The American government's foolishness has substantial legal and financial consequences for American citizens. One question is what happens when the Framer's vision is not realized:

Federalist 68:

[T]he system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

We need to discuss reforms to the Constitutional framework when, even after a vote for change, the same fools perpetuate mischief. 

US Combat Operations in Afghanistan and American Governance Problems re FISA

The US government's arguments and court opinions on the Fourth Amendment tend to undermine Obama-Bush claims on FISA. These problems highlight American governmance problems in how the US wages war and governs American citizens.

When fools in goverment get away with breaking the law, they're left to apply their foolishness to combat operations in Afghanistan and American governance: We're in the almost-ninth year of combat operations, and still muddling through. 

This President and his Predecessor have and want to abuse cloak of secrecy the US government relies to avoid public oversight on Geneva-FISA violations. The Framers would reel seeing this abuse of rights and power, especially during poorly planned combat operations and American governance.

American Government's Problem With Protecting Contractor Data

The US government's legal positions are a symptom of larger leadership-oversight problems behind condtinued bungling in Afghanistan.

Let's consider the flawed reasoning in the US governmentment, and show how this absurdity creates a convoluted argument or policy. One of the interesting statements on EFF:

While giving lip service to the idea that email is protected by the Fourth Amendment, the court nevertheless stated that a user has no protected expectation of privacy when she stores her messages with a third party.

Let's go down that rabbit hole. Suppose the court says a "user" has no "expectation" of privacy with a third party.  ( Let's put aside the issue of whether the court opinion on the Fourth Amendment is or isn't consistent with the Supreme Court. Currently, the government in the FISA litigation says that the case cannot be litigated because of secret information.)How does the government -- as a "user" -- propose to shield that third-party-held information -- related to dubiously-labeled state secrets -- from court review? 

A reasonable answer should be that the FISA litigation should go forward in secret. But Obama-Bush claim even a secret trial -- "good enough" for Guantanamo POWs -- isn't OK. There must be another excuse.

American Double Standard on Contract Enforcement

One issue is contracts: People and governments agree to terms in an agreement. One problem has been the telecoms primise to protect private information; but their alleged cooperation with the US government to ignore FISA, and not respect the privacy rights of state citizens. Which contract does the government propose to rely on to prevent the court from reviewing that information; but then reverse itself, and argue that the public has no expectation of privacy with third party-retained data?

American citizens cannot pick and choose from the laws of contract theory the same way the government can. Annother excuse to avoid oversight.

Lowers Confidence American Government Will, In Secret, Comply With Laws

Another issue is how the US government proposes to justify public confidence that it will -- in secret -- obey the laws. The government in the FISA litigation argues that the FISA violations cannot be litigated because of secrets. Then why can't those secrets be removed from the public record, and conduct trials as we've seen at Guantanamo? It appears the US government isn't willing to submit to rules of procedure that it says were "good enough" for the POWs at Guantanamo. 

Lack of Progress in Afghanistan: Going After Vulnerable in US

The tragedy is when flawed US policy making means the US government targets American citizens who are the most vulnerable, especially during an economic crisis. We need to consider how flawed legal arguments on FISA, state secrets, contracts, and Geneva relate to flawed oversight to ensure American citizens are adequately protected and respected.

These court cases smell of the same Bush-era non-sense behind flawed governance during combat. We voted for change, not more convoluted smokescreens to ignore the arrogant defiance of written law and American citizens' rights during wartime.

Breaking Up IC

If the intelligence community will not agree to improved governance, then that IC community should be divided into more responsive-manageable pieces. Yes, that means putting "breaking up the intelligence community" on the table. You want another decade of trillions spent abroad by fools who recklessly govern at home?

Despite a vote for change, fools in power remain unchecked. Let's get this lawfully fixed, and ignore the excuses otherwise.