> And once the government starts operating outside the law, answerable to no one but itself, there’s no way to rein it back in, short of revolution.
Exactly. Or can somebody think of an example in history where a government gave up some of its rights? These sorts of authorisations (anti-terror laws and whatnot) don't go away, because they are too convenient for those in power.
The British Isles have a long history of the government relatively painlessly surrendering and/or distributing bits of its power going back centuries. It of course also has some examples of it being done only painfully and with blood, but there's still multiple existence proofs there.
I don't think we've reached the point where this is out of the question per se. I do think it's pretty unlikely that we're going to be able to just extract out this particular bit of government, though. The only hope is a broad-based move in a libertarian direction. Plink just the NSA right now and adhoc combinations of other agencies will seamlessly move right in. To name one example, the DEA would happily step in to this sort of surveillance if the NSA wasn't there.
(I operate on a "direction" theory of voting. You don't have to be a libertarian right now to vote that way. You just have to think we have too much government right now. It's not a forever commitment. If we somehow finally reach "too little", feel free to vote for "bigger".)
In the early Nineties the White government of South Africa conceded power to the Black African National Congress. At that time, they had made about six nukes, with the help of Israel, which they weren't willing to hand over to the new government, so they dismantled them and the whole program.
The Eastern Roman Empire gave up a lot of its power when they decentralized the military in favor of the "theme" system. Ironically, this reform was undertaken in order to more effectively combat the constant Islamic invasions that were taking place at the time (More at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_system).
And a revolution fighting against modern weaponry is practically guaranteed to fail. With the government constantly trying to restrict the citizens' access to weaponry there's no way to even make parody (pun intended) to hold the government accountable. Add to that the fact we've a standing military, something the Constitution never authorized, that's professionally trained. We've had problematic generals before but none of them tried to seize control of the country, yet.
If a revolution breaks out we aren't talking about a conflict the size of Syria's or Egypt's. We're probably talking about the biggest civil war ever, or a military coup. And the outcome of it (no matter if it worked or failed) would effectively gut the USA.
Tyranny is almost assured. We're on the bubble right now if the outcome hasn't already been decided (and we won't know except in hind-sight).
I hope that just partly like in Syria, the troops would eventually balk at killing their fellow citizens. However, I admit that such a possibility is less likely for armed forces that are engaging in war remotely.
*: I believe that at some point, the majority of Syrian resistance was formerly the Syrian army.
Ignoring the cases where the government was on the loosing side of a war, the only example I can think of is the American colonies, which voluntarily gave up power when they formed the union.
As things are, any non-US-citizen is under suspect by the US gov which is totally legal in the US. Now, just imagine the US outsourcing surveillance of homeland communications, say to the UK. Again, it would be totally legal in the UK — as in most countries — to monitor the communications of a foreign state. So the American people (same applies to other countries) shouldn't be concerned with domestic effects only. (As of writing this, most European democracies are co-operating with the US and are retrieving informations on their own citizens via US-intelligence.)
Exactly, this is the weirdest part to me. The US government feels alright with the fact that they have publicly declared anyone living outside the US a possible enemy. That is definitely not how I feel at all as a citizen and that viewpoint is obviously extremely dangerous. It seems like the US is becoming something like a xenophobic elderly person who isn't able to adjust to the times.
Thanks for saying this! ("That is definitely not how I feel at all as a citizen")
Yet another two cents: The idea of side-stepping national regulations isn't that farfetched: At least the UK and France are perfectly capable of operating their own systems (and are already employing them on a limited scale). So this isn't a constitutional affair of domestic interest only, but has a human rights aspect too.
And as a European citizen, I'm feeling pretty much under attack by this. I think, there's a foreseeable point in the future, where the remote threat of terrorism begins to wear and people are still feeling their exposure to a foreign surveillance they can't help about. Eventually this could possibly be the single major damage to the reputation of the US.
>The US government feels alright with the fact that they have publicly declared anyone living outside the US a possible enemy.
I disagree with this. The people who are tasked to prevent foreign powers from attacking, destabilizing or hindering U.S. intentions have a stated mission to prevent them from doing so and as such have that as a minimum starting point.
If you look at the other arms of the USG, namely the State department their charter is exactly the opposite, building partnerships, making friends etc...
So yes, the DoD and CIA view the rest of the world as hostile to the US by default. That's what they are there to defend against so it would make sense. That said, there are tons of building partnerships, humanitarian relief and international relations missions stemming from the DoD to foreign allies and partners. Its actually growing quite a bit - and likewise makes defending the nation against materiel proliferation, attacks, espionage etc... harder.
Sorry for the intervening (as this wasn't exactly a reply to my post).
I really would like Americans to understand that there is a great concern outside of the US about the directions the US, its government and its arms are taking.
The US had built a great reputation in 20th century as "the beacon of freedom" – and lost some of it during the G.W. Bush administration. Remember the very warm welcome Obama had when visiting Europe just before the inauguration (for example in Berlin)? This was really an expression of the wish to get back to terms as they used to be and to close the books over what seemed then to have been just an episode. Or take Obama's (quite premature) Nobel price as an example for yet another expression of this wish.
In the meantime things have changed. But it wasn't the change expected. From outside, it looks a bit like the US became out of balance. When naming the State department and other arms headed towards foreign policy, not much of them is perceived outside. (I really can't remember when the US State department was in the news last time, but it feels like to have been years ago.) What's perceived, is the intelligence, the DoD, drones, the NSA, etc. From outside it appears, as if the US with a self-description as the "blessed nation" has lost interest in co-operation on a large scale as it even targets its closest allies. What had been the epicenter of freedom, cool, and hip, now has started to feel a bit like a looming shadow. (It might be worth to note here that most political parties in Europe have their origins in the revolutions of 1848, which were essentially a revolt against surveillance and police control. Even in the social network age there are some of these values still alive and are nurturing some sensibility on this subject.) There's even saying of the cold war returning, but this time with the US featuring the bad guy. This is not, what the allies of the US have learned to expect from their partner. Nor is it, what its friends would wish them to be. This is not, how people would like to perceive the US, but eventually they start feeling being unable to help about it. There's a feeling of disappointment. And there's a great wish for co-operation and trust.
I think those are all totally reasonable and justifiable feelings. I agree in general that our military/intelligence arm has been carrying the US brand the loudest since 9/11. I think that was by design. I won't argue whether that is good or bad, because I could make the case either way.
My intent was to say that yes the self protective parts of the government are going to be inherently anti-foreign, by design. I think what your comment adds is basically replying to that with: "Ok, well if you guys make that part of your government the loudest and strongest part to the rest of the world, we probably will stop liking you guys, and will stop wanting to play with you."
I think that is a very valid criticism. It is one for the legislators and the public to take on however, not the arms of the government that are intended to protect it.
I sincerely hope any tech working for NSA is socially outcast. "Pardon us if we're not thrilled that you work for an unconstitutional institution." While the NSA is currently less harmful than say, the Mafia, it has the potential to be far worse.
I don't think that people who work for the NSA generally acknowledge that they do. Not necessarily out of shame or fear of being outcast, but just because of the nature of working in the "black/top secret world". Some name some non-existent entity as their employer - in a social situation, who would really know if they were lying? And if they are working for a contractor, they can quite easily just name the contractor as the employer
I live in the DC area and the people I know who work at NSA typically say they work "for the Department of Defense". That's a sure sign they work at NSA, since anyone else who works at DoD would just say more specifically whom they work for, like I did when I was a contractor at the Naval Research Lab.
Exactly. Or can somebody think of an example in history where a government gave up some of its rights? These sorts of authorisations (anti-terror laws and whatnot) don't go away, because they are too convenient for those in power.