Hacker News Reader

Comment by fishtacos | Hacker News Reader

> The US is making it clear that targeting dissidents, journalists or activists is fine but getting caught is a problem.

What's that saying? "Better late than never."? Or how about "Never let perfect be the enemy of good."?

Obviously the US intelligence agencies knew about this well before the public did... and while I'm not quite ready to put this all on the goodwill of the Biden administration, it's also a reminder that civilian leadership changes do effect change, despite all the "Deep State" nonsense going on these days.

View on HN

You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they've exhausted all other options.

>>despite all the "Deep State" nonsense

You believe it is nonsense? I figured it was just generally understood that the President is more or less powerless really at this point, This is not new under Trump, hell this really was that way before 9/11 but accelerated ALOT after.

NSA, CIA, FBI, etc do not really answer to elected officials, I am surprised people still believe they do

Life is not binary, just because the president isn’t an absolute monarch doesn’t make him powerless

The USA system was designed to balance powers between the three branches of government.

Turns out there is a fourth branch: Bureaucracy

> just because the president isn’t an absolute monarch doesn’t make him powerless

In fact, the US people specifically don't want and prevent a monarchy, as you say ...

> The USA system was designed to balance powers between the three branches of government.

> Turns out there is a fourth branch: Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy isn't a fourth branch, it's the laws made by prior governments. You don't get to start fresh; you are the steward of an ongoing institution. The American people, through representatives, made laws that define what the executive branch must, can, and cannot do. Bureaucracy is, in a sense, the execution of those laws. A new president may not like those laws, but that's the job - to carry out the will of the people.

ROFL.. that is rich..

No the US Congress in their political cowardliness passes objectives they wish to see, they then empower unconstitutionally the executive branch to create numerous "administrative laws" to achieve those objectives.

The Supreme Court refuses to strike down these vague laws as unconstitutional, which over the decades has grown the bureaucracy exponentially until we have at present what is in effect a 4th branch of government not answerable to any of the 3 official branch, not with out wide reaching reform, and upending of governmental structure.

>>You don't get to start fresh;

This is where the I wish Jefferson would have gotten his way.. "The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water… (But) between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independent nation to another… On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right." -- Thomas Jefferson...

We should start fresh every 19 years

If mockery was an argument, we wouldn't need any others. It doesn't strengthen reasons, it renders them moot. I wish we could have had a serious discussion and moved things forward a little.

Maybe if you would read beyond the first line of the response we could, but each to their own.

The first line suggests to the reader something about the likely content of the remainder; suggests that if I respond, I will just get more of the same; suggests that the writer is just another person who follows the herd of Internet rhetoric, which doesn't bode well for insight, original thought, and expression; and it doesn't exactly put me in the mood to be open minded about ideas.

Those are just indicators. The rest of the comment could still be great, but I can't read everything.

Sounds like a doge to me. An easy out so you do not have have a real conversation and acknowledge the failings of your stance.

Does that line work for you? Have a good one! Hopefully our next conversation works out better.

>Turns out there is a fourth branch: Bureaucracy

yes that is also known as the Deep State, which the grand parent claims is "nonsense"

> yes that is also known as the Deep State, which the grand parent claims is "nonsense"

"Deep State" implies more than acknowledging the bureaucracy. It's the claim that the bureaucracy is unresponsive to, or even controlling over, our elected leaders. (And presumably, the courts, though I don't tend to see that part addressed in common tellings.)

If you don't believe the latter bit, using the term "deep state" unnecessarily tarnishes the credibility of your argument. (Federal bureaucracy is a more neutral term.)

It responds perfectly well to people that understand its knobs. But when you elect a guy who's never been in a government position before, is it really any surprise he can't bend it to his will?

It's like if you pulled someone random off the street and made them CEO of a Fortune 500. Do you think the entire org would just turn on a dime and listen to them? No chance.

There is a bit of unrealistic faith there... even if a president knows how to turn the knobs the bureaucracy has its own beliefs and positions, and can absolutely slow things down to where it is impossible to make the change if the bureaucracy does not agree with the change

So sure it may not be outright insubordination, but the result is the same

They can also use other levers to ensure any they dislike fails, etc....

This is the deep state, where if the bureaucracy does not like a policy they can and do resist it.

Seems like that'd be a good incentive to not align your political axis around educated vs uneducated.

As for simply installing uneducated people in the bureaucracy instead, that's how you end up with the Soviet Union.

I am not sure where educated vs uneducated comes into play here. I know the media seems to play this up and it seems you buy into this narrative.

Also I resist the idea that attaining a degree, any degree, qualifies as "educated" and anyone that has not attained a degree is "uneducated" that type of credentialism leads to all kinds of negative outcomes, and false assumptions. Which is the metric the media uses to label the electorate is "educated" or "uneducated". There are a huge number of people that have high levels of informal education, and there are people that have degree's that one can objectively argue are uneducated by any reasonable measure.

So over all I reject completely on different levels the entire premise of your comment

Concentrating power in hands of a president is not really a widely shared democratic ideal. In the US the president has exceptional powers compared to almost all other democracies.

I dont believe I said anything about concentrating the power into the hands of the president. If anything the 4th branch was created by the congress, and its continued existence is allowed because the US Supreme Court will not stop the congress from unconstitutionally passing vague goal based laws instead of actual legislation that proscribes exactly what the executive branch is to execute.

Instead they give the executive branch broad "goals" to achieve to be achieve by means and methods to be determined by the unelected administrative state

This unchecked power is also not an democratic ideal.

The NSO Group is clearly being punished for being caught. If you agree that the intelligence knew about this earlier, they could have punished them years ago and prevented basically all the intrusions found in the leaks.

And taking the most favorable view of the Biden administration on this move, "Biden punishes foreign private competitor to US intelligence agencies" wouldn't be a sign of him addressing US intelligence.

Oh thanks for the Biden mention. I was confused by your convoluted yet harsh complaint about the US for this action, but now I see it was more of a partisan thing.

Im sure boom boom would also criticize the last President for failing to do the same thing. Mentioning a government official who belongs to a party doesnt make you a partisan for a different party. That would be a shallow dismissal of his valid point.

The person I was replying to brought up the Biden administration, I personally don't think any president in the last fifty years would have handled this differently.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com