• 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!

Crazy idea. Do you agree with it?

Yes or No

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 50.0%

  • No

    Votes: 13 50.0%
  • Total voters
    26
Henrin said:
Let's put this way, I'm more afraid of the government than of the terrorists. I utterly refuse to accept this exchange to fight terrorism.
Click to expand...

Government is only a skeleton institution. if you fear your government then you really fear the collective American people as the operation of government comes from the people. If people weren't so easily scared into the system they perpetuate we may have more ability to use the government as it truly is, a tool to develop and further our own potential and prosperity.
 
That would require recovering from our collective ennui.
 
To avoid complaints about the use of a foreign term:

en·nui
[ahn-wee, ahn-wee; French ahn-nwee] noun

A feeling of utter weariness and discontent resulting from satiety or lack of interest; boredom
 
cpwill said:
which does not mean that

A) he carries that information at his fingertips or that
B) he is free to divulge it in an unclassified format.
Click to expand...


All I can conclude is that your are a "blind patriot" and for that reason can not see the woods because the trees are blocking your vision. A Congressional Committee can go into closed session for classified info and if the leader of the NSA did not have the info, he would be inept, incompetent, unqualified, or possible comatose. PRISM is a NSA program and don't make excuses for a perjurer. You lower yourself to that level. You've got too much "yes sir, no sir" in your mentality. Step outside the box.
 
DaveFagan said:
All I can conclude is that your are a "blind patriot" and for that reason can not see the woods because the trees are blocking your vision
Click to expand...

No, I'm a rational human being with some experience in the IC. Which is why I know that you are talking out of your ass on this topic (like so many).
 
cpwill said:
No, I'm a rational human being with some experience in the IC. Which is why I know that you are talking out of your ass on this topic (like so many).
Click to expand...

Exactly correct, you are a RATIONAL (not logical) human being. You rationalize as opposed to using evidence and logic.
 
Henrin said:
Let's put this way, I'm more afraid of the government than of the terrorists. I utterly refuse to accept this exchange to fight terrorism.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should go live in the Middle East.
 
Carleen said:
Maybe you should go live in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should understand that no government is trustworthy. There is a reason to consider that my day to day activities are of their concern and no reason to trust them with any sort of private information.
 
For me, it's too early to tell what Snowden is. His motives may have been as simple as what he stated, but I'm not quite ready to buy the whole "fell on my sword in the name of freedom and for the good of the country" bit just yet.
 
I voted against your idea because if there were not rules and punishment for divulging certain secrets the government needs to keep, we'd put a lot of good men and women's lives in jeopardy. I think the threat of punishment is just right. If you are truly just in revealing a secret, punishment generally won't follow.
 
ksu_aviator said:
I voted against your idea because if there were not rules and punishment for divulging certain secrets the government needs to keep, we'd put a lot of good men and women's lives in jeopardy. I think the threat of punishment is just right. If you are truly just in revealing a secret, punishment generally won't follow.
Click to expand...

What specific secret has been revealed here? Just general capabilities.

What specifically is the harm in revealing that the NSA intercepts information indiscriminately? That conspirators might start being increasingly cautious about their communications? And then what would we have? A de facto restoration of the 4th Amendment? So what? What's so bad about still having a working 4th Amendment?

Who decides that it's "a secret the government needs to keep?" Let me guess: the government? That seems like the magic bullet excuse.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Here is another crazy idea: how about we actually expect people to obey the laws of the country they choose to live in.
Click to expand...

What... and give up the right to be an oppositional asshole who preaches one thing but lives quite another while enjoying the fruits of the benefits from the system they repeatedly criticize? :doh;):roll:
 
Neomalthusian said:
What specific secret has been revealed here? Just general capabilities.

What specifically is the harm in revealing that the NSA intercepts information indiscriminately? That conspirators might start being increasingly cautious about their communications? And then what would we have? A de facto restoration of the 4th Amendment? So what? What's so bad about still having a working 4th Amendment?

Who decides that it's "a secret the government needs to keep?" Let me guess: the government? That seems like the magic bullet excuse.
Click to expand...

That's my point. Because this is information about how people's rights are violated, it is a good leak. But can you imagine if there was no punishment for leaks? We'd have websites dedicated to every "covert" (hard to call it that when it's on the web for everyone to see) activity that the US is engaged in. There must be protections, and I don't think that what's in place is bad.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Thank you.

Now, what if obeying those laws poses a greater threat to the country than disobeying them?
Click to expand...

Careful now. You don't want to excite the people that cannot and/or refuse to think that way. Might give them a headache, or something. ;)
 
Redress said:
Not the case as there are mechanisms that legally allow people to report violations and provide protections to those people.
Click to expand...

Provide protections to whistleblowers you mean.

Not to be too rude, but what ****ing world do you live in? Headupyourassville?
 
Last edited:
I have to say, and this doesn't happen often, but I agree with Henrin here. If the gov. is wiretapping everyone here, to find a "terrorist", you're damn right I wanna know. I don't think the guy is a traitor, if anything he is a hero.
 
What this really boils down to is, is it illegal to spill the beans on a law that may or may not be lawful.

The Patriot Act allowing for the seizure of these records, but is that unlawful seizure?
 
MaggieD said:
If he's a hero, he won't go to jail. If it's legal? He should spend a good 20 years there.
Click to expand...

The problem is that laws are often wrong. The question is not whether what NSA is doing is illegal. It probably isn't. The question is whether it's wrong. Laws can be written with evil consequences intended, and loopholes in laws can be found by those who want to do evil. Consider: given the laws of Germany in the 1930's and 1940's, the holocaust was legal. Note: I do not mean to suggest that the two (i.e. NSA spying vs. murdering ~6 million people) are morally equivalent. Absolutely not. But the point remains--governments can perpetrate wrong by legislation.
 
MaggieD said:
If he's a hero, he won't go to jail. If it's legal? He should spend a good 20 years there. You rolls the dice, you takes your chances. We need more heros. But not at the expense of our security.
Click to expand...

And our security cannot come at the expense of our liberty. I wish we had more brave patriots willing to expose the depths of government aggression.
 
Surtr said:
That's nice, but he didn't complain when they put treason as a punishable offense in the Constitution. Because that's what this is. Treason.
Click to expand...

Treason is what the government has been doing to us. This was nothing more than exposing government's sins against the People. It is The People who are the true sovereigns in this Republic, not the government.
 
Ikari said:
And our security cannot come at the expense of our liberty. I wish we had more brave patriots willing to expose the depths of government aggression.
Click to expand...

Sometimes brave patriots die. Sometimes they go to jail. We can't have people who are pledged to secrecy revealing top secret information because they believe it's illegal without there being consequences for doing so.
 
Redress said:
Here is another crazy idea: how about we actually expect people to obey the laws of the country they choose to live in.
Click to expand...

If those laws are just and respect the rights and liberties of the individual, then the government can expect compliance.
 
MaggieD said:
Sometimes brave patriots die. Sometimes they go to jail. We can't have people who are pledged to secrecy revealing top secret information because they believe it's illegal without there being consequences for doing so.
Click to expand...

I would say that's entirely dependent upon the information given out. If it's actually illegal or is significant breach of government powers, then he has done service to the Republic and while maybe a "traitor" to the government, he'd be a hero to The People. And ultimately it is The People, not the government, the Republic is meant to serve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom