jackrousseau

Hi folks,

I'd first like to remark on how bizarre the American political situation has gotten when what are essentially Constitutional and conservative principles are so ridiculously controversial in both major political parties. Nothing that the ACLU is doing or that Snowden is saying is radical by any means. It's difficult to imagine a major political figure pre-1960 having political cover to bash ideas like "let's not have a dystopian government surveillance machine running at full speed" like Pete King or Marco Rubio easily can today. I guess this is why "bourgeois democracy" is looked down upon in radical circles.

Anyway, my question is pretty straightforward. I know journalists like Marcy Wheeler and politicians like Justin Amash have came out against the USA Freedom Act for not going far enough. Do you think it's a bad bill and should be left to die (even at the risk of full Patriot Act renewal), a sensible reform on its own that should be supported at the exclusion of other options, or a bill that should be supported but at the same time a total sunset of the Patriot Act should be also pushed for as a better alternative? What's the odds on any of these things coming to fruition?

Here's the thing. You said "Section 215 is an illegal program."

Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.

As someone who is a constitutional lawyer who studies surveillance laws, I am telling you, specifically, in Congress, no one calls Section 215 an illegal program. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.

If you're saying "illegal programs" you're referring to the legal grouping of invalidated laws, which includes things from anti-miscegenation laws to sodomy laws to overbroad surveillance acts.

So your reasoning for calling Section 215 an illegal program is because random people "call the invalidated laws illegal?" Let's get Bloomberg's soda laws and campus free speech codes in there, then, too.

Also, calling something an act or a law? It's not one or the other, that's not how lawyering works. They're both. A Section 215 is a Section 215 and a member of the invalidated law family. But that's not what you said. You said a Section 215 is an illegal program, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all invalidated laws illegal programs, which means you'd call soda laws, free speech codes and SWAT team tanks illegal programs, too. Which you said you don't.

It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?

It's certainly encouraging to see that Paul and others - from both parties - obviously consider it a politically "safe" move. This implies that there is enough of a base of civil libertarians that will support principled action to outweigh the inevitable spittle-flecked rage from other circles that might otherwise hurt Presidential campaigns, Senate re-elections and so on.

Of course, the question of the Patriot Act in 2015 seems to be something that divides elite opinion, unlike invading Iraq in 2003. I remember Noam Chomsky talking about how reform is typically only possible when the powerful are divided on something. When they present a united front, it's extremely difficult to change policy, but when you have different factions fighting, then reformers can move up and make change in some way, big or small. Vietnam at the beginning of the war vs Vietnam near the end is one example. Hopefully this is happening now - do you think that American elites are divided on this question?

It's starting to really feel like some of these folks are taking cues from the House of Bourbon: "They have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing."

America has a pretty stable political system in general, but the last time inequality and political irresponsiveness really got out of control, massive radical movements rose up threatening revolution - some admirable, some less so. Only through the concerted efforts of the New Dealers and an astoundingly good political operator (FDR) could reformist policy settle the country. The people running the surveillance machine today refuse to even countenance basic reform that goes back to the founding principles of the country, and there is no reformer around of FDR's stature this time. Worse, they carry on outrageous behavior and act like they are untouchable. The outcome of the David Betrayus case was enraging.

What do they think is going to happen? Keep pushing people, and one day they have enough and assign no legitimacy to the status quo. That can only ever lead to great strife.

Rand Paul had another couple Republicans helping him out with the "filibuster", and I think even Ted Cruz put forward a "moderate" position on the issue, which means it won't be a dogpile. There's definitely not a unified front politically speaking for either Ds or Rs. The neocons and other hawks will snipe, but that's what they do.