Executive Order 12333

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bradl, Aug 29, 2014.

  1. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #1
    Snowden. NSA. PRISM. WikiLeaks. We've heard the stories on this and argued it ad nauseum in this forum. We've even blasted the current and former administrations because of the collection of such data, and how they did this without our knowing, or due process. But we never went into how the government gained the ability to do such broad collection of data and surveillance.

    Enter Executive Order 12333. Ars Technica has a lengthy and informative story of how this all started posted today, direct from an alumni of the NSA, and what started the whole thing: from rationale, to criticizing previous administrations as weak, debilitated, and demoralized, and wanting to show the rest of the world that we mean business.

    So who signed EO 12333? No, it was not Barack Obama.

    Surprisingly, it also was not George W. Bush, though he did sign three other EOs that made the situation much worse.

    Executive Order 12333 was signed by none other than Ronald Reagan. Yep, the same "We win, You lose!", keep-government-out-of-our-lives, modern-day Republican patron saint. That Ronald Reagan.

    From the article:

    With this, it does put Snowden's actions in a different light, as not only has he tried to say that this isn't right, but also deal with 31 years of government expansion in this area. Does that make him a hero, or a traitor? That's for the courts to decide. This should also put Reagan's actions into a darker perspective. Here we are blasting Obama for being overreaching, when we see how far reaching and power hungry Reagan was, especially for someone who wanted government out of people's lives.

    So what can be done about EO 12333? Well, EOs are like bills that get passed into law, except that there is no court to overturn it, should they not have any expiration date. The only thing to overturn an executive order would be another subsequent executive order.. and what POTUS in the next few terms is going to overturn that?

    BL.
     
  2. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #2
    Cop out.

    GWB and Obama don't get off the hook.
     
  3. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #3
    "My complaint is not that they’re using it to target Americans, my complaint is that the volume of incidental collection on US persons is unconstitutional."

    As soon as the NSA analysts see anything that's related to an American, it gets purged immediately. Unless someone has some magic algorithm that can completely exclude any American conversations will including anything that's foreign, what else is there to do?

    Assuming capturing that non-American intel is vital, of course.
     
  4. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #4
    You are either dreaming or delusional if you think that is how it really works.:rolleyes:
     
  5. Roric macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    WI
    #5
    Actually EOs can be overturned by court and legislative action. EO10340 (placing all steel mills under federal control, 1952) and EO12954 (barring federal contracting with companies that employ strike breakers, 1995) were overturned by the Supreme Court. Congress just needs to pass legislation that conflicts with the EO, but the President will likely veto it, so Congress needs to then overturn the veto.
     
  6. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #6
    While he may be exaggerating a fair bit, there is some validity into what he is saying. From page 2 of the OP:

    So not even Congress can restrict this authority. Nor could the courts. Thanks for the thrills, GWB. :rolleyes:

    Sorry.. I digressed. Back to the article:

    So in short, when an American citizen queried about this from the NSA, we received something that was 99% purged. All we had received was a paper with the header, question of assigned task, title, and footnote.

    With this, there definitely is some validity into lannister80's statement.

    BL.
     
  7. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #7
    An Executive Order isn't law and Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 or Obama could have cancelled it with the stroke of a pen.

    They are all equally guilty.

    In fact, Obama double-downed on the Patriot Act. He is more anti-civil liberties than any of the rest.
     
  8. tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Connecticut, USA
    #8
    I guess I don't see the point of the Ars article. Maybe it's because I lived through the 1980s and understand the history of all this better than the author, IDK....

    EO 12333 has been published since December 1981. It's scope has been known for a long time. My guess is that it was it was drafted in large part by William Casey, the CIA director under Reagan. But before you call Reagan "power hungry" you have to understand the historical and geopolitical situation in 1980-1981. The Soviet Union was on the march. They had recently invaded Afghanistan, and were flexing their muscles. In addition to having a close personal relationship, both Reagan and Casey (along with many of Reagan's other aides) wanted to beat back the advances of the Soviet Union. Casey was the perfect man to lead the CIA under Reagan. Casey was involved in the OSS during WWII, and learned many intelligence tricks from battling the Germans. He was highly effective, and is credited for practically inventing economic warfare during that time. When Casey was made CIA director, Reagan gave him great leeway to develop policies and procedures that would negatively impact the Soviet Union, hitting them at every level. It ultimately resulted in their collapse in 1989.

    Regarding the Ars article, I note the author leaves out a good bit of the Executive Order text that implement checks and procedures to ensure compliance with other laws, including the Constitution. For example, this bit:

    Or this bit:

    Or this bit:

    Many of you get a case of the vapors about Executive overreach when intelligence-gathering is discussed, but don't forget Congress has been intimately involved as well. They know quite a bit about these programs, and evidently find them valuable since they've allowed them to continue for so long.

    As I've said before, this kind of surveillance has been around for over 30 years. In all that time, I've not heard of any abuses by the government of any of the intelligence that's been gathered, including intelligence resulting from enhanced surveillance methods used after 9/11. That says to me that care is taken with the material gathered and it is not abused. If I'm wrong about that, someone please tell me.
     
  9. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #9
    Bush 41 backed Reagan on it. Clinton didn't use any of it. Bush 43 doubled down on Reagan by signing 3 more Executive Orders that expanded EO 12333, plus made it exempt from anything that would conflict with FISA or even be brought to FISC.

    But yet you're having go at Obama for it. I'm not saying that Obama isn't wrong in what he's done, but only going at Obama misplaces your blame.

    BL.
     
  10. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #10
    I'm pretty sure my exact quote was "They are all equally guilty."
     
  11. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #11
    Like I've said many times before, I have a close family member who works there and that's exactly how it works.

    Got a closer source? I doubt it.
     
  12. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #12
    What you're NOT saying is that Obama is wrong for having used 12333. Regardless of what the previous presidents have done, Obama is the guy currently in office.

    So is he wrong or isn't he for using EO 12333?
     
  13. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #13
    From the OP:

    Read the OP, then read it again before posting, please.

    BL.
     
  14. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #14
    So... in spite of all this useful surveillance that was collected for decades that came at a cost of freedom of privacy, a bunch of morons were still able to pilot planes into buildings on 9/11, very much like a Tom Clancy novel published years earlier and in spite of warnings about the possibility from within law enforcement.

    This seems to me to be a prima facia case that the intelligence services have really missed the mark by collecting all this data. Self-evidently it doesn't protect us.
     
  15. zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #15
    According to internal daily briefs from within the U.S. Government, the CIA did in fact warn the White House of a high likelihood of attack.

    It seems to me that in this case the intelligence agencies did their job but the people responsible for acting on this information were asleep at the wheel.
     

Share This Page