• 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!

Greenwald says 'low-level' NSA workers can tap into phone, Internet records

Originally Posted by Hard Truth "Using this technology to locate and execute U.S.A. citizens without a bothering with a trial and conviction is a pretty big abuse in my opinion."


That's some conspiracy theory you got there..


Who were the 4 U.S. citizens killed in drone strikes?By Jere Van Dyk /
CBS News/ May 22, 2013, 7:40 PM

On Wednesday, the Obama administration publicly acknowledged for the first time that four Americans were killed in drone strikes since 2009 as part of U.S. counterterrorism activities surrounding al Qaeda . Of the four, only one of them, Anwar al-Awlaki, was targeted, according to Attorney General Eric Holder in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy. The following are descriptions of the four men killed in drone operations.


Anwar al-Awlaki


Anwar al-Awlaki was an articulate, charismatic Muslim orator and jihadist. He was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico in 1971; he died on Sept. 11, 2011 at age 40. He was called by some "the emir of the Internet" because of his abilities as an orator -- often seen with his hand raised, his finger pointing, his long, thin black beard, sitting-crossed legged behind a podium, preaching, lecturing and calling for jihad against America. His parents were born in Yemen. His father, Nasser, al-Awlaki, came to the U.S. as a Fulbright scholar and studied agriculture economics at Mexico State University, and later received a Ph.D. from the University of Nebraska.


Anwar Al-Awlaki received a B.S. degree in civil engineering from Colorado State in 1994. He reportedly spent one summer while a student living in Afghanistan with the Mujahideen -- former American allies in the Afghan-Soviet War who later became corrupt and gave rise to the Taliban. Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan at that time and al-Awlaki, with his command of Arabic and English, might have become radicalized then.

When he was killed, on Sept. 30, 2011, in Yemen, it was the first known time that a U.S.-controlled drone strike deliberately targeted and killed an American citizen. Obama called it a "major blow to al Qaeda's most active operational affiliate." But many condemned this extra-judicial killing.


Al-Awlaki said that he felt close to Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian-born writer, and intellectual force of the Muslim Brotherhood. Osama bin Laden was also influenced by Qutb.

Al-Awlaki said that he taught and trained Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian-born "underwear bomber, who was going to bomb Northwest Airlines Flight #523 on Dec. 25, 2009. But he said that he did not order the attack.


Samir Khan

Also killed in the same drone attack that claimed Al-Awlaki was Samir Khan, a U.S. citizen of Pakistani heritage. Khan was born in Saudi Arabia in 1986 and grew up in Queens, New York, in a typical middle-class family. His parents are said to have become worried that as a teenager he was becoming too religious. His family moved to North Carolina and he lived with them until at least 2007. It was during this time, U.S. officials say, that Khan began to help violent jihadist groups online, using his skills on the Web. He seemed to be operating on his own and didn't appear to be tied to any terrorist group.

In 2009, Khan left home for Yemen and became a part of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. It was here, again using his computer and literary skills, that Khan started "Inspire," the influential online jihadist magazine. Khan was killed in the same air strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki.

"I am proud to be a traitor," he told ABC News in 2010.



Jude Kenan Mohammad

According to the Justice Department, Jude Kenan Mohammad was killed by a U.S. drone in Pakistan. He was a U.S. citizen and former resident of North Carolina. He was born in Florida of a Pakistani father. He went to high school in North Carolina, dropped out in 2006, but later received a GED. In 2008, he left the U.S. to visit his father, who had moved back to Pakistan. He later disappeared into the tribal areas of Pakistan, along the Afghanistan border. There he was trained, most probably by al Qaeda.

In 2009, a North Carolina jury indicted him and others on conspiracy charges to commit terrorism. As an American citizen, with a U.S. passport and American accent, he was the type of person U.S. authorities feared -- and al Qaeda sought -- to wage jihad in America.


Anwar al-Awlaki and his Egyptian-born wife, Gihan Mohsen Baker, had an American son, born on Sept. 13, 1995, in Denver, while al-Awlaki was a student at Colorado State. His son's name Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki. He was killed at age 16 in a drone strike on Oct. 14, 2011, in Yemen. It, too, was a controversial extra-judicial killing. Some U.S. officials called it a mistake. Even the president is said, in some reports, to have considered it a bad mistake.

It is not clear where the young al-Awlaki was when he was killed. Some reports say that he was in a cafe with friends; other reports that he was sitting by the road eating with friends. His family said that he had run away from home and was trying to find his father. He had no known ties to terrorism.

Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, stated that his death was justified, and that he "should have had a more responsible father."
Who were the 4 U.S. citizens killed in drone strikes? - CBS News
 
Well if you're not happy with them, vote for the other guy. Although you may find that they won't be too different in practice; that's because it's all ideologically great until your face with the reality of the world.

I'm all too aware of the reality of the world, however, bulk collection of data and information on American citizens does not fit in with that paradigm. It's unconstitutional, first of all, and if the defenders of the programs are truly correct: unnecessary, for if the IC is unable to sift through the material it gorges itself on… then WTF is the point?

And you seriously can't be naive enough to suggest that voting is the solution when lawmakers are but only a fraction of the problem. The overwhelming majority of the problem is the IC and the resources they dispense into the accounts of the lawmakers. The IC wants these programs because they get to have bigger budgets. It's why they defend their unconstitutional practices in the face of public outcries. They say, relatively, the same God damn thing every time they get caught doing something illegal, immoral and unconstitutional. The lawmakers buy it every time too because their support is already paid for in advance. It's institutional deceit and fraud perpetrated by the IC and select lawmakers which is then condoned by naive and idealistic Americans… including yourself.
 
And find out what? That they aren't representing their constituents properly? I already know that, so why call?

Why you assume that? Why do you think that just because you think something, everyone else shares that viewpoint and/or it must be objectively true?
 
Originally Posted by Hard Truth "Using this technology to locate and execute U.S.A. citizens without a bothering with a trial and conviction is a pretty big abuse in my opinion."





Who were the 4 U.S. citizens killed in drone strikes?By Jere Van Dyk /
CBS News/ May 22, 2013, 7:40 PM

On Wednesday, the Obama administration publicly acknowledged for the first time that four Americans were killed in drone strikes since 2009 as part of U.S. counterterrorism activities surrounding al Qaeda .

Don't be an enemy combatant and you won't get turned into pink dust by a drone!

I'd personally press the "fire button" and blow up any Joe Schmo that takes arms against the USA.
 
Last edited:
Don't be an enemy combatant and you won't get turned into pink dust by a drone!

I'd personally press the "fire button" and blow up any Joe Schmo that takes arms against the USA.

lol, the people that have talked about revolution because their particular reading of the constitution (they hate when I don't capitalize it) hasn't been supported are real quiet about that.
 
Why you assume that? Why do you think that just because you think something, everyone else shares that viewpoint and/or it must be objectively true?

Well, they're in cahoots with the IC, for one. Objectively, that isn't good for the American people. Specifically on the left, you have lawmakers that don't particularly care about Benghazi or the I.R.S. targeting - and on the right, you have lawmakers trying repeatedly to abolish the ACA, don't care about disadvantaged Americans and hold the livelihood of this country at hostage in the attempt to score some political points/maneuvering. Collectively, they've tied us through legislation to Israel for an attack on Iran and condone the wholesale bulk collection of American information via the phone or the Internet.

You were saying?
 
Well, they're in cahoots with the IC, for one. Objectively, that isn't good for the American people. Specifically on the left, you have lawmakers that don't particularly care about Benghazi or the I.R.S. targeting - and on the right, you have lawmakers trying repeatedly to abolish the ACA, don't care about disadvantaged Americans and hold the livelihood of this country at hostage in the attempt to score some political points/maneuvering. Collectively, they've tied us through legislation to Israel for an attack on Iran and condone the wholesale bulk collection of American information via the phone or the Internet.

You were saying?

Define IC- I'm interested in what you mean.
 
lol, the people that have talked about revolution because their particular reading of the constitution (they hate when I don't capitalize it) hasn't been supported are real quiet about that.

Lol I know huh. The biggest irony is that Al-Awlaki would blow them up while they sit around defending his "rights" LMFAOL!
 
Well, they're in cahoots with the IC, for one.

Who? Anyone that disagrees with you? Okay, that's crazy but also just supposition, because you're not even claiming someone told you that. So crazy supposition

Objectively, that isn't good for the American people.

So now something based upon a crazy supposition is just decidedly "not good" for all American people. Okay.

Specifically on the left, you have lawmakers that don't particularly care about Benghazi or the I.R.S. targeting

Okay, random partisan talking points.

and on the right, you have lawmakers trying repeatedly to abolish the ACA, don't care about disadvantaged Americans and hold the livelihood of this country at hostage in the attempt to score some political points/maneuvering.

And more, to cover all bases. Beautiful.

Collectively, they've tied us through legislation to Israel for an attack on Iran

No something that has nothing to do with anything, cool.

and condone the wholesale bulk collection of American information via the phone or the Internet.

And there it goes, it's all wrapped up in a neat little package.

You were saying?

Before you went on your certifiably insane rant, I was asking why you assumed anyone that disagreed with you must be totally wrong. I was asking why you were convinced that you and only you had a legitimate viewpoint. Why you were unable to even fathom the idea that someone could think differently from you without being totally wrong.

You answered the question, don't worry.
 
Don't be an enemy combatant and you won't get turned into pink dust by a drone!

I'd personally press the "fire button" and blow up any Joe Schmo that takes arms against the USA.

Call me old fashioned, by I like to see people put on trial before we punish or kill them.

Jude Kenan Mohammad "had no known ties to terrorists."


Samir Khan "began to help violent jihadist groups online, using his skills on the Web. He seemed to be operating on his own and didn't appear to be tied to any terrorist group.

In 2009, Khan left home for Yemen and became a part of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. It was here, again using his computer and literary skills, that Khan started "Inspire," the influential online jihadist magazine."

Without more details it is impossible to determine whether he was actually aiding terrorists as claimed or just engaging in first amendment protected expression.
 
Call me old fashioned, by I like to see people put on trial before we punish or kill them.

Jude Kenan Mohammad "had no known ties to terrorists."


Samir Khan "began to help violent jihadist groups online, using his skills on the Web. He seemed to be operating on his own and didn't appear to be tied to any terrorist group.

In 2009, Khan left home for Yemen and became a part of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. It was here, again using his computer and literary skills, that Khan started "Inspire," the influential online jihadist magazine."

Without more details it is impossible to determine whether he was actually aiding terrorists as claimed or just engaging in first amendment protected expression.

Old Fashioned? Please; under the rules of war they were enemy combatants and got what they deserved. This isn't a criminal case btw.
 
Who? Anyone that disagrees with you? Okay, that's crazy but also just supposition, because you're not even claiming someone told you that. So crazy supposition

So now something based upon a crazy supposition is just decidedly "not good" for all American people. Okay.

Okay, random partisan talking points.

And more, to cover all bases. Beautiful.

No something that has nothing to do with anything, cool.

And there it goes, it's all wrapped up in a neat little package.

Before you went on your certifiably insane rant, I was asking why you assumed anyone that disagreed with you must be totally wrong. I was asking why you were convinced that you and only you had a legitimate viewpoint. Why you were unable to even fathom the idea that someone could think differently from you without being totally wrong.

You answered the question, don't worry.

More handwaving out of you, as well ad homs. And you talk about crazy suppositions? LOL.
 
Last edited:
No direct damage is done, I was pointing out the power of this technology.

It certainly is powerful technology. No longer can people who wish to do harm to us hide in the shadows. But I think that the belief that this particular technology is damaging to privacy is simply anti-government rhetoric. The technology already exists and has existed outside of the government for decades, yet people are up in arms about this just now? The technology that is in fact broadcasting our information to people we don't know has all been engineered by the civilian populus and made popular by people who voluntarily use it. As such, has utility and the advantages to that utility obviously far outweigh the risk to our privacy. Otherwise, this technology would not be as popular as it is. In fact, the technology has brought about some of the greatest revolutions of our time which are happening in our midsts that would have never happened otherwise. This technology has put fear into dictatorial governments that would have otherwise sent their military bearing down on its protesting population. Overall, this technology has not ben used for bad things, it has been overwhelmingly been used for the good.



I willingly trade off convenience and entertainment for some privacy, but I have limits on the amount and type of information I am willing to provide.
Thats fine, you have the option to use or not use that technology.

Anyone with a bit of money and/or power is of potential interest to others. People may want to influence you, destroy you, use your credit card, blackmail you and empty your bank account. I am not saying the government wants to do that, but some individuals do, and a few could get jobs with access to this data.
Again, this technology does not work in a vacuum. If in fact these things do start occurring they will quickly be exposed due to the very technology that allowed his information to be compromised. There are already laws against stealing personal information.

It usually takes years of hard work to expose governmental abuses such as COINTELPRO. The new technology makes it far easier for elements in the government to misuse its information resources and easier to hide it.

And now it will only take minutes.....

Using this technology to locate and execute U.S.A. citizens without a bothering with a trial and conviction is a pretty big abuse in my opinion.

How many regular joe blow US citizens have been walking down the street and randomly been blown up by a drone? Are we not streatching things a bit here in order to create an environment of fear. Camon.. Lets use some logic here instead of fearmongering. Many of your fellow cohorts state that the US uses fearmongering in order to build a case for its geopolitical interests, but yet they use fearmongering themselves in order to push their political interests as well.

There is a lot temptation for the people who can access this information technology to use it for financial or political gain, career advantages or revenge.

Sure, and I am sure it will happen. But as I have mentioned, if the technology exists to commit this crime, then the technology exists to catch these criminals. Instead of religating this technology to those who will secretly use it because it is condemned and can only be used unknowingly, we should do the opposite and embrace it so that it at least is out in the open and we can create laws to punish those who use it irresponsibly.

Perhaps, but those who own or control this technology can always take it away or change it when they need to.

They are going to do that either way. No amount of protesting it will keep it from being developed or used.
 
Old Fashioned? Please; under the rules of war they were enemy combatants and got what they deserved. This isn't a criminal case btw.

One of them did nothing to deserve being killed. His killing was probably a mistake.

Another one arguably didn't either, since he was NOT active as a terrorist, he was a propagandist. (Samir Kahn)

The other two were not on a battlefied, were not in a country we declared war on, and were not engaged in battle when assassinated by remote control.
 
One of them did nothing to deserve being killed. His killing was probably a mistake.

Another one arguably didn't either, since he was NOT active as a terrorist, he was a propagandist. (Samir Kahn)

The other two were not on a battlefied, were not in a country we declared war on, and were not engaged in battle when assassinated by remote control.

One may have been collateral damage; the others were legitimate targets. Saying that Kahn was not a terrorist is like saying Joseph Goebbels was not a Nazi...

Hey were killed as per the laws of war
 
Capster78 your arguments are as good as posible for your side. The bottom line is that you trust the technology, government and politicans more than I do. I also reject the argument that has historically always been used by those who don't prioritize civil liberties: that the civil rights protected in the constitution don't apply to new technology and media.

But let me ask you, and any other pro surveillance-state advocate, this: Do you believe the residents of the USA have a right to privacy and how should it be applied? When and where should our privacy be protected?

It seems to me that your* argument is that it doesn't apply to: phone calls, radio communications, texts, e-mails, at work, on the web, in your garbage, while doing business, in a vehicle, on parts of your property that can be viewed from the water, ground or air, or anywhere in public. That leaves only private conversations and activities that take place in your sound-proofed home when all the windows are covered, if they can not be detected by infrared, sonar, radar or other technology.

*and several presidential administrations and courts in many, but not all, cases
 
Last edited:
Hey were killed as per the laws of war

The top Nazi leaders who survived the war were put on trial.

Whose rules? Not the Geneva conventions.
 
The Rules of War. When terrorist put on a uniform we'll apply the GCs.

I guess you mean the rules that the Bush II administration just made up and the Obama administration continues to use, not any legitimate laws such as the constitution or any of the treaties we ratified.
 
More handwaving out of you, as well ad homs. And you talk about crazy suppositions? LOL.

Ummm...yeah? You didn't make a single point in that post. What did you want? Just someone to agree with all your assumptions? Wtf?
 
I guess you mean the rules that the Bush II administration just made up and the Obama administration continues to use, not any legitimate laws such as the constitution or any of the treaties we ratified.

The AUMF (PL 107-40) was created and authorized by Congress therefore it is law. It passed 420-1-10 in The House and 98-0-2 in The Senate. Doesn't sound made up now does it???
 
Capster78 your arguments are as good as posible for your side. The bottom line is that you trust the technology, government and politicans more than I do.
I don't trust them, which is why I think embracing the technology is important. Now I would probably agree that you distrust them more than I do. I really don't understand people who believe all politicians are bent on destroying or undermining the very society that voted them into office. I think such beliefs are simply unfounded and make no sense at all. And I scratch my head at why they continue to live in such a society instead of moving to a more favorable one. And I would be curious where in the world they would move that would be more favorable?

I also reject the argument that has historically always been used by those who don't prioritize civil liberties: that the civil rights protected in the constitution don't apply to new technology and media.

I would agree with that statement. I don't know anyone who believes that civil rights does not extend to technology and media. I think when you say that, you are being purposely dishonest. There is a debate as to what constitutes a civil right and what does not, but I don't know anyone that believes civil rights does not extend to technology and media.

But let me ask you, and any other pro surveillance-state advocate, this: Do you believe the residents of the USA have a right to privacy and how should it be applied? When and where should our privacy be protected?
Now you have labeled me. Interestingly, even after I have made the statement that I am against the use of technology to needlessly spy on ordinary, law abiding people just going about their business. At least, without due cause or reason which would have to be filtered thru a process that has to answer to the judiciary system.

I do believe people have the right to privacy as far as they are willing to protect their own information. I don't think it should be solely up to the government to protect your information. It's your information! And if you leave it solely up to the government, or anyone else other than yourself, then you yourself are partially complicit in your own demise. However, we see today that people are willing to give up privacy for technology and convinience. People are voting with their participation in social networking. Which is booming in our society and it is something I don't think you will ever be able to get rid of. Since it is something we will never get rid of, we will also never get rid of the potential our information is at risk of being used by others to harm us. Social media will only continue to grow and become more intrusive. It is a trend that once it has started, it will only grow. You can either embrace that as most have, or you can disconnect yourself from it. No one forces you to be a part of it.

It seems to me that your* argument is that it doesn't apply to: phone calls, radio communications, texts, e-mails, at work, on the web, in your garbage, while doing business, in a vehicle, on parts of your property that can be viewed from the water, ground or air, or anywhere in public. That leaves only private conversations and activities that take place in your sound-proofed home when all the windows are covered, if they can not be detected by infrared, sonar, radar or other technology.

Here we go with the fearmongering again. I don't even know if I want to even tackle the above comment other than to say that if you actually believe the government is going to go thru the trouble to spy on any one individual just because, then nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. I would be wasting my time and would rather allow you to waste your time building that soundproof bunker 100 feet below ground then waste my time explaining to you how ridiculous doing something like that would be.
 
Being that our "justice departments" have given the banks a free pass to do whatever they like. How much of a stretch is it that our intelligence communities will partner with corporations to do "more" with this data?
 
Being that our "justice departments" have given the banks a free pass to do whatever they like. How much of a stretch is it that our intelligence communities will partner with corporations to do "more" with this data?

Not only do you not have a clue on the DOJ or banking regulation for that matter, but you clearly lack a clue on the IC and its function...any other tangents you would like to go on? Big Foot, Area 51..?

Google and Facebook know more about you than the NSA, clearly they don't need help LOL
 
Back
Top Bottom