I think I have just read about the man for which I have waited.Earmarks of a real hero. guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun…
— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) June 9, 2013
I was just with Dan Ellsberg as he learned out about Edward Snowden. He called Snowden a hero, said he's been waiting for him for 40 years.
— Trevor Timm (@trevortimm) June 9, 2013
(Via the up-and-running Wikipedia page for Edward Snowden.)
AND: Sounds so millennialist: He is the one we've been waiting for. Just what was said about Barack Obama. There's quick turnover in messiahs these days.
Posts
273 comments:
1 – 200 of 273 Newer› Newest»We are the ones we've been waiting for.
Bah! Skipped the AND part before posting my comment.
What's fascinating about this whole "Surveillance State" uproar is how it cuts across our standard left/right political categories in very revealing ways.
Daniel Ellsberg wants us to sign petitions to free Bradley manning. People like Howard Zinn (and I'd imagine Billy Ayres) are found in the company of Danny Ellsberg.
Here we can read Daniel Ellsbergs moving memorium Of Howard Zinn.
THe guy is as lefty as they come, and as radical as Bill Ayres. For all of Becks talk about Obama's radicalism, he might want to check himself at the door at how much he might be in agreeement with said radicals.
I heard Snowden's been granted political refugee status by the ChiComs. Apparently he's someone they've been waiting for, as well.
And...the Chinese PM refused the luxury suite prepared for him because he knew it would be bugged.
Nice catch professor.
"Daniel Ellsberg and Glenn Beck are on the same page."
So are Obama and Nixon!
Actually if you promise not to reveal something as a condition of getting access to it, then you can't reveal it.
Maybe that doesn't matter to Beck.
From the Guardian article.....
Secondly, the election of Barack Obama in 2008 gave him hope that there would be real reforms, rendering disclosures unnecessary.
It was then, he said, that he "watched as Obama advanced the very policies that I thought would be reined in", and as a result, "I got hardened."
Hope and Change!!!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
If you'll read Snowden's interview again you'll see that he made a distinction between himself and Ellsberg/Bradley:
"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."
But he shows us who he really is by admiring them. Both are traitors but we don't know about Snowden yet.
If you'll read Snowden's interview again you'll see that he made a distinction between himself and Ellsberg/Bradley:
"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."
But he shows us who he really is by admiring them. Both are traitors but we don't know about Snowden yet.
Hardcore progressive Jewish leftists like Ellsberg are not stupid.
Liberals are.
Bradley Manning is a stupid little poof a mile in over his head.
Libertarians like Rand Paul and Glen Beck are stupider than liberals.
On another thread, JR565 said if he had to choose between Rand Paul and Obama, given Rand Pauls actics, he'd go with Obama.
But Beck is stupider than Obama. He is down there with Maxine Waters level stupid, Chris Matthews stupid, Sean Hannity stupid.
I think it's a jump to say they're on the same page.
About as big as the one Evel Knievel made over the Snake River.
Better to say they admire the same guy.
somefeller said...
We are the ones we've been waiting for.
No, you're not.
All hail Althouse, the cruelly neutral female messiah of the intertubes!
There always has been a quick turnover in messiahs.
Daniel Ellsberg
The Most Dangerous Man in America
Until now?
There's been a rush to beatification. His story sounds way too noble. When someone does something this extreme, there's usually a backstory....He had a recent onset of epilepsy. Perhaps the backstory is something as mundane as altered mental status....I admire whistleblowers who reveal a malfunctioning or corrupt government practice. But apparently this NSA program was doing what it was designed to do. Who gives him the right to rule on 4th amendment matters or how best to monitor terrorists?
1. British journalists are the ones we've been waiting for. American journalists can't seem to hack it.
2. This young man has the grandiosity part down quite nicely.
3. It's interesting and not very reassuring that he chose to flee to a territory of China based on its commitment to free speech. They will protect him for other reasons, I would suppose.
4. Just why did this unreliable young man have access to these "secrets" in the first place. Information placed in the hands of a junior employee of a government contractor is the most important thing going? To quote Lombardi, "doesn't anyone know how to play this game?"
I am in Paris. There is zero, zilch, nada, no interest in this story here.
I think this kid may be the biggest hero in generations. He knows his fate -- expects never to see home again. May he be proved wrong.
I will say this, Edward Snowden is a clear product of the ultimate "me" generation.
He said he didn't want to live in a world and country that did such and such.
But he never bothered to ask everyone else if they did.
One other point: when the government says, "We have this data but there are strict regulations that it can't be misused", I think we all agree that we can translate that into, "....it won't be abused until weasel politicians and the jackal enablers get a hold of it, then it will be exploited to win, win. win and to plunder, plunder, plunder."
Traitor. Coward. Runs off to China.
For every Edward Snowden that is willing to talk about the program under his rather self-righteous sense of right and wrong, there are probably 3 others on the inside who would give the collected data to anyone that paid them enough.
Meaning that any political party or community organizer with enough funding would have been able to get to the collected data also.
I have a feeling he may be a fag.
This is outrageous and there really is a lavendar mafia.
Manning, Greenwald, and now this queen.
Dear God.
It's Pride Month too.
I didn't go but for Boston's Pride they had the fag pro basketball player walking with his former "roommate" who happens to be a Kennedy.
tits and thanks.
Blogger Inga said...
Traitor. Coward. Runs off to China.
6/9/13, 6:28 PM
___________________________
We are one on this.
An advocate of government transparency with anxieties about personal privacy announces this in China?
No one else (Except David) sees this irony?
I think not.
No matter how this shakes out, I have a feeling it's not going to turn out well for Choom.
Or us
PS The She Devil of the SS doesn't like the idea the American people have been warned of how their freedoms have been violated?
How illiberal!
Blogger LarsPorsena said...
Odd how this broke just after BO admonished Jinping about cyber snooping. Now the 'hero' of our story is in China.
Coincidence?
6/9/13, 6:43 PM
".. the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."
"I think I have just read about the man for which I have waited.Earmarks of a real hero."
The man "for which" he's waited? Earmarks of a real hero?
Glenn Beck is a gibberish talker no matter how basic a level to which you'd like to break down his thoughts and language.
He's a complete nincompoop. How can anyone stand to be associated with him in any way, shape or form?
Ann, show some self-respect and just quote or link Snowden without any attached sidebar commentary by Beck. For the love of God. Keeping his tweet as a preface just besmirches any value to it all.
I think not.
I'm sure you don't.
Truer words have never been spoken. ;-)
Cedarfor wrote:
On another thread, JR565 said if he had to choose between Rand Paul and Obama, given Rand Pauls actics, he'd go with Obama.
Wellll...... That would depend on whether Rand Paul actually ended the program. If so, then absolutely. The guy would be a retard even stupider than his retarded dad. Lefties should not be in the White House ever. And Ron Paul is far more of a lefty than Obama has proven to be on foreign policy. Ron Paul is so lefty, he makes Code Pink look moderate.
Fuck Ron Paul.
My hope is that Rand Paul isn't in fact a retard.
I actually don't care much what his politics are or even the reasons he did it. I'm just glad this is all out there.
I understand and except that in order to have some security you have to be able to keep track of dangerous people. But what the NSA has done here is beyond the pale. This is the stuff of Orwell here. Ask yourself, if it was for all our own good, why was the existence of such a program as PRISM kept secret?
He complains about the US where they are supposedly violating out rights and then flees to China where they block fucking Google.
If you read his article he is textbook lefty. Hardcore lefty. He even has a partner, read GAY. (Why ae all the latest whistleblower s homosexuals). With a completely unrealistic view of the world. And I'm sure he'll find that open socie in China.RUBE.
The guy is no hero. He's an asshole.
Hardcore lefty. He even has a partner, read GAY.
LOL.
Translation: Self respecting gay right-wing whistleblowers have the decency to publicly hide or deny who they are.
Lol. Lol. Lol. Like Matt Drudge.
I love all this dissension this causes in the ranks. Should we bother to agree with a lefty when he's on board with something we say is important to us? Or is getting Obama the bigger agenda. Decisions, decisions. You guys plot out your moves with all the wisdom and maturity of The Little Rascals' He-Man Woman Haters Club.
I am not sure about that.
The bad guys surely has known about these systems for some time.
Now we also know and can be on the alert for abuses and raise a ruckus if there are any IRS or Rosen type affairs coming to light.
And we can insist on the laws being enforced - including against federal officers perjuring themselves.
Who hates Obama and liberalism the most? Raise your hands!!!
Nominations will only be allowed for one round. Quick! Put your hats in the ring!!!
We need Traitors To Understand What Our Government is Doing.
I Think It Really is Over.
I'm noticing some (visual) similarities between these two clips.
With all the collusion that is going on between Obama and Google and Facebook and all the lefty nerds, a wake up call like this is necessary. This guy is a hero. For me it is not about NSA but it is about all these other information companies and the feckless media that should be put on notice. These lefty nerdy kids and their companies are helping Obama and do you think they would help a Bush as eagerly? That is where my problem is.
Washington Post Robot says:
Once I Gave Up on The Idea of Truth the rest Fell into Place.
It could also be noted that he made no effort to out this program when it might have made a difference, that is, before the election. If he was really so distressed about his idol's feet of clay on this issue -- and remember, he'd been watching since September 11 the drips of information about how the administration left 22 or so of his former CIA fellows twisting in the wind in Benghazi, which might also have been a wake-up call about motives and good intentions, and so forth, Why let Obama get reelected without exposing what he was doing? It would have been obvious to him by then that the administration was NOT going to change its policies, why not start this little "sunshine" routine then, and let the electorate know what was REALLY being done to them?
Just asking, is all. Because I don't trust this guy's motives any farther than I could throw him.
There is a big difference between some like Ellsberg saying that about you, and you saying it about yourself.
"There always has been a quick turnover in messiahs."
Three days can be a long time in messianics.
Yes, Drudge is a fag but no fag would have him...except maybe morbidly obese Palladian.
So Drudge is gay but no "partner". Have you ever seen his face or bod?
Hello, not good in the gay world.
Yea, straight women would probably nipple on it but gays....definitely not.
I still smell a rat. Big Chinese rat.
He is a pissed off Obot...
But apparently this NSA program was doing what it was designed to do. Who gives him the right to rule on 4th amendment matters or how best to monitor terrorists?
The program may be doing what it was "designed to do" that doesn't mean that it is Constitutionally legal. Lot's of things are "working as intended" that are criminal or illegal.
WE, the people, have the right to rule on how best to monitor terrorists, especially when those methods are crushing our freedoms and rights.
Give a little here in the name of nebulous security....give a little freedom there when flying airplanes....give a little again because really YOU aren't saying or doing anything.....soon we have no freedoms at all.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
This guy had only worked at Booz Allen 3 months.
1. Why in the world did he have this kind of access?
2. Why isn't NSA monitoring what its contractors do with secret information?
3. Why are we so surprised it this?
If the goal is to identify persons who are maintaining contact with suspected terrorist groups, how do you identify their communications without examining all communications? Is the issue the existence of the database, or what they do with it?
I do not see how you can expect to find the calls and messages of terrorists without logging the origin and destination of all calls. It seems to me that the issue is what is done with the data, unless we want our communication system to not be monitored for calls by enemies.
Do you think the threat to privacy (and more) outweighs the loss of opportunity to find terrorist attackers in our midst.
I do not think the answer to that is easy. But we must not pretend that eliminating this monitoring would be without negative consequence to our security.
Titus, the news stories are saying the guy has a girlfriend. I know that's not conclusive, but . . .
I hope we can do better than Snowden and Obama. I'm not ready to call this guy a hero.
There's quick turnover in messiahs these days.
They should do a movie about that. Oh wait, they did!
Cedarford said...
"Hardcore progressive Jewish leftists like Ellsberg are not stupid. Liberals are.
Bradley Manning is a stupid little poof ...But Beck is stupider than Obama. He is down there with Maxine Waters level stupid, Chris Matthews stupid, Sean Hannity stupid.
LOL Can we just say that everyone except leftwing Jews are stupid and go home?
Seriously, until we know more, it is difficult to decide about this program. If this scandal works out like the others, the Obama administration initially lies so that things don't sound so bad, and then over time the truth gradually dribbles out. Hopefully this is not going to unfold according to that pattern.
I’m all in favor of going after and killing terrorists. But let’s be honest with ourselves. Terrorism is a vastly overrated threat and a very uncommon act. Using the excuse of fear to justify invading your phone, your computer and your emails is bullshit.
Why didn't this guy do this in early 2012? (as another blog noted) we could have had a lot more discussion on this and people could have voted on whether they want this kind of intrusion or not. Obama could have won or lost but people would have had a say.
In the old days I would have thought this guy was a punk and deserved to be caught and prosecuted.
After total betrayal by the governmental abuse of the IRS, you can forgive me if I don't give a crap about what secrets are leaked.
The government (i.e., the Obama administration) has shown they're the biggest bunch of liars and crooks in probably the history of our country which is saying something considering what FDR got away with not to mention JFK's ballot box stuffing in Chicago.
I have a feeling he may be a fag.
There are now 51 one ways to say good-bye.
I was in Hong Kong for two days, and was solicited several times.
Let's talk about Snowden, Beck, Ellsgerg instead of about the massive, monolithic, oppressive, unconstitutional infringement of our Constitutional rights.
Nice get, indeed.
Who gives a shit who he is or why he dunnit?
Our President and most of the government are gangsters, thugs, liars, spies, snoops, and thieves against US citizens who've done nothing wrong..
You'd think that would be the story: how we became a totalitarian state. I do not care even to read a single story about this man.
You know how to whistle, don't you _____? You just put your lips together and blow.
The technology is there and is not going to go away.
But we need to make it as clear as we can that if it is used for personal or partisan political purposes, those involved will pay a hefty price.
I'm with Inga in the sense that it makes me nervous that "heros" run to China.
So, I just finished watching the interview, Glenn Greenwald interview Snowden and the question, the fundamental journalism 101 question was not asked in the segment released.
The government says that we need the surveillance programs to prevent another 9/11 - what do you Hero Snowden say to that?
Nothing on that score...
The dammed thing was not borne spontaneously as if by immaculate conception.
And, oh, yeah, it is going to happen!
Hey Titus, Hussein checks to make sure his stocking seams are straight and his eyeliner is just so before he orders "FIRE DRONES!" Did you know that? Well, didya punk? You know I love you, I just can't resist a Clintism.
Hussein: Release the drones on all free born uppity Americans!
No surprise that Beck, the libertarian masquerading as a phony conservative, is on the same page as the whistleblower.
@ricpic: Titus is on to one thing important from his POV and that is that the next American folk hero on the right be gay. How else to reestablish the Establishment in their own image?
Mark O said...
"Let's talk about Snowden, Beck, Ellsgerg instead of about the massive, monolithic, oppressive, unconstitutional infringement of our Constitutional rights. "
Yes, let's, because the former exist and the latter do not. Get a grip.
I seem to remember that the much maligned Patriot Act had to be periodically reauthorized.
Are we saying, does anybody know, if this thing has similar protocols? I don't know what to call it. Something in the authorization that is temporary.
The reason I'm asking rather than look for it myself is that I followed the Fiscal Cliff and the Dooms Day Budget Sequester and nothing happened. It seems like it was all just a lot of noise and hot air...
Do I really need to get worked up about this? or can I just wing it?
"But we must not pretend that eliminating this monitoring would be without negative consequence to our security."
And we must not pretend that terrorism is the only threat to our security. I judge our government to be by far the biggest potential threat. They have levers of power and an inside track on the system and the potential for abuse and oppression that will never be available to al Qaeda. (See the IRS scandal, for example. Or the internment of citizens of Japanese descent in World War II.) That's wise to keep in mind. It's obvious, however, that al Qaeda is a more immediate threat and a balance needs to be struck. But the other is not one that should be ignored and it should be part of the discussion in determining where the balance lies. And the discussion should be public because we're all citizens and it's all of our business. It's not something for our "betters" to decide in private.
With all the other scandals going on at the same time, I feel like Prince Humperdink of the Princess Bride, when he was asked by his main goon to come down to his dungeon to watch him work Westley over.
Tyrone, you know how much I love watching you work, but I've got my country's 500th anniversary to plan, my wedding to arrange, my wife to murder and Guilder to frame for it; I'm swamped.
Looking at this guy, the credibility of the whole story has dropped immensely.
The tone of his self presentation has convinced me that The Guardian is being had. The briefing looks like something he either made up or reproduced from memory. Because:
1) The general clumsiness of the presentation. This has been noted by others but there are all kinds of weird arrangements: all the company logos in slide title area, the general amateurishness of the presentation (e.g., in one roadmap bubble the slide designer couldn't be bother to make "Facebook" fit so it wraps Facebo-ok).
2) If this is a BAH briefing where is the BAH logo? If this is a government briefing, why is the government briefing progress to BAH? What's with all the incoherent logos? Why YouTube, Gmail and Google are all the same company. Why a logo for each?
3) The little classification sticker on the title page has the document classified in 2007 but the date of the document is 4/2013. Why the discrepancy?
4) This document is "derived from" 1-52. That seems like a woefully inadequate document specifier.
5) Usually those stickers include a "Classified by:" line. Where is it?
6) The briefing in general is childish. A discussion how traffic goes through the US. A block that shows companies sending data to various modes. This is a progress report for a program going on since 2007?
7) The 20 million a year on the slide with the roadmap. It almost like someone wanted the contract value known on a slide that had nothing to do with contract financials.
8) No indicators at all that would normally appear on a set of charts that was showing progress. A superficial summary and a slide with the kind of high points that would be exciting to a journalist.
9) A high school dropout who was challenged by completing community college computer courses with 200K/year job in IT at 29? I don't believe it. IT professionals are all over the place. Professionals with clearances are not that hard to find. Where's the special skill set?
There's probably lots of explanations for the above but I think the simplest explanation is that this guy is fooling The Guardian.
I was taken and outraged by this. I did believe this was happening but looking at this source and comparing with the clumsiness of the briefing, I am thinking the story here is the guy doesn't see things going well from him at BAH. He wanted to go out with a bang. He put the presentation together from memory.
There is probably some cooperation between NSA and these companies. There is probably a 20 million contract at BAH to maintain servers. This guy was probably hired as part of a team to maintain them. The rest of the story may be a hazy mixture of grievance and imperfect memory.
I definitely want this investigated thoroughly however I think this is a distraction.
I don't intend to forget the IRS.
Maybe we should go about this in a scientific way.
Somebody, or maybe we can decide all together, like this last commenter just indirectly suggested, to prioritize the scandals by orders of how much damage do each cause our freedoms... make a list.
That should help me, not only to get my head around them but to keep me from overloading... shorting out... I'm not as smart as the rest of you guys...
Oh... that's it... this is a Scandals For Dummies pitch.
I don't intend to forget the IRS.
Could you imagine the IRS and the NSA ever having more than just coffee together?
Difficult to pick a side in this one, but with a morally deficient and inattentive man in the White House, a dishonest, self-serving Senate leader, and potentially a party hack in the Speaker's office supported by a press which has abandoned its traditional adversarial role and a financial community blinded by greed, I think I'll just stick with the fourth amendment.
Chick you have no idea what my POV is.
Now quick, go cut and paste this to another blog and hope for some reaction. Email the blog too.
Good Boy, chicklit, good boy.
Chick is a straight fag. A passive aggressive straight fag.
When one calls another man a "hero", he tends to out himself as a "coward".
pm317 said..."Why didn't this guy do this in early 2012? (as another blog noted) we could have had a lot more discussion on this and people could have voted on whether they want this kind of intrusion or not. Obama could have won or lost but people would have had a say."
Exactly. In the Guardian q&a he says he knew this all before the 2008 election! All he did then was vote for a third party.
And he reveals all NOW, safely AFTER Obama's re-elected and has greater "flexibility".
He failed to prevent ANOTHER FOUR YEARS of abuse by Obama. So Snowden is no hero. He'll get no thanks from me.
Principals over personalities.
I second that.
I'm with Inga in the sense that it makes me nervous that "heros" run to China.
Finding yourself on Inga's side ought to be sufficient cause to think again, and look into the differences b/w Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland in terms of political rights.
I'm not saying that the mainland gov won't have the final say in what happens to Snowden--he's def taking a calculated risk--but he has not simply "run to China."
I must say that I'm astonished at how many people in this thread insist that revelations about shadowy gov activity must only come from the purest sources. It's not as if any of the revelations have been disputed--just whitewashed.
I don't think Whitaker Chambers would've passed muster with many of you, being an ex-commie who dealt in stolen gov docs.
An ex-commie fag, I should've said.
Joe Triscari said...
Looking at this guy, the credibility of the whole story has dropped immensely-
Tell that to the U.S. Government.
They've denied none of it....
Even when they could...
not knowing "who" the leak was. Now that we know, he's Paula Jones--some psycho bitch liar.
So, we discovered that the IRS abuses sought to help Obama win re-election.
Is it in the realm of lunacy to ask if the NSA scooped up information to help Obama win re-election?
Or did Obama say... 'You know, to use the NSA assets is overkill... we don't need it... we got what we need with the IRS... its in the bag... tell Putin I'll have more flexibility after the election.'
Is the issue the monitoring or is the issue the monitoring is secret with now due process or opportunity for appeal. I assume that when I do business with Facebook, some of my data is being sold - in fact, we the Facebook users are the product of Facebook. But I have not assumed that my phone records were actually property of the US Government. I didn't know I was passing through a TSA checkpoint every time I used my cell phone or did a good search. And I certainly didn't assume that I was putting my financial future at risk by donating to liberty-minded organizations. Now that I know these things, how do I make them to stop besides withdrawal from society? We now have the Appearance of Liberty.
Libertarians need to grip a grip, they are going off the deep end and agreeing with Bernie Sanders on this. If this guy wouldn't be a traitor it would be amusing to see these odd bedfellows agree.
Tom, I think that part of the problem is that a lot of folks have an unrealistic expectation of privacy in what they do online. Actually, if not confined by the need to use particular words to invoke the Katz test, I would say that part of the problem is that a lot of folks are as dumb as a box of rocks and seriously believed that what they did online was secret and private. I've got news for you, men: You have no privacy online. Your ISP knows your sexual proclivities better than your wife.
Inga, we already know that the 1st and 2nd amendments mean nothing to you, so it's no surprise that you don't give a shit about the 4th either.
Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders.
My dear Chip, I do believe there are numerous conservatives here who do agree with me on this matter.Haven't you read this entire thread?
Inga said...
"Libertarians need to grip a grip, they are going off the deep end and agreeing with Bernie Sanders on this. If this guy wouldn't be a traitor it would be amusing to see these odd bedfellows agree."
It's a time for unusual bedfellows. One would not usually expect to find a died-in-the-wool conservative like me defending President Obama, a man that I neither like nor trust. But the fact is that he is absolutely in the right on this, to my surprise. When Obama does the right thing, we should man up and support him rather than make a knee-jerk partisan response that aligns with the GOP's partisan incentives or the libertarian's utter terror of government.
Is that supposed to be a coherent argument?
Your ISP knows your sexual proclivities better than your wife.
Is this a new scandal I don't know about ;)
I take it Chip S is talking to Inga.
But the fact is that he is absolutely in the right on this, to my surprise.
No. The fact is that you agree w/ him.
And my opinion is that you're both wrong.
There. Now that I've shown you how to separate fact from opinion, please try it yourself.
Chip, libertarians have jumped the shark on this one.
Correct, Lem.
Inga keeps rolling out the soundly reasoned arguments.
Oh wait, I meant the cliche-ridden empty blather.
Inga said...
"Libertarians need to grip a grip, they are going off the deep end and agreeing with Bernie Sanders on this. If this guy wouldn't be a traitor it would be amusing to see these odd bedfellows agree."
It's a time for unusual bedfellows. One would not usually expect to find a died-in-the-wool conservative like me defending President Obama, a man that I neither like nor trust. But the fact is that he is absolutely in the right on this, to my surprise. When Obama does the right thing, we should man up and support him rather than make a knee-jerk partisan response that aligns with the GOP's partisan incentives or the libertarian's utter terror of government.
Chip, why don't you argue your case instead of insulting me, how are Simon and I wrong?
@Simon, I think there is an expectation that we give up privacy to the business. But isn't it chilling to speech when every search, phone call, or email owned by the government? Consider for a moment, we don't look at what books someone checks out at the library because of respect for the 1st amendment. Why is this not the same? I get that being a suspect in a crime with due process (judges, warrants, etc) mean that records are accessible to the government. But pre-crime? That's a bit more disturbing.
And maybe in isolation, this issue is less disturbing. But now combine it with the record searches on the press and consider the actions of the IRS. At what point is dissent the crime? Where does it end when we don't even know it started?
You mean Inga has already picked a side?
@Lem So, we discovered that the IRS abuses sought to help Obama win re-election.
Is it in the realm of lunacy to ask if the NSA scooped up information to help Obama win re-election?
I am beginning to think that is not all that far-fetched. Also think all these men behaving surprisingly as if they were er.. blackmailed.. Judge Roberts comes to mind..Women, hmmm, just needed their ladyparts politics.
Sock Puppets anyone?! I thought we called them Obots.
Judge Roberts comes to mind...
It was very surprising how Roberts turned around on Obamas signature piece of legislation.
Nice dot connection.
Browndog: Most of my points are directed at the briefing itself. The fact that it came from someone who spent 3 months struggling with his conscience after being exposed to it is not adding credibility to the weak support offered by the briefing itself.
However, listening to this guy's spiritual journey, he sounds like a stereotype from a Sean Penn movie. He attempted to join Special Forces but was disillusioned by the fact that, woe of woes, his fellow soldiers were there to fight. Who takes someone like that seriously? The Guardian.
I'm not insulting you, Inga. I'm accurately describing your arguments.
I've already stated "my case" against the notion that the real or perceived shortcomings of Snowden have any real relevance to the question of whether PRISM is constitutional--or advisable.
I've stated my position on PRISM is several other threads. Not extensively, b/c other commenters have made the key points well. But I will repeat here, for you, the last comment I made on the general point about the "usefulness" of PRISM as an anti-terror tool:
The burden of proof is not on US citizens to explain why they shouldn't be spied on by their own government.
The burden of proof is on Hayden to demonstrate that the only way to keep some dude in Badguyistan from getting a bomb into the NY subway system is to download every bit of info about every single American.
That case isn't even remotely close to being made.
Hilarious, Obama the snoop dog" He has something on every congress critter.
As a famous President once said this about Communism: it assumes men cannot govern themselves and need a tyrant to do that job. But Democracy believes moral men can govern themselves.
Obama is a Communist first last and always. Ergo: he is at war with the USA.
Actually Obama might enjoy all this leaking after all. He will relish the fact that now everybody who thinks they are important thinks he has something on them, whether he truly does or not. This is turning into some really Hollywood type BS.
Chip S. said...
"The burden of proof is not on US citizens to explain why they shouldn't be spied on by their own government. The burden of proof is on Hayden to demonstrate that the only way to keep some dude in Badguyistan from getting a bomb into the NY subway system is to download every bit of info about every single American."
I agree with every word of that. Where I disagree is your unspoken assumption on the antecedent question: Who is the judge of that case? To whom must the case be made? As I explained the other day, this is not a debate that can be had in the normal political process. This is a debate of which the President is necessarily the judge and which must be held in secret. And the extraordinary reality thus implied should induce us to be exceedingly careful of whom we elect to the Presidency. Last year, despite my pleadings, we bungled it. America elected the wrong guy. Too late for buyers' remorse.
Ok Chip, perhaps there should be more evidence of how Prism has foled terrorist plots. If it can be done without revealing too much sensitive info, perhaps it would make the case for the intrusive nature of Prism. I wonder what would be said if there were to have been a major terrorist attack without Prism. I can only imagine the outcry and recriminations.
*Foiled*
pm317 said...
"I am beginning to think that is not all that far-fetched. Also think all these men behaving surprisingly as if they were er.. blackmailed.. Judge Roberts comes to mind..Women, hmmm, just needed their ladyparts politics."
Bullshit. As I argued at the time, the Chief's opinion in the Obamacare case was entirely consistent with his judicial philosophy. And if Obama was going to blackmail the chief, why not blackmail Justice Scalia? You may not remember, but in the runup to the case, Scalia's vote was considered winnable based on his opinion in Raich. At the time, several people, me included, argued that that was bullshit, and that Scalia's Raich opinion was wildly misunderstood, but it would not have been a bolt from the blue for him to vote that way under duress.
Black helicopter fantasy land, it's beginning to get rediculous. Blackmail a Supreme Court Justice?
Simon said...
-----------
You must be one of those sock puppets.
The judiciary, two Presidents, members of Congress of all parties have agreed that this program serves a useful function. Isn't it possible that they're right. The IRS was an abuse of power. To date this looks like a use of power.....John Wilkes Booth had considerable courage and daring. I don't think that it's the judgment of history that he's a hero......Remember all the malarkey that was written about Deep Throat. Turns out he was just angry about a missed promotion. I'm taking this guy's altruism with a grain of salt--absent the John Wilkes Booth scenario.
@Lem.. add Patraeus to the dots..You know how Obama won his elections in Chicago, don't you?
In other words, you approve of the NSA spying and disapprove of leakers who disclose US gov't secrets?
This isn't about Ellsberg or Beck. So putting then in the same boat is actually rather insignificant because it doesn't mean anything. Plenty of people on the left and right have common agreement about many things.
pm317 said...
"[Simon] must be one of those sock puppets."
Good luck convincing anyone of that. A brief hiatus aside, I've been commenting here regularly since 2006.
this is not a debate that can be had in the normal political process.
I do disagree w/ this.
I disagree that a public determination of the legality and the advisability of massive data mining violates national security.
I disagree that a public debate over the relative merits of data mining vs. "probable cause" searches would weaken national security.
Major Hasan's attack wasn't a failure of intelligence. The Tsarnaev brothers weren't missed--we were warned explicitly about them.
Let's face up to the reasons for those failures and correct them before we believe the gov's claims that it simply must spy on us to keep us safe.
Pm 317, a female Edutcher.
"Too late for buyers' remorse."
It's never too late to learn a lesson, and rarely too late mitigate a bad policy. Both are what I'm hoping for from all this exposure and bitching. It's quite possible to make adjustments that could preserve most of the benefit while eliminating much of the risk of abuse. As to the American public learning a lesson about being suckered? Well, that's a little longer odds, but still possible.
This is a story from the eighties. There was a pay phone outside a Mafia social club. The members were told not to use it as it was probably bugged. The members were lazy and used it anyway. It was a valuable source of intel.....The argument against this program seems to be that Al Qaeda members are savvy about electronic surveillance and that this program only serves to monitor Americans. Well, if AQ weren't savvy before they are now. Nonetheless, I'm convinced that laziness and stupidity are important factors in human behavior and thar this program will continue to serve a useful function.
This is when Dylan Ballad of the Thin Man is supposed to come on to calm and soothe my soul.
This is for Inga. This is why the libertarians are right and you fascists are wrong. How many scandals have Obama administration officials taken the 5th and/or claimed executive privilege?
1. Obama has used he IRS to repress political enemies.
2. Obama has had weapons sold to Mexican cartels through known straw purchasers and stopped tracking them to buttress his claims about US guns in Mexico killing people.
3. Obama lied about what happened in Benghazi because he and Hilary sold weapons to al Quaeda and covered it up. They made up a story and threw an American citizen in jail to support it.
4. The percentage of DOE green energy loans that are also Obama donors is around 70% and the failure rate is running over 50%.
Should we trust someone like this with a program like prism? No.
But I know that you are too involved with Obama and his vote buying schemes. Other people's money can change weak minds.
The burden of proof is not on US citizens to explain why they shouldn't be spied on by their own government.
The burden of proof is on Hayden to demonstrate that the only way to keep some dude in Badguyistan from getting a bomb into the NY subway system is to download every bit of info about every single American.
That case isn't even remotely close to being made.
=============
Best way to demonstrate the case that is to let the Islamoid bombings happen agian...then trot out the Victim Families With Total Moral Authority a la 9/11 or Newtown or Katrina. To target politicans in the opposition and slather on the Emotional Backmail. And add in all the misses, the stovepiping the liberals and libertarians brought back, their resurrecting the Jamie Gorelick Wall. And demonstrating that we have once again gone back to the ruinous law enforcement mentality that we cannot stop terrorism or espionage until some lawyer dressed in robes issues warrants based on dead Americans or "proof" of a conspiracy that we will return to only having human informants to appraise us of such a conspiracy.
Wouldn't want to be an enemy rights lover when that happens, or an insipid "slippery slope sophist".
Achilles, why not address Simon too? Or the others here that have stated essentially what I have? Why hone in on me, afraid to antagonize a fellow conservative?
I just wish that if the administration decided it was willing to violate some peoples' rights in order to fight terrorism, that it started with people calling for, supporting, and actually doing the terrorism first, and saved me and my elderly Mom until the first was at least attempted.
Before you start collecting everyones' communications, try waterboarding a few murderers and call a few Islamist terrorists "Islamist terrorists, and treat them accordingly.
Chip S wrote:
Major Hasan's attack wasn't a failure of intelligence. The Tsarnaev brothers weren't missed--we were warned explicitly about them.
And if we were warned about them, wouldn't that be the time we should have started with the following of their phones? (one of whom was an American citizen)>
Since that would be the time you would say that the govt was abusing its authority and spying on citizens I call bullshit on your charge that govt should have done something.
And if we were warned about them, wouldn't that be the time we should have started with the following of their phones?
I believe the term "probable cause" is relevant here.
bagoh20 wrote;
I just wish that if the administration decided it was willing to violate some peoples' rights in order to fight terrorism, that it started with people calling for, supporting, and actually doing the terrorism first, and saved me and my elderly Mom until the first was at least attempted.
Before you start collecting everyones' communications, try waterboarding a few murderers and call a few Islamist terrorists "Islamist terrorists, and treat them accordingly.
Hey, I'm all for that, but why not use the NSA program to find out who is involved as well?
Since that would be the time you would say that the govt was abusing its authority and spying on citizens
I'm not really interested in having a discussion w/ someone who just makes shit up.
Chip S. wrote:
I believe the term "probable cause" is relevant here.
FISA warrant.
ChipS wrote:
'm not really interested in having a discussion w/ someone who just makes shit up.
And I'm not interested in people who demand govt results but then refuse to acknowledge the means to get those results done.
Um, jr, the gov had the surveillance power you so gratefully accept to protect you from the Tsarnaevs.
Except that it didn't.
traditionalguy wrote:
As a famous President once said this about Communism: it assumes men cannot govern themselves and need a tyrant to do that job. But Democracy believes moral men can govern themselves.
And that famous president was a president, and the people were not governing themselves. So if that's so doesn't it mean our democracy or republic is as bad as communism if taken as an absolute?
Clearly, he wasn't arguing that we should have NO govt.
This comes on the tail of the unacceptable invasions into phone records of all Americans. Not merely the international ones bush was after, that he could have, at greater expense, have obtained legally by simply doing the same thing overseas.
I'll reiterate my view. There is simply no way all internet communications are being monitored at this time by the NSA. The volume of traffic is simply too much, and it would be like putting all the manufacturing of Ford in one place, and pretending nothing was going in. Simply not possible.
Whether or not there is a program to try to eavesdrop on everything is another thing. You could not conceal it, however. It's Facebook's worst nightmare to say "Someone is looking over your every thought." It would destroy Facebook. Google, already under fire for privacy issues, would have a massive, prolonged war to say "They are the good guys."
However, the essential problem here is that people have a hard time trusting their government right now. It's not as if the government is attacking powerful political enemies, it's attacking your father and mother, and thank you Ann for posting that poignant statement from the Tea Party Mother/Wife/Citizen the other day.
The data mining is going to end up being an over-reach. Keep the focus. Yes, it could happen, but it wouldn't for many, many years, if ever.
Chip S wrote:Um, jr, the gov had the surveillance power you so gratefully accept to protect you from the Tsarnaevs.
Except that it didn't.
Thats a stupid argument. You might have a gun to protect you and your family. Except, you might still be robbed. what then, throw out the idea that you should have the right to defend yourself?
Chip S wrote:Um, jr, the gov had the surveillance power you so gratefully accept to protect you from the Tsarnaevs.
Except that it didn't.
Thats a stupid argument. You might have a gun to protect you and your family. Except, you might still be robbed. what then, throw out the idea that you should have the right to defend yourself?
It seems to me that the very need for such spying in it's self, demonstrates a far greater failure of the federal government.
And that is the failure to secure our borders. Our borders are so porous that we've long since given up any hope of restricting access to those from countries where the people are likely to hate us (rightly or wrongly).
Since keeping likely offenders out would constitute profiling, and we're not likely to do that for fear we might offend the innocent in some foreign land, We have chosen to offend our own citizens by forcing them to wear what I will define as "electronic data ankle bracelets"
I'm not ok with that. If you are then I guess that's your business, Please don't allow yourself to think that your increased safety does not come at a price.
Chip S wrote:
Chip S wrote:Um, jr, the gov had the surveillance power you so gratefully accept to protect you from the Tsarnaevs.
YOu seem to think that any NSA snooping is tantamount to spying on all americans. So, lets say we had no surveillance. How are you proposing we should have protected ourselves from the Tsarnaevs?
Your say surveillaince didn't protect us. Would lack of surveillance have protected us?
"Hey, I'm all for that, but why not use the NSA program to find out who is involved as well?"
Because, when we have bad guys in our sights, we don't do what's needed to stop them out of respect for THEIR rights. That's a big part of what happened with a number of attacks already, like Fort Hood and Boston.
Seems to me we don't need more info; we need more action. In fact the amount and non-specific nature of all the info being collected may be even preventing us from focussing better.
Of course the other reason why we shouldn't is because we have our rights to balance, and they seem pretty unbalanced at the moment.
Just because we have surveillance power in no way means we will stop all attacks. Who would argue that?
I would argue though that having surveillance power gives us a better chance at determining and therefore stopping attacks the same way a gun will not guarantee your safety but having one is a lot better than not having one (in general) if your house is going to be robbed.
This guy is a spy.
bagho20 wrote:
xBecause, when we have bad guys in our sights, we don't do what's needed to stop them out of respect for THEIR rights. That's a big part of what happened with a number of attacks already, like Fort Hood and Boston.
And your'e right. Obama dropped the ball here. But lets not cut off our nose to spite our faces. There is plenty enough for conservatives to find fault with than to have us turn into left wing reactionary dicks.
(note how I said left wing).
Thats a stupid argument. You might have a gun to protect you and your family. Except, you might still be robbed. what then, throw out the idea that you should have the right to defend yourself?
A more correct analogy would be this: You've got a gun to protect against home invasion. Some security firm says, "Tell you what. If you let our agents move in w/ you, you'll be even safer than before." Then you get robbed, and instead of thinking you got bamboozled you say, "Thank God I had that extra security, or else my house would've burned down."
I would argue though that having surveillance power
You seem to have a limitless supply of straw men.
The issue isn't "some" vs. "no" surveillance. The issue is "how much, what data is collected, how is it stored, and what circumstances trigger it?
The government, as shown with the IRS, is clearly capable of abusing its power. Should we close down the US Postal Service? How do we know they're not reading our mail? Maybe they're withholding key documents from Tea Party members....It seems to me that just as a matter of necessity you need to trust the government some of the time. I would object to this program if there were some kind of evidence, as there is with the IRS, that it is being used for some kind of nefarious purpose.
THERE'S A SIMPLE REASON WHY THE GOVERNMENT COLLECTS DATA ON EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN:
AMERICA IS CURRENTLY TOO DANG POLITICALLY CORRECT TO PROFILE AND TARGET THE REAL ENEMY, THE ISLAMISTS.
WE'D HAVE A LOT MORE FOCUSED AND EFFECTIVE COUNTER-ATTACK ON THE ENEMY IF INSTEAD OF HAVING THE NSA LISTEN TO EVERY DANG PHONE CALL AND READ EVERY DANG EMAIL AND ANALYZE EVERY DANG GOOGLE WORD-SEARCH, THEY WENT AFTER ISLAMISTS.
DATA-MINING ALL THE CRAP THEIR DATA-MINING IS LIKE FEELING-UP AND PATTING DOWN EVERY DANG PERSON WHO BOARDS A PLANE.
Data-mining everything from everyone wastes resources and time.
AND ANOTHER THING:
nobody who loves transparency and liberty moves to china. snowden is a fraud. probably in it for the money.
bagoh20 wrote:
"I just wish that if the administration decided it was willing to violate some peoples' rights in order to fight terrorism, that it started with people calling for, supporting, and actually doing the terrorism first, and saved me and my elderly Mom until the first was at least attempted.
Before you start collecting everyones' communications, try waterboarding a few murderers and call a few Islamist terrorists "Islamist terrorists, and treat them accordingly."
Would you be willing to violate a terrorists rights to protect yourself and your mom? What if that terrorists was an American? What if you weren't 100% sure they were a terrorist. How would you find out, without doing things that, I don't know, might involve tracking him.
The Tsarnaevs may have been up to no good, but they didn't actually commit a terrorist act until they did. What about the day before though? Would it be ok for the NSA to being tracking their phone calls (supposing it got a warrant)?
Why? They hadn't actually done anything yet. And one was an American. All the Rand Paulians would have their panties in a bunch if we were targeting them on the premise that they were terrorists.
WE'D HAVE A LOT MORE FOCUSED AND EFFECTIVE COUNTER-ATTACK ON THE ENEMY IF INSTEAD OF HAVING THE NSA LISTEN TO EVERY DANG PHONE CALL AND READ EVERY DANG EMAIL AND ANALYZE EVERY DANG GOOGLE WORD-SEARCH, THEY WENT AFTER ISLAMISTS.
They're not listenign to phone calls. they are collecting metadata on phone calls. There's a difference.
Chip S - "Major Hasan's attack wasn't a failure of intelligence. The Tsarnaev brothers weren't missed--we were warned explicitly about them.
Let's face up to the reasons for those failures and correct them before we believe the gov's claims that it simply must spy on us to keep us safe."
==================
We tried, and the lawyers dressed in robes and liberals said we must be PC and never profile Muslims.
So that approach failed. And libertarians hated the idea of profiling Muslim Freedom Lovers or rolling up the Open Borders welcome mat libertarians believe in.
So yes Chip, we can pull the security systems that target all, and leave nothing in their place
then after enough dead bodies by Islamoids...we ask the libertarian morons, the Black Caucus morons, and liberals to revisit closed borders, no more Muslims of any color immigrating, and profiling the ones here...and if they agree, which they won't most likely if they are still in power or are in Congress for life from an all-black District, fine.
Then we have to deal with the lawyers and lawsuits on Equal Protection.
But I doubt they will agree even with huge piles of dead Americans like at or above a 9/11 scale..
So then we ask about the renstitution of all the security systems they destroyed legally or through exposure of how they work to our enemies.
Or
Chip S wrote;
A more correct analogy would be this: You've got a gun to protect against home invasion. Some security firm says, "Tell you what. If you let our agents move in w/ you, you'll be even safer than before." Then you get robbed, and instead of thinking you got bamboozled you say, "Thank God I had that extra security, or else my house would've burned down."
No, the gun analogy was just as correct. But if you want to make the argument that a security company is sending people in to live with you, i would think in general that that would make your home more secure than if you were in your house alone. Lets assume they are all former special forces and no their shit. And they are guarding your house. I can't guarantee that your house wont get robbed, but it would probably be a lot harder to rob your house than if you were by yourself and didn't have a gun.
The fourth branch of government, the builtin lifetime bureaucracy that is a unionized group and that famously votes as if it were a block and contributes as if it were a single entity has proven repeatedly they cannot be trusted with information this vast and this intimate, and I don't care who that puts me in alignment with, and if you disagree with me, then you're a retard.
Snowden isn't a liberal as some have said. He voted for Ron Paul for President and involved in libertarian chat rooms, lots of new info coming out on this guy.
I'm willing to accept some risks, and even possible attacks succeeding once in a while if that's the cost of having private communications kept reasonably private for 99.9% of the country. If losing that for 99.9% is required to just prevent some of them, then I don't think it's worth it. We have smart well-paid people with nice pensions. Use your heads and come up with something better. Don't take the easy route of violating the whole damned country's rights first. Of course it will work to some degree, but so would something else. Profiling would work too, but that would be violating SOME peoples' rights. Apparently it's better to violate everyones - equality and all that.
It's Facebook's worst nightmare to say "Someone is looking over your every thought." It would destroy Facebook. Google, already under fire for privacy issues, would have a massive, prolonged war to say "They are the good guys."
Exactly.. can you imagine if Zuckerberg went around advertizing, I love Obama, I give him your data willingly. But that is what is happening with all the collusion between these guys and Obama. Same with Google's Schimdt. Why wouldn't people find that disturbing?
I love how the alternative to things like the NSA programs is profiling. If we Profiled people that is just as much a violation of peoples rights (and in fact far worse) than tracking their phone calls. And in fact, if you are profiling people, that involves things like tracking their phone calls.
That's usually just a buzz word a libertarian comes up with when they have no clue how to actually deal with terrorism but want to pretend like they actually have a solution.
There are a lot more non terrorist muslims who are citizens then who are terrorists. Can we profle them too? Then you dont really give a shit about peoples rights.
Inga wrote:
Snowden isn't a liberal as some have said. He voted for Ron Paul for President and involved in libertarian chat rooms, lots of new info coming out on this guy.
Ron Paul, when it comes to foreign policy matters is to the left of Code Pink. Give me a break.
"The Tsarnaevs may have been up to no good, but they didn't actually commit a terrorist act until they did. What about the day before though? Would it be ok for the NSA to being tracking their phone calls (supposing it got a warrant)?
Why? They hadn't actually done anything yet."
Of course they had. They had been doing all kinds of things that, while maybe not illegal, certainly put them above 99.9% of the public in needing attention. It clearly did not require nationwide data collecting to find them and watch them. But we did choose to do that instead of watching them. That's my point.
And they are guarding your house. I can't guarantee that your house wont get robbed, but it would probably be a lot harder to rob your house than if you were by yourself and didn't have a gun.
Everything you say could be true, and the price of the extra security wouldn't be worth the reduction in the probability of being robbed. That's why we don't have cops standing in front of everybody's house.
This is a question of tradeoffs--the very sort of question cons are usually happy to lecture libs about. But the incantation "national security" seems to turn cons into people willing to ignore tradeoffs.
And this "security firm" you want to hire to protect you has already lied to you.
bagoh20 wrote:
I'm willing to accept some risks, and even possible attacks succeeding once in a while if that's the cost of having private communications kept reasonably private for 99.9% of the country. If losing that for 99.9% is required to just prevent some of them, then I don't think it's worth it. We have smart well-paid people with nice pensions.
But even if we have records available, what if the only private communications that are ever searched for are the .1% that would be searched under a FISA warrant?
In other words. if 99.9% of your private communication remains private and is only triggered when a warrant is issued becuase of your number, would you be ok with it then?
You guys are out in the weeds. There is no way that all internet video, voice, blogs, email, etc., is being shipped to some big NSA data-center.
This story is going to collapse, and you will be left with the lesser problem that NSA/CIA is tracking who you called, and for how long you called.
Then you are going to say "Well, I suppose we over-reacted, and who can really know much from this other stuff." Then that will stick, and grow.
And if you are really worried about it, there is a run around it for people in the US, which is to use better crypto. And the government would have to change rules to stop that.
So stop focusing on this. It's a BS story, and if I had my conspiracy theory thing going, I would say it is to detract from the subtler issues.
So, Inga, Libertarian is now the new Tea Party?
I was feeling so undervalued until now.
Is it possible that Snowden was recruited with the intent that he might have the propensity to do what he is doing?
I'm asking myself, if this programs is so critical why would you NOT be more careful in selecting who gets clearance?
Something about his personality says 'whistleblower walking'... although, there is the possibility that I have arrived at that impression because I already have formed an opinion of the guy based on my own biased notions of what he has done.
But, for the hell of it, lets ask.
What could the NSA possibly gain by having this guy take a peak at what they are doing, knowing that there was a good chance that he might do exactly what he is doing?
Lets assume that they weren't sloppy but only wanted to appear sloppy.
But to answer that with some level of credibility we would need more information.
"I love how the alternative to things like the NSA programs is profiling."
I love how in order to avoid profiling we will do almost anything regardless of effectiveness or intrusiveness. It reminds me of the anti death penalty arguments, where once we decide not to execute, we willfully accept much worse outcomes to avoid facing that option.
When I take a leak in my bathroom, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. When I take a leak behind a tree, there's the possibility that that poignant moment is being captured by CCTV. There are different expectations of privacy with different forms of communication. If the Director of the CIA can get outed, then perhaps emails are not the proper means of communication with your lover.....Incidentally can anyone name somebody who thought Patreus and that other general had their 4th amendment rights violated?
Snowden's statement says he has preferences as to how the future will be, and he acted to protect/promote those preferences.
Yeah, so did Ayers. But Snowden's actions weren't about bombing people. That's a qualitative difference.
And before any of the usual suspects get all faux enranged, do you yet know whether the Boston Bombers were Verizon customers? Really, there should be some reporting on that.
Libertarians have to address two points that Hayden made, otherwise they are talking out of their ass (something they do a lot)
Hayden said:
" Now, with regard to what the senator said -- if I believed NSA was doing some of the things the senator fears they're doing, I would have been backstopping him during your first segment. He said we're trolling through millions of records. That's just simply not true. The government acquires records as business records from the telecom providers, but then doesn't go into that database without an arguable reason connected to terrorism to ask that database a question. If you don't have any link to that original predicate, terrorism, your phone records are never touched.
So, is what the senator said true first of all. And is Haydens assertion of how the program works true. If it's true, then they are not trolling through millions of records. Rather they are doing a targeted search for very specific information that would only be triggered if, for some reason your phone was linked to terrorist activity. And if so, a FISA warrant would be issued for said info. All other info, would not be pulled up in the search. If we are trolling for all phone numbers then clearly there is a problem with the program. But realistically lets look at this. We are talking about billions of calls a day. How many people are trolling through these records? IF we hired a million people to work at NSA, how long would it take them to go through a billion records to find juicy stuff on people? It would be like doing a blank search in google getting a billion hits and then going through each link one at a time. Every day. Totally inefficient.
Think of this program like a google search. You search for one thing. Only that thing comes up in your search (and things tangential to your search). But billions of other web sites are not coming up in your search because you aren't searching for those things. So, what if google only allowed you to search for twenty things? it would be a prettly horrible search wouldn't it? You'd quickly move to a search engine that allows you the flexibility to search all records for specific things.
Libertarians have to address two points that Hayden made, otherwise they are talking out of their ass (something they do a lot)
Hayden said:
" Now, with regard to what the senator said -- if I believed NSA was doing some of the things the senator fears they're doing, I would have been backstopping him during your first segment. He said we're trolling through millions of records. That's just simply not true. The government acquires records as business records from the telecom providers, but then doesn't go into that database without an arguable reason connected to terrorism to ask that database a question. If you don't have any link to that original predicate, terrorism, your phone records are never touched.
So, is what the senator said true first of all. And is Haydens assertion of how the program works true. If it's true, then they are not trolling through millions of records. Rather they are doing a targeted search for very specific information that would only be triggered if, for some reason your phone was linked to terrorist activity. And if so, a FISA warrant would be issued for said info. All other info, would not be pulled up in the search. If we are trolling for all phone numbers then clearly there is a problem with the program. But realistically lets look at this. We are talking about billions of calls a day. How many people are trolling through these records? IF we hired a million people to work at NSA, how long would it take them to go through a billion records to find juicy stuff on people? It would be like doing a blank search in google getting a billion hits and then going through each link one at a time. Every day. Totally inefficient.
Think of this program like a google search. You search for one thing. Only that thing comes up in your search (and things tangential to your search). But billions of other web sites are not coming up in your search because you aren't searching for those things. So, what if google only allowed you to search for twenty things? it would be a prettly horrible search wouldn't it? You'd quickly move to a search engine that allows you the flexibility to search all records for specific things.
" would you be ok with it then?" You mean if I trusted political appointees and others who are told their responsibility is only to stop attacks period? No, I don't trust that system. We had rules at the IRS too. There may be a way to make it secure, but it's not there, and until we make a big enough stink to make them understand that protecting our privacy is at least equal in importance, we have this work to do.
jr565,
It's really pretty simple: you trust the people doing it and anyone who ever will have access to these record, and any system that grows out of it.
I don't trust all those people current and future, and all that growing policy current and future. I think we should stop and consider the potential downsides, and maybe do better.
Libertarians have to address two points that Hayden made, otherwise they are talking out of their ass (something they do a lot)
Less poo-flinging and more comment-reading would improve the quality of your comments a lot.
See, e.g., my comments @10:50 and 12:02, which already address Hayden.
And take a look at Chip Ahoy's 11:55 while you're at it.
Lem, if something can equally well be explained by stupidity, don't resort to an explanation that requires intelligence.
The second and more important point addressed by Hayden is the following:
"You ask the database a question, but the question has to be related to terrorism. I'll give you a concrete example so this is very clear. So, you roll up something in Waziristan. You get a cell phone. It's the first time you've ever had that cell phone number. You know it's related to terrorism because of the pocket litter you've gotten in that operation. Here's how it works: you simply ask that database, hey, any of you phone numbers in there ever talked to this phone number in Waziristan? I mean, you're already going into the database with the predicate, with a probable cause, with an arguable reason why you're asking for the data."
How are you proposing to get the data with anything other than an NSA type program? And if you don't have available the records from all carriers, then what do you do when you are trying to determine what number that phone called? Don't you need the carrier data to even determine what numbers they are calling and who they belong to?
"I mean, you get the cell phone with that number six months from now you want to know the history of that number. When does the value of that information begin to age off?"
So, taking a concrete example. Supposing we are talking about the Marathon bombers. If we had a the number of a phone he was using, then isn't it important to be able to work with carriers to determine the people he might be calling? I mean the premise was that we knew this guy was bad but did nothing. And what about who he called last month? Is that not relevant? What if he called his terror cell a month before we starting targeting his phone? Should we not get that information. How do you propose to do it absent us working with carriers who have said records.
And if you don't want us doing this kind of stuff, please stop complaining when the Tsarnaevs of the world plant bombs at the marathon and kill Americans and saying "We knew he was bad but didn't do anything about it" what do you want us to do about it?
Whatever that is, it involves things you don't want us to ever do and which you are arguing against us doing every time you find out that we did them.
And jr, really, what level of trust should I have of a Bushie who's trotted out to defend Obama's expansion of Bush's program?
"I hate Bush but I love Obama" is one of those things that should make a rational machine instantly malfunction.
Good thing you're not a machine.
Or rational, for that matter.
It's a beautiful "Look Squirrel!!" distraction from the more important IRS and Benghazi scandals developing momentum and embarassing the Messiah.
So Obama calls in some Lefty Journ-O-Lists for a private meeting, likely uses contacts to rile up the usual libertarian dupes and the next thing you know, the IRS and Benghazi are forgotten and discarded - and the Obama media gives Rand Paul and Glenn Beck and like-minded Republicans all the attention imaginable.
And the next attack, trots out the Victim Families to accuse the Republican kooks of undermining Obama's following Bush's war on terrorists.
bagoh20 wrote
"It's really pretty simple: you trust the people doing it and anyone who ever will have access to these record, and any system that grows out of it.
I don't trust all those people current and future, and all that growing policy current and future. I think we should stop and consider the potential downsides, and maybe do better."
So you say you're for waterboarding the murderers and I'd assume profiling the bad guys. But will you always trust the people doing those things? Wouldn't that mean then that you really wouldn't want us to do any of those things?
So apply your standard to any program that we could implement to deal with terrorists. If we can't trust the people doing those programs then we really should have no programs in place to deal with terrorism. Your solution is "lets do nothing".
So then, the next time we have a terrorist attack, please don't complain or blame or say we should have done something.
If we are going to question something and the questions being asked are compelled, borne out of suspicious secrecy, then it follows that everything needs to be questioned and probed.
What if THAT is the ultimate goal? To create so much uncertainty that people just stop and give up.
That's the scary part I think.
I'm not ready to dismiss Snowden and what he believes he is in the service of, but, I'm also not ready to dismiss the need for some minimal security.
BTW.. if the NSA had this all encompassing capability, how come the Boston Marathon Bombing was allowed to happen... what's Beantown chop libber?
How are you proposing to get the data with anything other than an NSA type program?
Well, first of all, you haven't established the actual marginal contribution to security from rolling something up in Waziristan. You're just taking Hayden's unstated implication that w/o that roll-up something dreadful would've happened in the US. And I note that he didn't actually make that claim, but I'm sure he's happy to have people like you jump to that conclusion. But there are other lines of defense b/w NYC and Waziristan.
Second, you've cast an absurdly broad net w/ the term "NSA type program". The entire issue is what limits to set on "NSA type programs". Abolition of them is certainly one option, but not one that I've seen anyone advocate.
Mark wrote:
And before any of the usual suspects get all faux enranged, do you yet know whether the Boston Bombers were Verizon customers? Really, there should be some reporting on that.
What if one brother were a Verizon customer and the other brother was an AT&T customer. And what if the guy taht the onlder brother visited in Russia had a totally different carrier. What then? All that complexity. One things for sure, we should make it as difficult as possible for the NSA to actually track said calls because - insert slippery slope bogus argument here - . If there's one thing we need is more road blocks and complexity when dealing with terrorist threats. /sarc.
Lem, if something can equally well be explained by stupidity, don't resort to an explanation that requires intelligence.
I hear you... but is it more reassuring to assume that all that money their budgeting is being used to super duper scheme?
Or could stupidity be even more somber?
Nice little hypothetical, JR. You simply ask the database which you've compiled with no supervision.
Did it work? The program has been in place for years, gathering what we have to presume is the majority of call records in the US.
Nah. Total bust.
But if I were a Tea Party activist and someone wanted to find out every person I communicate with regularly there will soon be an app for that out in the Utah badlands.
And because supervision on that database is just too much trouble, I and my friends will be screwed by every acronym in the Federal bullpen.
What I really don't get is whether you think Your Side will retain perpetual control of this monstrosity, or that My Side is too nice/stupid to play the "Payback is a Bitch" card, or that you are really such a natural fool that neither question occurs to you.
It's a beautiful "Look Squirrel!!" distraction from the more important IRS and Benghazi scandals developing momentum and embarassing the Messiah.
Spectacularly wrong.
It's a strong complement to the IRS scandal, which makes clear why we shouldn't accept on faith the blithe assurances of the gov that the data it collects will only be used to catch Badguyistanis.
And Benghazi raises all sorts of questions about intelligence, secret ops, and official lying.
jr, sarcasm is beyond you. If you work at it someday you may be able to use it with supervision. Until then, you're just going to hurt yourself.
Chip S wrote:
Well, first of all, you haven't established the actual marginal contribution to security from rolling something up in Waziristan. You're just taking Hayden's unstated implication that w/o that roll-up something dreadful would've happened in the US. And I note that he didn't actually make that claim, but I'm sure he's happy to have people like you jump to that conclusion. But there are other lines of defense b/w NYC and Waziristan.
I don't know the details of what would happen in your hypo, because in reality those things would work out in inumerable ways. But having a cell phone that is linked to a terrorist or cell opens up data that is not available when you don't have that data. Who that person communicated with and where they are is often pretty important information to know. So again, can I guarantee that finding a cell phone will produce actionable data? Who could argue that. But i can say that having more information is almost alway better than having less.
"Second, you've cast an absurdly broad net w/ the term "NSA type program". The entire issue is what limits to set on "NSA type programs". Abolition of them is certainly one option, but not one that I've seen anyone advocate."
It was phrased as an absurdly broad net because there is no NSA type program we could ever implement that wouldn't bump into your privacy absolutism.Because the whole purpose of having an NSA type program involves tracking data covertly. And for you and types like yourself that is a no go. If there's a FISA warrant involved, (there's a limit for your) then you can't trust the person giving the warrant. There would be no limit that could be brought up that wouldn't be prone to abuse or wouldn't be an example of us going to far. And in fact, without saying it in words, many libertarians are arguing for abolition of the NSA type programs and any NSA type programs we might come up with instead.
Chip S wrote:
It's a strong complement to the IRS scandal, which makes clear why we shouldn't accept on faith the blithe assurances of the gov that the data it collects will only be used to catch Badguyistanis.
OK so we found out that the IRS targeted individuals. What do you propose to do about it? Can we be sure that republicans or libertarians who win the white house wont ever target their opponents? So then what is the solution? have no one run the IRS because if anyone does they might actually target people?
Mark wrote:
Did it work? The program has been in place for years, gathering what we have to presume is the majority of call records in the US.
Nah. Total bust.
Did it work ever? OF course it did. Did it always work? Does anything always work?
But if I were a Tea Party activist and someone wanted to find out every person I communicate with regularly there will soon be an app for that out in the Utah badlands.
So, in the case of Tea Partiers you are saying that the govt is using the NSA program effectively. But when it comes to terrorism it NEVER works. Thats kind of like arguing that Bush is both a simpleton and an evil genius at the same time.
But i can say that having more information is almost alway better than having less.
And unless you can demonstrate that the marginal value of the info gathered from PRISM vs. a more restricted program is greater than the marginal cost of the possible abuses of the program (wtd by probabilities of occurrence) vs. a more restricted one, you haven't said anything useful.
OK so we found out that the IRS targeted individuals. What do you propose to do about it?
Gee, I dunno.
Maybe start by not giving our complete, unquestioning acceptance to a gov program of domestic surveillance?
Just a thought.
Chip S wrote:
And unless you can demonstrate that the marginal value of the info gathered from PRISM vs. a more restricted program is greater than the marginal cost of the possible abuses of the program (wtd by probabilities of occurrence) vs. a more restricted one, you haven't said anything useful.
Restricted HOW? That's what you never provide.And how am I going to compare an existing program to a nonexistent one that has restrictions in place that you don't mention or define and which doesnt exist?
Is the restricted one not also prone to abuses? Is it so restricted that is produces no useful data?
So, in the case of Tea Partiers you are saying that the govt is using the NSA program effectively.
No, I'm saying that using it at all would be a gross violation of the Constitution.
Which would be totally in line with how the IRS was used.
Really, you should look up how the whole "effective" argument in supporting political parties tends to work out.
And how am I going to compare an existing program to a nonexistent one that has restrictions in place that you don't mention or define and which doesnt exist?
So you're fine w/ whatever the gov wants to do b/c you lack the ability to think about alternatives?
Sorry to hear that.
How about this? No unrestricted data-gathering. One degree of separation from one of those terrifying Waziristanis is necessary to authorize the acquisition of any US citizen's data.
Maybe that's a dumb or unworkable idea. I'm sure someone will be happy to point out why it's either of those, or both. But I've given you a place to start, which is more than you've contributed in your couple of thousand words of commentary here.
I love the smell of burning fascists in the dark hours. Smells like Christopher Lee lighting a joint.
Chip S wrote:
Gee, I dunno.
Maybe start by not giving our complete, unquestioning acceptance to a gov program of domestic surveillance?
Just a thought.
But we have to give some acceptance to a govt program of domestic surveillance, right. Or are you really talking, as I think you are of abolition of programs?
Can we give our unquestioning acceptance to a govt program of domestic surveillance that has the restrictions you say are ok in place? Why, because you say so? And even if we can't give our unquestioning acceptance of a govt program of surveillance at the end of the day we are going to have to have a surveillance program of some sort and some restriction run by govt, which is open for some degree of abuse.
No?
With the idea of a distraction, squirrel or whatever...
In a pileup of scandals, another scandal is not a distraction.
Another scandal is an addition to the pileup.
Post a Comment