Re:U.S. NSA domestic phone spying program illegal: appeals c...
by frandroid on Thursday May 07, 2015 @05:35PM
(#9508461)
> It just does what it's told.
Actually, bureaucracies, especially defense and intelligence bureaucracies, have a culture and an agenda of their own. They wield enough power (both in absolute and complexity terms) to be able to push the political executive far beyond what said executive would have wanted. Do you think Barack Obama ever dreamed of authorizing drone strikes (i.e. assassination of civilians) around the world before becoming a politician?
Re:U.S. NSA domestic phone spying program illegal: appeals c...
by r00fus on Thursday May 07, 2015 @10:21PM
(#9509677)
It's because of the revolving door between government agencies and the corporations that supply their equipment. Crony capitalism where the bids that are accepted are based solely on the connections the contractors have.
I think this quote applies here: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power" - Mussolini
Re:U.S. NSA domestic phone spying program illegal: appeals c...
by cmurf on Thursday May 07, 2015 @06:14PM
(#9508715)
I don't understand the question. The history of drones predates Barack Obama becoming a state senator of Illinois though.
https://understandingempire.wordpress.com/2-0-a-brief-histor...
Re:U.S. NSA domestic phone spying program illegal: appeals c...
by netheril96 on Thursday May 07, 2015 @09:28PM
(#9509519)
The meaning of the question is that Obama hadn't thought he himself would authorize drone strikes until he became president himself. Not that Obama hadn't imagined the existence of drone strikes.
While that's amusing, it's an imperfect summary of the problem. DOJ had the Patriot Act in a drawer before 9/11. The Patriot Act wasn't read in full by any member of the Senate before it was voted on. And Section 215 was grossly reinterpreted, by both Bush and Obama administrations, according to that section's author, Jim Sensenbrenner.
It's said NSA doesn't have a moral compass, it's basically the components of a chess set. It just does what it's told. So really some criticism goes to a lazy, unimaginative, or ignorant Congress for not fully understanding the Patriot Act and how administrations (especially the more suspicious elements within them) would interpret and use Section 215 to give credibility to what they want to do. And more criticism goes to the FBI for telling the NSA to engage in bulk collection and FISA court for permitting it, and by extension the president (both of them) mainly for leaving this program on autopilot and also defending it.
A task for historians, is to what degree each president really actively defended bulk collection and believed in its appropriateness, vs what was politically possible with the expectation a future court would become involved in unwinding something that president really didn't approve of but merely accepted.