SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
CoolHand
on Wednesday May 06 2015, @08:25AM
from the for-very-large-values-of-unreasonable dept.
from the for-very-large-values-of-unreasonable dept.
When the United States Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson was asked, "do you believe the government has the right to bulk collection of records from millions of individuals without a warrant", his response was that the question was "beyond my competence as secretary of homeland security" to answer.
The original article touches on some important details and raises key criticisms of the slipshod method currently used to obtain communications records for millions of people from US phone companies in violation of the spirit, if not letter, of the US Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable government searches and seizures.
Source video for quotes and context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_auHdE89qQ
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Homeland Security Chief: Fourth Amendment is 'Beyond My Competence'
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 55 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
It's not reality that's important, but how you perceive things.
(Score: 4, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday May 06 2015, @02:00PM
You do know that departments are created by law, and any question already answered in law cannot be overridden by executive order, right?
The presidency does indeed have too much power, being essentially allowed to decide anything that hasn't been set down in extraordinary detail by congress or a judicial ruling. That's a broken component of democracy. But the existence of the cabinet position "Secretary of Homeland Security" and his authority over a host of police and military related departments, are both established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
Obama can't end that. Obama can't reverse that. Hypothetically the Supreme court could, but I sincerely doubt they will.
You're free to hate Obama for nominating this douchebag to this position 2 years ago. I've got no qualms with that. But being an ignorant fuck about the basics of how our government work, then calling someone a "traitor" because of that ignorance just makes you wrong.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday May 06 2015, @07:16PM
I would sincerely appreciate it if you replied and modded me down, because this "bluh bluh you corrected my incorrect point I hate you" is what I get out of it. Which just tells me that some people are shitty.
I love disagreeing. I hate petty shitheads who mark score 2 posts "overrated" because they learned that "disagree" doesn't mod people down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 07 2015, @03:22AM
He's not disagreeing with you. He's pointing out the fact that you have no clue how the government works, and that you are calling someone a traitor for following the long established rule of law.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 07 2015, @02:14AM
Obama could push to dissolve the Department of Homeland Security or dramatically re-organize it, same as Bush and Cheney pushed to create it. He has not. He could come out strong and say that the reaction to 9/11 has become a greater threat to American freedom than Al Qaeda ever was or ISIS ever will be. He has not.
He could say those things and introduce legislation to transform his intentions into law and policy, but he does not. Irrespective of whether he could get anything through a Congress controlled by a party that means to thwart him entirely on everything, he could at least fight for the right; he might find millions of people rallying to that cry, and change the national discourse. But he will not.
That's a much different thing than saying that because Homeland Security and its attendant measures were passed into law before that Obama cannot do anything about them now. He certainly could, but he chooses not to.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday May 07 2015, @02:39AM
A much better complaint.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday May 07 2015, @03:11AM
All of which makes me wonder who Obama, (and every other elected official in America) is really ruling for?
You?
Did you fund his re-election campaign with tens of millions of dollars?
No? Then you're not the constituency he's listening to.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 07 2015, @01:17PM
Of course he isn't. Who is? The usual platitudes people have liked to roll out over the years, eg. "If you don't vote, you can't complain," or "You have to work within the system for change," no longer hold any water when a system becomes so rotten and compromised as this one. How can we know that? It's been demonstrated in front of God, the world, and everybody the last 15 years that no number of Republicans or Democrats will change the status quo, because control of the Whitehouse and Congress have been firmly in Republican, then Democratic hands in that time and nothing happened to avert the destruction of the American middle class or reverse entrenched policies that are so out of step with the times that they have become downright dangerous. It has even been shown that candidates funded by masses of small-dollar donations from ordinary people has no impact on a candidate's loyalties, either; they still represent only the wealthy, entrenched status quo. So, if voting in controlling blocks of Congress and the Whitehouse, and crowd-funding campaigns cannot have any effect on this system, what can?
When the keepers of the status quo so compromise a system that it can no longer peacefully change, as these entrenched interests have managed here, now, then they are guaranteeing that revolution will occur. At this moment, we're at a place where the illusions the powerful have cultivated to keep the citizenry quiescent have been pierced. Pretense that there is justice has been abandoned--cops are summarily murdering people in the streets, the NSA has blown our Constitution totally away without consequences to any of them, the CIA is torturing people to death without facing the death penalty themselves, Wall Street banks effectively own the government and its regulators, pundits beloved of the mass media have been shown to be liars, and now the highest of government officials are publicly throwing their hands in the air (FEC, Homeland Security) and saying they're not competent. Yes, most people don't pay attention because they're too busy trying to survive, but that has been true since the dawn of time; but the bourgeoisie (as much as I loathe terms with proto-Marxist redolence) are paying attention. Those people are pissed, they're educated, and they are relatively well-armed, with skills & actual weapons.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday May 07 2015, @03:01PM
Perhaps Obama can't disband the department entirely, but as chief executive he could order them all to stop working.
"New objectives for the Department of Homeland Security: Determine exactly how long each employee can sit on their hands before those hands go numb. To ensure maximum accuracy, we require multiple trials from each employee, and each trial must be supervised by multiple witnesses."
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday May 07 2015, @06:50PM
No, he can't do that either. The law makes specific duties of the secretary explicitly stated in the form of "The Secretary of Homeland Security shall" meaning that not performing the stated duty is a criminal offense.
A quick internet search shows a few examples of explicit duties of the role:
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall achieve situational awareness of the international borders of the United States.
Obama can't order him to not do that unless he has a constitutional imperative to do otherwise.