General Discussion

think

(11,641 posts)

42. Completely agree. While I am not against transparent (non secret) cooperation

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 10:28 AM

Jul 2013

between the public and private sector that is well regulated, I am against secret laws being used to shelter relationships between private for profit contractors and our spy agencies.

I apologize for misunderstanding and thinking you were supporting the use of the letters of marque to justify what happened in regards to private contractors like Booz Allen.

I do thank you for pointing out where one might try to justify military contractors via the letters of marque and
using it as a justification for the current relationships between Booz Allen, the NSA, & The Carlyle Group is basically indefensible.

The unpatriot act should be abolished and the bribery charges alleged against The Carlyle Group should be investigated by congress as well as how a person like Snowden working for a private contractor can be allowed to do so much damage to our national security.

There is no way in hell Booz Allen and The Carlyle Group deserve a pass on all this!

Thanks again for the reply.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

56 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Constitution specifically allows for Congressional secrecy and military contractors [View all] Recursion Jul 2013 OP

O_O Amonester Jul 2013 #1

Somehow, I doubt the Founders anticipated our modern ways in quite the detail you are implying. nt Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #2

I don't know. The Quasi-War was pretty early Recursion Jul 2013 #4

I doubt they anticipated assault rifles in quite the detail 2nd amendment fans imply. n/t pnwmom Jul 2013 #8

+100 demosincebirth Jul 2013 #13

I doubt they anticipated private contractors like Booz Allen in quite the same way either think Jul 2013 #29

I agree. Private contractors shouldn't be involved in any of this. n/t pnwmom Jul 2013 #54

Thank you for replying. I'm sorry if I've been annoying & repetitive on this issue think Jul 2013 #55

No need to apologize for a "rant." pnwmom Jul 2013 #56

Was Booz Allen granted a letter Marque and Reprisal? Wait don't tell me. think Jul 2013 #3

Essentially. They send out teams with some weapons systems Recursion Jul 2013 #7

And still we wouldn't know because it is classified... think Jul 2013 #11

I can think of plenty that aren't classified Recursion Jul 2013 #12

Thanks. I guess we will just have to take the govt's word that they are not violating the spirit think Jul 2013 #14

Yoo's unitary executive stuff is absurd Recursion Jul 2013 #19

And now important interpretations are classified. That is not a precedent I'm fond of think Jul 2013 #21

well said think! liberal_at_heart Jul 2013 #23

Thank you! /nt think Jul 2013 #30

I agree with your views and would like to subscribe to your news letter. nt Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #49

Thank you for the laugh. I appreciate it :) think Jul 2013 #51

The Democratic Underground.com is a wonderful place to learn and share. think Jul 2013 #53

And Raytheon begat Northrup Grumman begat Boeing begat...n/t leftstreet Jul 2013 #5

Ah, the "Letters of Marque" ProSense Jul 2013 #6

So Ron Paul supports using the Letters of marque? think Jul 2013 #15

I seem to remember he considers it a "vast untapped resource" or some crap like that Recursion Jul 2013 #18

Ron Paul favors using the Letter of Marque to use private armies and contractors think Jul 2013 #22

I'm saying it sucks and it was ever thus (nt) Recursion Jul 2013 #38

Completely agree. While I am not against transparent (non secret) cooperation think Jul 2013 #42

PATRIOT and AUMF should both be repealed Recursion Jul 2013 #43

I prefer dragging "the devil we know" before congress. Devil's hate sunshine.... think Jul 2013 #44

I think we are in agreement on this because I am against private armies also think Jul 2013 #17

So where is the open debate in congress that would enable one fifth can keep the goings of the Luminous Animal Jul 2013 #9

The one-fifth is a separate issue from the secrecy Recursion Jul 2013 #10

Yes, where does it say that? think Jul 2013 #48

That is all well and good if they have declared the enemy to be the public at large nolabels Jul 2013 #16

Show us the part about a secret interpretation of law Waiting For Everyman Jul 2013 #20

I still haven't found a provision for secret interpretation of the law in the Constititution.... think Jul 2013 #31

yeah..... dtom67 Jul 2013 #24

If we have a totalitarian government as you claim ... JoePhilly Jul 2013 #32

If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys? nt Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #50

So you are saying that our totalitarian government would NOT misuse JoePhilly Jul 2013 #52

Congressional secrecy isn't the same as Executive secrecy.... DeSwiss Jul 2013 #25

Thank you. aquart Jul 2013 #26

And the Constitution specifically allowed for slavery with the 3/5 compromise cali Jul 2013 #27

That and other things are my problem with originalism Recursion Jul 2013 #37

No you aren't, you are actually offering examples from the past to excuse present problems Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #40

Well, no, I actually know why I posted what I did Recursion Jul 2013 #41

What was their stance on executive secrecy? Democracyinkind Jul 2013 #28

Most of them were alive and in Congress when Washington refused to make trade negotiations public Recursion Jul 2013 #35

So you agree that when my Senators say secrets are being kept from them that is not Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #33

I interpret this as even if it is secret, it can be entered on the Journal with 20% ... kentuck Jul 2013 #34

I can see that interpretation Recursion Jul 2013 #36

Senators say secrets are kept from them. Illegally. Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #39

There is indeed a problem and it revolves around the private contractor NSA relationship think Jul 2013 #45

Not one word of that applies to Contractors or the Executive Agencies 1-Old-Man Jul 2013 #46

Yes, and the Constitution specifically allows us to throw their asses out if they do so. bemildred Jul 2013 #47