If, when defending your support for Donald Trump, and your response is,
"But but but... HILLARY!!!", then you lost the argument before you even began.
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.
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; but no longer true today. 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. And considering the question kind of feels like a pejorative, I'll politely decline to answer.
Last edited by Mithros; 06-10-13 at 11:23 AM.
Legally speaking, he isn't entitled to any whistleblower protections. He did not report any activity that has been declared illegal, and he didn't go up the chain of command. He is almost certainly going to be arrested, deported and tried for espionage.
Ethically, he may have a case. Legally, he's screwed.
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.
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields
Mark this day PD....What you say here is spot on...The truth of the matter is that we have a history of sacrificing our liberties for supposed security, from everything including local government policy, to the Federal Government...There is a tipping point. For instance take a look at the TSA, and how we fly now....We allow them to x-ray, and photograph us nude, and submit to strip searches based on random, PC criteria....just to take public transportation like air travel. Now although it is a necessary evil today, some level of personal liberty for the greater safety of the public at large will no doubt always be sacrificed, but you are correct in asking the question as to how much.
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
if not the leaker/whistleblower, who?
Lawmakers rebut Obama's data defense - Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.com“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.”
Dem. Senator disputes Obama's claims that Congress was briefed"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.”
U.S. is spying on Web servers - Philly.comThe only lawmakers who knew about PRISM were bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues.
US government invokes special privilege to stop scrutiny of data mining | World news | guardian.co.uk
Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance | Mother Jones
remember, nsa alexander in testimony before the house 14 times assured hank johnson that no data collection was going on
Horrible timing: National Security Agency lists 'Digital Network Exploitation Analyst' internship opening as controversy swirls over digital snooping scandal | Mail Online
in the senate odni clapper said the same to ron wyden
DNI James Clapper says that the NSA does not collect data on millions of Americans - YouTube
"any type of data collection at all?"
We sold our freedom because we were terrified of terrorists. Now we're terrified that the government may use the powers we gave them against us. Fear fear fear..... Land of the free and home of the brave? Those two concepts are paired together for good reason, you can't have the former without the latter.
hero of the nam era left:
Daniel Ellsberg thanks Edward Snowden - Hadas Gold - POLITICO.comThe 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.”