Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States Politics Your Rights Online

The NSA Would Be Eliminated Under President Gary Johnson (thehill.com) 412

An anonymous reader writes: Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson says he'd sign an executive order eliminating America's National Security Agency if he wins the 2016 election. And he's also forcefully arguing that domestic surveillance of internet activity and phone calls in the United States is worse than in China. Johnson took issue with an interviewer at The Daily Beast who pointed out that China monitors political dissidents, saying "What do you call the NSA and the satellites that are trained on us and the fact that 110 million Verizon users are having everything we do on our cell phones being data-collected?"

Johnson also wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, replacing both income taxes and corporate taxes with a single federal consumption tax, and says he'd be willing to sign legislation eliminating the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Commerce, which he says fuels "crony capitalism". "I'll sign legislation to eliminate any federal agency that they present me with."

Johnson has also said that if he were elected President, he'd pardon Edward Snowden.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The NSA Would Be Eliminated Under President Gary Johnson

Comments Filter:
  • Far more likely that the NSA would eliminate him.

    • by TrekkieGod ( 627867 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @10:50AM (#52343171) Homepage Journal

      Far more likely that the NSA would eliminate him.

      They'd try, but it's ok. Captain America wouldn't stand for that anymore than he stood for SHIELD's bullshit.

      I mean, if we're going to talk about the fictional pop-culture portrayal of the NSA, Captain America is fair game, right?

      Look, I don't like what they're doing anymore than you do. They're way exceeding their authority, they shouldn't be allowed to collect any data domestically. But they're not fucking assassinating political candidates or office holders. If we start using that type of hyperbole, we stop getting taken seriously when we complain about the shit they ARE doing.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18, 2016 @11:09AM (#52343237)

        But they're not fucking assassinating political candidates or office holders.

        Of course not, GP has mistakenly associated to the NSA what actually is a CIA job.

      • I used to worry the NSA used the data collection to blackmail and influence elections. Then Trump won the presumptive nomination and I breathed a sigh of relief.
        • ??? You think there's no way the NSA would ever support a Trump nomination?

          • by maugle ( 1369813 )
            It's unlikely. Big, powerful, nearly-unaccountable organizations like the NSA would prefer someone a little more... politically entrenched. Trump, unlike a career politician, would actually be capable of saying "fuck these three-letter agencies, tear them all down". Don't take that as me saying he actually would, but he's capable of doing it, and the NSA knows it.

            ... I can't believe I just said something positive about Trump. Ugh. Our political climate is a fecal monsoon.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              It's unlikely. Big, powerful, nearly-unaccountable organizations like the NSA would prefer someone a little more... politically entrenched. Trump, unlike a career politician, would actually be capable of saying "fuck these three-letter agencies, tear them all down". Don't take that as me saying he actually would, but he's capable of doing it, and the NSA knows it. ... I can't believe I just said something positive about Trump. Ugh. Our political climate is a fecal monsoon.

              Actually, what positive thing you just said about Trump is the very reason he is as popular as he is now. The man is a self-funded, non-politician and that is what makes him so popular. Like him or not, voting for Trump sends a message to the government that "hey, all you politicians fucked up so bad we'd rather have THIS guy" Trump already has more than enough money and power, which makes him less susceptible to bribery. He has little to gain from being the president other than the chance to, well, "Make A

      • But they're not fucking assassinating political candidates or office holders. If we start using that type of hyperbole, we stop getting taken seriously when we complain about the shit they ARE doing.

        When we actually have some politicians who aren't part of the elite then and only then will we see if they aren't assassinating people. Why would they assassinate their own team, which both Democrats and Republicans are?

      • by the_povinator ( 936048 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @01:16PM (#52343755) Homepage
        I'll probably get modded down for saying this, but I know people who have worked with the NSA, and these people have always been very impressed with how seriously NSA employees take the legislative limits on what they can do.

        NSA people work in big office buildings, in a corporate-like environment; they're tightly controlled. It's not like the CIA used to be where you were in a field office somewhere and your superiors weren't always 100% sure what you were doing.

        • by John.Banister ( 1291556 ) * on Sunday June 19, 2016 @02:50AM (#52346023) Homepage
          So, when they found out that their superiors had been lying to Congress, what did they do about that? I'm guessing that they acted in a manner that would ensure self-preservation in a situation where their superiors are always 100% sure what the subordinate employees are doing. If they call their bosses on nefarious bullshit, they will get told that they, themselves, are a threat to national security, and that's how they will be treated if the behavior persists. The individuals can be really conscientious, but the structure of their organization can prevent that from making any difference.
  • Empty Words (Score:3, Insightful)

    by klingens ( 147173 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @10:39AM (#52343109)

    He knows, we know, he will never have to make good on any of his campaign promises or boasts. He is 100% certain to lose the election.
    He can promise anything he wants and it's meaningless. So why not go for the big ones: abolish the IRS but bring a efficient and fair tax enforcement, dismantle the Fed and have a strong monetary policy, kill off Wall Street and at the same time promote free enterprise, yadda, yadda.

    Singling out only the universally unpopular NSA ist what a coward would do.

  • by burni2 ( 1643061 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @10:41AM (#52343121)

    Personal point:
    keeping the secret agencies in check & under control = good/wise

    abolishing everything = idiotic

    bolstering secret agencies further = equally idiot as abolishing them

    Hint:
    Never choose an extreme, because you can certainly be sure that you are wrong even when you are right.

    • by pla ( 258480 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @11:12AM (#52343247) Journal
      abolishing everything = idiotic

      Why? What does the NSA actually do that makes the least difference to you on a daily basis... Other than waste your taxpayer dollars to strip you of any pretense of privacy, of course?

      Even the Department of Education - Don't mistake them for having anything to do with actual "education": the Department does not: establish schools and colleges; develop curricula; set requirements for enrollment and graduation; determine state education standards; or develop or implement testing to measure whether states are meeting their education standards [ed.gov]. They do little more than enforce discriminatory racial quotas by deciding who to throw our tax dollars at.
      • by Fire_Wraith ( 1460385 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @11:57AM (#52343431)
        People forget that the part of the NSA that does spying is just that - part of it. There's also the Information Assurance Directorate, whose sole job is to make computer and communications systems in the government _more_ secure. They're the people who brought you SE Linux. And of course, never mind the fact that there are foreign countries that probably need spying on (North Korea, just to name one). The problem was never about the NSA's very existence, it's about what it's been pushed into by the people in charge in recent years.

        Now, if you want to talk about an agency that's been horribly toxic to civil liberties, and really is not serving a positive purpose at all, to abolish, why don't we talk about the DEA?
        • by jbn-o ( 555068 ) <mail@digitalcitizen.info> on Saturday June 18, 2016 @02:26PM (#52344015) Homepage

          To my mind SELinux's value comes from it being free software. The freedoms of free software allow us to vet, run, share, and modify SELinux and make sure it does what we need it to do. Coming from NSA is nice because I'm sure the NSA hires skilled programmers who worked on SELinux, but I'm not going to trust any non-free software coming from the NSA because non-free software (regardless of purpose or stated intent) is untrustworthy.

          The drug war (the US's longest war?), which seems intimately tied to the Drug Enforcement Agency, certainly is a horror.

        • by Agripa ( 139780 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @11:25PM (#52345681)

          Which part of the NSA is it which sabotages encryption standards?

    • “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” -- Barry Goldwater

      • by bmo ( 77928 )

        Justice without mercy is tyranny. --E'Jéi Osborne

        Extremism in any direction is nuts. Me.

        --
        BMO

      • by bmo ( 77928 )

        Further, since justice without mercy is tyranny, you cannot have liberty under such a condition.

        --
        BMO

    • Personal point:
      keeping the secret agencies in check & under control = good/wise

      abolishing everything = idiotic

      bolstering secret agencies further = equally idiot as abolishing them

      Hint:
      Never choose an extreme, because you can certainly be sure that you are wrong even when you are right.

      Somebody else had some thoughts on similar choices in the past which are to a large extent being faced by the American people again, in this election.

      https://youtu.be/qXBswFfh6AY [youtu.be]

      "Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

      I have

    • >abolishing everything = idiotic

      This is why I can't seriously support the Libertarian party. They have some views I agree with, but they miss the fundamental truth that humans are social animals, and governments are just an outgrowth of our society. Their idea that our natural state is to be holed up in a house blasting away at anyone who steps on the lawn is based on pure ignorance.

  • If this guy actually got elected. We all hate the status quo, but give us something thats not going to throw everything up in the air, and ruin the country. None of the candidates are any good. How bout Bones for President?

    • by SeaFox ( 739806 )

      How bout Bones for President?

      The current political system? It's dead, Jim.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by gfxguy ( 98788 )
      Except that, like the other candidates, he can't act unilaterally in most of these cases - it's just an agenda, and I don't consider taking the government back to the ideals of when it was founded (no, not entirely) is "extremism." The government has so far exceeded it's constitutional boundaries it's ridiculous. The RIGHT way to accomplish the things you probably want to keep (things like the D.O. Education) is actually have a constitutional convention to make it actually be something the federal governm
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18, 2016 @10:59AM (#52343205)

    There is no "capitalism" under "libertarianism". Without government to enforce laws, it all devolves into "strong man with big stick takes everything".

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Libertarianism. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
  • by magarity ( 164372 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @11:16AM (#52343273)

    If the Libertarians wanted any real influence, they'd declare one of the primary parties candidates as theirs and support him/her. Then after the election if that candidate won and say 'we delivered x votes to put you over the top, you owe us, here's what we want you to support'. As it is, all they do is suck just enough votes away to swing the election from one primary party candidate to the other which just irritates the other parties and doesn't make any friends.

  • No chance (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sheetsda ( 230887 )

    I have said it before and I'll say it again - In the US you don't have the luxury of voting for the person you want to be president, you have to vote against the person you don't want to be president. That leaves no room for third parties.

    The fact that two outsiders made such big inroads on both sides of the aisle gives me hope that after Clinton wins this election that there will be enough popular support for replacing the voting system with something like run-off voting. Especially if Trump and Sanders

  • by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @11:52AM (#52343413)
    Because he's not a criminal or a raving nut. Sad but necessary.
  • This strikes me as a Very Bad Idea

    Review their processes more thoroughly sure... have more have more accountability for their actions, certainly... but get rid of them? I don't want to imagine the can of worms that would open.

  • Promising things he knows full well only Congress can do, that are beyond presidential authority. and knowing full well that no Congress that sits during the next term ever would. Empty promises of ridiculous things.

    I'm not sure he could even pardon Snowden without Snowden first being convicted, technically.

  • No thanks. The tax should always be based on how much you harvest from society.

  • IMHO, Gary Johnson is not going far enough. While we are at it, we can eliminate the utterly worthless Homeland Security altogether. Let's also get rid of the DEA, move the ATF mission to the FBI and scrap enforcement of tobacco and alcohol. Just cutting those bloated agencies alone would pay for social programs to make life in America better and easier for everyday Americans. I would council caution with eliminating Housing and Urban Development but restructuring it strictly as an advocacy unit for the poo
  • by iamacat ( 583406 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @01:57PM (#52343923)

    I have a lot of sympathy for libertarian ideas, but party leaders need to start thinking how to win elections in a democracy that includes voters with diverse political convictions. I can think of a platform that will appeal to a healthy fraction of Democrats and Republicans:

    • Replace most benefit programs and workspace regulations with nationwide basic income
    • Legalize soft drugs (anything that does not immediately make you claw someone's face off), adult prostitution and right to die on the principles of personal freedom. No nanny state laws like banning smoking and soda.
    • Support for legal gun ownership for private self defense
    • Tackle climate change and pollution with carbon tax as payment to public for private use of shared resources (atmosphere).
    • No broad surveillance without a warrant for specific individuals. All warrants are made public after N years to allow reasonable time for an investigation to complete
  • Trump/Johnson 2016, anyone?
  • Uh, really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @02:58PM (#52344173) Homepage

    What, like Guantanamo Bay was going to be closed under President Obama?

  • by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @05:24PM (#52344737)

    Evinrude.

    Now, that's a real runoff.

  • Gary Johnson on NSA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by firepig01 ( 4618675 ) on Sunday June 19, 2016 @04:28PM (#52348763)
    Retired AF intelligence officer here. Feeling like I'm touring Plato's Cave! Gary Johnson's proposal would not strip the military services of their SIGINT capability. He believes the military should have all the resources it needs to defend the country. As others have said, he wants to dismantle that part of the NSA structure that targets the USA, i.e., American citizens. Some discernment please. I saw that interview. The interviewer was unfairly painting Gary as an extremist. He's not. He's a patriot. This is America. Spying on our own citizens in un-American. I'm proud Gary is standing up for freedom.

He who has but four and spends five has no need for a wallet.

Working...