• 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!

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

slate (michael kinsley):

NSA metadata: Obama’s nonanswers to questions about government surveillance. - Slate Magazine

non answers, meta answers

The National Security Agency has been compiling a database of everyone’s phone records. But don’t worry. According to the Obama administration, it’s just “metadata.” “The information acquired does not include the content of any communications,” says White House spokesman Josh Earnest. Analysts can only search “phone numbers and durations of calls,” says President Obama. “They're not looking at content.” James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, likens it to reading the Dewey Decimal number on the cover of a library book. You’re not seeing what’s inside the book.

In this context, meta means that the thing you’re talking about is really about something else. Metadata is “data that provides information about other data.” When Obama, Clapper, and other officials say they’re just collecting metadata, they’re basically saying it’s empty. It tells you that a call happened, but it doesn’t tell you what was said. It’s referential, derivative, hollow.

Unfortunately, that’s also true of the administration’s statements about the NSA surveillance programs. Many Americans, upset about these programs, are asking how they work and what they reveal. Obama and his aides purport to answer these questions, but their replies are really just meta-answers. They don’t tell us what the programs do or where they stop. All they tell us, vaguely, is how the boundaries—whatever they are—are drawn.

The administration says the programs are governed by a “robust legal regime,” “strict controls,” “strict restrictions,” and “very careful procedures and processes to ensure particularly that the privacy and civil liberties of Americans are protected.” The programs have “a whole range of safeguards,” says Obama. They’re “consistently subject to safeguards,” says Clapper. The NSA’s Internet monitoring program, for instance, follows “legislatively mandated procedures” that “are very precise.” But the law doesn’t specify these safeguards or procedures, and the administration doesn’t explain them. We’re told they’re precise, but we aren’t told precisely what they are.

The procedures Obama and Clapper talk about aren’t procedures for using the data. They’re procedures for approving procedures for using the data. They’re metaprocedures. White House press secretary Jay Carney assures us that “there are procedures for both requirements for judicial consent and review and for congressional review,” as well as executive branch “procedures … for monitoring these programs.” Clapper says his office and the Justice Department give Congress “exhaustive semiannual reports assessing compliance with the targeting and minimization procedures.” The reports may be exhaustive, but the standards are completely unexplained. What exactly are the “targeting and minimization procedures”?

Obama says there’s an “audit process.” That sounds great. What does the audit examine? According to the president, it ascertains whether “all the safeguards are being properly observed.” What are the safeguards? He doesn’t say. Clapper says the administration performs “regular on-site reviews of how Section 702 authorities are being implemented.” Cool. So how are those authorities being implemented? Again, no answer.

Clapper loves to talk about specifics. He says we can trust the phone surveillance program because “the FISA court specifically approved this method of collection as lawful, subject to stringent restrictions.” For instance: “Only specially cleared counterterrorism personnel specifically trained in the court-approved procedures may even access the records.” What are these procedures and restrictions? He can’t tell us. “Orders that are issued by FISA judges are classified,” Earnest explains. “In terms of specific operational details, I just can't get into them.” Instead of specifics, we get vague assurances that the court orders and their implementation are precise.

The other metaprocedure that’s supposed to keep NSA procedures tight, according to the administration, is “very robust congressional oversight.” Last week, Obama asserted that “every member of Congress has been briefed” on the phone surveillance program. When reporters pointed out that many members of Congress seemed unaware of it, the administration revised its language. “Members of Congress were briefed or had the opportunity to be briefed,” said Carney. Earnest cited a Justice Department letter about a document that had been sent to the congressional intelligence committees “to be made available to all members.” A letter referring to a document inviting the committees to refer the information to lawmakers. That’s two levels of meta.

Obama’s favorite defense of the NSA is metademocracy: Congress is a surrogate for the people. “Your duly elected representatives have been consistently informed on exactly what we're doing,” he says. When informing 535 representatives is too dangerous, the administration informs just the intelligence committees or the gang of eight—the leaders of each party in each house, plus the intelligence committee chairmen and designated minority-party representatives from those committees. That’s four people duly elected by your duly elected representatives, plus four other people selected by those four people. Three more levels of meta.

What exactly did the briefings cover? The White House says they addressed the “provisions” and “authorities” under which the NSA acts. That isn’t a briefing. It’s a metabriefing. Clapper says if any lawmaker “had asked for a specific briefing or follow-up questions, we certainly … would have responded.” To get the details, you have to know enough to ask.
Click to expand...

kinsley's crew continues

the white house insists the nsa spy programs have been "publicly discussed in extensive public debate"

but public debates, asserts slate, have centered around the patriot act proper, not about how the act was applied---"that's not transparency, it's metatransparency"

the white house points to limits, 90 day windows and meta collection as opposed to outright eavesdropping---"metalimits," the savants at slate sigh

clapper claims the fisa court requires "reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts, that the particular basis for the query is associated with a foreign terrorist organization”

slate stubbornly asks: what’s reasonable suspicion? what level of facts? what degree of association?

kinsley's kids conclude: "what we don’t need is more linguistic trickery, we can’t have a director of national intelligence who deceives himself and others about the meaning of the word collect, and we can’t have a president who substitutes procedural for substantive answers"

"when reporters ask whether the nsa is operating under an unduly flexible interpretation of the law, the reply from the white house---it’s the view of the president that there is in place a very strict oversight regime---isn’t an answer, it’s a meta-answer"

"give us the real thing"
 
Michael66 said:
It's a question that is too much of a populist hot button issue for people to understand and think about before they jump to conclusions. It's shallow and kneejerk to react so strongly against the government on this issue.

To understand what I have said you will need to understand how you can't challenge a motherhood issue, and indeed understand what a motherhood issue even is. But I am challenging it even though it's like challenging motherhood.

And so, in order to ever find out if I'm right on this you will have to wait perhaps a long time and then it won't even be satisfactorily answered. You see, if the terrorists were successful in detonating a nuclear device in one of America's big cities, the question would still not be answered. It would only be suspected that your NSA and other agencies that are charged with protecting your country have not been serving their intended purpose. That purpose is to keep America safe.

And so, you can have it any way you want it, it's a decision for Americans. Only be completely aware of the choices you choose. You can tie the hands of your anti-terrorist government agencies all you like but you have to do it in an honest way and that can't be only in the interest of bucking everything a black president does.

It's not an enviable position your country has put your fellow Americans into. But it 'is' the position now and there's nothing that can totally reverse it. You could only attempt to begin to reverse it. And that doesn't seem to be on the agenda of any American except perhaps Obama. Publicly at least, but not even publicly spoken by Obama simply because it wouldn't be politically correct to do so.
Click to expand...

The government, not the country, put the american people in the UNeviable position we are in now. :(
 
Henry David said:
The government, not the country, put the american people in the UNeviable position we are in now. :(
Click to expand...

No, the people are responsible. It could be said that a crass and uncaring attitude toward the well being of the people of ME countries is the cause. It's at least stated by Bin Laden that it's the cause and good ol Ron Paul repeats it.

And so the only reiteration Americans need of what I consider a fact, is that they will sit on their hands and let it continue. Syria! Say it ain't so!

Those who consider it not so can then take the responsibility of the future likelihood of another attack on the scale of 9/11 or even much worse. However, If you like to bet on such matters then you can choose to disregard the truth and depend on your country (government) being able to protect you in the future. If you are willing to take that chance then you may want to consider not stopping your NSA and other orgs. from spying on Americans.
 
radcen said:
To me, though, the government and the country are one and the same. At least to a great degree, not 100%.
Click to expand...

I go with Thomas Paine: It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government.

But I know what you mean--it's connotation more than denotation, just semantics.
 
Henry David said:
I go with Thomas Paine: It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government.

But I know what you mean--it's connotation more than denotation, just semantics.
Click to expand...

Who among us would suggest that the German people weren't responsible for it's country's actions in WW2? Shall we put hypocrisy to the test now?
 
Michael66 said:
No, the people are responsible. It could be said that a crass and uncaring attitude toward the well being of the people of ME countries is the cause. It's at least stated by Bin Laden that it's the cause and good ol Ron Paul repeats it.

And so the only reiteration Americans need of what I consider a fact, is that they will sit on their hands and let it continue. Syria! Say it ain't so!

Those who consider it not so can then take the responsibility of the future likelihood of another attack on the scale of 9/11 or even much worse. However, If you like to bet on such matters then you can choose to disregard the truth and depend on your country (government) being able to protect you in the future. If you are willing to take that chance then you may want to consider not stopping your NSA and other orgs. from spying on Americans.
Click to expand...

Well, I admit that the complacency of the american people is responsible for very much of the bad karma we are experiencing right now. Yes, it could be the fault of the american people.

But I am able to remember that nobody amongst "the people" were reaching out for patriot act like legislation. Seems to me it was foisted upon us, with 95% or more of congresscritters admitting that they did not read and did not debate said legislation.

So, a fair argument could be made that the offending legislation was foisted upon us by our illustrious leaders in Congress. Those with just enough malfeasance in office to pass legislation without even reading it. And then to renew it every few years afterwards.
 
Michael66 said:
Who among us would suggest that the German people weren't responsible for it's country's actions in WW2? Shall we put hypocrisy to the test now?
Click to expand...

It appears you have trouble distinguishing cart from horse. :peace
 
radcen said:
To me, though, the government and the country are one and the same. At least to a great degree, not 100%.
Click to expand...

To me, the People are the country, gov't is an unwanted but necessary appendage to organize interstate commerce and provide for our common defense.

The individual colonies didn't want a country, they wanted to be on their own. Yet they all agreed England's tyranny was the greater evil, and so out of necessity, formed a nation.

Power ascends from the people, to their local and state governments, then to federal... that it appears the other way around now is simply a clear illustration of how far off track we are.
 
Occam's Razor said:
To me, the People are the country, gov't is an unwanted but necessary appendage to organize interstate commerce and provide for our common defense.

The individual colonies didn't want a country, they wanted to be on their own. Yet they all agreed England's tyranny was the greater evil, and so out of necessity, formed a nation.

Power ascends from the people, to their local and state governments, then to federal... that it appears the other way around now is simply a clear illustration of how far off track we are.
Click to expand...

In a sense I agree, but I'll expand on what I meant. The people, the government, the country, are ALL one and the same. Each one influences, and is influenced by, the other two. None of the three exist in a vacuum. It's a three-legged chair.
 
Henry David said:
Well, I admit that the complacency of the american people is responsible for very much of the bad karma we are experiencing right now. Yes, it could be the fault of the american people.

But I am able to remember that nobody amongst "the people" were reaching out for patriot act like legislation. Seems to me it was foisted upon us, with 95% or more of congresscritters admitting that they did not read and did not debate said legislation.

So, a fair argument could be made that the offending legislation was foisted upon us by our illustrious leaders in Congress. Those with just enough malfeasance in office to pass legislation without even reading it. And then to renew it every few years afterwards.
Click to expand...

Your objections are fair and honest. However, when terror rained down on Germany or Japan at the end of WW2, I'm willing to bet my shirt that nobody was standing around entertaining your argument. It's really as simple as that to understand but it's not simple to prevent it or change it. And so the movement to change it that we see in it's infancy is encouraging but it even lacks honesty. And that's why I see it coming to naught.

It's dishonest because it's motivated from the right's perspective as opposing Obama. And of course, the mainstream right will win the day I suspect anyway and the tea party/libertarians will be sidelined. And as for the American left, I don't see any real motivation to call the propagandists on the obvious lies of Assad using chem/bio weapons. I hear them quickly crumbling on that notion and reverting to an argument that Assad has it coming anyway. I don't accept that but I would find it too tedious to argue.
 
radcen said:
In a sense I agree, but I'll expand on what I meant. The people, the government, the country, are ALL one and the same. Each one influences, and is influenced by, the other two. None of the three exist in a vacuum. It's a three-legged chair.
Click to expand...

Actually, you could vaporize the federal gov't and life would pretty much go on the way it had before. Each state has it's own revenues, laws, constitution...
It's not as though Canada would come charging across the border yelling "we claim montana in the name of the loon, what are you going to do abooot it?"

Anyway, I disagree wholly that government is a part of the country and instead a function of the country. One of the founding principles was never trust your gov't. I have no intention of developing warm and fuzzy feelings for my gov't... it ruins the objectivity necessary for holding them accountable.
 
Occam's Razor said:
To me, the People are the country, gov't is an unwanted but necessary appendage to organize interstate commerce and provide for our common defense.

The individual colonies didn't want a country, they wanted to be on their own. Yet they all agreed England's tyranny was the greater evil, and so out of necessity, formed a nation.

Power ascends from the people, to their local and state governments, then to federal... that it appears the other way around now is simply a clear illustration of how far off track we are.
Click to expand...

You're a smart guy. You're accepting the facts on the people being responsible because it's a futile effort to say otherwise. And of course, after the fact, if it comes in the form of a mushroom, etc. it won't matter a lot anyway on who's right.
 
Michael66 said:
You're a smart guy. You're accepting the facts on the people being responsible because it's a futile effort to say otherwise. And of course, after the fact, if it comes in the form of a mushroom, etc. it won't matter a lot anyway on who's right.
Click to expand...

Am i the only one that didn't follow that?
 
Occam's Razor said:
Am i the only one that didn't follow that?
Click to expand...


I hope not! Anyway, I'm going to go right to the meat of the subject of politics and see if it can stand on this forum. Check it out now. There's nothing much that comes anywere near in importance in ME politics.
 
Occam's Razor said:
Actually, you could vaporize the federal gov't and life would pretty much go on the way it had before. Each state has it's own revenues, laws, constitution...
It's not as though Canada would come charging across the border yelling "we claim montana in the name of the loon, what are you going to do abooot it?"

Anyway, I disagree wholly that government is a part of the country and instead a function of the country. One of the founding principles was never trust your gov't. I have no intention of developing warm and fuzzy feelings for my gov't... it ruins the objectivity necessary for holding them accountable.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about trusting the government? Certainly not me. I also never said that the three interdependent aspects of people/government/country were necessarily something to be 'warm and fuzzy' about. You're misinterpreting my observation as some sort of approval, when in fact it could be negative just as easily as it could be positive.
 
Based on subsequent information that Snowden disclosed U.S. intelligence efforts directed at China and also British intelligence efforts, my guess is that Snowden's motivations have little or nothing to do with concern about domestic surveillance on U.S. citizens (a legitimate issue worthy of an adequate investigation). Instead, his motives increasingly appear to be anti-Western in nature, hence the disclosures concerning U.S. and British intelligence that have nothing to do with domestic surveillance.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Based on subsequent information that Snowden disclosed U.S. intelligence efforts directed at China and also British intelligence efforts, my guess is that Snowden's motivations have little or nothing to do with concern about domestic surveillance on U.S. citizens (a legitimate issue worthy of an adequate investigation). Instead, his motives increasingly appear to be anti-Western in nature, hence the disclosures concerning U.S. and British intelligence that have nothing to do with domestic surveillance.
Click to expand...

He's a serial failure in life and an attention seeker.:cool:
 
OldWorldOrder said:
You didn't say that at first you were leaning in the camp of throwing the guy a parade?

And yeah, I do care about damage being done, that's why I'm okay with the metadata collection: to prevent damage from being done. But before we can even get to that, people around here need to stop saying that what happened wasn't legal. It was. It is.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I said I was waiting for more info. And then he started blabbing about other things and I changed my mind, guess you missed that post.
 
American said:
Yeah, and I said I was waiting for more info. And then he started blabbing about other things and I changed my mind, guess you missed that post.
Click to expand...

I saw where you said you weren't really positive anymore. That's where I said anyone with half a brain knew the guy was a loser from the beginning.
 
American said:
Yeah, and I said I was waiting for more info. And then he started blabbing about other things and I changed my mind, guess you missed that post.
Click to expand...

Yeah, me too. I was careful to say “based just on what I currently know”. While I am still glad he leaked the surveillance info, all the other info he has been releasing has flipped my opinion of him and his motives.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
I saw where you said you weren't really positive anymore. That's where I said anyone with half a brain knew the guy was a loser from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Well, that is the thing about jumping to conclusions. Sometimes the conclusions will be right. :)
 
Sarcogito said:
Well, that is the thing about jumping to conclusions. Sometimes the conclusions will be right. :)
Click to expand...

When someone releases information on a classified program that has been approved by all three branches of government every few months for years now, deciding pretty quickly that he's a moron isn't a terribly difficult conclusion to arrive at. I'm just shocked so many people couldn't do it/
 
OldWorldOrder said:
When someone releases information on a classified program that has been approved by all three branches of government every few months for years now, deciding pretty quickly that he's a moron isn't a terribly difficult conclusion to arrive at. I'm just shocked so many people couldn't do it/
Click to expand...

One of Snowden's problems at this point now, is that it appears that he is embellishing on some of the info he says he has...At one point in an interview he stated that he could "tap" anyone's phone calls, including, and up the POTUS...all he needed was a phone number....Yeah, right! Me thinks he considers himself more important than he is. Also, he lied about his earnings...probably to also make himself seem more important than he is...He said he makes $200K per year, when his employer was asked, they reported his salary at closer to $115K...Still impressive for a high school drop out, not what he said it was....

He said, that "HE" made a decision to reveal this info, because "HE" could no longer continue to see this go on, so who the hell is he? Who made him the moral conscience of the country, or the government? Younger people, and anarchists are trying to paint this jack ass as some kind of hero, or whistle blower, I think neither....A true whistle blower, goes to the appropriate authorities like congress and reports what he is seeing. What is he doing? He went to China, and drips, and drabs out what "HE" thinks is important, regardless of what that leaking would do to our greater interests....Without knowing, or caring about the greater ramifications I might add...Snowden is a coward, and a possible traitor.

But, I will give him this, what Snowden did was to shed light on what the government was doing that I don't think many people had any idea was that broad, or intrusive, and it will start a conversation about what is appropriate to battle terror in this age, so that was a good thing, however, the way he went about it may cause more harm than any possible good to come from it....Then he did it in true cowardice fashion by fleeing, then releasing it.
 
Michael66 said:
Your objections are fair and honest. However, when terror rained down on Germany or Japan at the end of WW2, I'm willing to bet my shirt that nobody was standing around entertaining your argument. It's really as simple as that to understand but it's not simple to prevent it or change it. And so the movement to change it that we see in it's infancy is encouraging but it even lacks honesty. And that's why I see it coming to naught.

It's dishonest because it's motivated from the right's perspective as opposing Obama. And of course, the mainstream right will win the day I suspect anyway and the tea party/libertarians will be sidelined. And as for the American left, I don't see any real motivation to call the propagandists on the obvious lies of Assad using chem/bio weapons. I hear them quickly crumbling on that notion and reverting to an argument that Assad has it coming anyway. I don't accept that but I would find it too tedious to argue.
Click to expand...

This and your other posts, as Occam has noted, make it appear that you see things through a prism, no pun intended, of fear. You analyze incidents and events through some sort of fear perception. And that's not really your fault, for that is precisely the goal of the style of propaganda we americans are subjected to.

This is not Germany or Japan in WWII. This is the US, post 911. This is the US, 11 years after a very public (and staged) event which brutally traumatized the public psyche. Some of us have overcome the trauma, some have not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom