Who Cares if NSA Snooping Is Legal? It's Still Disgusting.

Dianne FeinsteinU.S. GovernmentRep. Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, assures us that National Security Agency snooping on phone records (and, presumably, on Internet traffic) is "legal." Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee (pictured at right), also promises that the program is legal and insists it's "simply a court reauthorization of a program." Asked about the snooping, Attorney General Eric Holder says "[m]embers of Congress have been fully briefed as these issues — these matters have been underway," implying that all is well since lawmakers have been in the know, even if some of those legislators have clearly been horrified and tried to alert the public within the limits of the muzzling rules to which they were subject. Maybe the NSA spying is legal. So what? It's still creepy, disturbing and completely unacceptable in a society that calls itself "free."

Perhaps the most oversused word in the English language, at least when it comes to government officials justifying their actions, is "legal." The word merely means that government officials jumped through the nominally appropriate rituals required to authorize themselves to do something. It doesn't mean the something they authorized themselves to do is respectful of the rights of others, morally upstanding, or wise. Pass a constitutional amendment (or just repeal a few laws in many countries) and you could even make rape and murder "legal." But they'd still be offenses against human rights and simple decency.

At the end of the day, when it comes to government snooping on the phone records and Internet activity of millions of Americans, it doesn't matter in the least if it's legal or if procedures were followed. What matters is that the privacy of millions of people has been violated without probable cause or suspicion of wrongdoing, simply so the government could scoop up data on the off chance of finding something interesting. Rogers and Feinstein assure us that broad snooping, without cause, "thwarted" a domestic terror plot. OK. And kicking in the doors of every American citizen would, no doubt, uncover criminal activity. That's not good enough.

Free people don't tolerate government officials who think "legal" trumps "right." We can do a hell of a lot better than the likes of Feinstein, Rogers and Holder assuring us that they did good because they gave themselves permission to do evil.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Sevo||

    "That's not good enough."

    It is for them.

  • dikyfuqazoniA2||

    Gabriella. you think Jimmy`s blurb is super, last saturday I got Fiat Multipla after having made $4545 this-last/5 weeks and also ten-grand last month. with-out any doubt it's the best-job Ive had. I began this nine months/ago and pretty much immediately started making a cool at least $81 per hour. I went to this website..... Grand4.com
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

  • Killazontherun||

    It's legal because creeps like Feinstein went out of their way to bend the law to their whims without the restraint of either the long cultural tradition of respecting rights, ideology or even basic morality inhibiting them in any way. So, yes, in that sense it is legal.

  • Hash Brown||

    This is where the "Living Constitution" leads us.

  • ||

    Yes, legal in the sense that it is not legal.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Why did you call out Feinstein but not the creep Rogers?

    Over and over again the GOP gets a pass here despite the atrocities they have committed.

  • CatoTheElder||

    You really do have a reading comprehension problem. The first sentence calls out Rogers. The last sentence calls out Rogers.

    The whole article is a critique of Rogers' characterization of NSA surveillance as "legal".

    Moron. No, sub-moron.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Tucille did a great job. I am referring to the partisan hack 'Killazontherun'.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Learn to follow a thread, moron.

  • Jim in Denver||

    Creeps *like* Finestein...

    How much do you want to bet that was intended to include Rogers?

    And how much do you want to bet that were you not so full on your own ignorant bias you would have made the same conclusion?

  • tarran||

    You know, this thread smells like urine because you keep talking to it like its opinion matters.

  • FYTW||

    And over and over again you spring into action to slurp the fetid cocks of Democrats despite the atrocities that they have committed.

    Go pour yourself a nice tall glass of shut the fuck up.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Your preemptive GOP cocksucking is not impressive at all.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 6.6.13 @ 9:03PM |#
    "Your preemptive GOP cocksucking is not impressive at all."

    You sleazy pile of shit, your fave liar has been caught dead to rights, and you are still trying every bit of dishonesty you can to support your "team".
    Fuck you. We're all tired of your stupidity and mendacity.
    Go fuck your daddy and STFU.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Yes, listen to shriek on the topic of cocksucking. He's got expertise on matters of length, girth, and duration.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Did someone hijack your account, or did you gobble the wrong meds? Your every comment here sounds like a little kid talking about rubber and glue.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Hey shriek! Go get me a Lindsey Graham quote from today so I can shit on his head and you can shut the fuck up!

  • Calidissident||

    If you weren't mentally insane, I'm not sure how you could read the comments here and think the GOP has been given a pass.

  • Dweebston||

    Obvs we need to indict Republicans when appropriate, especially since Republicans control the Senate and executive branch.

    No, wait, that doesn't sound right.

  • Killazontherun||

    You raise a fair point. I didn't realize Rogers had been in office as long as he has been to sign to the original Patriot Act. I'm not familiar with him though he may be as scummy as Feinstein whom I've been aware of as a Military Industrial Complex parasite for many years now.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Lex iniusta non est lex.

    An unjust law is no law at all.

  • Hash Brown||

    Free people don't tolerate government officials who think "legal" trumps "right."

    If only we had a someone with the power to tell us what's right!

  • ||

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

    It is not legal. The above is the supreme law of the land in spite of what any pol says. The title should read "Who cares if NSA snooping were legal? It's still disgusting".

  • Sevo||

    "It is not legal"
    This is clearly the case, but Di Fi and Co. choose to ignore A4.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yes, DiFi by her lonesome trampled on the 4A and forced Dumbya into warrantless wiretapping.

    You get more ignorant every post.

  • Paul.||

    All I know is DiFi is the only class of person in this country who should own guns.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Shriek,

    Go fuck yourself, you partisan turd. Is there no limit to the amount of donkey cock you're willing to suck?

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 6.6.13 @ 8:57PM |#
    "Yes, DiFi by her lonesome trampled on the 4A and forced Dumbya into warrantless wiretapping."

    5 years of Obozo, and dipshit says "BOOOOSH!"
    You seem incapable of embarrassment, you lying pile of shit.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    BLARGGHH! BUSHFAGS!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I have inspired a new lexicon.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Yes, an utterly retarded one stuffed to the gills with red herrings.

  • Boba Fudd||

    Dear Buttplug, You've tried misdirection, but we see through it. . How about you take a stand on the issue at hand? Too much to ask?

  • John C. Randolph||

    Sevo said: "Di Fi and Co".
    Buttplug said: "Yes , DiFi by her lonesome"

    I can only conclude that Buttplug's reading comprehension skills were finely honed in a government school.

    -jcr

  • Jerryskids||

  • Jerryskids||

    Although I do have to wonder why an application for a warrant requires probable cause when having probable cause would seem to make a search reasonable and therefore obviate the need for a warrant. But I'm not a Yale law professor who writes for the NYT so what do I know.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    The warrant certifies or checks the probable cause.

  • GroundTruth||

    Suthenboy, I'm afraid that the distinction of 'were' vs. 'is' is lost on most. The Brits long ago lost the use of 'were' as the conditional / subjunctive, and most Americans are lucky to be able to get through am, are, is, are and are in the present tense, let alone a conditional 'were'.

  • ||

    Perhaps the most oversused word in the English language, at least when it comes to government officials justifying their actions, is "legal." The word merely means that government officials jumped through the nominally appropriate rituals required to authorize themselves to do something.

    So. Much. This.

  • Sevo||

    "Perhaps the most oversused word in the English language, at least when it comes to government officials justifying their actions, is "legal." The word merely means that government officials jumped through the nominally appropriate rituals required to authorize themselves to do something."

    Two further points:
    1) The gov't officials are the ones *writing* the laws, so it's hardly surprising when they find the agate type 'permits' their sleazy behavior.
    2) Amazingly, the Apple CEO was vilified a week or so ago for stating Apple's tax payments were strictly legal, even though Apple has only the ability to read and react to the law.

  • Hash Brown||

    What Stevo said.

  • Hash Brown||

    "And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"

  • ||

    Angry Tuccille is awesome.

    Fuck all of those people who are rationalizing this intrusion.

  • GILMORE||

    BUT BOOOOSH!!!

  • InlineSkate||

    "Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices."

    Progressives are going to rationalize this all day long, because the minute people open their eyes and see that government isn't their savior and salvation. They lose.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Who cares if it isn't legal? What are you assholes going to do, arrest them? Suck it, commoners.

  • Sevo||

    "Who cares if it isn't legal? What are you assholes going to do, arrest them? Suck it, commoners."

    Pretty much and the shit-pile apologists say: "BUSH!"

  • ||

    Pass a constitutional amendment (or just repeal a few laws in many countries) and you could even make rape and murder "legal."

    We have that right here right now. The statists call their legal excuse drones.

  • cavalier973||

    You know who else made sure that his disgusting actions were nevertheless legal?

  • ||

    Doctor Moreau?

  • Sevo||

    Stalin?
    Mao?
    Castro?
    Hitler?
    The Kims?
    Il Duce?
    FDR?
    LBJ?
    Did I miss any?

  • Libertymike||

    Yes, the tall, ugly one whom many on your list admired.

  • Sevo||

    Lm,
    Gotta add:
    Lincoln

  • Floating Weightless||

    Lincoln

  • General Butt Naked||

    Did I miss any?

    BOOSHHSHHSHSHHHHAAAARGHH!!!KE$%DI!@E!@OJM

    *head explodes*

  • Tonio||

    One entry per post, Sevo. You kids today, I swear.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    How bout Bombs Over Tokyo Harry?

  • cavalier973||

    The correct answer was George Lucas.

    *frowns*

  • Ted S.||

    Warty?

  • Boba Fudd||

    Edward the 8th?

  • ||

    Statists gonna state.

  • Libertymike||

    Pro Liberates gonna liberate.

  • Boba Fudd||

    Fellators gonna fellate.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Rogers and Feinstein assure us that broad snooping, without cause, "thwarted" a domestic terror plot.

    Tits or GTFO. There's no way Barry, being the classless shit that he is, wouldn't take a victory lap on a "foiled domestic terror plot" if such actually existed.

  • Sevo||

    "There's no way Barry, being the classless shit that he is, wouldn't take a victory lap on a "foiled domestic terror plot" if such actually existed."

    Exactly. The sleaze bag will call in the trumpets for watching the Marines shoot a man in bed! No way he misses this chance to crow.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    All those foiled plots are TOP SECRET.

  • PapayaSF||

    Semi-off-topic paranoid thought: I would not put it past the Obama administration to try to derail these scandals with disinformation.

    1) Come up with an over-the-top elaboration to a scandal. E.g.: the IRS is reducing refunds to Republicans and funneling the proceeds to Democrats, or something about using the NSA for partisan purposes.

    2) Have an underling "leak" this information to Fox News or Breitbart.

    3) Allow a few days for the furor to happen.

    4) Publicly "debunk" the charge.

    5) Use the debunking to discredit everything Fox News or Breitbart or whoever says about the IRS or NSA.

    The only problem I see would be that step #4 has to be convincing, and this sort of thing is hard to convincingly disprove.

  • SweatingGin||

    I'd only modify it a little.

    1) scandal breaks that Verizon is sending all domestic phone records to NSA.

    2) leak info on PRISM foreign surveillance so that people shills can say It was only foreign.

  • Sevo||

    "The only problem I see would be that step #4 has to be convincing, and this sort of thing is hard to convincingly disprove."

    I see more problems, but mostly the failure of all conspiracies:
    It presumes the future knowledge of actions which can back fire; it presumes really smart people. We don't have that.
    And to be successful, it requires confidence that no one will squeal. These are people involved in personal gain every bit as much as the barrista at the local Starbucks; someone is going to open their yap.

  • ant1sthenes||

    It's a problem of momentum. When there's one real scandal that only Teapublicans and Faux News are pushing, the scandal train has little momentum, and one false allegation or exaggeration can knock it off course or stop it.

    When there are four or five big, serious scandals at once, and they're being pimped by Huffington Post and the NYT, the scandal train is going full steam, and you best get off the fucking tracks.

    No one gives a shit about the boy that cried wolf when half the sheep are gone and there are pawprints everywhere and Eric Holder is ardently insisting his big eyes are the better to see you with.

  • ||

    No one gives a shit about the boy that cried wolf when half the sheep are gone and there are pawprints everywhere and Eric Holder is ardently insisting his big eyes are the better to see you with.

    I'm stealing this.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    ARGGHHHH! KILL IT WITH FIRE!

  • Sam Grove||

    I'd like to ask Rep. Mike Rogers if it would be legal for the U.S. government to nuke the rest of the world as nothing in the US Constitution prohibits such an action.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Not fair since Rogers is a Republican. The peanut gallery insists you single out only Dems.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 6.6.13 @ 10:03PM |#
    "Not fair since Rogers is a Republican. The peanut gallery insists you single out only Dems."
    No, sleazy dipshit. More lies.

  • Boba Fudd||

    Except that we don't. See, there is actual evidence right above your post? You know that you are projecting, right?

  • oldtimer||

    And shriek delivers panegyrics for any Democrat, including the Reverend Doctor Woodrow Wilson.

  • General Butt Naked||

    "Panegyrics" is a good word.

    I found this word the other day looking for an inverse of 'serendipity'.

    Zemblanity

    I like this word.

  • Sam Grove||

    Not fair since Rogers is a Republican.

    I wasn't aware of, nor do I care about, his party gender. I do believe Rep. is for "representative.

  • mr lizard||

    It's kinda funny that mutually assured destruction is the only real 'checks and balance'. Too bad the framers didn't write in a clause for an independent dark army whose only job was to deliver a little Act Right to the other 3 branches

  • Boba Fudd||

    Amendment #2.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, and all we're missing is shithead to start posting that this is a rethuglican conspiracy....

  • General Butt Naked||

    Well, I heard that Generalisimo Jorge Boosh and the lizard people created Eric Holder in a secret christfag laboratory to discredit life on earth's only hope against the forces of evil, Dear Leader Saint Barack Obama Esquire PhD CPA XLII.

    Some don't believe this, but they are either in on it, or they're mouth-breathing, christ-fagging, t-to the motherfucking-bagging redneck shills for the GOP.

  • ||

    they are either in on it, or/b they're mouth-breathing, christ-fagging, t-to the motherfucking-bagging redneck shills for the GOP.

    Pretty much the same thing, isn't it?

  • ||

    Dammit. Only the "or" should be bolded.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    Fuck, I knew it, goddammit!

  • Sevo||

    "Well, I heard that Generalisimo Jorge Boosh and the lizard people created Eric Holder in a secret christfag laboratory to discredit life on earth's only hope against the forces of evil, Dear Leader Saint Barack Obama Esquire PhD CPA XLII."

    I'm sure shreek was installment in bringing this knowledge to the world! He's been after horhey for simply YEARS!

  • ||

    Tuccille, this is really well done.

  • ||

    (Oblig snark: are you sure it couldn't be improved upon with some floppy tree-hugger boobs written into it somewhere?).

  • db||

    Union rules. That's SugarFree's job description.

  • Ted S.||

    I'd prefer Lobster Girl. Or Lucy Steigerwald.

  • ||

    The foxes are doing their best to guard the hen house.

  • ||

    Morena Baccarin, or Alison Brie, or Eva Green.

  • Hyperion||

    Ye gads! That there image, now that's what is disgusting. What the hell is that thang?

  • John C. Randolph||

    NSA's wiretapping isn't legal. The fourth amendment is not ambiguous. Any act of congress that purports to "work around" it isn't a law at all, it's a usurpation.

    -jcr

  • Tony||

    Not only is the fourth amendment ambiguous, it says nothing at all about phone use metadata or the Internet. Just as it said nothing about garbage bags on your lawn. I guess if you think these powers are overreaching, you need courts willing to side with you.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    it says nothing at all about phone use metadata or the Internet.

    That which can be reasonably inferred flies over Tony w/o spaces without so much as the courtesy of shitting on his head to let him know that a point has just flown over his head.

  • Tony||

    But it's gotta be reasonably inferred by courts.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Which one, Tony w/o spaces? There are several, with different jurisdictions.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    T O N Y and Tony:

    "If you see something, say something!"

    Snitch out your neighbor. The security state will thank you.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 6.6.13 @ 10:46PM |#
    "Not only is the fourth amendment ambiguous,..."

    Oh, LOOK! Shithead shows up on cue! How ARE you, you slimy turd? Lookin' good with more apologia and lies? Great! We knew we could rely on you for the sleaziest attempts at apologizing for the worst piece of shit since Nixon, asshole.

  • Boba Fudd||

    So, I'm guessing you're cool with this?

  • John C. Randolph||

    Not only is the fourth amendment ambiguous,

    Wishing doesn't make it so, Tony.

    I know how much you want your beloved overlords to have no limits to their powers over you, but that document was written by people who had just overthrown their German usurper, George the turd, with their privately-owned firearms, motivated in large part by their fury over the redcoats' "writs of assistance."

    -jcr

  • ||

    That pesky 1st amendment doesn't say anything about television or the internet so I guess only newspapers made using a printing press have freedom of speech and press.

    Jesus Tap Dancing Christ.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    Tru dat jcr. Tru dat.

  • Rich||

    "We are always open to changes. But that doesn't mean there will be any. It does mean that we will look at any ideas, any thoughts, and we do this on everything," [Feinstein] said.

    Are we open to publicly testifying under oath about the time frame in which we will look at any ideas and thoughts on everything?

  • Tony||

    Yes. And the opposite of legal is illegal. So the advocacy is geared to repealing certain overreaching laws and/or passing new protective ones, correct? (To point out that these things are legal can simply be to say "You're not getting your impeachment" to people who don't care in the slightest that government is snooping on everybody.)

    I never trusted Obama to elect not to use all legal counterterrorism tools at his disposal (the ones in question courtesy of the Bush years), because you can't trust any president to do that. The only way privacy-intruding laws get repealed is if people care enough to vote for their member of Congress on the issue. I'm not sure the people will care enough to keep up with increasing abuse; after all, we all continue to use Google knowing that it's intruding on our privacy far more than the government.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Ah, the Joshua Foust defense.

    Here's a hint: just because something is legal does not make it right. It's legal not to give a shit (to put it in your perspective) whether you have HIV or not when you're barebacking. That doesn't make you not a shitbird if you do it.

  • Tony||

    Charming. I'm pretty sure I agreed with the premise that legal does not equal right.

    As in, it may be illegal to fuck your sister, but you know it is so, so right.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    if it all ties back to the people, what is the point in having any leaders at all? This is a constant-yet-recent refrain from you folks: it's the People's fault we had to implement these policies. Um, or what? Or they wouldn't get re-elected? They weren't put there to get re-elected.

    I'm pretty sure I agreed with the premise that legal does not equal right.

    Oh, you did? Where? If that's the case, I want to type one simple sentence: "What Obama did was Wrong". That's all I ask.

  • Tony||

    If you think the powers are wrong, then what Obama did was wrong in that he authorized the engaging in a wrong (but legal) act. All I ask is that you don't let a myopic obsession with Obama cloud your appreciation that Bush acquiring these powers was wrong for more reasons than the fact that Obama was gonna come along and use them.

    But it's probably not the people who will force changes in the law so much as courts. Who do you want appointing members to the courts with respect to this one issue? A Bush or an Obama? (All the same to you, I bet.)

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Except the current President arrogated even more power to himself than the previous. The FISA warrants (which you'll note concern FOREIGN intelligence) involved, in this case, two DOMESTIC parties, millions of times over. His DNI has already lied to Congress (yes, flat lied).

    Who do you want appointing members to the courts with respect to this one issue? A Bush or an Obama? (All the same to you, I bet.)

    False dichotomy is false.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    And the fact is that for all of the wordiness you have there, you may as well have written "BOOOOSH". Fine, let's say I grant that "Bush acquiring these powers was wrong for more reasons than the fact that Obama was gonna come along and use them." Let's say that very thing. Ok, now what? Who gives a fuck? The fact is that there is someone with power doing the wrong thing right now.

  • Tony||

    So we can be in agreement that the powers should be made illegal (though I can be something of an intelligence hawk, knowing that nuclear terrorism is possibly an inevitability), just not that Obama is Satan and that's all that matters.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Are you saying that how Obama is portrayed is all that matters? That tells me a lot.

  • Tony||

    I'm saying it's not all about Obama.

  • Tony||

    And making it all about Obama, as in the many posts lumping this topic in with the other scandals-of-the-month, is to be distracted from the issue. Obama is probably the best president you can reasonably expect with respect to using these powers. Whether that's a depressing thought is up to you--but it was the Republicans who invented these things, and they are itching to win back the perception of being hard on terror. And by that they have tended to mean torturing people and starting phony wars in addition to egregious abuses of digital privacy.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    Yes it is, in 2013, all about Obama and his slavish devotees.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    We could bring up Clinton and Bush and their roles. Bush's role is well-known, Clinton's less so but fuck, it's five years in to Obama's regime....

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 6.6.13 @ 11:03PM |#
    "All I ask is.."
    Yes, shithead, we know what you ask. That you be absolved of your abysmal ignorance.

  • Ben the Duck||

    All I ask is

    ... Obama's cock and balls jammed so far down your gullet, they actually knock plaque off the back of your teeth with every reverse thrust. Which is all you've ever wanted, really.

    Surprising absolutely no one.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    As in, it may be illegal to fuck your sister, but you know it is so, so right.

    Oh, and this was hella-lame. Try again. I am in the mood to be entertained.

  • Tony||

    One toothless sister fucking redneck joke per gay AIDS joke, sorry.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    P2P? What if I give you some meth, will you perform for me then?

  • Tony||

    I don't do redneck drugs.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Even when you're at the truck stops?

  • Tony||

    Yes no matter how many times I tell you, cash or coke only. And stop bringing your sister along.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Another sister joke?

    And coke? Come on man, it isn't 1987 any more.

  • Tony||

    Meth is not the new coke* Skeeter, it's the new moonshine for those who prefer the company of the genetically similar.

    *disclaimer to the NSA: I do not use cocaine.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    note to NSA - yes he does. Hey, it wasn't my people who made up the same-sex "twincest" genre. That was all you man.

  • Tony||

    That's completely different. Twins mean you get to fuck yourself, many a gay man's dream. It has nothing to do with the fact that everyone in your hometown is related to you in at least one way.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    My hometown is DC, which is incestuous in its own way, but not literally so. And that's pretty big talk from some shitkicker Okie.

  • Tony||

    That is ironic considering DC is the gayest city I've ever been to.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I'm not anti-gay, Tony, I'm just anti-you and I want to insult you in the most horrendous way possible.

  • ||

    I'm not anti-gay, Tony, I'm just anti-you and I want to insult you in the most horrendous way possible.

    If, per the theory, the real Tony is long gone, the current Tony wouldn't find what you're saying insulting. Even if it were the real Tony, unless he's going on meth-fueled, AIDS-infested, barebacking binges, he's not going to find what you're saying insulting and you've just announced "Look! here is my categorical box for gay men, and it's full of AIDS, meth and irresponsible sex, but I'm not anti-gay!"

  • ||

    Hey, it wasn't my people who made up the same-sex "twincest" genre.

    Honest question: do you guys not have lesbian twin porn? I find it seriously hard to believe that your porntrepreneurs missed that possibility.

    Also same-sex twincest (male or female) has no possibility for offspring, so I don't know why it warrants a taboo.

  • Tonio||

    I think they do, Jesse, except it's "lesbian" not lesbian. Don't tell them those girls aren't real lesbians, it makes them cry.

  • ||

    Oh, never mind, I didn't realize this was "I don't like one gay, so I'm going to mock him with tired gay stereotypes night"

    Stay classy NK, your mother clearly raised you right ;)

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    It's just the one gay, i swear! I love the rest of "you people".

  • Tonio||

    Yeah, I wish they'd come up with something else to mock Tony about. There's so much to mock him on on the merits of his arguments, and so many alternatives to the gay baiting.

  • Anonymous Coward||

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 6.6.13 @ 11:11PM |#
    "I don't do redneck drugs"
    It;s possible shithead. You might do stupid without drugs.
    Which is it, shithead?

  • General Butt Naked||

    You're crazy person tonight, sevo. I'm a tad intoxicated, and I don't know what the hell you're trying to say here.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    As in, it may be illegal to fuck your sister, but you know it is so, so right.

    Does your boyfriend know you are cheating on him with your sister?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Superfreak! Superfreak...

  • ||

    It's legal not to give a shit (to put it in your perspective) whether you have HIV or not when you're barebacking.

    That's actually factually incorrect.

    From Wikipedia:

    More than thirty states have prosecuted HIV positive individuals for exposing another person to HIV. A person diagnosed with HIV who infects their partner while engaging in sexual intercourse is committing a crime.
  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    That's if you do it intentionally. In other words, if you *know* you're pos and don't care if others get it. If you recklessly disregard whether you have it or not, you aren't prosecutable.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    What infuriates me most about this current talking point is that it once again attempts to obviate the President's free will.

    I never trusted Obama to elect not to use all legal counterterrorism tools at his disposal...because you can't trust any president to do that.

    Um, why the fuck not?

  • Tony||

    Because "power corrupts" applies to human beings generally, not human beings in certain political parties or with certain ideologies. President Gandhi shouldn't be trusted with overreaching powers, at the very least because he's not always going to be president. Also, the president is the most interested party on earth in preventing one of the scenarios in his daily terrorist threat briefings from coming to pass. Presidents and intelligence agencies should be expected to err on the side of collecting more information. Even before the threat of nuclear terrorism existed, the founders knew not to trust even the best men with unchecked power.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    So what, he was powerless to do anything about it and shouldn't be held morally responsible?

  • Tony||

    He probably thinks it's the right thing to do. I don't think anyone should be held merely morally responsible, whether the president or Google.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 6.6.13 @ 11:48PM |#
    "He probably thinks it's the right thing to do."
    You sleazy pile of shit, did you ever read anything about Nuremberg?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Try your comment in English. Yes or no - the President is morally responsible for these reprehensible actions.

  • Tony||

    President Bush? Yes.

  • Enigma||

    President Obama as well? Yes.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Because "power corrupts" applies to human beings generally, not human beings in certain political parties or with certain ideologies.

    Some people are more corruptible than others (i.e. every socialist to walk the Earth).

    Also, the president is the most interested party on earth in preventing one of the scenarios in his daily terrorist threat briefings from coming to pass.

    No evidence to support this claim exists.

    Presidents and intelligence agencies should be expected to err on the side of collecting more information not infringing on the rights of citizens.

    Fixed it for you. My bill is in the mail.

    Even before the threat of nuclear terrorism existed, the founders knew not to trust even the best men with unchecked power.

    That's because they didn't foresee Barry being elected and how fucking dreamy he is. Feel that feeling in your leg? That's the thrill of Barry going up it. Submit to the thrill.

  • Tony||

    I'm the one advocating skepticism of government power, and you for getting the Right People in charge. How the tables have turned.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 6.6.13 @ 11:49PM |#
    "I'm the one advocating skepticism of government power"
    You're a lying pile of shit, shithead.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Except you don't want to hold the people wielding the power accountable "cuz the People and Congress"

  • Tony||

    Define holding them accountable.

  • ||

    You can't hold people in power accountable.

    I'm trying to think of a politician who was held accountable, where "accountability" meant having to lose an election and go onto something else, while being rich.

    The only ones I can think of are leaders executed in revolutions, or dead at the end of a war.

    Sure, some politicians go to jail, but that's usually for an illegal screwing of people. Legal, and questionably legal, screwing goes fairly unpunished and does a lot more damage.

  • anon||


    The only ones I can think of are leaders executed in revolutions,

    Now that's the kind of accountability I want. I want Barack Hussein Obama's head on a fucking pike. And I want to shit on it too.

    Then again, I also want billions of dollars.

    I see the billionaire thing happening thru inflation before I ever see the public executing such a cowardly lying sack of fucking shit. But hey, if it happens, I'll watch.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I'm the one advocating skepticism of government power...

    ???

    Pretty sure this is what you wrote:

    Also, the president is the most interested party on earth in preventing one of the scenarios in his daily terrorist threat briefings from coming to pass. Presidents and intelligence agencies should be expected to err on the side of collecting more information.
  • Tony||

    Yes, that's what we should expect, and that's why we should be skeptical.

  • Enigma||

    That is logically incoherent. You're skeptical of government power yet you choose to let the government collect massive amounts of data that may or may not be abused because you're afraid of some threat? Do you not recognize that the government is a terrorist organization?

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 6.6.13 @ 10:39PM |#
    Shithead posts:
    "Yes. And the opposite of legal is illegal."
    Lies

  • Calidissident||

    Holy shit Tony has become fully unhinged. I mean he's always been a died in the wool TEAM BLUE fanboy, but this ... he's literally and openly apologizing for fascism!

  • General Butt Naked||

    I think this is actually a sockpuppet. Not that I think he's always a puppet, but these posts are just a bit over the top.

    There's something off here.

  • Sevo||

    "There's something off here."

    Nope. Shithead never posts without some form of dishonesty.
    That some folks argue with him remains amazing to me. He has never offered an honest claim.
    He is and remains shithead; a slimy turd, lying at every opportunity. There are worse people in the world, but only in that they had the opportunity to cause more harm.
    There are no worse people than shithead other than that opportunity; if it were given to him, Stalin would look a piker by comparison.
    Shithead is evil incarnate.

  • Sevo||

    "he's literally and openly apologizing for fascism!"
    He's been doing that for a while, but now we have an added layer of lies:
    Tony| 6.6.13 @ 11:49PM |#
    "I'm the one advocating skepticism of government power"

    That was the claim shithead made.
    I don't know exactly what comment could be made about that statement, other than there is no statement shithead could ever make that could ever be taken at face value.
    The Big Lie has not better example.

  • Calidissident||

    I feel like normally Tony either argues, or at least pretends, that what he is supporting is fascist. In this case, he can't even plausibly deny it, but he's still apologizing and lying about it, and supporting his TEAM at all costs. I'm not surprised, but this thread is pretty much Exhibit A in any future debates where Tony tries to act like he has the moral high ground

  • Calidissident||

    *that should say "that what he is supporting isn't fascist."

  • Ben the Duck||

    but this ... he's literally and openly apologizing for fascism!

    ... and this is something startling and new how, again...?

  • Calidissident||

    As I said, usually he pretends that what he advocates isn't fascism. That's what I meant by "openly." Here, he's not even pretending

  • Goldwyn Smith||

    From what I can gather "Tony" years ago was supposedly a much different poster which is what causes the belief that he is a sock. I recall reading posters claiming that he had been hijacked by another poster named Chad. I haven't seen these posts from a supposedly more sane Tony though.

    Once registration came he became T o n y (with spaces between each letter) but now the poster is just Tony (no spaces). No idea if he changed his name or if this is two different people.

  • Calidissident||

    I think he just changed his name to get rid of the spaces. He claims to be the same guy and I don't think there's any reason to think T O N Y would have stopped posting here.

  • KPres||

    How? If "Tony" was available, why did he take "T O N Y"? I think one is real, the other a sockpuppet.

  • Goldwyn Smith||

    Supposedly the real "Tony" has been gone for years.

  • Calidissident||

    I think someone probably took "Tony" immediately after registration, and maybe eventually deleted it (or the Reason mods deleted it). Or maybe he included the spaces as an identifier, like how Dunphy has (the real one) after his name, but eventually decided to go back to no spaces. It doesn't really make sense your way. If Tony with spaces was the real one, why did he suddenly stop posting as soon as the sockpuppet showed up? And if Tony without spaces is the real one, I'm pretty sure he admitted to being the one without spaces when people asked him why he changed his name.

    I think Tony is real, I haven't seen any real evidence to the contrary. I think that a lot of people here would like to believe Tony is a sockpuppet, but the truth is that there are a lot of people out there like Tony, some even stupider and more evil, and they have a lot of political power in this country. And I think that fact is (rightfully) scary to many people here

  • WomSom||

    Just use full encryption on your calls. If you and the party you are speaking with both use encryption, they can snoop all they want lol.

    www.AnonStuff.tk

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm not sure what legality means when the FISC rubber stamps everything. For a long time, I believe it never said no. That might still be true, though I think I remember one time something being rejected. Could be wrong about that.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    I think it was one reject out of thousands of requests. That request was resubmitted with an additional comma and was approved...........

  • bravo1085||

    Perhaps it doesn't apply, but here is my concern over if it's actually legal. The NSA is headquartered at Ft. Meade and ran by an Army General. To me, that makes it a military asset. This whole thing is using military assets against American citizens. Is this a violation of Posse Comitatus? In my opinion it is, but I'm interested in other thoughts.

  • space junk||

    I wonder if the 10th Amendment would not be a good place to start in trying to find a resolution to this surveillance issue in general.

    When did the states specifically grant the Federal Government the authority to snoop on their residents? Or is the 10th Amendment null and void in this case due the 'Necessary and Proper'clause?

    I don't have much hope in being able to change members of congress enough to reverse this kind of snooping by the NSA. But would States be able to sue the Federal Government and take action individually?

  • Major Pain||

    "We can do a hell of a lot better than the likes of Feinstein, Rogers and Holder assuring us that they did good because they gave themselves permission to do evil."

    That's not what the evidence shows. Stating it as a claim on a website that espouses a minority political philosophy doesn't give it any credibility at all, either.

    Our government has transitioned from a never-quite-successful attempt at a constitutional republic into a solidly emplaced corporate oligarchy. All of this hand-waving is activity well after the horse has bolted the barn, fathered several generations of offspring, and is off frolicking in some meadow you're not even allowed access to.

    This cannot be fixed politically; the political system is wholly corrupt. You'll have to wait for it to die naturally (and it will... it's unsustainable, economically.)

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    Listen, there will be a major investigation, the govt investigating itself and finding no wrongdoing, just some procedural errors. A bigger budget will be demanded and given for more training, personnel and, shit maybe a new Department of Accountability to oversee the whole mess.

  • anon||

    I laugh sadly knowing this to be true.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    Sometimes I think no Senators are more despicable than warmongering McCain and Graham and the incorrigibly-corrupt Reid. Then this satanic mugshot of Feinstein reminds me that there is one who skillfully combines warmongering and corruption....

  • ||

    Article makes a good point respect for rule of law simply means - adherence to process. It does not mean justice as a result or a "good" as either process or intent.

    There are lots of sweet laws that can't be passed because they are unconstitutional. Otoh, there are lots of bad laws that obviously can be.

    Rule of law doesn't mean justice, fairness, "good"ness etc. It is necessary, but not sufficient for a just society.

  • Nebm93||

    The NSA snooping on American citizens may not be righting or even ethical however it happened. What I think is that we all need to take a look at what this taught us. This should be different for each one of us. I also will blame myself for allowing and causing this to happen. Think about who put these people into the position they are in. Voters did and that is you, me, and most American citizens. As said previously, “Hash Brown| 6.6.13 @ 8:36PM |#
Free people don't tolerate government officials who think 'legal' trumps 'right'. 
If only we had someone with the power to tell us what's right!” What I think that we need to do is find that someone to tell us what's right. You can all decide for yourself who that might be. I am going to say that it is ourselves we have the ability to but people into government positions and allow them to ruin our lives. I personally feel that I should be more connected with my State and local elected officials.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement