I almost didn't vote this up. I hate calling out political leaders or parties in HN articles.
However, the title was a bit of linkbait. The real point is that no, it's not true that the parties in Washington do not agree on anything. The hardcore partisans all are very happy to work with each other to secure and increase the security state. For that reason, for pointing out the traditional wisdom is wrong in this area and that the problem here is not political but systemic, it was worth a vote.
I called my Representative, a Republican, to support the Amash amendment. Like a jackass, he didn't do it. I imagine Repbulican leadership did a lot of leaning on members to vote the amendment down. Looking at the Democrats (the other major US political party), I imagine Democratic leadership did a lot of leaning on members to vote the amendment down. While the consitutional system seems broken in the US - the state is conducting blanket surveillance and then deciding later what to review -- the political system, whereby parties gain and maintain power, seems to be working very well.
The good news is that the wheels almost came off the wagon: the amendment was almost passed. That means next time we'll all need just to lobby twice as hard to get our rep's attention. The other good news is that members of both parties came out to support the amendment, which means that the issue of the security state cuts both ways. Both parties could easily flip on this given enough pressure. It's just our job to make sure the pressure is there (while acknowledging that there is a vital need for national security and SIGINT)
Logic is on our side here. Of course, that never counts for much in politics :)
The key problem is that there is no system of checks and balances, no matter what your personal congress-critter might say. Terms that are interpreted one way when the law is created get interpreted another way in secret. Going after certain people becomes checking up on everybody. Checking up on everybody becomes store-now, search-later. The government's natural oversight and regulatory authority over commercial businesses is being used as leverage to collect data on the population against our will. It's just out of control.
I'm concerned that a Constitutional Amendment is really what it's going to take to put this genie back in the bottle. Sure, you stop NSA, but does that stop the FBI from picking up the keys? Stop any of a dozen other agencies from creating similar systems? I'm optimistic about this particular fight, but the overall war is looking like whack-a-mole out there to me.
However, the title was a bit of linkbait. The real point is that no, it's not true that the parties in Washington do not agree on anything. The hardcore partisans all are very happy to work with each other to secure and increase the security state. For that reason, for pointing out the traditional wisdom is wrong in this area and that the problem here is not political but systemic, it was worth a vote.
I called my Representative, a Republican, to support the Amash amendment. Like a jackass, he didn't do it. I imagine Repbulican leadership did a lot of leaning on members to vote the amendment down. Looking at the Democrats (the other major US political party), I imagine Democratic leadership did a lot of leaning on members to vote the amendment down. While the consitutional system seems broken in the US - the state is conducting blanket surveillance and then deciding later what to review -- the political system, whereby parties gain and maintain power, seems to be working very well.
The good news is that the wheels almost came off the wagon: the amendment was almost passed. That means next time we'll all need just to lobby twice as hard to get our rep's attention. The other good news is that members of both parties came out to support the amendment, which means that the issue of the security state cuts both ways. Both parties could easily flip on this given enough pressure. It's just our job to make sure the pressure is there (while acknowledging that there is a vital need for national security and SIGINT)