- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
As a separate issue, yes. This is not a new thought for me. It has long bothered me that we farm out too many things for our national security and defense that I feel we should have direct control over. In the case of intelligence, government. In the case of military weapon systems, 100% designed and manufactured in our own country.While we are on the subject of this whistle blower did any one notice what his job description was? He was a intellegence contractor.
Does it scare anybody that we have now created a business where company's are hired by the government with the purpouse of gathering our private information?
"Clear government wrongdoing" in this case is subjective. I think that Snowden revealed "clear government wrongdoing." You don't. Therefore, that isn't a solid standard on which to dismiss the real or potential value of Snowden's actions.
Crime and illegality are not the only indication of problem. Therefore, dismissing criticism of these revelations because "no clear evidence of a crime" exists isn't legitimate. Also, I am one of the "American people." These programs are not my will. I also don't find these programs surprising nor do most of the people who are criticizing them - that's a red herring.
Right, blame everybody but the people who implemented the programs. How logical.
Question: Are you American? You sound like a foreigner who has a beef with the United States.
I concur, this is excessively simplistic. There will always be some tradeoffs between these two needs.“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” -Benjamin Franklin
Nothing more than opinion. This is an entirely subjective comment which says nothing of the legitimacy of Snowden's actions.If Snowden felt that the Government committed crime, then he should have stayed in the US to make his case. Whistle-blowing needs checks and balances. If you're going to break your oath and reveal secret information, then you'd better be prepared to face the consequences.
Apparently, Snowden, the NSA and all the other people involved in this did get to pick and choose so this comment is erroneous.We don't get to pick and choose what's secret and what's not.
Who is approving of someone outing a secret just because it advances their political views? You are the first person I've seen say such a thing.As I said earlier, I don't see the need for the programs because I feel that the threat of terrorism is vastly overblown. But I don't get to approve of someone outing a secret just because it advances my political views.
So again, blame everybody but the actual people who implemented the programs. How logical.I'd think that the phrase "weak willed American People" would refer to Americans who gave the government carte blanche to prosecute the war on terror. IMO it's a better phrase than saying "the majority of the American people" which was true in 2002, 2004, 2006, and marginally so in 2008. That said, the real benefit of anonymous posting is that your words have to stand on their own. Because anyone can claim to be anything, claims mean next to nothing. You aren't allowed the false sense of security you get from reputation or degrees. I could say I'm from anywhere I wanted, but it doesn't change what I say or how I say it.
In other words, "No, I am not American." Funny that you consider the question pejorative after the derogatory manner in which you referred to some Americans. Double standards, I suppose.And considering the question kind of feels like a pejorative, I'll politely decline to answer.
While I sympathize with the sentiment of that quote in this situation, it's too simplistic for me. Everyone is willing to sacrifice some freedom for security. Therefore, the question is not whether or not we are willing to sacrifice freedom for security, but to what degree we are willing to make the sacrifice.
“I can assure you the phone number tracking of non-criminal, non-terrorist suspects was not discussed [at the administration's classified briefings],” said [Congressman Aaron] Schock. “Most members have stopped going to their classified briefings because they rarely tell us anything we don’t already know in the news. It really has become a charade.”
"By the way,” [Senator Jeff] Merkley continued. “When I sought information [on the phone surveillance program], the only information I got was that, yes there is a program sweeping up broad amounts of data through the records act. This second thing, which we just learned about, called PRISM, I had no idea about.”
The only lawmakers who knew about PRISM were bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues.
For the most part I agree, but didn't you also say this:
"I have stated my thoughts that FISA is appropriate to handle the contemporary terrorist threat..."
FISA is a secret court, with one side presented, and compromised in the essence that the government as we see under this administration will 'judge shop' until they get the answer they want. FISA is corrupted at this point.
Nothing more than opinion. This is an entirely subjective comment which says nothing of the legitimacy of Snowden's actions.
Apparently, Snowden, the NSA and all the other people involved in this did get to pick and choose so this comment is erroneous.
Who is approving of someone outing a secret just because it advances their political views? You are the first person I've seen say such a thing.
So again, blame everybody but the actual people who implemented the programs. How logical.
In other words, "No, I am not American." Funny that you consider the question pejorative after the derogatory manner in which you referred to some Americans. Double standards, I suppose.
The man who leaked the Pentagon Papers is praising Edward Snowden, saying he’s “impressed” by the man who says he revealed secret National Security Agency surveillance programs.
“I’m very impressed by what I’ve heard in the last couple of hours including Snowden’s own video here. I think he’s done an enormous service, incalculable service,” Daniel Ellsberg said Sunday night on CNN. “It can’t be overestimated to this democracy. It gives us a chance, I think, from drawing back from the total surveillance state that we could say we’re in process of becoming, I’m afraid we have become. That’s what he’s revealed.”
Ellsberg said that despite a “clear law” outlawing such leaks, if he had been in Snowden’s position he would have done the same thing.
“If I had known that the NSA, the National Security Agency, as I say, to which I had access, if I had known that they were spying on every American multiple times, different phone lines, bank data, credit cards, GPS, everything else, if I had known that, I would have done just what he’s done. I would have broken that law of civil disobedience,” he said.
In 1971, Ellsberg gave The New York Times and The Washington Post classified documents about the conduct of the Vietnam War and became the first person prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act. The case was later thrown out after it was revealed the government had illegally wiretapped Ellsberg.
Ellsberg said he has waited “decades” for someone like Snowden. “Decades in a sense that of seeing somebody who really was prepared to risk his life for his country as a civilian. To show the kind of courage that we expect of people on the battlefield,” he said on CNN.
Ellsberg said he fully expects Snowden to be prosecuted, a case which he said will bring up the constitutionality of the government’s surveillance practice.
“I have no doubt that this violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and probably other parts of the Bill of Rights and should have been exposed,” Ellsberg said. “Can it really be a crime to expose crime? Or that’s never been judged by any court. Including the Supreme Court. I think this is a good time to look at it.”
I concur, this is excessively simplistic. There will always be some tradeoffs between these two needs.
1. Doesn’t have a high school diploma. [got his ged]
2.Donated to Ron Paul.
3.Wasn’t a friendly neighbor. [didn't return waves hello, had a messy garage]
4.His laptop stickers reveal his beliefs. “I support Online Rights: Electronic Frontier Foundation,” and another is for the Tor Project, an online anonymity software.
5.Served in the Army for only five months. [broke both legs]
6.First job with NSA was as a security guard.
7.Used the codename Verax, Latin for “truthteller.”
8.Not on social media.
9.Whereabouts are currently unknown. [checked out of hong kong hotel monday morning]
10.Lived comfortably. [200k per annum as consultant to booz allen hamilton]
Carney pointed to the president's late May speech on national security and counterterrorism as evidence that Obama did want to discuss surveillance, though that speech did not get into details about tactics like phone-tapping and the monitoring of internet traffic.
White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to comment Monday on Edward Snowden and the investigation into the information he provided to journalists.
"There is obviously an investigation under way into this matter and for that reason I will not be able to discuss this individual or the investigation," Carney said at the start of his daily briefing, his first since Snowden allowed the Guardian to reveal his identity on Sunday.
Asked if the United States knows where Snowden is, Carney again declined to comment.
Carney wouldn't say whether President Obama had watched the Guardian's video interview with Snowden, though he did tell reporters that "the president was briefed by members of his senior staff about that development and others" in recent days.
He did, though, defend the administration's practices. "It's entirely appropriate for a program to exist to look at foreign data and potential foreign terrorists but there are procedures in place ... at the congressional, executive and judicial levels that provide oversight over these issues," he said.
Obama's "record on transparency is broad and significant," Carney added.
the surveillance state is expensive
Utah Data Center: The one million square foot, $1.9 billionbeing built by NSA | Mail OnlineUtah data mining facility
grand opening: october!
think of it as an investment
jobs creation, stimulus...
“Mr. Attorney General, I want to take you to the Verizon scandal and — which I understand takes us to possibly monitoring up to 120 million calls. You know, when government bureaucrats are sloppy, they’re usually really sloppy. Want to just ask, could you assure to us that no phone inside the Capitol were monitored of members of Congress that would give a future executive branch, if they started pulling this kind of thing off, would give them unique leverage over the legislature?
Holder replied, “With all due respect, Senator, I don’t think this is an appropriate setting for me to discuss that issue. I’d be more than glad to come back in a — in an appropriate setting to discuss the issues that you have raised,” noting they were speaking in public.
Kirk, a Naval intelligence officer, was not satisfied with Holder’s answer.
Said Kirk, “I would interrupt you and say the correct answer would be say no, we stayed within our lane, and I’m assuring you we did not spy on members of Congress.”
Are you a French model?
I don't find much trust in Congress either, but Snowden acted with little difference between him, and Bradley Manning in my mind at the moment.
For the most part I agree, but didn't you also say this:
"I have stated my thoughts that FISA is appropriate to handle the contemporary terrorist threat..."
FISA is a secret court, with one side presented, and compromised in the essence that the government as we see under this administration will 'judge shop' until they get the answer they want. FISA is corrupted at this point.
Manning was trying to hurt the US, Snowden was trying to expose the NSA overreach. The Patriot Act and other related laws passed under Bush were suppose to be limited to narrow surveillance of known terrorists overseas trying to make contact inside the US. This new surveillance far exceeds that by light years. They created a monster in Washington and it's gone nuts. It appears the NSA thinks it's God.
Exactly. Just heard Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) on the radio, who was Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and authored much of the original Patriot Act, clearly state that the current policies far over-stepped what the Patriot Act authorized. This began when the Democrats took over Congress in 2006 (and JS lost his Chairmanship) and laws they passed in 2007.
Bottom line is that there is no way in Hell that the PA authorized this wholesale harvest of data. And Congrats Democrats, after all the Bush bashing for wanting to harvest just the traffic to and from suspected terrorists overseas, (which was authorized), your folks went and just trashed everybody's rights !! All done in secret !! Whoooo - Hoooo !!!
Excellent deflection job...................
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?