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...).

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.

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.

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.

This only shows that the premiere spying organization has been ruined from reckless expansion and mission creep. They are hiring SPIES that are pretending to be police...

The NSA's charter is signals intelligence. If its a signal, they are EXPECTED to read it, if its encrypted, they are EXPECTED to crack it. Doesn't matter who it's from or to. Advances in computers gave generated more electronic personal communication, and more ability to spy and collect it. The problem comes back to the patriot act and the his guided idea that the NSA was supposed to SHARE its intel. The problem is that the NSA as spies are looking for things that are ILLEGAL for police to look for, they are looking for things that cause blackmail and treason... Bad gambling debts, family medical problems, cheating politicians and executives, religious extremists in people's families... The things that give terrorists and spies leverage over honest people that have access to the government and can be used for blackmailing them into illegal activities.

Regular police have no business with that kind of info, and they have no concept of using it with restraint, they just hurt people with it.

So are any Americans actually upset about this, or do us foreigners care more about your country than you guys do?

I don't trust CSEC to not be spying on me any more than I'd trust NSA.

Going with that, I'll have to research our procedures up here.

Obama has done such a 180 degree that you almost think it was all for show so he gets elected, and it will be difficult to believe anyone who just promises to free us from the surveillance state, if they don't have a strong background of supporting civil liberties and fighting against the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act. Wyden, Udall and Paul I'd say qualify. There may be others, too, but probably not too many.

But even if they stand no chance of winning, we need to stop voting for the "lesser evil". It has solved nothing so far. The only way to change things is to vote for people you'd really want to become president, not for people who you'd rather win instead of the other guy.

Ahem. Russ Feingold is best known for his collaboration with John McCain on campaign finance reform, but was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act the first time (joined by a few others the second time). Voted against the Iraq war. One of 3 Democrats to vote against Geithner as Treasury secretary. Fought pork, returned his raises to the government. Voted against dismissal of impeachment charges for Clinton, brought a resolution to censure George W. Bush for illegal wiretapping. After losing his seat to a Tea Partier, he formed a PAC, Progressives United, which has opposed Citizens United, Wall Street and SOPA, and calls out the Democrats when their spine softens, but was just shipped off to an African ambassadorship.

Etc. I love this guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold

Essentially every bad thing he hypothesized has come to pass.

Based on what evidence?

You need a NEW party. A party that relies on and represents humanity. If The US wants to regain its status as leader of the free world, first it need to embrace that world and all human beings as equals. Get that right and the rest should follow.

However, I think we're diverging on how to tackle fixing it. I mentioned bipartisan because the OP said Wyden/Paul. This would also fragment the center, which would allow the left to take more of a reign.

Where I'm from, the conservatives have a majority due to left vote splitting amongst the liberals, green, and new democrats. But with such right wing fragmentation happening in the states, what really needs to happen is not a fragmentation of the left, but one of the middle IMO.

Personally, I think this would accomplish the goal, as if you had a bipartisan party with good policies, you would then have a very confused and hypocritical left (Democrats) who would then start having to actually pander to its base instead of the imagined center.

There's not much hope of a third party in Presidential politics, but congress and state level could work out pretty well, with funding.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/06/28/_26_senators_vs...

1. Define laws mathematically

2. Fight corruption

Not sure which one is easier.

Consider something very straightforward such as the notion that using violence is never allowed except in utmost self-defense. Firstly, it's not possible to determine the circumstances of an event without doubt. Secondly, it's similarly difficult to determine intent and motivation, being internal to the human mind, which means that it's impossible to prove in every case whether or not a perceived attacker actually meant to hurt or kill someone and whether or not someone alleged to be defending themselves perceived such a threat and acted only to defend themselves. And going back to the first point, even if violence were completely outlawed it would be difficult in many cases to rule out an accidental cause of death vs. an intentional cause. There's simply no way to divorce justice from subjective judgment (of both the facts and the intent).

Additionally, the attempt to divorce the law from society, to make it a separate edifice independent of human beings, is itself a very dangerous idea. To the extent that such a thing is possible it would mean the ability to mold mankind into whatever form you desired, through the force of external law.

So, as in the OP, suppose I'm in business, and the FBI knocks at my door and says that they want all the data in my server farm.

I say, "Just a minute while I contact my lawyer". Then I turn to the FBI and say, "My lawyer says we'll see you in court. I've got to get back to work. Be seeing you.".

So, in court, the FBI lawyers tell the judge that they are due the data in my server farm because of a double secret, triple top secret, national security, national command authority, black law that can't be talked about because the first rule of black law is never talk about the rules of black law.

Then the judge says what? This is a joke, right? Or, get out'a here. Or. you can take your double-triple nonsense back to your FBI HQ funny farm and use it for intellectual self abuse, but you've got nothing more to do here or with the defendant.

That's the way it would work, right?

Or, maybe as in the OP there are some double-triple secret laws, but as soon as the FBI wants to use one to get all the data in my server farm, we go to court, and the judge starts laughing, right?

Wouldn't it be amusing if, by revealing the request to an outside, third-party, your lawyer, you were in violation of the requirements of the request and had therefore committed a criminal act?

"...because of a double secret, triple top secret, national security, national command authority, black law..."

Of course, the judge is privy to the law and the government's evidence, even if you and your defense counsel are, regrettably, not. But he, naturally, can be trusted to understand the gravity of the situation and act in a fair, impartial manner with regards to the laws of this nation, right?

You poor bastard.

Or, I have a really nice looking server farm, totally neat and squeaky clean, behind nice, spotless glass walls, with doors controlled with finger print scanners. So, I let the FBI in to that glass house and let them have all the data. When they come back the next week and demand the private key for the RSA encryption, I object and delay but finally give in and let them have the key.

Meanwhile, there are some optical fibers running to a hidden basement of a run down, ugly, old building where the real server farm is!

When the FBI/NSA/CIA/DHS decrypts the data they got, all they see is "Mary had a little lamb.".

Meanwhile, back at the farm, everything's been moved to Iceland with backup sites in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, etc. And I'm out'a here on my private plane/yacht/submarine, whatever, to my own undisclosed, secure, foreign location. Then my Web site goes live again!

Unfortunately such things may not be entirely a joke.

The espionage-industrial complex is on the order of a $50 billion/year industry. That kind of money buys a lot of ignoring american ideals.

There is a more than strong enough case of government abuse of power and wrongdoing, there's no need to make allusions to shadowy conspiracies that kill people without leaving any evidence. It weakens the argument rather than strengthening it. Stand on the facts, the facts are more than good enough.

I am wondering if you could compare how life in Pax Americana with life in Russia or China. I am myself from Russia and can say that Americans enjoy significantly more freedom in the real world.