[craftinator]

> That second part is the primary reason why they aren't being wholesale shut down

Two thoughts:

1) Even if most Americans decided they needed to be shut down, how would we enact that? It seems to me there are very few people who have that power, and even if a great majority of us wanted it, we have no way to enact it (and no way of knowing if it was actually enacted; we could be told it had been done, but that could easily be an inscrutable lie)

2) If they were actually shut down, what would the people who worked there do? Highly intelligent, skilled, with low morals, used to performing nefarious activities; they would go on to be in shadow NGOs, organized crime, reform under other names, etc.

[mindslight]

> If they were actually shut down, what would the people who worked there do?

Prison time, like any other criminal enterprise.

[542354234235]

This is kind of ridiculous. These are high level conflicts between equally valid government entities about how they should operate as well as nebulous questions on how constitutional law applies. I would assume there are legal memos, signed authorizations, etc. for what is going on. We could argue that secret authorizations for these kinds of things shouldn’t exist, but the fact is they do. If the president authorizes something, and years later, a court decides this action was unconstitutional, the employees are not criminally responsible. This isn’t a Nuremburg trial situation where crimes against humanity are committed under the guise of “just following orders”. This is a case of following orders because the best legal experts cannot 100% agree on constructional law and how it applies to different circumstances and different powers given to the various branches of government.

[mindslight]

The straightforward way to eliminate the ambiguity is to submit the programs to democratic oversight, including by The People. But instead they've worked hard to do the exact opposite, going so far as to blatantly lie to congress. This points to a criminal conspiracy, regardless of how many employees are working to craft dubious legal justifications. Usually criminals don't get to just say "my bad" and walk away after being caught, and I don't see why higher crimes should carry less punishment.

[dodobirdlord]

These are intelligence agencies. Being secretive about what they do is largely the point. Some degree of oversight is of course required to ensure that the organizations haven’t been subverted and are still on-mission, but the responsibilities of an intelligence agency are too fragile and too essential to be subjected to political meddling.

[mindslight]

"Blindly trust us, or bad things will happen" has no place in a Free society - especially after they've been repeatedly caught abusing that trust. There are many steps NSA could take to increase their transparency without exposing the details of operations, but as I said the problem is that they actively oppose oversight. This is likely due to the usual authoritarian delusion ("taking more power will help accomplish our benevolent goal"), which is at odds with democracy.

[boomboomsubban]

The only reason the law is so complicated is so they can justify their clearly illegal actions.

If you took the NSA's "incidentals records" database and said you were purposely tracking Americans, it would obviously be unconstitutional. So they created a loophole to claim the obviously illegal act is allowed.