I'm not OK with the NSA collecting it in the first place, let alone selling it to Israel. For whatever reason we're giving crap to Israel for.
They are getting unfiltered data, that is data on ALL Americans, not just suspected terrorists. But please, try again with your excuses.
I am not comfortable with the NSA spying on Americans.So I am most certainly not comfortable with the NSA sharing any data with another country.
Ah, no. That is not correct. Allow me to quote the guy whose credibility on this is questionable, but whom certain more excitable elements have decided to glorify:
probably.... maybe.... might..... some.
Hey, that's interesting. That sounds pretty much exactly like what I said
.
I think you give Snowden too much credit in that he analyses the data and feeds the analysis to the media. The media analyses the raw data he provided. His personal credibility is a non issue.Ah, no. That is not correct. Allow me to quote the guy whose credibility on this is questionable, but whom certain more excitable elements have decided to glorify:
probably.... maybe.... might..... some.
Snowden (again) is talking about stuff about which he knows very little. I guess either it's been too long since he's seen himself in the papers, or his new Russian friends wanted to create problems at home for the Obama administration in order to secure their Syria deal.
But please, tell me more given your vast background knowledge of U.S. defense and the intelligence community.
Because the last time you believed what the hyperventilators told you, you suggested that we were about to invade Libya with a single battalion of Marines.
Further down the article...
Hey, that's interesting. That sounds pretty much exactly like what I said
I don't see it in either set of terms. Manichaeism is a construct for those who prefer the soothing tones of simple narratives over more complex reality. Most of our social spending is a mixture of well-intentioned and politically driven efforts by fallible human beings to do the right thing as near as they see it and most of our national security efforts are the same (Our social spending is simply currently structured to produce massive destructive and unintended consequences, which agreeably can be part and parcel of our national security efforts as well). I find the same hyperventilating against both:
:shrug: It's pretty obvious he went with and chose his data for the first batches, it's hard to imagine (if he is still a free actor) that he's not doing the same now.
If it was all good intentions then we would have given up minimum wage and foreign aid decades ago. The carnage that the US military brings overseas cannot be denied. You're speaking nonsense.
Ugh, give it a rest. This garbage needs to end. There is NO REASON that the US government needs all of this information. NONE. And not only are they taking it, but they're distributing it around the world? This is loathsome, and what's worse is that you defend it.
I'd rather trade goods with them rather than teaming up on invading and toppling other nations myself. Guess I'm just some crazy idealist, though.
hey, remember this part?
Dwell on that for a minutecpwill said:
On the contrary, there are very, very good reasons why we would collect FISA information. For example, if we were not allowed to ever justify collection on US entities, we would be unable to protect the homeland and our critical national infrastructure (such as, for example, air-traffic control and nuclear power plants) from cyber attacks. There are also excellent reasons for us to share information with other nations. For example, if we were unable to share information with other nations, we would be severely hindered in our efforts to track the most violent of the cartels, who operate both within and outside CONUS.
Remember that part earlier about how you accusing those with whom you disagree of being evil makes you look childish and uninformed more than it makes them look evil?
You're better than that, Phatz.These are our allies. We do trade goods with them. We also collect on them and they on us, as otherwise our national decision-making is less informed and therefore more dangerous.
Nope, just an relatively uninformed national security hypochondriac who (as most folks do) probably means well.
The conclusions are obvious to any who's intellectually honest.hey, remember this part?
Dwell on that for a minute
The solutions you find so blindingly self-evident are not the conclusions that others come to, and they are not ill-intentioned simply because they have the effrontery to come to a different conclusion.
Defending everything that the military does, especially warrantless wiretaps and the demolition of the 4th amendment, is pretty tough to call anything but evil.Remember that part earlier about how you accusing those with whom you disagree of being evil makes you look childish and uninformed more than it makes them look evil?
There's a reason that the US is beligerent toward Iran and not Saudi Arabia, or is Saudi Arabia a-okay with you?
I'll remember not to question the almight cpwill next time. He knows everything about security so us minions shouldn't question him. Do you even listen to yourself?Nope, just an relatively uninformed national security hypochondriac who (as most folks do) probably means well.
Yeah. That's what Islamist terrorists think, too. The idea that one must be evil or lying to believe differently is a fantastic way to dehumanize the otherside and justify whatever idiotic method of of opposition you come up with.
Hey look!
1. I don't defend everything that the military does.
Yup. The decision to send home the Iraqi Army with their weapons was atrocious. The decision to let the Shia run wild after the push through Badghdad was incredibly costly. The laxity with which we handled sexual assault complaints in the late 20th century was atrocious and abusive towards our fellow Marines, soldiers, sailers, and airmen. Military leadership is often needlessly timid and willing to abandon their own because of command pressure, political pressure, or the desire to fit in well in Washington. The decision to allow deployed soldiers real-time access to social media has turned (whatever morale benefits) into an OPSEC nightmare, and it is only a matter of time before it costs lives. The military has been painfully slow to accept needed innovation, and that may very well have been responsible for us unnecessarily losing in Vietnam and possibly Afghanistan (and it almost lost Iraq). The military promotes its people by longevity (how long have you been in) at the bottom and middle, and by political connections (who do you know who will vouch for you) at the very top, thus encouraging an exodus of our top talent and the unwise needless promotion of many individuals of middling or sub-par ability beyond their capability to effectively perform. We have a healthcare/pension structure that is eating at our ability to provide a military capability to the nation at cost. The decision to start integrating women into combat units such as the infantry is a political one that is going to have deadly consequences for our young people on the back end.... and our leadership probably either doesn't care, or would care, but feels they have to do so in order to "get along", and so they pretend to themselves that it won't be a problem.
Depends on how you mean A-Okay. Saudi Arabia isn't attempting to shove us out of the Persian Gulf in order to enforce regional hegemony and threaten our economy at will to force geopolitical concessions from us. Saudi Arabia is, however, an incredibly abusive and corrupt regime. Iran is a deliberate state backer of terrorists and paramilitary/covert groups that have killed thousands of Americans, Saudi Arabia is a fitful and sometimes ineffective pursuer of those same groups.
Dude. Have you been paying attention to the hysterics you've brought in here? You're the equivalent of a guy claiming imminent collapse of the global economy who in the next breath offers as an aside that bond prices and yields move together rather than in opposite directions - making Very Very Very Obvious Errors that demonstrate that your analysis isn't fed by anything but groupthink and paranoia. I'm no genius, but it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out things like "hey, maybe people who disagree with me think that they are in the right, too."
Tell me who, among the intellectually honest, still supports giving foreign aid to Egypt?
You have not made the case why everyone needs to be spied upon and why warrants based on reasonable suspicion are too much to ask.Hey look!
A Strawman!
You stated that there was NO reason to collect FISA data or share it with other states. I gave you merely two of several very good reasons to do so. When you are able to either refute those instances or admit that your earlier blanket denial was in error, let me know. Either will require more thought or maturity than you have thus far (sadly) demonstrated in discussing this topic.
Criticize something that the military has done, and make it substantial. Come on, I beg of you.
Yawn, like I thought, technical criticisms and issues with the bureaucracy. I figured you wouldn't criticize something like the use of Agent Orange, the bombing of innocent civilians during WWII, the use of drones to kill innocent civilians, or any abhorrent practice.
We get their oil, so anything that they do gets a pass from us. Yet, take a look at how we have had sanctions against Iran and Iraq. Look at how the US installs dictators across the globe who are friendly to trade with the US. Trade prevents wars. If goods aren't crossing borders, armies will.
Except you're not in the right and you've made no coherent case as to why all Americans should be spied upon. Most people are extremely uncomfortable with it, yet you defend it as necessary. Is it just that you trust the US government, because I assure you that if this was some foreign dictator you'd have major problems with the policy.Dude. Have you been paying attention to the hysterics you've brought in here? You're the equivalent of a guy claiming imminent collapse of the global economy who in the next breath offers as an aside that bond prices and yields move together rather than in opposite directions - making Very Very Very Obvious Errors that demonstrate that your analysis isn't fed by anything but groupthink and paranoia. I'm no genius, but it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out things like "hey, maybe people who disagree with me think that they are in the right, too."
