• 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!

Glenn Greenwald to publish list of U.S. citizens that NSA spied on

Do you remember the Mail incident during Andrew Jackson's administration? You see, abolitionist mail was going through the post office and was found in South Carolina. South Carolinians, intent on keeping the slavery regime, felt that this literature was encouraging rebellion and so forth. South Carolinians had a few options to deal with this controversy. Upon asking for his advice, Andrew Jackson offered his own solution. His solution was that you distribute the mail, but you put the names of those who received abolitionist literature in the newspapers. The individuals would then have to claim the mail. Of course, that solution was perhaps a reasonable one for the Post Office in South Carolina, because it ostracized those who happened to have been in the mailing lists of northern abolitionists and everyone knew who was the Judas and could be treated more harshly. Jackson's solution didn't come to fruition, because a mob formed and burned the offending mail.

The consequences of putting the names of those who were spied upon by the NSA should not be taken lightly.

Emphasis mine.

You're of course right. Legitimate targets of intelligence gathering in the U.S. including American citizens don't need the validation or unquestionable knowledge that they're being targeted. My interest resides in if dissidents, political opponents, business owners, etc people like that are being targeted.

The latter being a problem should resonate with everyone. More people should be upset that the way intel gathering & targeting is done is generalized. Generalized warrants was one of the many reasons our ancestors rebelled against the British. (Don't infer anything other than a historical fact from me saying that.)
 
How? The circus they generated gives cover to those who would rather not see the problem solved. If Greenwald/Snowden had not gleefully made themselves the topic, the media attention would have been on those who should be taken to task and those who should be called upon to fix NSA. It's not now because of this giant media circus.

With the current relationship between market driven media and politics in our country, you simply have to throw the dog (the media) a bone to get ANY movement whatsoever on any issue. The media dog's only 'bone' of choice IS a circus. There are people working to influence what the NSA and the government can and can't do, entirely as a consequence of the circus. There is plenty to join in on trying to get things done.
 
Emphasis mine.

You're of course right. Legitimate targets of intelligence gathering in the U.S. including American citizens don't need the validation or unquestionable knowledge that they're being targeted. My interest resides in if dissidents, political opponents, business owners, etc people like that are being targeted.

The latter being a problem should resonate with everyone. More people should be upset that the way intel gathering & targeting is done is generalized. Generalized warrants was one of the many reasons our ancestors rebelled against the British. (Don't infer anything other than a historical fact from me saying that.)

This was my main point: once the non-actual threat's name is out there, it becomes a target for social repercussions. Being associated with possible threats, even if the story was meant to be saying that the NSA is acting with malice toward the law-abiding citizenry, now means the public at large may see you as suspicious. Joe Q. Public may be generally law-abiding (at least where it counts). That being said, when Joe Q. Public is found listed for all to see with a list of other names thought to be worth looking into by the NSA, Joe is now more suspicious than someone not on the list. Being on the list, now publicly disseminated, is more of a liability than a gift.

In this case, although the NSA has likely targeted many innocents and Greenwald is supposedly acting to reverse this, Greenwald may be putting innocents in harms way by publishing the names of people targeted by the NSA.
 
Last edited:
With the current relationship between market driven media and politics in our country, you simply have to throw the dog (the media) a bone to get ANY movement whatsoever on any issue. The media dog's only 'bone' of choice IS a circus. There are people working to influence what the NSA and the government can and can't do, entirely as a consequence of the circus. There is plenty to join in on trying to get things done.

I'll just have to disagree. Other issues, like the current scandal going on about the VA, have gotten the proper media attention and forced people in charge to have their feet held to the fire and caused change. We do not see changes occurring with the NSA. There may be, but it is not being given very much public attention. I think Snowden/Greenwald have damaged the cause.

And if he dumps a laundry list of names of people who have been spied upon, he's likely to have quite a legal problem over it. The inference being of a blind dump, that some of those names might have been legit targets, but it won't be plain who was and wasn't and countless reputations could be called wrongly into question. Now that might be what Greenwald is after, to make people angry enough to rise up at the government, but my first response, were it me, would be to join a class action suit to sue the pants off him and his publisher.
 
How? The circus they generated gives cover to those who would rather not see the problem solved. If Greenwald/Snowden had not gleefully made themselves the topic, the media attention would have been on those who should be taken to task and those who should be called upon to fix NSA. It's not now because of this giant media circus.

Idealism is nice and all but often does not match the reality at hand.

The media was quick to post the revelations & accompanying documents but it was clear from the start that that was because of the business model 'controversy creates cash' and not because they (the overwhelming majority of them) wanted change & a restoration of our 4th Amendment privileges, which is strongly evidenced by the left-and-the-right flip-flopping on N.S.A. spying I.e. it's more of a political football than an issue of unconstitutionality. I say that because the media was (& is overall) quick to quote government officials & political commentators who vehemently condemned Snowden & Greenwald stopping just short of calling them communists without offering any/much pushback themselves. Furthermore, on more than one occasion, our government convinced our media *not* to print certain revelations. What does that mean? Well, being co-opted comes to mind immediately as does the "free press" we like to believe we have having sizable gaps where it isn't.
 
Last edited:
Woah buddy, you're the one that in a previous thread dismissed, with SEIU spin and lies the reality the SEIU forced, against their will some 30-40 THOUSAND poor, low income "home health caregivers" (read family members taking care of disabled family generally) into being unionized, in the process stealing MILLIONS from them. You had no problem with this enforced government mandated unionization. That the moment these people were able to break from they did so in a majority of the cases and your anger at this reality shows you WANT government to enforce behavior you support.

Ergo your being upset at the NSA Spying is puzzling, seeing as to have the world you want you need government to do things like spy on citizens.

The problem here isn't me moving goalposts, it's your upset that I call you out and that you have no defense. I spoil your little propaganda speeches.

For those of us who have read the US Constitution and understand all the words and meanings in it, and for those of us who might have taken an oath to defend that document and its principles, what Snowden and Greenwald and others have revealed is important because it shows the federal government is breaking the Law Of the Land as it pleases.

Perhaps you are happy that the government is criminal and shows no respect for the document and that elected officials care not a bit about their oath of office, but I'm not. You might embrace a criminal government, and defend its actions at every chance, but I'm not.
 
For those of us who have read the US Constitution and understand all the words and meanings in it, and for those of us who might have taken an oath to defend that document and its principles, what Snowden and Greenwald and others have revealed is important because it shows the federal government is breaking the Law Of the Land as it pleases.

Perhaps you are happy that the government is criminal and shows no respect for the document and that elected officials care not a bit about their oath of office, but I'm not. You might embrace a criminal government, and defend its actions at every chance, but I'm not.

Spare me the morality play bull**** about how the means justify the ends. You people are sadly misguided.
 
This was my main point: once the non-actual threat's name is out there, it becomes a target for social repercussions. Being associated with possible threats, even if the story was meant to be saying that the NSA is acting with malice toward the law-abiding citizenry, now means the public at large may see you as suspicious. Joe Q. Public may be generally law-abiding (at least where it counts). That being said, when Joe Q. Public is found listed for all to see with a list of other names thought to be worth looking into by the NSA, Joe is now more suspicious than someone not on the list. Being on the list, now publicly disseminated, is more of a liability than a gift.

In this case, although the NSA has likely targeted many innocents and Greenwald is supposedly acting to reverse this, Greenwald may be putting innocents in harms way by publishing the names of people targeted by the NSA.

Considering that everyone hates the NSA, John Q. should be safe from retribution. Now if his name is Faisal Israel Mohammad, you may have a valid point. I for one would hate to see peoples killing Sikhs in convenience stores again.
 
Spare me the morality play bull**** about how the means justify the ends. You people are sadly misguided.

I would say that a person who defends government law breaking is the misguided one....:peace
 
I'm not. Never have. So now what?

Perhaps I've misunderstood your previous posts.

You come across as though Snowden and Greenwald are the bad guys in this little morality play.

Did I misunderstand? Could you straighten me out if I have?
 
Perhaps I've misunderstood your previous posts.

You come across as though Snowden and Greenwald are the bad guys in this little morality play.

Did I misunderstand? Could you straighten me out if I have?
They are. Snowden ahould be shot, ges a ****ing traitor. Do I oppose the programs he... they exposed. Yep. 100%. However, the way this went down, was not heroic, it was maximum damage to the country. The way you do so n ething is as important as the methods and motivations.
 
They are. Snowden ahould be shot, ges a ****ing traitor. Do I oppose the programs he... they exposed. Yep. 100%. However, the way this went down, was not heroic, it was maximum damage to the country. The way you do so n ething is as important as the methods and motivations.

Good--I did not misread your earlier posts. :mrgreen:

You don't know, it seems, the difference between a country and its government. They are 2 different things.

What Snowden, Manning and Ellsberg and Drake and others revealed did not hurt this country, it strengthened it.

What they revealed certainly DID harm the government's credibility, no doubt.

Someone that conflates government and country is not well informed. :peace
 
They are. Snowden ahould be shot, ges a ****ing traitor. Do I oppose the programs he... they exposed. Yep. 100%. However, the way this went down, was not heroic, it was maximum damage to the country. The way you do so n ething is as important as the methods and motivations.

Yes, indeed, in a nation almost constantly at war defending "liberties" let us assassinate him.

No trial is necessary. Just. Shoot. Him.


Obviously, in America 'liberties" and "rights" like the right to a trial by jury of your peers, only exists for people you agree with.

The great tragedy in all of this is Canada's fawning, lick spittle Prime Minister Harper who did not have the balls to grant Snowden amnesty like we have the escaped slaves of the middle 1800's through the underground railroad, and the draft dodgers of the 1960's and 70's.

But, shoot him and show the rest of the world just what those words about liberty and justice rally mean...
 
Yes, indeed, in a nation almost constantly at war defending "liberties" let us assassinate him.

No trial is necessary. Just. Shoot. Him.


Obviously, in America 'liberties" and "rights" like the right to a trial by jury of your peers, only exists for people you agree with.

The great tragedy in all of this is Canada's fawning, lick spittle Prime Minister Harper who did not have the balls to grant Snowden amnesty like we have the escaped slaves of the middle 1800's through the underground railroad, and the draft dodgers of the 1960's and 70's.

But, shoot him and show the rest of the world just what those words about liberty and justice rally mean...

If we truely believed in liberty we would have abolished the NSA long ago.
 
They are. Snowden ahould be shot, ges a ****ing traitor. Do I oppose the programs he... they exposed. Yep. 100%. However, the way this went down, was not heroic, it was maximum damage to the country. The way you do so n ething is as important as the methods and motivations.

Yeah, because we all know that if Snowden had followed the "appropriate & legal channels" we would still know all about the depths of spying our government does on us. :roll:
 
Yeah, because we all know that if Snowden had followed the "appropriate & legal channels" we would still know all about the depths of spying our government does on us. :roll:

There are better ways then releasing such and running off to enemy countries
 
Yeah, because we all know that if Snowden had followed the "appropriate & legal channels" we would still know all about the depths of spying our government does on us. :roll:

Thomas Drake, the woman Roark, and several other career NSA types on that PBS program called The United States Of Secrets, ALL tried to remain within the chain of command, tried to work within the system to report the criminal activity they were witness to. They all failed because the system crushed them, prosecuted them and imprisoned a few.

Snowden, Manning and Ellsberg all did the right thing--turn on the light in the dark room of government secrets.
 
Good--I did not misread your earlier posts. :mrgreen:

You don't know, it seems, the difference between a country and its government. They are 2 different things.

What Snowden, Manning and Ellsberg and Drake and others revealed did not hurt this country, it strengthened it.

What they revealed certainly DID harm the government's credibility, no doubt.

Someone that conflates government and country is not well informed. :peace
You and I will agree to disagree then.
 
Thomas Drake, the woman Roark, and several other career NSA types on that PBS program called The United States Of Secrets, ALL tried to remain within the chain of command, tried to work within the system to report the criminal activity they were witness to. They all failed because the system crushed them, prosecuted them and imprisoned a few.

Snowden, Manning and Ellsberg all did the right thing--turn on the light in the dark room of government secrets.

But is there some things that need to be kept secret?
 
There are better ways then releasing such and running off to enemy countries

Like what? Releasing exclusively to our so-called free press, watching them cater to government wishes & going to prison for exposing gross Constitutional violations?

Yeah, some plan there.

Honestly, going to China & Russia was a great insurance policy for Snowden: they're 2 countries we wouldn't dare try to rendition him out of.
 
Like what? Releasing exclusively to our so-called free press, watching them cater to government wishes & going to prison for exposing gross Constitutional violations?

Yeah, some plan there.

Honestly, going to China & Russia was a great insurance policy for Snowden: they're 2 countries we wouldn't dare try to rendition him out of.
You seem like the kinda guy that would defend the rosenburgs.
 
But is there some things that need to be kept secret?

Troop movements, schematics on our weapons & vital systems, generally sources & methods, battle plans & who we've got one for, etc things like that.

But our government doing generalized spying on us needs to be exposed to sunlight each & every time it occurs.
 
Back
Top Bottom