• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

I'm sure those guys are glad to have a 9/11 truther who thinks Sandy Hook was staged on their side, Henry. :lol:
 
No, fire is a USEFUL servant, but a cruel and dangerous master.

On the contrary, fire is a dangerous servant AND a fearful master.

It is pure unadulterated BS to claim that it simply MUST gather metadata. BS and in violation of the letter and spirit of the Fourth Amendment.

No, it isn't a "must". It is a "smart to". We also do not have to have a Navy or (for that matter) a first-world economy. We do not have to self-govern. Presenting this as a Must is a strawman.
 
So the guy who proved that all your paranoid fears about government overreach were true needs locking up? How does that work?

1. I find it ironic that this comes from a Brit - your intelligence agencies operate much more at home, with less legal restriction and less transparency, than ours do.
2. This guy isn't some crusader out there trying to save Americans from a particular program - he's an asset to hostile foreign entities who has mass-dumped massive amounts of data that have nothing whatsoever to do with the story with which he is most closely associated.
 
On the contrary, fire is a dangerous servant AND a fearful master.



No, it isn't a "must". It is a "smart to". We also do not have to have a Navy or (for that matter) a first-world economy. We do not have to self-govern. Presenting this as a Must is a strawman.

Far out, we agree that it is a strawman. But I'm not asserting "national security", the various executive agencies assert it all the time.

For the record, it was first asserted in 345US1 in March of 1953 by the US in the case called US v. Reynolds.

And it wasn't until the digital age that the assertion was shown to be a lie. WaPo, June 22, 2003.

In lawsuit attempt after lawsuit attempt, the federal government claims "national security" would be violated if they had to defend the suit.

NSA claims the same with this metadata stuff.

I just finished James Risen's book "Pay Any Price". It's very well documented, the fraud and deception employed by the government.

In your book, it seems, anything the government does, whether conforming to the law or breaking the law, is OK if it's "smart" to do it?
 
Have to wonder with all the hacking Russia and China are doing if they got any information out of Snowden. It's not like we would know.
 
I have highlighted the actual collection agencies for you. In addition, it is worth noting, you are missing the NGA, although NGA and NSA both fall under DOD.

The reason we have multiple collections agencies is multivariate. Firstly, at least three of them are based around their assigned discipline. The NSA has primary responsibility for SIGINT, the CIA has the primary responsibility for HUMINT, the NGA has the primary responsibility for IMINT and GEOINT. The FBI is a collections agency as well because they have the authority to operate domestically. So, for example, if in the course of conducing HUMINT operations against a target in (making this up) the country of Outlandia, the CIA runs across John Schmuckatelli, who is a US person who seems to be involved (for example) gun running back and forth between the US and Outlandia, the CIA would, upon the realization that Mr Schmuckatelli is a US person, cease collection against Mr Schmuckatelli and hand him off to the FBI, who would then own the investigation against him. It's worth noting that this serves within the IC as a sort of internal checks and balances - all of your capabilities and authorities are spread across multiple organizations rather than being housed under one roof - and those agencies, in the good manner of all government bureaucracies, jealously guard their turf. Even our DOD SIGINTers who are collecting in the field in actual combat zones technically have to listen to the NSA, because they "own" SIGINT. If you are a DOD Huminter and CIA wants to steal your source, too bad, so sad, you lose, because CIA "owns" HUMINT. I've never heard of NGA swooping in to try to control Geoint, but that is probably because NGA seems to be all retired DOD Geointers who are just enjoying life in a second career and like to be helpful. Asking "why so many agencies that spy", in a sense, is like asking "why have so many branches and levels of government"? Does it make us less free that Legislative and Executive power are (supposedly, at least) not housed in a single body?


The DNI (Director of National Intelligence) is charged with overseeing the (often fractious, competitive, parochial) IC, and is an office that was created as part of the post-9/11 reforms when we realized that the intelligence to potentially ward off the attack was in front of us, we simply hadn't been organized to make use of it. NCTC (the National Counter Terrorism Center) is run by the CIA, and is a bunch of analysts, not collectors, who sit around and try to figure out A) what terrorist groups are doing B) what they are likely to do and C) opportunities where we might be able to stop them from doing so. They also help feed the no-fly list. Homeland Security (as near as I can tell) is a bunch of retired teachers and bureaucrats who are to ineffectual to assess their way out of a paper bag. They also don't have collection, but are dependent upon others for that.


actually homeland security has engaged in survellience of americans, and one can argue that the TSA has engaged in searches via those body scanners as invasive.


The point I have, is you combine all these things we are doing to American citizens in the name of "Safety" has more to do with surveiling. Facial recognition was tested at a football game I believe I read somewhere. how far do you want this government looking at you and me while claiming to be looking for abu mcjihad....



Yes you have posted it. Why do you think?


I am asking you, is a letter to verizon demaning a full data dump of all thier calls and a gag order in all regards to it,. constitutional? where is your check and balance?




Yup.



That is correct - the authorities for phone calls originating and terminating in foreign countries are already part of Title 50. However I find it entertaining that the headline says foreigners weren't collected against, and then the text says they were :)

Are you not reading, this is for domestic. read it again my brother.


However, you did not really respond. Are you now backing off the claim that we should "tear it all down"?

Let me rephrase, I am known for bombastic grandiloquence, I think we should tear alot of it down. Much of it is redundant, and much of it does not have proper oversight. Abuses have been recorded and little repercussions have been meted out.





Yes. You suggested that among the abuses of the NSA were the fact that it conducted offensive cyber operations. I pointed out to you that that was part of their reason for existence, similar to how the CIA has people who run spies, and pointed out that having the ability to run offensive cyber operations against (for example) China or al-Qa'ida was a good thing. Your response (post 549) to that was Again, on foreign folks they suspect of wanting to wage war or terrorism on us, great. randomly spying on Americans on american soil. Why?, which carries with it the implicit claim that the NSA is conducting offensive cyber operations against AMericans.


I see what your are getting at... You want specific proof they are hacking and looking at American computers. I simply don't have the blind trust and faith in the federalis altruistic ideals of protecting you and me.

50,000 CNE implants, including in the USA....

Leaked slide shows NSA hackers secretly infected 50,000 computer networks with malware | Computerworld

Sure. You can't prove a negative. By the same logic, we do not know if the air force is not bombing American cities and then covering it up in massive black-bag operations.


We actually can be pretty sure of that. It's not on the twitter. ;)








:shrug:

1. the source )"The Intercept") seems pretty clearly slanted. The article on the side seems to be suggesting that AQSL aren't militants if we blow them up with a drone, which is counter to pretty much everything we know about that program. It looks like they are also the kind of people who blame victims of terrorism for the terrorism. I'm not going to waste much time, but I do wonder what I would get if I searched their archives for "Bush"+"9/11"+"Conspiracy" or some other similar boolean string. So, suffice to say, I look at their presentation with a bit of a jaundiced eye.

2. I don't know the particulars of the case.


The particulars are there and:

NSA Spied On Five Politically Active American Citizens, The Intercept Reports
In NSA-intercepted data, those not targeted far outnumber the foreigners who are - The Washington Post
Greenwald: Snowden documents show not just Muslim-Americans are targeted by NSA ? RT USA

I can keep going.




....that doesn't make sense. Unless you are arguing for a state/local aspect, there are only the three branches.


know what you said, went beyond the three branches into areas that lack oversight.
 
Have to wonder with all the hacking Russia and China are doing if they got any information out of Snowden. It's not like we would know.

There are certainly ways to tell. But it's hard to do that without compromising that you know. And they're playing the same game.
 
The point I have, is you combine all these things we are doing to American citizens in the name of "Safety" has more to do with surveiling.


Safety is surveiling, is it not? You were in the military? I don't know what branch or your experience but I've been on more than a handful of patrols in several Iraqi provinces and having situational awareness is absolutely necessary if you want to consider yourself "safe". Having your head on a swivel is an absolute necessity, of course, but ideally you want a hell of a lot more than that. It's fine if you think things are "too far" or whatever, but don't act like "safety" and "situational awareness" are two very different concepts or anything. They're intrinsically linked.

I simply don't have the blind trust and faith in the federalis altruistic ideals of protecting you and me.

I don't have blind trust and faith in you, but I'm fairly certain you're not a mass murderer. Should I start posting about how you might be, maybe try to alert some authorities or something just because I don't have "blind trust and faith" in you? Is the bar so high (or low, depending on how you look at it) these days? "Oh, I don't have blind trust and faith in that guy/organization/whatever, so I'm gonna start talking about how they are/might be engaged in ______"?

FYSA: The Intercept is basically the Snowden journal. It's the Greenwald construct that rages against the machine and got many of its first dozen stories (and more down the road, they seem to be rationing their stories to stay relevant and profitable) strictly from data he stole and made public. When the Intercept talks about the Western world in general or Western intelligence agencies in particular, it's basically like the Coca-Cola network reporting on how Pepsi tastes.
 
Safety is surveiling, is it not?


Orwellian.


You were in the military? I don't know what branch or your experience but I've been on more than a handful of patrols in several Iraqi provinces and having situational awareness is absolutely necessary if you want to consider yourself "safe". Having your head on a swivel is an absolute necessity, of course, but ideally you want a hell of a lot more than that. It's fine if you think things are "too far" or whatever, but don't act like "safety" and "situational awareness" are two very different concepts or anything. They're intrinsically linked.

lol what? yes I served and I have the scars. you are confusing the issue, spying on Americans =/= combat "situational awareness" unless the one is overly paranoid about his fellow citizens. we live in a culture of fear, fear breeds submission, you can see these administrations using fear of terrorism to distract on several occasions, and these simple answers by the government satiate simple minds (talking about the hoi poloi here). keeping us in a shroud of false fear so that we accept these intrusions on the very liberties that you and I have fought for.





I don't have blind trust and faith in you, but I'm fairly certain you're not a mass murderer. Should I start posting about how you might be, maybe try to alert some authorities or something just because I don't have "blind trust and faith" in you? Is the bar so high (or low, depending on how you look at it) these days? "Oh, I don't have blind trust and faith in that guy/organization/whatever, so I'm gonna start talking about how they are/might be engaged in ______"?

FYSA: The Intercept is basically the Snowden journal. It's the Greenwald construct that rages against the machine and got many of its first dozen stories (and more down the road, they seem to be rationing their stories to stay relevant and profitable) strictly from data he stole and made public. When the Intercept talks about the Western world in general or Western intelligence agencies in particular, it's basically like the Coca-Cola network reporting on how Pepsi tastes.[/QUOTE]
 
Orwellian.

Being aware is Orwellian? Well, that certainly explains the ignorance of some Snowden supporters...

lol what? yes I served and I have the scars. you are confusing the issue, spying on Americans =/= combat "situational awareness" unless the one is overly paranoid about his fellow citizens. we live in a culture of fear, fear breeds submission, you can see these administrations using fear of terrorism to distract on several occasions, and these simple answers by the government satiate simple minds (talking about the hoi poloi here). keeping us in a shroud of false fear so that we accept these intrusions on the very liberties that you and I have fought for.

And yet NSA isn't spying on Americans, so that's a false comparison. I'm just shocked that you think knowledge and safety are two different things. One depends upon the other.
 
Being aware is Orwellian? Well, that certainly explains the ignorance of some Snowden supporters...


If thats what you think I meant, I really can't help you.




And yet NSA isn't spying on Americans, so that's a false comparison. I'm just shocked that you think knowledge and safety are two different things. One depends upon the other.


if "one depends on the other" by definition they would be two separate things! ;)

You are creating a strawman. Can't help you with that.


NSA has spied on Americans, I have shown this.
 
If thats what you think I meant, I really can't help you.

Seriously, how can you be safe without a knowledge of your surroundings?


[Qiote]if "one depends on the other" by definition they would be two separate things! ;)

You are creating a strawman. Can't help you with that.


NSA has spied on Americans, I have shown this.[/QUOTE]

With warrants. I have shown you this.
 
You expect others to fix your mess? I'm happy to reply, but I don't feel I should be doing your work for you. Thanks.
I can't edit it after a certain amount of time lol

Is it really boggling you to such an extent? If so, I simply asked you if you really believe someone can be fully age without any knowledge of their surroundings? I also told you that yes, you've shown that NSA spies on Americans with warrants.
 
Seriously, how can you be safe without a knowledge of your surroundings?


[Qiote]if "one depends on the other" by definition they would be two separate things! ;)

You are creating a strawman. Can't help you with that.


NSA has spied on Americans, I have shown this.

With warrants. I have shown you this.[/QUOTE]

Seriously, how can one claim to live under the rule of law when the law is broken by the government as it pleases (and keeps it secret)????
 
With warrants. I have shown you this.

Seriously, how can one claim to live under the rule of law when the law is broken by the government as it pleases (and keeps it secret)????[/QUOTE]
I dunno, all these conspiracies running around, it's hard to tell.
 
I can't edit it after a certain amount of time lol

Is it really boggling you to such an extent? If so, I simply asked you if you really believe someone can be fully age without any knowledge of their surroundings? I also told you that yes, you've shown that NSA spies on Americans with warrants.


Doesn't boggle my mind at all, it's simply if you are not going to make the effort, expecting others to do so, seems a little like hubris. Anyway, I've shown that the NSA has spied without warrants. You choose to ignore my links and the facts at hand, I am not sure there if there is a way to get you to acknowledge basic facts in order to continue here.


as fot your strawman, I am sorry, I will not be defending positions given to me that I have not held. Sorry.
 
Doesn't boggle my mind at all, it's simply if you are not going to make the effort, expecting others to do so, seems a little like hubris.

This has nothing to do with anything. The time frame for me to edit the post had passed. lol

Anyway, I've shown that the NSA has spied without warrants. You choose to ignore my links and the facts at hand, I am not sure there if there is a way to get you to acknowledge basic facts in order to continue here.

Yes, NSA has spied without warrants. Against foreign nationals. And yes NSA has spied on Americans. With warrants. But no, NSA has not spied on Americans without warrants. Storing metadata is not spying.

It's pretty straightforward. I already expressed how you've consistently conflated several different things. I made a post that itemized them, I think there were four categories.

as fot your strawman, I am sorry, I will not be defending positions given to me that I have not held. Sorry.

You're the one that acted like surveillance (as in surveilling your surroundings) and safety were opposite or unrelated things. Anyone who's been on patrol knows otherwise.

Also please edit your post to change "fot" to "for", otherwise I'll be forced to talk about how you're showing hubris.
 
This has nothing to do with anything. The time frame for me to edit the post had passed. lol


If I had made such an err, I would have reposted a new post with the corrected format.


Yes, NSA has spied without warrants. Against foreign nationals. And yes NSA has spied on Americans. With warrants. But no, NSA has not spied on Americans without warrants. Storing metadata is not spying.

let's go way back...

Bush Authorized Domestic Spying

(I have lots of these)


It's pretty straightforward. I already expressed how you've consistently conflated several different things. I made a post that itemized them, I think there were four categories.


Bottom line is you think it's good to spy on your fellow citizens, I do not. easy enough.


You're the one that acted like surveillance (as in surveilling your surroundings) and safety were opposite or unrelated things. Anyone who's been on patrol knows otherwise.

This is that intellectually wanting strawman you built, I never made any such claims. repeating this line of debate is dishonest on your part, brother.

Also please edit your post to change "fot" to "for", otherwise I'll be forced to talk about how you're showing hubris.


Quote mistakes (as I just fixed) interrupt the flow of conversation, where I have to spend my valuable time fixing your mess. a typo is easilly read as to what it is supposed to mean by most. I think you know the difference.


It seems I have upset you. I hope your day is well, sir.
 
Last edited:
If I had made such an err, I would have reposted a new post with the corrected format.




let's go way back...

Bush Authorized Domestic Spying

(I have lots of these)





Bottom line is you think it's good to spy on your fellow citizens, I do not. easy enough.



You're the one that acted like surveillance (as in surveilling your surroundings) and safety were opposite or unrelated things. Anyone who's been on patrol knows otherwise.

Also please edit your post to change "fot" to "for", otherwise I'll be forced to talk about how you're showing hubris.
[/QUOTE]
Can you format this?
 
Can you format this?[/QUOTE]



was in proccess, thanks.


(see how the give and take gets ****ed up?)
 
I was being sardonic, it's quite easy to read.
If I had made such an err, I would have reposted a new post with the corrected format.




let's go way back...

Bush Authorized Domestic Spying

(I have lots of these)

That tells us almost nothing. It doesn't say whether warrants were issued or not. It doesn't say whether metadata was stored or content was analyzed. You're just reading it the way you want to.


Bottom line is you think it's good to spy on your fellow citizens, I do not. easy enough.

Errr...no. The bottom line is that you and I disagree on what spying is. Me, with vast experience in it; you, with...

This is that intellectually wanting strawman you built, I never made any such claims. repeating this line of debate is dishonest on your part, brother.

There's no straw man about it. You acted like the two are unrelated and at odds, not me.


Quote mistakes (as I just fixed) interrupt the flow of conversation, where I have to spend my valuable time fixing your mess. a typo is easilly read as to what it is supposed to mean by most. I think you know the difference.

One word was misspelled. If you couldn't easily overcome that, I dunno what to tell you.

t seems I have upset you. I hope your day is well, sir.

I'm fine, just poking fun at you. On the other hand, it appears that metadata storage and intelligence collection has you very mad. That's okay, it's not your responsibility, let the professionals handle it.
 
actually homeland security has engaged in survellience of americans, and one can argue that the TSA has engaged in searches via those body scanners as invasive.

Well you aren't going to get me to say too many nice things about the TSA, but the idea that that counts as collection simply isn't tenable. You seem to be simply listing everyone involved in the IC and claiming that they are spy agencies, and then conflating them with collection against US Persons.

The point I have, is you combine all these things we are doing to American citizens in the name of "Safety" has more to do with surveiling. Facial recognition was tested at a football game I believe I read somewhere. how far do you want this government looking at you and me while claiming to be looking for abu mcjihad....

Is facial recognition fundamentally different when it is performed by software than by a person, in a manner that makes it collection? I mean, if we think Abu McJihad is going to be wearing a suicide vest at the Cowboys game (no idea why he would target the Cowboys), isn't it smarter to have something that can rapidly scan a crowd with greater precision than a couple of dozen FBI guys out there walking around with a picture, hoping to randomly run into the guy?

I am asking you, is a letter to verizon demaning a full data dump of all thier calls and a gag order in all regards to it,. constitutional? where is your check and balance?

The check/balance should be the inclusion and requirement for approval by multiple branches of government. If that does not happen, I agree, we have lost the C&B and need to restore it post haste. If it does, however, then we've fulfilled that Constitutional requirement.

It is also worth noting that it is content is subject to 4th Amendment protections (that's why we keep pointing that out) - not metadata. That is why, for example, the Post Office is allowed to require you to put a return address and "to" address on your letter, but isn't allowed to just read your mail.

Are you not reading, this is for domestic. read it again my brother.

This is what I'm pointing out:

NSA's Verizon Spying Order Specifically Targeted Americans, Not Foreigners - Forbes

"“It is hereby ordered that [Verizon Business Network Services'] Custodian of Records shall produce to the National Security Agency…all call detail records or ‘telephony metadata’ created by Verizon for communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls,” the Guardian’s copy of the order reads. “This Order does not require Verizon to include telephony metadata for communications wholly originating and terminating in foreign countries.”"

This is intended to sound ominous, when it's not. Foreign collection is already covered under Title 50. Nor (again) does collection of metadata risk violating 4th Amendment protections.

Let me rephrase, I am known for bombastic grandiloquence, I think we should tear alot of it down. Much of it is redundant, and much of it does not have proper oversight. Abuses have been recorded and little repercussions have been meted out.

:shrug: those who abused lost their clearances, their jobs, and careers. That's pretty fair for someone who basically googled his girlfriend on a classified database.

I see what your are getting at... You want specific proof they are hacking and looking at American computers. I simply don't have the blind trust and faith in the federalis altruistic ideals of protecting you and me.

Ah. Are you into 9/11 trutherism now, as well? At least they have evidence, as opposed to complete dependence on simple conspiratorial distrust.



Look. Don't trust the government. You shouldn't. You're an American - it's something we're not supposed to do. But you should have evidence before you accuse it of something, or you discredit any good you would want to do.



We actually can be pretty sure of that. It's not on the twitter. ;)

Don't you follow The Onion? Twitter is just another collection program run by the NSA :mrgreen:




Yeah. With more citations like Putin's mouthpiece?

:shrug: if you want me to research the case, I will. But I'm not really sure what you think it proves.


know what you said, went beyond the three branches into areas that lack oversight.

I'm confused. Are you saying that the three branches of government lack oversight? They have to be each others' oversight - that's the point of checks and balances.
 
Back
Top Bottom