Page 11 of 63 FirstFirst ... 9101112132161 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 623

Thread: Snowden embraces American flag in WIRED photo shoot[W:511]

  1. #101
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,788

    re: Snowden embraces American flag in WIRED photo shoot[W:511]

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    Yeah, secret. It's involving intelligence operations. Do you think intelligence operations should be transparent? I'm sorry, this is just the most nonsensical of arguments.
    Saying you disagree doesn't make it nonsensical. We're not talking about the specific requests to wiretap individual Y, a suspected terrorist. The rulings that should be made public are those that have the effect of making law, such as the order requiring Verizon to turn over metadata for ALL calls, even those wholly within the U.S. Congress didn't debate that or approve that, and those kinds of decisions should be subject to debate, with the public informed about what part of their electronic information is delivered to the intelligence operations and what those guys can do with it.

    You believe NSA should get all my call data and yours and the call data for every call passing through Verizon's equipment, but it makes perfect SENSE for government to tell us about that program. It's our privacy at stake, we should have a role in determining how much of it to give up in the "War on Terror" TM.

    Yes, there are. It's called the government of the United States. You seem to be very big on the Constitution when you want to be (your interpretation of the 4th Amendment), but not so big on it when it's prescribing that the legislative branch have oversight over these operations. Are you only a fan of it when it suits your purposes?
    I was pointing out that the legislative oversight is inadequate, and why. If you think it's working, then argue that. Convince me that when the head of NSA testifies to Congress, all we can expect is the "least untruthful" response possible. That when Congress investigates, we should expect the CIA to spy on them, withhold, and destroy/remove access to documents they don't want Congress to see. That an intelligence community that shows contempt for the oversight role of Congress is what we should demand, and when it shows repeated contempt for Congress by repeatedly lying to them on the record, that the oversight function is working. I'm dying to hear you make that case.

    Wait, are you saying that disclosing intelligence operations to the general public is against the law? Ya don't say! Or do you think it shouldn't be?
    What is it today with false choices? It's either 1) legalize the disclosure of classified information, OR 2) charge whistleblowers with crimes that carry the death penalty, and threaten to jail reporters for not giving up their sources. There are other options.

    And it is! How about that!
    How can it be working when only a handful are read into the program, the heads of agencies lie to Congress, and when Congress does investigate, the evidence is destroyed (e.g. the torture tapes) with no consequences, and/or those being investigated spy on the Congressional investigators? That's a system working?

    They're certainly not going to tell the general public the truth. Why should they?
    Oh, I see, the apologist who says he worked for NSA believes it's OK to lie to Congress and the American people. You're doing a great job making my case for me. Part of the public's problem is we suspect that your view is widespread. It's a contempt for the public and our privacy rights expressed with crystal clarity.
    Yes, you should. What's your other option? Not have them? What is it that you think intelligence agencies do? Because you seem to be displaying a complete ignorance of them and their roles. So why oh why should someone listen to someone that is completely ignorant? More know-nothingism. That's no way to run a country. So many people seem to championing having people entirely ignorant of things run them. Why? What do you for a living? Do you think it'd be good if I came over and started calling the shots there? Why do you think you should do that with regards to intelligence operations?
    I do taxes. How about we have a secret IRS court that issues secret IRS rulings that allows IRS to get copies of all your bank records to see all your deposits, make sure you report all those deposits on your taxes, and we do that for all 150 million taxpayers, and all companies, in secret? This same court decides in secret to grant IRS complete access to your credit card statements? You OK with that?

    And the public has a RIGHT to know what data the intelligence agencies are gathering ON THEM, and when, and in what circumstances. We don't demand the right to tell them how to do their job, but we have a 4th Amendment, and we have a representative form of government, not a dictatorship, and that requires a certain amount of openness and transparency to function, and it requires that we as a public make informed choices between safety (maximized with no privacy) and security.

    There ya go. Now you go worry about the things that you're an expert in and let the experts in intelligence operations and oversight worry about theirs. Appealing to the most ignorant to run things is monumentally stupid, I'm sorry.
    I have to say you're making an excellent case as to why we can't have intelligence people deciding this stuff. The open contempt you're showing for the privacy rights of innocent Americans is pretty astounding.

  2. #102
    Antichrist
    zgoldsmith23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TN
    Last Seen
    11-06-17 @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,692

    re: Snowden embraces American flag in WIRED photo shoot[W:511]

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Which is a seperate issue and one I agree needs to be addressed. That does not change the fact that Snowden broke the law.
    I don't think (at least I hope) anyone is disputing that he broke the law. But, is that breaking of the law warranted and should he receive punishment for breaking said law?
    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I've never denied my own hackish tendencies
    Quote Originally Posted by Pin dÁr View Post
    scientific by itself isn't enough of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by blaxshep View Post
    Not all Nazis were bad people

  3. #103
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,788

    re: Snowden embraces American flag in WIRED photo shoot[W:511]

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    1: Whistleblowing can be done by ways other than what he did. The system for whistleblowing does need to be improved, as does oversite for classified programs and the legality of those programs. But, going to the press, and using classified information to negotiate with, and continuing to threaten more releases, that is the wrong way.
    If you believe that, then you have to provide that other way or ways.

    Thomas Drake is a good example of how the system actually treats whistleblowers. He worked through the system, filed internal complaints, and got nowhere. In fact, Drake and those who joined him on that complaint were 'thanked' years later when the FBI raided all their houses, at gunpoint in at least one case, seized all their computers, papers, etc. He then went public, revealing information based on UNclassified material to a reporter - mostly about waste, etc. After that, the government charged him under the Espionage Act, which under the charges filed against him, carried a 35 year maximum penalty. He was threatened with decades in prison because out of thousands of documents, they found FIVE that were supposedly classified, that he hadn't revealed to anyone, certainly not to any enemy or foreign interest, just 'retained' in his stack of documents. These were clearly inadvertent mistakes. This is a person who took extraordinary care to work WITHIN THE SYSTEM and within the law.

    So when the government treats whistleblowers who try to do the right thing within the system like that, you can't then argue that others should follow in their footsteps and commit financial and career suicide, and risk decades in jail, for doing the right thing. The government sent a clear message - go public and we will RUIN YOUR LIFE. And they did.

  4. #104
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    re: Snowden embraces American flag in WIRED photo shoot[W:511]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Saying you disagree doesn't make it nonsensical. We're not talking about the specific requests to wiretap individual Y, a suspected terrorist. The rulings that should be made public are those that have the effect of making law, such as the order requiring Verizon to turn over metadata for ALL calls, even those wholly within the U.S. Congress didn't debate that or approve that, and those kinds of decisions should be subject to debate, with the public informed about what part of their electronic information is delivered to the intelligence operations and what those guys can do with it.
    ...why? Why should we allow the public to be aware of intelligence operations? Just...because?

    You believe NSA should get all my call data and yours and the call data for every call passing through Verizon's equipment, but it makes perfect SENSE for government to tell us about that program. It's our privacy at stake, we should have a role in determining how much of it to give up in the "War on Terror" TM.
    They don't get any of the call data without a warrant. And if they get that warrant, it's because there's an intelligence operation occurring, and the target should not be aware of that.

    I was pointing out that the legislative oversight is inadequate, and why. If you think it's working, then argue that.
    Do I need to? The policies I support are in effect. Can you argue why they should not be? Just...because?

    Convince me that when the head of NSA testifies to Congress, all we can expect is the "least untruthful" response possible.
    That's all the public should expect because it's regarding on-going intelligence operations.

    That when Congress investigates, we should expect the CIA to spy on them, withhold, and destroy/remove access to documents they don't want Congress to see. That an intelligence community that shows contempt for the oversight role of Congress is what we should demand, and when it shows repeated contempt for Congress by repeatedly lying to them on the record, that the oversight function is working. I'm dying to hear you make that case.
    Because I support intelligence operations. Do you? Why not?

    What is it today with false choices? It's either 1) legalize the disclosure of classified information, OR 2) charge whistleblowers with crimes that carry the death penalty, and threaten to jail reporters for not giving up their sources. There are other options.
    You were the one that brought that up. I'm just responding to it. If someone wants to divulge intelligence operations yes, they can expect to be charged with crimes. Do you agree or disagree? What options would you like? Should we include a "If JasperL from www.debatepolitics.com says it's okay to divulge the information in question, it shouldn't be a crime" caveat?

    How can it be working when only a handful are read into the program, the heads of agencies lie to Congress, and when Congress does investigate, the evidence is destroyed (e.g. the torture tapes) with no consequences, and/or those being investigated spy on the Congressional investigators? That's a system working?
    There's no consequences? In what world?!?! If your foundational argument was correct ("no consequences"), you'd have an argument, but since it's not...

    I'm sorry that intelligence operations will not she shown to the public. But they just won't. That's it. No arguing with it. That's it.

    Oh, I see, the apologist who says he worked for NSA believes it's OK to lie to Congress and the American people. You're doing a great job making my case for me. Part of the public's problem is we suspect that your view is widespread. It's a contempt for the public and our privacy rights expressed with crystal clarity.
    You don't get to know. You don't. Sorry? That's the nature of intelligence operations. Am I an apologist for intelligence operations? I guess: I would think most citizens would want their government's decision-makers to know more, not less. Which are you in favor of?

    I do taxes. How about we have a secret IRS court that issues secret IRS rulings that allows IRS to get copies of all your bank records to see all your deposits, make sure you report all those deposits on your taxes, and we do that for all 150 million taxpayers, and all companies, in secret? This same court decides in secret to grant IRS complete access to your credit card statements? You OK with that?
    Is the effectiveness of the IRS dependent upon secrecy? If it is, yes. Is the effectiveness of intelligence operations dependent upon secrecy? I'm here to tell you, they are. Do you not see the issue here? It's like you don't understand that intelligence operations need to be secret. I mean...you do know that, right?

    And the public has a RIGHT to know what data the intelligence agencies are gathering ON THEM, and when, and in what circumstances.
    No, they don't.

    We don't demand the right to tell them how to do their job, but we have a 4th Amendment, and we have a representative form of government, not a dictatorship, and that requires a certain amount of openness and transparency to function, and it requires that we as a public make informed choices between safety (maximized with no privacy) and security.
    Your representatives have decided. They'll continue to decide. Intelligence agencies work under those guidelines, not the general public's.

    I have to say you're making an excellent case as to why we can't have intelligence people deciding this stuff. The open contempt you're showing for the privacy rights of innocent Americans is pretty astounding.
    Who cares? I don't go around telling people about tax laws, do I? You think you should know just...because, even though that has a hugely detrimental effect upon intelligence operations. But you don't care, because it's not your responsibility. Fall out? Who cares, you're doing someone's taxes. You're gonna get paid, you're doing what you need to do. Other folks? **** 'em, because you're curious.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  5. #105
    I am the pretty one.
    TobyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,320

    re: Snowden embraces American flag in WIRED photo shoot[W:511]

    The NSA was operating with the blessing of the FISA court with the knowledge and approval of all 3 branches of government. As far as i can tell, the only substantive thing Snowden released was the court order showing the approval for the collection of meta-data. By definition, this is legal. So, Snowden isn't a whistle blower with all the protections given to that status - he's a traitor.

    If you really want to get your panties in a bunch you should be talking about the CIA which spied on a senator of the congressional committee which oversees it. That seems to have gone by mostly unnoticed.

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I must be missing something with Snowden, because there are a lot of people on the left and right who are normally civil liberties advocates who despise the guy. We know the head of NSA has no problem looking into a camera and lying to the Congress and the public about what the agency is doing. We now know the CIA spies on Senators investigating past wrongdoing and is more than happy to delete/disappear documents that reveal wrongdoing. We know that going through the chain of command is futile. The Obama administration is brutally cracking down on leakers, and is as we speak threatening to jail journalists for failing to reveal their sources, in their prosecution of leakers who revealed illegal activity by the intelligence agencies.

    So in a broad sense, without endorsing everything Snowden has done, I'm not sure what someone wanting to expose the extent of the police state in the U.S. is supposed to do? The NSA was simply operating without meaningful restraints, including gathering near blanket coverage of all electronic communications in the U.S., of everyone. And every check on their ability to sift through the data from non-terrorists (aka innocent Americans charged and suspected of no crimes) has been shown to be window dressing, ineffective.

    I guess I don't understand how a person can complain about the near total police state we live under, with our government having nearly unrestricted access to ALL our communications, then demonize a person who took a huge risk to expose it all. Sure, he's imperfect, and undoubtedly has made mistakes, but the venom directed against him by civil liberties advocates is really puzzling to me. I don't like that he's hiding out in Russia, and before that China, but the U.S. makes it impossible for him to seek refuge in any other country, so we can't exactly complain that he's not traveling because the U.S. has made that impossible. And I don't expect him to be arrested and voluntarily go to solitary, never to be heard from again, which is what the U.S. did to Manning, for far LESS.

  6. #106
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    re: Snowden embraces American flag in WIRED photo shoot[W:511]

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    I don't think (at least I hope) anyone is disputing that he broke the law. But, is that breaking of the law warranted and should he receive punishment for breaking said law?
    The law that he broke to expose the law being broken, large scale by the NSA, the FOURTH AMENDMENT (our constitution) pales by comparison and its really troubling to me that people are straining at the Snowden gnat and swallowing this big camel, which is our own government violating our constitutional rights. Which is all we've got people.
    Last edited by Montecresto; 08-14-14 at 03:04 PM.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  7. #107
    Antichrist
    zgoldsmith23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TN
    Last Seen
    11-06-17 @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,692

    re: Snowden embraces American flag in WIRED photo shoot[W:511]

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    The law that he exposed being broken, large scale by the NSA, the FOURTH AMENDMENT (our constitution) pales by comparison and its really troubling to me that people are straining at the Snowden gnat and swallowing this big camel, which is our own government violating our constitutional rights. Which is all we've got people.
    First, I'd like to say, I tried to remain impartial on my stance in this matter and, I feel, my post fulfilled that desired outcome. Secondly, who is to say it's one or the other? Why not both? Both broke the law and can receive punishment - the disagreement generally comes over whether Snowden should or not.
    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I've never denied my own hackish tendencies
    Quote Originally Posted by Pin dÁr View Post
    scientific by itself isn't enough of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by blaxshep View Post
    Not all Nazis were bad people

  8. #108
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,788

    re: Snowden embraces American flag in WIRED photo shoot[W:511]

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    ...why? Why should we allow the public to be aware of intelligence operations? Just...because?
    Because we live in the United States and we have a bill of rights, and it includes a 4th Amendment which protects our right to privacy from the likes of you searching through it unless you have a damn good reason to be doing so and get a warrant to do it. That's for starters.

    Second, we are represented by our members of Congress and they cannot be held accountable for their decisions unless we're broadly informed of the decisions that they've made on our behalf. If the Congress, or the judiciary, decides to grant sweeping powers to the executive branch to vacuum up our personal information into government databases, we have the right to be informed about that. That you don't think so is the best example yet of why I'm glad Snowden leaked what he did, because obviously those in the intelligence community have nothing but contempt for the public and their rights to privacy.

    They don't get any of the call data without a warrant. And if they get that warrant, it's because there's an intelligence operation occurring, and the target should not be aware of that.
    Verizon handed over all call data - all of it. Between the U.S. and overseas, and calls made entirely within the U.S. All we have is the NSA's pinky promise about what they'll do with the data already in their possession, and they have a long history of lying when asked about what they're doing, so gosh, I don't know why we don't trust them when they make promises....

    That's all the public should expect because it's regarding on-going intelligence operations.
    Right, the public and Congress should expect the NSA head to lie to them, repeatedly, in testimony. Are you serious?

    Because I support intelligence operations. Do you? Why not?
    I'll quit here because there is no way for us to meet on this when you're defending the CIA spying on Senators and their staff investigators, removing access to documents, lying about it repeatedly, and, incredibly, after being correctly accused of illegal activity by spying on Senate investigators, instead of admitting it and correcting the problem the CIA filed a criminal complaint against the Senate investigators! If you're willing to defend that, you'll defend anything at all.

  9. #109
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    re: Snowden embraces American flag in WIRED photo shoot[W:511]

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    First, I'd like to say, I tried to remain impartial on my stance in this matter and, I feel, my post fulfilled that desired outcome. Secondly, who is to say it's one or the other? Why not both? Both broke the law and can receive punishment - the disagreement generally comes over whether Snowden should or not.
    Yes, you did fine, I was just kind of adding to what you were saying, but unfortunately I left out a key word which might have been confusing, if you read the edited post, you'll see that I acknowledge Snowdens crime. I just think it trumps the NSA.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  10. #110
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,788

    re: Snowden embraces American flag in WIRED photo shoot[W:511]

    Quote Originally Posted by TobyOne View Post
    The NSA was operating with the blessing of the FISA court with the knowledge and approval of all 3 branches of government. As far as i can tell, the only substantive thing Snowden released was the court order showing the approval for the collection of meta-data. By definition, this is legal. So, Snowden isn't a whistle blower with all the protections given to that status - he's a traitor.
    I don't agree that disclosing arguably legal programs by definition makes a person a 'traitor.' As I've said elsewhere on this thread, I think the public has a right to know when their data is being vacuumed up by the intelligence agencies into government databases. And I frankly find the idea of a secret court issuing secret orders a bit Orwellian.

    And for the record, I've not argued Snowden is innocent of a crime or shouldn't be prosecuted. I've read many comments by Snowden that he fully expects to eventually be caught and prosecuted. He's made a deliberate choice and should and will eventually face the consequences. My comments have been more about why I don't understand why so many civil liberties advocates in other situations so often appear to despise Snowden. I get why a person like OWO does - he's for a nearly unchecked intelligence state and believes the public should be in the dark about all of it. I don't understand other conservative types who otherwise don't seem to trust the government to put up a stop sign correctly who don't object to granting the NSA and CIA VAST powers to engage in domestic surveillance.

    If you really want to get your panties in a bunch you should be talking about the CIA which spied on a senator of the congressional committee which oversees it. That seems to have gone by mostly unnoticed.
    I noticed and have mentioned it several times in this thread. OldWorldOrder thought it was fine. I don't agree....

Page 11 of 63 FirstFirst ... 9101112132161 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •