BREAKING: Maryland Legislators Move To Kill NSA Headquarters

TomLawless
You're willing to sell your neighbors down the river for money. Disgusting.

What the NSA's doing is neither unlawful nor immoral. They're collecting what the NSC (mostly) demands of them, as regulated by various intelligence directives.

And they pay on time. Way better than Navy. I like that in a customer.

Bedlam

TomLawless
You're willing to sell your neighbors down the river for money. Disgusting.

What the NSA's doing is neither unlawful nor immoral. They're collecting what the NSC (mostly) demands of them, as regulated by various intelligence directives.

And they pay on time. Way better than Navy. I like that in a customer.

You either are turning a convenient blind eye, or you refuse to scrutinize your beloved nsa. Not sure why you think they are not overstepping their boundaries.

These guys tried to convince of domestic spying too. No one believed them so they broke in to the federal office and stole all the proof. You are the type that didn't believe them.

AAC

AnAbsoluteCreation
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation

 

Uh oh, NSA. Another STATE (UTAH) has moved to stop the NSA as well.

SALT LAKE CITY, February 12, 2014–Can Utah shut down the new NSA data center by turning off the water? A new bill introduced by state Rep. Marc Roberts seeks to do just that.
The legislation drafted by a transpartisan coalition organized by the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) called OffNow Coalition. The Utah Fourth Amendment Protection Act would expressly prohibit state material support, participation, and assistance to any federal agency that collects electronic date or metadata without a search warrant “that particularly desribes the person, place and thing to be searched or seized.”
“Without question, the mass surveillance and data collection by the Utah Data Center is a delicate and important matter,” Roberts said. “But for me, the language of the Fourth Amendment is clear. It simply protects us against unreasonable and unwarranted searches or seizures of our persons, private residencies and property, documents and information and personal and private belongings. This legislation preserves those rights to the people.”

MODS, if you see this, can you update the thread title to include Utah as well?

AAC

edit on 12-2-2014 by AnAbsoluteCreation because: (no reason given)

Nice and to bump up.


Interesting to see if this can go through. It really deserves it's own thread.

dreamingawake

AnAbsoluteCreation
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation

 

Uh oh, NSA. Another STATE (UTAH) has moved to stop the NSA as well.

SALT LAKE CITY, February 12, 2014–Can Utah shut down the new NSA data center by turning off the water? A new bill introduced by state Rep. Marc Roberts seeks to do just that.
The legislation drafted by a transpartisan coalition organized by the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) called OffNow Coalition. The Utah Fourth Amendment Protection Act would expressly prohibit state material support, participation, and assistance to any federal agency that collects electronic date or metadata without a search warrant “that particularly desribes the person, place and thing to be searched or seized.”
“Without question, the mass surveillance and data collection by the Utah Data Center is a delicate and important matter,” Roberts said. “But for me, the language of the Fourth Amendment is clear. It simply protects us against unreasonable and unwarranted searches or seizures of our persons, private residencies and property, documents and information and personal and private belongings. This legislation preserves those rights to the people.”

MODS, if you see this, can you update the thread title to include Utah as well?

AAC

edit on 12-2-2014 by AnAbsoluteCreation because: (no reason given)

Nice and to bump up.

Interesting to see if this can go through. It really deserves it's own thread.

Go ahead.

AAC

AnAbsoluteCreation
You either are turning a convenient blind eye, or you refuse to scrutinize your beloved nsa. Not sure why you think they are not overstepping their boundaries.

So far in court, it hasn't been proven that they have. I think an issue with most people is that they don't know what the boundaries are. And that's legit, because those boundaries are often either not discussed or are themselves classified. But, much like the military, it's the civilian government that's setting that. If you don't like it, you need to address it with the President and the National Security Council, they're the ones that do most of it.

reply to post by Bedlam


Personally, I don't think it even comes close. It doesn't even pass the sniff test. I am certain the courts precedence will jot be in the NSA's favor.

AAC

reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation


It's about time. One down, several hundred to go!
You know it's funny I tried to look up how many
federal agencies there are and not even those in
the US government know how many there are!
That I believe is the problem when we don't know
who is doing what, where, when and how much then
it's time to pull the plug on all of them and wait for
them to come crawling out of the wood work!
After that we just need some of those sticky traps
and bug bombs!
I don't believe the US government is actually doing
anything anymore! We can let the state take all
the major roles of defense, education, judicial,
ECT, ECT! Though I don't expect this to ever happen
without an armed revolution! From what I see of
the people in this country, as long as they are not
starving, they have their I-pods, drugs, alcohol,
sports and celebrity entertainment that wont ever
happen!

reply to post by nosacrificenofreedom


Did you see the post about Utah also trying to stop the nsa too? I think last page before this one.

AAC.

AnAbsoluteCreation
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Personally, I don't think it even comes close. It doesn't even pass the sniff test. I am certain the courts precedence will jot be in the NSA's favor.

AAC

Not only will it be, these amusing little laws that the states are proposing are nothing but publicity stunts. Not one will be implemented, because they're unlawful.

reply to post by Bedlam

I'm not even an attorney and I can see that.

So the solution is to legislate limits for the NSA rather than political stunts like punishing it. Trouble is, that can be politically risky while the stunts are a great show.

reply to post by Bedlam


What are you talking about?

If this is a publicity stunt, it's a stunt in favor of the people. It's basically a spotlight on the controversy. The only threat to the establishment is a revolting population. Why would they feed into that discontent? I don't think so.

And it's unlawful for a state to not provide federal help? How do you figure? If it was so obvious, why would the courts
accept the complaint? No. States are not obligated by law to spy on their citizens.

AAC.

reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation

And it's unlawful for a state to not provide federal help? How do you figure? If it was so obvious, why would the courts
accept the complaint?

The courts haven't accepted any complaint. State representatives in two states have introduced state bills.

The Maryland bill has a real problem because, among other things, it says that if you work for us you can't work for them. Let's say I have a housekeeping company and I have a contract with Maryland to clean their buildings. Maryland is telling me that I can't clean the NSA's offices. That is pretty clearly a major infringement on my rights to do business.

Utah's stance is a bit cleaner but still questionable. Can they cut off utility services based on what amounts to moral grounds?

So far the legality (morality aside) of what the NSA is and has been doing is vague. Before any legal action can be taken by anybody the legal issues need to be resolved.

Phage
reply to post by Bedlam

 

I'm not even an attorney and I can see that.

So the solution is to legislate limits for the NSA rather than political stunts like punishing it. Trouble is, that can be politically risky while the stunts are a great show.

Heck, you don't even need to legislate limits. Just change the NSSIDs they run under. They're doing what they were tasked to do. It's all coming from politicians.

AnAbsoluteCreation
No. States are not obligated by law to spy on their citizens.

AAC.

What they can't do is discriminate on who they will and won't supply power. That's Federally regulated - see also FERC and the National Power Act.

Cyn50

How unbelievably selfish does that sound?

Very.

No. Don't explain.

AAC.

Yes, how very selfish of me to worry about my future. My apologies

Apology accepted.

AnAbsoluteCreation
reply to post by junglimogli

 

I've heard people say that before about the politicians scared about the dirt they have on them, which is why they are moving against the NSA. However, I don't think that's the case. If it was true, would the NSA not threaten them with said "info" not to move against them?

AAC

Yes, it's possible the NSA would threaten them with dirt .. but then, politicians control the media ..and if the NSA did realease the dirt .. it would be an admission to spying on government officials ..
The only time politicians would actually do anything positive for the people, is if they personally are benefiting in some way, or two or more goals are being achieved to satisfy their real masters ..i.e. corporations ..
People are never served ..

Bedlam
Not only will it be, these amusing little laws that the states are proposing are nothing but publicity stunts. Not one will be implemented, because they're unlawful.

LOL, "unlawful laws", good one.

reply to post by saneguy


Happens all the time. If they're unconstitutional or conflict with Federal law, they're dumped. Like these.