NSA: We Need To Rethink The Constitution
All those annoying phrases protecting American's rights, that is.
At Politico, Philip Ewing blogs:
The National Security Agency pushed for the government to "rethink" the Fourth Amendment when it argued in a classified memo that it needed new authorities and capabilities for the information age.The 2001 memo, later declassified and posted online by George Washington University's National Security Archive, makes a case to the incoming George W. Bush administration that the NSA needs new authorities and technology to adapt to the Internet era.
In one key paragraph, NSA wrote that its new phase meant the U.S. must reevaluate its approach toward signals intelligence, or "SIGINT," and the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
"The Fourth Amendment is as applicable to eSIGINT as it is to the SIGINT of yesterday and today," it wrote. "The Information Age will however cause us to rethink and reapply the procedures, policies and authorities born in an earlier electronic surveillance environment."
...NSA's memo continued: "Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the Fourth Amendment and all applicable laws. But senior leadership must understand that today's and tomorrow's mission will demand a powerful, permanent presence on a global telecommunications network that will host the 'protected' communications of Americans as well as the targeted communications of adversaries."
"Protected." In quotes. Lovely.







Dear Leader's glorious image now remains on my monitor for 23 out of 24 hours a day. Welcome to the Brave New World Order, comrades. It is here.
Stinky the Clown at June 12, 2013 9:19 AM
"...But senior leadership must understand that today's and tomorrow's mission will demand a powerful, permanent presence on a global telecommunications network that will host the 'protected' communications of Americans as well as the targeted communications of adversaries."
OH what fucking HORSESHIT.
Bottom line, folks, is this: Having "nothing to hide" isn't the point. The point is, we've always, previous to this latest fiasco, had the right to privacy. In our private lives. Not bothering anybody else. That the government is VIOLATING it to an extreme and NOT ASHAMED about it is the point. Because somewhere down the line, when some government hack decides that because you "had nothing to hide" they can turn around and misconstrue ANYgoddamnthing you posted or emailed or talked about on your cell phone as "something", then you WILL be screwed seven ways to Sunday, and nothing and no one will be able to help you. Including yourself.
WAKE THE FUCK UP, people.
Flynne at June 12, 2013 9:28 AM
HORSESHIT
thoughtcrime doubleplusungood retract
Stinky the Clown at June 12, 2013 9:45 AM
On the contrary, if they think that they can revoke the Fourth Amendment, they have another think coming.
I often thought this might be a fun project for some of us to play with. Amy, you might consider making this a blog topic.
My suggestion is, if you could write a Constitution for the United States, what would you put in it?
In other words, write your own articles and amendments. Doesn't have to be a comprehensive Constitution. Just write your own amendment.
Patrick at June 12, 2013 9:46 AM
This is revolting!
JFP at June 12, 2013 9:56 AM
"In other words, write your own articles and amendments. Doesn't have to be a comprehensive Constitution. Just write your own amendment."
Sounds like a 6th grade social studies assignment.
The founders were smart men, and did quite a legitimate job, of writing a Constitution. Frankly things were going pretty darn well until Congress changed the constitution to allow for the direct election of senators.
The problem has never been the writing of a constitution, the problem has always been the interpretation, and the unintended consequences, and intended consequences of that interpretation.
The government is too big period, and has tried to do too much, most of it, badly.
Isab at June 12, 2013 10:02 AM
I'm wondering what that newly worded Fourth Amendment might read like. "The people have no right..."
We won't be any different than if the terrorists had won. Massive overreaction to accumulate power by the least trustworthy among us. No thanks.
MarkD at June 12, 2013 12:42 PM
"OH what fucking HORSESHIT."
Bzzt. Ms. Flynne, you are fined 2 credits for violating the verbal morality statute. Agents are on the way.
Sio at June 12, 2013 3:20 PM
You were assigned that in sixth grade? Doubtful. Not that you were assigned that, but that you actually made it to the sixth grade.
But smug twerps aside, I've often wondered when the time comes to start over again. Give up on the U.S. and start somewhere else. The problem is there's no more hospitable place on earth to colonize. Still, there's Mars.
Patrick at June 12, 2013 4:10 PM
But smug twerps aside, I've often wondered when the time comes to start over again. Give up on the U.S. and start somewhere else. The problem is there's no more hospitable place on earth to colonize. Still, there's Mars.
Posted by: Patrick at June 12, 2013 4:10 PM
I hear Utopia is available. Seriously, Patrick, the problem with government and systems of government is those horrible people. If you just didn't have to compromise, or get anyone's agreement, it would be so damn easy, wouldn't it?
After you are done writing Constitutional amendments, please tackle world peace. I am sure we are all waiting with baited breath for your simple, obvious and elegant solution, that has never been tried before.
Isab at June 12, 2013 5:51 PM
Isab, it's "bated" breath, not "baited." Dumbass.
I do not know you, but I already know I do not like you. You're a smug, arrogant, self-righteous, obnoxious pseudo-intellectual.
You may now join the ranks of posters I no longer respond to or read, for any reason. Say hi to Luj and Feebie when you arrive.
Patrick at June 12, 2013 6:46 PM
Actually I have sort of been doing that already.
The problem is that both the Republican and Democratic parties are scared shitless of an Article Five convention. The reason is that once an Article Five convention opens, even if the parties try to preset the agenda, there is not a true limit to what the delegates can decide to pass.
And then even if Congress refuses to pass an amendment the individual states can still do it. So calling your state's senators and representatives could still them over.
Jim P. at June 12, 2013 8:13 PM
Very interesting site, Jim. Thanks very much for sharing it. I liked the perspective on undoing Citizens United.
Patrick at June 13, 2013 5:30 AM
"On the contrary, if they think that they can revoke the Fourth Amendment, they have another think coming."
They don't have to revoke it. The three branches just have to collectively decide that they're going to ignore it. Which is pretty much what has happened.
Cousin Dave at June 13, 2013 6:25 AM
Leave a comment