1. This (re: citizens violating classified laws or legal interpretations) is definitely a situation where any sane judge/jury would find against the ignorantia juris non excusat principle, so I don't expect the use of any of this to hold up in any court, ever, not just because its effects are potentially unconstitutional. And any judge worth the wood upon which they sit would dismiss any evidence presented that has been gathered as a result in that it wasn't obtained with a legal warrant, or in any manner that is constitutional.
2. This is massive amounts of ammunition for conspiracy theorists, especially truthers. Let me give it a try: 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by the US government under the Bush administration as a false flag operation in order to to get the Patriot Act passed with plans to classify interpretations which would give the government over-reaching powers to violate the constitutional rights of citizens to the point of being able to create a Stasi state.
3. Why don't we demand impeachment if Obama re-authorizes any part of the Patriot Act, obviously knowing about classified secret interpretations which have already been found to be unconstitutional (re: classified findings)? The congress has the ability to decide whether or not the President has committed a "high crime", and I'm fairly certain this fits the historical meaning of that term.. knowingly and willingly violating the constitutional rights of every US citizen, a constitution which the president is sworn to defend (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_Presiden...).
Wait… The Patriot Act is passed and reauthorized by Congress first. So you're suggesting that if Congress passes a reauthorization, and Obama signs it, then that same Congress should go back and impeach him? This seems… Unlikely…
The Patriot Act is a law. The buck stops at Congress. They passed it the first time. They reauthorized the parts of it that are still around the subsequent times. Trying to redirect the blame to the administration, which has, by the way, done plenty of things wrong, is a misunderstanding of the system and a distortion that does no one any favors. When we concentrate responsibility in the executive, we support the concentration of power in the executive, as well.
The Patriot Act is Congress's responsibility. And unless we send a strong signal as a nation, from sea to shining sea, to our representatives, that its powers are no longer acceptable (if, indeed, they ever were), nothing will change substantively. Congress is where the blame lies, no matter which administration the act was passed under or which administration it's being administered under now. Congress, Congress, Congress. They pass the laws, no matter whether or not the administration helps write them.
Well of course it was initially passed by Congress. However, because of the nature of the checks and balances between parts of our government, all 3 are equally guilty here since the Executive has enforced the law, and the Judicial since it has not summarily found it unconstitutional and overreaching, and thus killed it with fire. Further, and more to the point, I find that the Executive is more guilty here than any other, because it has classified interpretations which allow for the mass violation of constitutional rights. This isn't something that is up to Congress, and this is where the current President comes into play.
As for impeachment, it's much easier to try to punish a single person, or demand such, than it is to demand the punishment of hundreds. I don't think we should cry foul when a bad law is passed -- it's bound to happen. Rather, when both of the other branches fail to do their duty to balance power, or worse, exacerbate the problem.
Simple. A significant portion of long-term, powerful congressmen are in on the story too... They VOTED for it.
Remember too. Since the Cold War, certain amounts of spying are "necessary" that's why we have the NSA and CIA in the first place. The purpose of those organizations is to provide the President with information that cannot be obtained timely and/or legally to use against our nation-state enemies. They find spies and/or people working with spies committing high treason, show up at their door and shoot them in the face... These are not "police", they don't have trials, they act by the rules of war.
It all comes back to the misguided Patriot Act. These two organizations operations don't generally produce evidence legally usable in court. As their purpose was military court wasn't really an issue. But the side effect is that no matter what they spy on they don't have time or executive direction to enforce "civilian" laws. The patriot act was a crybaby act local police wanted to fight drugs. The FBI DIDNT want it, because it put them right back in J. Edgar days they didn't want to repeat. But enough other agencies cried about not getting NSA and CIA level intel Congress felt bad let them have it. Even though they didn't really have the ability to use such information properly for criminal investigation or in courts.
Comments
I have a few thoughts after reading this article:
1. This (re: citizens violating classified laws or legal interpretations) is definitely a situation where any sane judge/jury would find against the ignorantia juris non excusat principle, so I don't expect the use of any of this to hold up in any court, ever, not just because its effects are potentially unconstitutional. And any judge worth the wood upon which they sit would dismiss any evidence presented that has been gathered as a result in that it wasn't obtained with a legal warrant, or in any manner that is constitutional.
2. This is massive amounts of ammunition for conspiracy theorists, especially truthers. Let me give it a try: 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by the US government under the Bush administration as a false flag operation in order to to get the Patriot Act passed with plans to classify interpretations which would give the government over-reaching powers to violate the constitutional rights of citizens to the point of being able to create a Stasi state.
3. Why don't we demand impeachment if Obama re-authorizes any part of the Patriot Act, obviously knowing about classified secret interpretations which have already been found to be unconstitutional (re: classified findings)? The congress has the ability to decide whether or not the President has committed a "high crime", and I'm fairly certain this fits the historical meaning of that term.. knowingly and willingly violating the constitutional rights of every US citizen, a constitution which the president is sworn to defend (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_Presiden...).
Wait… The Patriot Act is passed and reauthorized by Congress first. So you're suggesting that if Congress passes a reauthorization, and Obama signs it, then that same Congress should go back and impeach him? This seems… Unlikely…
The Patriot Act is a law. The buck stops at Congress. They passed it the first time. They reauthorized the parts of it that are still around the subsequent times. Trying to redirect the blame to the administration, which has, by the way, done plenty of things wrong, is a misunderstanding of the system and a distortion that does no one any favors. When we concentrate responsibility in the executive, we support the concentration of power in the executive, as well.
The Patriot Act is Congress's responsibility. And unless we send a strong signal as a nation, from sea to shining sea, to our representatives, that its powers are no longer acceptable (if, indeed, they ever were), nothing will change substantively. Congress is where the blame lies, no matter which administration the act was passed under or which administration it's being administered under now. Congress, Congress, Congress. They pass the laws, no matter whether or not the administration helps write them.
Well of course it was initially passed by Congress. However, because of the nature of the checks and balances between parts of our government, all 3 are equally guilty here since the Executive has enforced the law, and the Judicial since it has not summarily found it unconstitutional and overreaching, and thus killed it with fire. Further, and more to the point, I find that the Executive is more guilty here than any other, because it has classified interpretations which allow for the mass violation of constitutional rights. This isn't something that is up to Congress, and this is where the current President comes into play.
As for impeachment, it's much easier to try to punish a single person, or demand such, than it is to demand the punishment of hundreds. I don't think we should cry foul when a bad law is passed -- it's bound to happen. Rather, when both of the other branches fail to do their duty to balance power, or worse, exacerbate the problem.
Simple. A significant portion of long-term, powerful congressmen are in on the story too... They VOTED for it.
Remember too. Since the Cold War, certain amounts of spying are "necessary" that's why we have the NSA and CIA in the first place. The purpose of those organizations is to provide the President with information that cannot be obtained timely and/or legally to use against our nation-state enemies. They find spies and/or people working with spies committing high treason, show up at their door and shoot them in the face... These are not "police", they don't have trials, they act by the rules of war.
It all comes back to the misguided Patriot Act. These two organizations operations don't generally produce evidence legally usable in court. As their purpose was military court wasn't really an issue. But the side effect is that no matter what they spy on they don't have time or executive direction to enforce "civilian" laws. The patriot act was a crybaby act local police wanted to fight drugs. The FBI DIDNT want it, because it put them right back in J. Edgar days they didn't want to repeat. But enough other agencies cried about not getting NSA and CIA level intel Congress felt bad let them have it. Even though they didn't really have the ability to use such information properly for criminal investigation or in courts.