitutional electronic surveillance when the president is Party X. And it will attack unconstitutional electronic surveillance when the president is NOT(Party X).

The above rule holds true for both major parties.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse