Page 35 of 63 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 623

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

  1. #341
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,131

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    So you DO care about the legality. Great. Then don't say it's "irrelevant".

    You and federal judges have a different view of the law. You're just assuming yours is right? Ooookay.
    There are several levels of "legal," and the heart of the matter has always been on the ultimate legality (rightness or wrongness) of what the government is doing as opposed to the technical legality provided by subordinate legislation and interpretation by law making bodies and/or courts. Don't even pretend like that's my argument because you know it's not. I'll state it again, in the simplest terms I can:

    The Judicial powers enumerated in the Constitution stop at interpretation of the law. Interpretation itself can be a form of law creation only insofar as judicial review allows a law to be changed. This equal application of the law to the facts of each case is the process by which we end up with "case law", which is essentially a series of best practices logically and equally applied to all scenarios without regard to special interests. Lower court decisions can and often are appealed to higher courts for additional review. This process serves to filter and refine what eventually ends up in case law, with the Supreme Court serving as the final court of appeal (for a time; the Supreme Court has also been known to reverse earlier decisions). The Constitution specifically allows for judicial review and a system of case law in this manner.

    The FISA court is under no such process of review or appeal. The same rules for representation do not apply due to the secret nature of the subject matter the court deals with. There is no "filter and refine" process, which has given the court and its appointee near carte blanche to write case law as it sees fit, which is further protected from scrutiny and review because it is secret. It issues orders that are secret, along with gag orders on those orders that are also secret, further removing any scrutiny from its actions.

    So when you ask me about the legality of a government agency with the capability of violating the hell out of my Fourth Amendment rights getting permission from a notionally illegal court to do so, all I can say is "it really doesn't matter." They are going to do it anyway if they want to and I am quite literally powerless to stop it. Can I talk about the inherent rightness or wrongness of such an act on their part? You betcha. In fact, I'll return to my original statement and repeat that legal and illegal are merely the societal codifications of right and wrong, and by several standards, many collection methods (and targets) of the NSA are wrong. But, you know, only if you don't like the idea of an Orwellian Big Brother.

    To put it another way.... the 2003 invasion of Iraq was legal. And so was the bombing of Nagasaki and the gassing of the Kurds. And so was the suspension of habeus corpus during the Civil War. And so was the invasion of Poland by the Nazis.

    You want to get hung up on technicality; I have no interest in such sophistry. Right and wrong are of interest to me.

    In your interpretation of the law. Not in the interpretation of those with the legal education and position to interpret the law, though.
    That's not even contemporarily true:
    Court Considers Suit Against NSA Phone Surveillance - WSJ - WSJ

    I think it's in the fine print.
    You believe there is hidden language in the Constitution that allows for secret case law?!?

    There's nothing in the Constitution about the EPA, either. Great.
    You're right. There isn't. In fact, a strict interpretation of Article I, Section One states that no regulatory agencies are allowed to exist because Congress is not allowed to delegate powers. However, 1928 case law says Congress has an implied power of delegation so long as they provide an "intelligible principle" to guide the Executive branch. This is, of course, to place expertise in the position to be useful while not bogging Congress down with specifics (namely science) that is beyond its ordinary legislative purview. But even so, the Constitution sort of exists, as a document, specifically to forbid things like all powerful, appointee run, unchecked authoritative bodies that operate in secrecy and with total impunity from the citizenry.

    So, there's that.

    And? You could add another layer and then complain about that, too. We could do it infinitely. "Who oversees the overseers of the overseers of the overseers!?!"
    As of right now, there isn't even one overseer. There is a second chance advocate of sorts for the Government (the only people who petition this court for anything) that serves to review if a denial for a warrant was warranted (pun intended) or not, but there is no real appeal for those who are affected by orders from the court. Previous decisions (which is how case law is created) are not available to the public, so even if(!) you could get a private lawyer for representation with all of the proper clearances, the court operates under what are, essentially, secret rules of conduct, which means the FISA court issues itself a rubber stamp every time it wants to do anything and you can't even look up previous cases to see if the court is operating under an equal application of the law to the facts of each case.

    lol that's not how it works, no. NSA falls under the Department of Defense. FISA falls under the Department of Justice. You can't get around that fact.
    The NSA audits itself. It gets some permissions and guidance from the FISA court as to what and how, but there is no other agency tasked with making sure the NSA is following the guidelines FISA says it can operate under.

    Let me say that again in slightly different words: The NSA operates under rules that the NSA writes, and the NSA makes sure the NSA is following the NSA's rules.

    I'm still finding it hilarious that people can't type the words "What NSA does is legal." Either they argue that legality is irrelevant, or they argue that it just shouldn't be legal, because they know constitutional law better than federal judges. Or sometimes, as we see with you, they argue both at the same time: whether it's legal or not is both irrelevant and...it's illegal and that's important. If it's irrelevant, why argue about it?
    I don't play thumb war. You're trying to get me to say "it's legal" in some way, shape, or form, so you can spike a strawman football and refuse to engage in the totality of the debate. If something is unconstitutional, it is inherently illegal; if something is protected from the scrutiny of judicial review, it cannot be considered constitutional since it isn't subject to the system of checks and balances the Constitution provides and requires; such a thing is inherently unconstitutional, and thus illegal, by default. I don't care if a legislative body passed a law that so clearly abrogates the language of the Fourth Amendment; I can argue the wrongness of such a law all day long without once referring to any non-indelible, contemporary interpretation of its supposed legality.

    Unless, of course, you want me to agree with you that the Nuremberg laws outlawing the marriage of a Jew to a non-Jew were legal... but I have the feeling you're ok leaving that one in the realm of "technicality".
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  2. #342
    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 Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    There are several levels of "legal," and the heart of the matter has always been on the ultimate legality (rightness or wrongness) of what the government is doing
    THEN STOP FOCUSING ON THE LEGALITY ISSUE, BECAUSE THE FACT IS THAT RIGHT NOW IT'S LEGAL.

    If it doesn't matter, why are you spending so much time talking about it? You said the legality is irrelevant, so I'm going to ignore your argument about it. I'll pay attention to your argument if you decide to say legality is relevant. You don't get speak out of both sides of your mouth on this, sorry.

    So moving past all of that stuff that you said previously is "irrelevant":

    As of right now, there isn't even one overseer. There is a second chance advocate of sorts for the Government (the only people who petition this court for anything) that serves to review if a denial for a warrant was warranted (pun intended) or not, but there is no real appeal for those who are affected by orders from the court. Previous decisions (which is how case law is created) are not available to the public, so even if(!) you could get a private lawyer for representation with all of the proper clearances, the court operates under what are, essentially, secret rules of conduct, which means the FISA court issues itself a rubber stamp every time it wants to do anything and you can't even look up previous cases to see if the court is operating under an equal application of the law to the facts of each case.
    So is the FISA court an overseer or not? You seem to be saying both. Basically "it is, but it doesn't count for the purposes of my argument".

    The NSA audits itself. It gets some permissions and guidance from the FISA court as to what and how, but there is no other agency tasked with making sure the NSA is following the guidelines FISA says it can operate under.
    People in NSA audit other people in NSA, yes. They're called intelligence oversight officers and it's an annoyingly big deal. Failure to properly audit the people beneath you is an extremely big deal. I guess that's bad in your estimation? I also don't understand what you're implying by saying there's "no other agency tasked" with overseeing the NSA. There's no other agency tasked with overseeing the FCC, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Education, the Supreme Court, the SEC, etc. Are you proposing we create a separate agency to oversee every other agency in existence?

    Let me say that again in slightly different words: The NSA operates under rules that the NSA writes, and the NSA makes sure the NSA is following the NSA's rules.
    Yeah....just like the US government operates under rules that the US government writes and the US government makes sure the US government is following the US government's rules. That's the way nation-states work.

    I don't play thumb war. You're trying to get me to say "it's legal" in some way, shape, or form, so you can spike a strawman football and refuse to engage in the totality of the debate. If something is unconstitutional, it is inherently illegal; if something is protected from the scrutiny of judicial review, it cannot be considered constitutional since it isn't subject to the system of checks and balances the Constitution provides and requires; such a thing is inherently unconstitutional, and thus illegal, by default. I don't care if a legislative body passed a law that so clearly abrogates the language of the Fourth Amendment; I can argue the wrongness of such a law all day long without once referring to any non-indelible, contemporary interpretation of its supposed legality.

    Unless, of course, you want me to agree with you that the Nuremberg laws outlawing the marriage of a Jew to a non-Jew were legal... but I have the feeling you're ok leaving that one in the realm of "technicality".
    We know it's legal. It doesn't matter if you say it or not, it's just funny the mental gymnastics you're putting yourself through to avoid that reality. In this last post, you argue that legality and illegality are "irrelevant" and argue that it's illegal at the same time. That's a basic contradiction, and if you can't see that- if you can't see that your argument has put you in a ridiculous position, I can't do anything for you.
    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

  3. #343
    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 jamesrage View Post
    Do you have any trust worth sources saying he leaked certain intel to the enemy? Or is this goberment and those with their lips on the goberment's nutsack saying he did so you are trusting the same people who lied their ass off about spying on the American people?
    Please education yourself on the matter. Did you know that Snowden disclosed things about American espionage in Germany, for one? I mean that's just the most basic.
    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

  4. #344
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,131

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    THEN STOP FOCUSING ON THE LEGALITY ISSUE, BECAUSE THE FACT IS THAT RIGHT NOW IT'S LEGAL.

    If it doesn't matter, why are you spending so much time talking about it? You said the legality is irrelevant, so I'm going to ignore your argument about it. I'll pay attention to your argument if you decide to say legality is relevant. You don't get speak out of both sides of your mouth on this, sorry.

    So moving past all of that stuff that you said previously is "irrelevant":

    .....

    We know it's legal. It doesn't matter if you say it or not, it's just funny the mental gymnastics you're putting yourself through to avoid that reality. In this last post, you argue that legality and illegality are "irrelevant" and argue that it's illegal at the same time. That's a basic contradiction, and if you can't see that- if you can't see that your argument has put you in a ridiculous position, I can't do anything for you.
    Wow, how are you not getting this....

    Ok, another analogy. There is a 13 year old boy named Joe. Joe's parents strictly forbid him from using drugs and alcohol. Joe goes to his friend's house one night for a sleep over, and this kid's parents allow the boys to drink and smoke weed, on the condition that Joe never tell his parents. If he does tell, the friend's parents are going to post pictures of Joe doing drugs on the internet and ruin his life forever.

    What you're saying is that Joe actually does have permission to use drugs and alcohol, granted by his friend's parents, and this permission is the most important facet of this case. Joe is doing nothing wrong since an authority imbued him with the permission to act in a certain way. Never mind how Joe's parents feel about it, or the law for that matter. You seem to think the permission he received is enough and, because his parents never found out, nobody has the ability or right to tell Joe that he did something wrong. Even the method by which Joe's parents are kept from finding out is a-ok to you, since it comes from an authority.

    Or try this one on for size: 97% of scientific consensus agrees on the facts of anthropogenic global warming. What you're trying to get me to admit is "SCIENTISTS DISAGREE! SAY IT!" Why? 3% disagreement is not the important facet to this particular subject. Trying to force me to say it only serves to satisfy that part of your brain that is refusing to accept the cognitive dissonance starting to form in the face of a good argument.

    So is the FISA court an overseer or not? You seem to be saying both. Basically "it is, but it doesn't count for the purposes of my argument".
    We were talking about who oversees the FISA court. The answer is, "nobody".

    People in NSA audit other people in NSA, yes. They're called intelligence oversight officers and it's an annoyingly big deal. Failure to properly audit the people beneath you is an extremely big deal. I guess that's bad in your estimation? I also don't understand what you're implying by saying there's "no other agency tasked" with overseeing the NSA. There's no other agency tasked with overseeing the FCC, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Education, the Supreme Court, the SEC, etc. Are you proposing we create a separate agency to oversee every other agency in existence?
    The NSA being responsible for oversight of the NSA is like the police investigating themselves for misconduct. The FISA court has no way to check with the NSA to see if it's orders are complied with. Further, the NSA's own interal audits suggest the NSA is pretty terrible at following its own rules.

    So, to recap: the FISA court, which operates by secret rules and has no oversight, gives guidance to the NSA on how to conduct surveillance according to these secret rules, and then leaves it up the NSA to make sure it follows these rules. The NSA itself reports it does a pretty terrible job at doing this.

    Sounds great. Nothing to see here, folks. Seems pretty legal.

    Yeah....just like the US government operates under rules that the US government writes and the US government makes sure the US government is following the US government's rules. That's the way nation-states work.
    socialstudieshelp.com - Checks and Balances
    Last edited by Gonzo Rodeo; 11-12-14 at 01:13 PM.
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  5. #345
    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 Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    Wow, how are you not getting this....

    Ok, another analogy. There is a 13 year old boy named Joe. Joe's parents strictly forbid him from using drugs and alcohol. Joe goes to his friend's house one night for a sleep over, and this kid's parents allow the boys to drink and smoke weed, on the condition that Joe never tell his parents. If he does tell, the friend's parents are going to post pictures of Joe doing drugs on the internet and ruin his life forever.

    What you're saying is that Joe actually does have permission to use drugs and alcohol, granted by his friend's parents, and this permission is the most important facet of this case. Joe is doing nothing wrong since an authority imbued him with the permission to act in a certain way. Never mind how Joe's parents feel about it, or the law for that matter. You seem to think the permission he received is enough and, because his parents never found out, nobody has the ability or right to tell Joe that he did something wrong. Even the method by which Joe's parents are kept from finding out is a-ok to you, since it comes from an authority.

    Or try this one on for size: 97% of scientific consensus agrees on the facts of anthropogenic global warming. What you're trying to get me to admit is "SCIENTISTS DISAGREE! SAY IT!" Why? 3% disagreement is not the important facet to this particular subject. Trying to force me to say it only serves to satisfy that part of your brain that is refusing to accept the cognitive dissonance starting to form in the face of a good argument.



    We were talking about who oversees the FISA court. The answer is, "nobody".



    The NSA being responsible for oversight of the NSA is like the police investigating themselves for misconduct. The FISA court has no way to check with the NSA to see if it's orders are complied with. Further, the NSA's own interal audits suggest the NSA is pretty terrible at following its own rules.

    So, to recap: the FISA court, which operates by secret rules and has no oversight, gives guidance to the NSA on how to conduct surveillance according to these secret rules, and then leaves it up the NSA to police itself.

    Sounds great.



    Checks and Balances
    Look man, is the legality relevant or irrelevant?

    As far as oversight, I'm glad you admitted that NSA is overseen by the FISA courts. So what you want is someone to oversee the FISA courts? Do you want someone to oversee those overseers, too? What about THOSE overseers? How many levels of oversight do you think are necessary? Just two?

    We can go on after you clear this up.
    Last edited by OldWorldOrder; 11-12-14 at 01:13 PM.
    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

  6. #346
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,131

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    Look man, is the legality relevant or irrelevant?
    If it's not actually legal, then it's irrelevant if a lower authority law says it's legal.

    If Joe's parents outlaw him from using drugs and alcohol, it's completely irrelevant if his friend's parents allow him to. They are not a higher authority over Joe than Joe's parents are. Joe is still breaking his parents' rule if he uses drugs and alcohol; any permission his friend's parents give him to do so is completely irrelevant to this. Joe still does not actually have permission.

    As far as oversight, I'm glad you admitted that NSA is overseen by the FISA courts. So what you want is someone to oversee the FISA courts? Do you want someone to oversee those overseers, too? What about THOSE overseers? How many levels of oversight do you think are necessary? Just two?

    We can go on after you clear this up.
    The FISA court does not provide supervision or overseering duties as such. The FISA court issues warrants and guidance, the legality of which is the true question of this debate. Leaving the NSA in charge of it's own audits and compliance does not equal oversight, anymore than putting a police department in charge of investigating itself for corruption. As far as Snowden is concerned, the actual constitutional authority in the land would never have heard arguments about what the FISA court is doing since all of its activities are secret. As the laws are written, telling on the activities of the secret court (and thus allowing actual judicial review to take place) is itself technically illegal. That right there is what you call a tidy hole punched clean through the Fourth Amendment.

    As far as using "legal" and "proper" channels for reporting potential wrongdoing, Snowden is quoted as saying:

    "The culture within the US Intelligence Community is such that reporting serious concerns about the legality or propriety of programs is much more likely to result in your being flagged as a troublemaker than to result in substantive reform...

    .....

    In my personal experience, repeatedly raising concerns about legal and policy matters with my co-workers and superiors resulted in two kinds of responses. The first were well-meaning but hushed warnings not to "rock the boat," for fear of the sort of retaliation that befell former NSA whistleblowers like Wiebe, Binney, and Drake…
    The second were similarly well-meaning but more pointed suggestions, typically from senior officials, that we should let the issue be someone else's problem. Even among the most senior individuals to whom I reported my concerns, no one at NSA could ever recall an instance where an official complaint had resulted in an unlawful program being ended, but there was a unanimous desire to avoid being associated with such a complaint in any form."

    This debate isn't over the technicality of any given law. It's whether or not the US Government has done anything wrong regarding secret collection against its citizens, and whether Snowden was a patriot or a criminal for exposing such actions.

    I will give you this, though. I am a former member of that community as well - I'm well versed in the USSIDs and SPOOs - and even I thought Snowden went a little far with our foreign collection protocols. However, in hindsight I can see why he did it. I don't condone it, but I do understand it. He was threatening the government that was trying its hardest to bury him for exposing some wrongdoing, and must have made the call that giving up those secrets would discredit the very people who were trying to discredit him. This was asymmetrical information warfare, and he dropped the equivalent of an intel-nuke on the administration. It was dirty, and I don't condone it at all... but I understand it.
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  7. #347
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    Please education yourself on the matter. Did you know that Snowden disclosed things about American espionage in Germany, for one? I mean that's just the most basic.
    The Germans are our enemies?
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  8. #348
    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 Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    If it's not actually legal, then it's irrelevant if a lower authority law says it's legal.
    Wait wait wait: you're honestly saying that something's legality is irrelevant if it doesn't adhere to your own personal interpretation of the constitution? How am I supposed to take that seriously? Would you take it seriously if someone used that argumentation towards you?

    The FISA court does not provide supervision or overseering duties as such.
    It does when it comes to any and all collection on US persons, as you should well know. Is that not the topic of the conversation here? I understand that NSA is the only party that provides supervision and oversight on, say, the schedule of the shuttle from main campus to the FANX. I understand that it provides no supervision or oversight when it comes to workplace safety standards at Fort Meade and that that's OSHA's job. But we're not talking about either of those: we're talking about collection and analysis of signals and communication conducted by US persons, and yes, FISA absolutely provides supervision and oversight.

    The FISA court issues warrants and guidance,
    Which is supervision and guidance.

    the legality of which is the true question of this debate.
    No, it's not. You said the actual legality of it is irrelevant as long as you think it should be illegal. So I guess that's case closed, on that front. You think it shouldn't be legal so it's irrelevant that it is. If it were illegal, though...wow, you'd be sure to bring that up, I think. And if I said that that's irrelevant, because I don't think it should be illegal...well, again, I wonder how you'd respond to that. I wonder if you'd take it seriously.

    Leaving the NSA in charge of it's own audits and compliance does not equal oversight, anymore than putting a police department in charge of investigating itself for corruption.
    What agency should provide SIGINT auditors?

    As far as Snowden is concerned, the actual constitutional authority in the land would never have heard arguments about what the FISA court is doing since all of its activities are secret. As the laws are written, telling on the activities of the secret court (and thus allowing actual judicial review to take place) is itself technically illegal. That right there is what you call a tidy hole punched clean through the Fourth Amendment.
    You realize the Supreme Court actually has clearances, right?

    As far as using "legal" and "proper" channels for reporting potential wrongdoing, Snowden is quoted as saying:

    "The culture within the US Intelligence Community is such that reporting serious concerns about the legality or propriety of programs is much more likely to result in your being flagged as a troublemaker than to result in substantive reform...

    .....

    In my personal experience, repeatedly raising concerns about legal and policy matters with my co-workers and superiors resulted in two kinds of responses. The first were well-meaning but hushed warnings not to "rock the boat," for fear of the sort of retaliation that befell former NSA whistleblowers like Wiebe, Binney, and Drake…
    The second were similarly well-meaning but more pointed suggestions, typically from senior officials, that we should let the issue be someone else's problem. Even among the most senior individuals to whom I reported my concerns, no one at NSA could ever recall an instance where an official complaint had resulted in an unlawful program being ended, but there was a unanimous desire to avoid being associated with such a complaint in any form."
    Which is absolutely absurd to anyone who's actually worked in those types of places.

    This debate isn't over the technicality of any given law.
    Tell that to the people who scream until they're blue in the face about Snowden uncovering "illegal" NSA practices. When it's pointed out it's not actually illegal, they go real quiet. You should tell them it's not about that, then, and avoid this whole dispute because WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIKE IT OR AGREE, THOSE PROGRAMS ARE LEGAL. I feel like I need to repeat that every so often because you get so wrapped around your own self righteous crusading that you forget that little tidbit, no matter how much you insist that anything that goes against your personal interpretation of the constitution is "irrelevant".

    I will give you this, though. I am a former member of that community as well - I'm well versed in the USSIDs and SPOOs - and even I thought Snowden went a little far with our foreign collection protocols. However, in hindsight I can see why he did it. I don't condone it, but I do understand it. He was threatening the government that was trying its hardest to bury him for exposing some wrongdoing, and must have made the call that giving up those secrets would discredit the very people who were trying to discredit him. This was asymmetrical information warfare, and he dropped the equivalent of an intel-nuke on the administration. It was dirty, and I don't condone it at all... but I understand it.
    Then you should understand how retarded this whole thing is. He didn't like something that he didn't at all understand, so he ruined his life over it and made things more difficult for people who are actually trying to collect intelligence. A moron of the highest order. I hope he was indeed paid by either the Chinese or the Russians (or both), because at least then he got something out of the deal instead of just misguided idealism leading him into being a Putin pawn.
    Last edited by OldWorldOrder; 11-12-14 at 02:20 PM.
    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

  9. #349
    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 jamesrage View Post
    The Germans are our enemies?
    Sometimes.

    adolf_hitler.jpg

    It's like you don't realize that randomly telling the world about American means and methods (to say nothing of operations themselves) actually harm those means and methods, which harm those operations, which....dun dun dunnnnn...actual people have to undertake.
    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

  10. #350
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,105

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Do you have any trust worth sources saying he leaked certain intel to the enemy? Or is this goberment and those with their lips on the goberment's nutsack saying he did so you are trusting the same people who lied their ass off about spying on the American people?
    So.... if people from the military or the IC say things like "yeah, we are watching the Taliban change their patterns in order to avoid collection", you're going to discredit that because they work for the government? I can tell you for a fact that the man did incredible damage to our overseas collection posture. But, then, after all, I work for the military, which is part of that evil Goberment, and so why should we let evidence interfere with circular logic?

    The vast majority of the data released by Snowden had nothing to do with the NSA's metadata program. I have yet to see any of his defenders even attempt to justify it.

Page 35 of 63 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... 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
  •