PDA

View Full Version : The Whistleblower


Pages : [1] 2

Rohirrim
06-09-2013, 08:00 PM
"I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/09/four-things-to-know-about-surveillance-leaker-edward-snowden/

Rohirrim
06-10-2013, 05:51 AM
I may be naive, but I think a massive surveillance apparatus combined with corporate control of government is a bad combination.

Pony Boy
06-10-2013, 06:01 AM
“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”

― George Orwell, 1984

baja
06-10-2013, 06:29 AM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=111183

Rohirrim
06-11-2013, 07:22 AM
Text of the 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

B-Large
06-11-2013, 07:45 AM
Do we want:

1. Unobstructed Civil Liberties, with the trade-off being security failures and domestic attacks we consider collateral damage of a free country.

2. High Security, a dragnet that perhaps catches the 9/11 conspirators or the Boston Brothers with the trade off not knowing where, when and for how long that data is used and stored.

To me a strong domestic defense comprises not only military might but also strong informatics that identify and diffuse threats.... perhaps the the question that needs to be asked is what is the spirit of the Constitution, the 4th Amendment as it applies to 2013?

Rohirrim
06-11-2013, 08:17 AM
Do we want:

1. Unobstructed Civil Liberties, with the trade-off being security failures and domestic attacks we consider collateral damage of a free country.

2. High Security, a dragnet that perhaps catches the 9/11 conspirators or the Boston Brothers with the trade off not knowing where, when and for how long that data is used and stored.

To me a strong domestic defense comprises not only military might but also strong informatics that identify and diffuse threats.... perhaps the the question that needs to be asked is what is the spirit of the Constitution, the 4th Amendment as it applies to 2013?

The 4th amendment doesn't say anything about "...unobstructed Civil Liberties..." It says the government has to have probable cause and a warrant, and not just to seize "...persons, houses, papers, and effects..." but to search them as well.

Rigs11
06-11-2013, 08:33 AM
Bush-Era Wiretapping Case Killed Before Reaching Supreme Court
A federal appeals court’s August ruling in which it said the federal government may spy on Americans’ communications without warrants and without fear of being sued won’t be appealed to the Supreme Court, attorneys in the case said Thursday.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this summer reversed the first and only case that successfully challenged then-President George W. Bush’s once-secret Terrorist Surveillance Program. In December, the San Francisco-based appeals court — the nation’s largest — declined to revisit its decision — making the case ripe for an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The appellate decision overturned a lower court decision in which two American attorneys — who were working with the now-defunct al-Haramain Islamic Foundation — were awarded more than $20,000 each in damages and their lawyers $2.5 million in legal fees after a years-long, tortured legal battle where they proved they were spied on without warrants.

Jon Eisenberg, the attorney for the two lawyers, said in a telephone interview that he would lose in the Supreme Court with its “current composition.”

“It would be a risky endeavor to take this case to this Supreme Court,” he said.

Eisenberg’s legal strategy means that the appellate court’s decision remains binding only in the 9th Circuit, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Had the Supreme Court ruled against Eisenberg, a nationwide precedent would be set.

“At some point down the line, a case could end up in a different circuit that would not be bound by the 9th Circuit ruling,” Eisenberg said. By that time, he said, perhaps a more willing Supreme Court would be sitting.

Eisenberg sued under domestic spying laws Congress adopted in the wake of President Richard M. Nixon’s Watergate scandal. The government appealed their victory, and the appeals court dismissed the suit and reversed the damages.

The appellate court had ruled that when Congress wrote the law regulating eavesdropping on Americans and spies, it never waived sovereign immunity in the section prohibiting the targeting Americans without warrants. That means Congress did not allow for aggrieved Americans to sue the government, even if their constitutional rights were violated by the United States breaching its own wiretapping laws.

Congress authorized Bush’s spy program in 2008, five years after the illegal wiretapping involved in this case. Last week, Congress reauthorized it for another five years.

The Bush spy program was first disclosed by The New York Times in December 2005, and the government subsequently admitted that the National Security Agency was eavesdropping on Americans’ telephone calls without warrants if the government believed the person on the other end was overseas and associated with terrorism. The government also secretly enlisted the help of major U.S. telecoms, including AT&T, to spy on Americans’ phone and internet communications without getting warrants as required by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law at the center of the al-Haramain dispute.

A lower court judge found in 2010 that two American lawyers’ telephone conversations with their al-Haramain clients in Saudi Arabia were siphoned to the National Security Agency without warrants. The government subsequently declared the group a terror organization. The eavesdropping allegations were initially based on a classified document the government accidentally mailed to the former al-Haramain Islamic Foundation lawyers Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor.

The document was later declared a state secret, removed from the long-running lawsuit and has never been made public. With that document ruled out as evidence, the lawyers instead cited a bevy of circumstantial evidence that a trial judge concluded showed the government illegally wiretapped the lawyers as they spoke on U.S. soil to Saudi Arabia.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/bush-wiretapping-case-killed/

Rigs11
06-11-2013, 08:36 AM
Senate Approves Warrantless Electronic Spy Powers

The Senate on Friday reauthorized for five years broad electronic eavesdropping powers that legalized and expanded the President George W. Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

The FISA Amendments Act, (.pdf) which was expiring Monday at midnight, allows the government to electronically eavesdrop on Americans’ phone calls and e-mails without a probable-cause warrant so long as one of the parties to the communication is believed outside the United States. The communications may be intercepted “to acquire foreign intelligence information.”

The House approved the measure in September. President Barack Obama, who said the spy powers were a national security priority, is expected to quickly sign the package before the law Congress codified in 2008 expires in the coming days. Over the past two days, the Senate debated and voted down a handful of amendments in what was seen as largely political theater to get Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) to lift a procedural hold on the FISA Amendments Act legislation that barred lawmakers from voting on the package.

In the end, the identical package the House passed 301-118 swept through the Senate on a 73-23 vote.

The American Civil Liberties Union immediately blasted the vote.

“The Bush administration’s program of warrantless wiretapping, once considered a radical threat to the Fourth Amendment, has become institutionalized for another five years,” said Michelle Richardson, the ACLU’s legislative counsel.

Amendments senators refused to enact included extending the measure for just three years, another one requiring the government to account for how many times Americans’ communications have been intercepted, and one by Wyden prohibiting U.S. spy agencies from reviewing the communications of Americans ensnared in the program.

“The amendment I fought to include would have helped bring the constitutional principles of security and liberty back into balance and intend to work with my colleagues to see that the liberties of individual Americans are maintained,” Wyden said immediately after the vote.

The legislation does not require the government to identify the target or facility to be monitored. It can begin surveillance a week before making the request, and the surveillance can continue during the appeals process if, in a rare case, the secret FISA court rejects the surveillance application. The court’s rulings are not public.

The government has also interpreted the law to mean that as long as the real target is al-Qaeda, the government can wiretap purely domestic e-mails and phone calls without getting a warrant from a judge. That’s according to David Kris, a former top anti-terrorism attorney at the Justice Department.

In short, Kris said the FISA Amendments Act gives the government nearly carte blanche spying powers.

Kris, who headed the Justice Department’s National Security Division between 2009 and 20011, writes in the revised 2012 edition of National Security Investigations and Prosecutions:

For example, an authorization targeting ‘al Qaeda’ — which is a non-U.S. person located abroad—could allow the government to wiretap any telephone that it believes will yield information from or about al Qaeda, either because the telephone is registered to a person whom the government believes is affiliated with al Qaeda, or because the government believes that the person communicates with others who are affiliated with al Qaeda, regardless of the location of the telephone.

The National Security Agency told lawmakers that it would be a violation of Americans’ privacy to disclose how the measure is being used in practice.

After Obama signs the legislation Friday, the spy powers won’t expire until December 31, 2017.

The law is the subject of a Supreme Court challenge. The Obama administration argues that the American Civil Liberties Union and a host of other groups suing don’t have the legal standing to even bring a challenge.

A federal judge agreed, ruling the ACLU, Amnesty International, Global Fund for Women, Global Rights, Human Rights Watch, International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association, The Nation magazine, PEN American Center, Service Employees International Union and other plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case because they could not demonstrate that they were subject to the warrantless eavesdropping.

The groups appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that they often work with overseas dissidents who might be targets of the National Security Agency program. Instead of speaking with those people on the phone or through e-mails, the groups asserted that they have had to make expensive overseas trips in a bid to maintain attorney-client confidentiality. The plaintiffs, some of them journalists, also claim the 2008 legislation chills their speech, and violates their Fourth Amendment privacy rights.

Without ruling on the merits of the case, the appeals court agreed with the plaintiffs last year that they have ample reason to fear the surveillance program, and thus have legal standing to pursue their claim.

The case, argued last month, is pending an opinion from the Supreme Court.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/12/senate-fisa-amendments/

baja
06-11-2013, 08:50 AM
So no concern about the ability to collect dirt or embarrassing information to black mail judges or anyone in government or other positions of power.

You can destroy any person with unlimited access to this much information. You can build a case to destroy just about anyone. " You will vote as I say senator, I own you."

ghwk
06-11-2013, 08:52 AM
We just need an opt out selection in the email options panel. That should take care of everything.

Crushaholic
06-11-2013, 09:09 AM
Do we want:

1. Unobstructed Civil Liberties, with the trade-off being security failures and domestic attacks we consider collateral damage of a free country.

2. High Security, a dragnet that perhaps catches the 9/11 conspirators or the Boston Brothers with the trade off not knowing where, when and for how long that data is used and stored.

To me a strong domestic defense comprises not only military might but also strong informatics that identify and diffuse threats.... perhaps the the question that needs to be asked is what is the spirit of the Constitution, the 4th Amendment as it applies to 2013?

That's where I'm conflicted. The 9/11 hijackers were American. it would be great to catch them BEFORE something bad happens. I know that's spying on Americans, but I don't want another homegrown terrorist plot...

TonyR
06-11-2013, 09:17 AM
These were legally authorized programs; in the case of Verizon Business’s phone records, Snowden certainly knew this, because he leaked the very court order that approved the continuation of the project. So he wasn’t blowing the whistle on anything illegal; he was exposing something that failed to meet his own standards of propriety. The question, of course, is whether the government can function when all of its employees (and contractors) can take it upon themselves to sabotage the programs they don’t like. That’s what Snowden has done.http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/06/edward-snowden-nsa-leaker-is-no-hero.html

Rigs11
06-11-2013, 09:22 AM
Gotta wonder what Boner truly knows about this.Everyone is up in arms, the GOP is freaking out, and then you have the speaker saying this. Political? of course notHilarious!


Boehner calls Snowden a traitor; Rand Paul 'reserving judgment
'
(CNN) – Republicans on Capitol Hill offered differing assessments Tuesday of the ex-CIA employee who leaked top secret documents detailing the American government's surveillance activities to the Guardian newspaper.

"He's a traitor," House Speaker John Boehner said bluntly on ABC's "Good Morning America," adding he thought Edward Snowden's leaks had put Americans at risk.

"The president outlined last week that these are important national security programs that help keep Americans safe and give us tools that help fight the terrorist threat we face," Boehner said. "The disclosure of this information puts Americans at risk. It shows our adversaries what our capabilities are. And it's a giant violation of the law."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/11/boehner-calls-snowden-a-traitor-rand-paul-reserving-judgment/?hpt=hp_t2

BroncoBeavis
06-11-2013, 09:29 AM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/06/edward-snowden-nsa-leaker-is-no-hero.html

Getting some judge somewhere to sign off on repealing the 4th Amendment does not make it 'legal'

The machinations of official tyranny eventually have to be met with something other than compliance.

Just so I'm on the record with our Federal Overlords on that. :)

Rohirrim
06-11-2013, 11:02 AM
Since when did the Senate arrogate to itself the power to set aside key provisions of the Bill of Rights?

B-Large
06-11-2013, 12:21 PM
Since when did the Senate arrogate to itself the power to set aside key provisions of the Bill of Rights?

Probably since the advent of International Terrorism, suprise Domestic Attacks and other gloabl threats.

TonyR
06-11-2013, 12:39 PM
So now both Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House, are on record calling Edward Snowden a traitor. Meanwhile, per the New York Times, the NSA and the Justice Department are rapidly moving up towards the failsafe line where efforts to secure Snowden’s extradition for prosecution (assuming he can be found; he’s now left his Hong Kong hotel for unknown destinations) would be triggered http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_06/the_tword045204.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+washingtonmonthly%2Frss+%28Po litical+Animal+at+Washington+Monthly%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Rohirrim
06-11-2013, 06:06 PM
The FBI has dramatically increased its use of a controversial provision of the Patriot Act to secretly obtain a vast store of business records of U.S. citizens under President Barack Obama, according to recent Justice Department reports to Congress. The bureau filed 212 requests for such data to a national security court last year – a 1,000-percent increase from the number of such requests four years earlier, the reports show.
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/11/18887491-fbi-sharply-increases-use-of-patriot-act-provision-to-collect-us-citizens-records?lite

baja
06-11-2013, 06:17 PM
But I am told your government loves you and endeavors to protect you, have I been misinformed?

Rohirrim
06-11-2013, 06:52 PM
Does the national security court ever tell the FBI no? And how would we know if they did?

BroncoBeavis
06-11-2013, 07:35 PM
Does the national security court ever tell the FBI no? And how would we know if they did?

Its a corrupt rubber stamp. Hard to argue otherwise at this point.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-11-2013, 08:03 PM
The only thing that surprises me is the lack of solidarity by the boot-licking progressives.

houghtam
06-11-2013, 08:23 PM
The only thing that surprises me is the lack of solidarity by the boot-licking progressives.

I bet it sucks when your world view doesn't fit into the pigeon hole your echo chamber has created.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-11-2013, 08:32 PM
I bet it sucks when your world view doesn't fit into the pigeon hole your echo chamber has created.

Do you align with 2007 Obama, or 2013 Obama? Because my worldview totally has you with 2013. But if not, even better.

houghtam
06-11-2013, 08:33 PM
Do you align with 2007 Obama, or 2013 Obama? Because my worldview totally has you with 2013. But if not, even better.

If you read my posts you wouldn't be asking this question.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-11-2013, 08:34 PM
If you read my posts you wouldn't be asking this question.

I don't really read your posts. Lol.

houghtam
06-11-2013, 08:41 PM
I don't really read your posts. Lol.

That's unfortunate, because if I remember correctly (and I do), the last time you and I got into a discussion, you realized that I wasn't the crazy pinko you try to make every liberal out to be.

Aaaaand, then you forgot about it and kept right on with the generalizations. Congrats, barryr.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-11-2013, 08:42 PM
That's unfortunate, because if I remember correctly (and I do), the last time you and I got into a discussion, you realized that I wasn't the crazy pinko you try to make every liberal out to be.

Aaaaand, then you forgot about it and kept right on with the generalizations. Congrats, barryr.

Didn't read. Lol.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 06:24 AM
Do you align with 2007 Obama, or 2013 Obama?

Which one do you align with? Because if Obama had pulled the plug on this program you'd all be throwing similar tantrums, particularly after what recently happened in Boston. So your faux outrage is as ridiculous as the show of "support" from any "liberal".

BroncoBeavis
06-12-2013, 06:34 AM
Which one do you align with? Because if Obama had pulled the plug on this program you'd all be throwing similar tantrums, particularly after what recently happened in Boston. So your faux outrage is as ridiculous as the show of "support" from any "liberal".

Just as a (not really) hypothetical... which is worse... not having all the dirty details and not realizing how bad the governments civilian espionage case is. Or being "outraged" at first when the other team does something but then saying its "worth it" when it comes out that your team doubled down on every bit of what you used to claim was an assault on civil liberties?

Dr. Broncenstein
06-12-2013, 06:36 AM
Which one do you align with? Because if Obama had pulled the plug on this program you'd all be throwing similar tantrums, particularly after what recently happened in Boston. So your faux outrage is as ridiculous as the show of "support" from any "liberal".

I like that 2007 version. He could almost be a libertarian. Good thing he completely reversed his stance on the fourth amendment because otherwise we would have domestic terrorists bombing places like Boston without any warning.

baja
06-12-2013, 06:44 AM
I like that 2007 version. He could almost be a libertarian. Good thing he completely reversed his stance on the fourth amendment because otherwise we would have domestic terrorists bombing places like Boston without any warning.


Be sure to never type the words pressure & cooker together or you might get a late night visit.from the NSA

Dr. Broncenstein
06-12-2013, 06:48 AM
Pressure cookers are the bomb. Make some killer shredded pig meat with that.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-12-2013, 07:00 AM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LMfhC4CwUnM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thank you, internet.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 07:10 AM
He could almost be a libertarian. Good thing he completely reversed his stance on the fourth amendment because otherwise we would have domestic terrorists bombing places like Boston without any warning.

We're never going to be 100% safe. But if it's possible that this program could have stopped 9/11, would you then think it's worth the intrusion on your privacy? There are trade offs to be made. Is this one worth it? Maybe? Just like airport security, as ridiculous and cumbersome as it is. Would you feel safe flying if there was no security?

Rohirrim
06-12-2013, 07:13 AM
Anybody see the article Smurf posted on the front page about Brock's brother getting busted for child porn? Here was a sentence from the article:

Agents with Homeland Security Investigations had looked into a peer-to-peer referral on the LimeWire file-sharing website and determined that a Web address in Kalispell had child pornography files available for download with subscriber information leading to the Osweiler home.

Draw your own conclusions.

Pony Boy
06-12-2013, 07:15 AM
And he goes on, Biden is the gift that just keeps on giving and he agrees the congress should investigate

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/h2qgU8kJt-0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dr. Broncenstein
06-12-2013, 07:18 AM
We're never going to be 100% safe. But if it's possible that this program could have stopped 9/11, would you then think it's worth the intrusion on your privacy? Their are trade offs to be made. Is this one worth it? Maybe? Just like airport security, as ridiculous and cumbersome as it is. Would you feel safe flying if there was no security?

The TSA makes you feel safe? I'm not at all surprised. Surrender your constitutional rights for the guise of safety. Prove you aren't a bomb toting terrorist by licking my boots prior to boarding, citizen.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 07:21 AM
The TSA makes you feel safe?

Safer than if there was no security. TSA is ridiculous, but I still think it's better than no security at all. As should anyone with any common sense.

Pony Boy
06-12-2013, 07:27 AM
Safer than if there was no security. TSA is ridiculous, but I still think it's better than no security at all. As should anyone with any common sense.

Yes, I feel safe ............

Dr. Broncenstein
06-12-2013, 07:28 AM
Safer than if there was no security. TSA is ridiculous, but I still think it's better than no security at all. As should anyone with any common sense.

http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/TSA+Screens+Passengers+Denver+International+bGjSBg gs9qCl.jpg

Citizen: ajihadistsayswhat

whaaat?

Dr. Broncenstein
06-12-2013, 07:29 AM
Lol same pic. Common sense.

Pony Boy
06-12-2013, 07:39 AM
Lol same pic. Common sense.

You know when Grandma's boobs aren't below her waist it does draw some suspicion?

Dr. Broncenstein
06-12-2013, 07:43 AM
Have to admit that Terrorism works really, really well. They crash some planes after taking over unsecured cockpits and docile passengers at knifepoint. We agree to freedom fistings and geriatric fondlings to prevent another 9/11. Good thing the the common sense TSA is there to prevent something like that from ever happening again.

Requiem
06-12-2013, 07:48 AM
Draw your own conclusions.

Big Brother is watching Brocko.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 07:48 AM
Have to admit that Terrorism works really, really well.

Absolutely. I agree. And as I said, TSA is ridiculous. It's overkill and terribly done. But again, would you choose no security? You keep avoiding the real question here. Do you think airport security should be completely removed? Should we allow people to carry guns and knives and explosives on planes?

Dr. Broncenstein
06-12-2013, 07:54 AM
Absolutely. I agree. And as I said, TSA is ridiculous. It's overkill and terribly done. But again, would you choose no security? You keep avoiding the real question here. Do you think airport security should be completely removed? Should we allow people to carry guns and knives and explosives on planes?

We should surrender all constitutional rights, submit to sexual assault, and subject our possessions to theft in order to board a plane. That's the only way to keep us safe, and in doing so will guarantee that nobody will get anything past the TSA. The ground crew, the airport workers, and the crew members are cool... don't worry about them.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 07:57 AM
^ The only thing you've made clear, doc, is that you can't answer the question. Your attempt to use humor as a deflection is rather transparent.

Requiem
06-12-2013, 07:58 AM
^ The only thing you've made clear, doc, is that you can't answer the question.

Par for the course.

Pony Boy
06-12-2013, 08:06 AM
Absolutely. I agree. And as I said, TSA is ridiculous. It's overkill and terribly done. But again, would you choose no security? You keep avoiding the real question here. Do you think airport security should be completely removed? Should we allow people to carry guns and knives and explosives on planes?

I agree TSA is just doing their jobs, they certainly don't want anyone to think they are profiling, that would be stomping on the constitution and we all know Obama wouldn’t do that.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-12-2013, 08:10 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iBOd199IJvM/TPNOM86GgOI/AAAAAAAAAAw/1_F6rg46a5k/s1600/TSA%2Bpat%2Bdown.jpg

You must prove you aren't a jihadist hell bent on hijacking this plane, citizen. Now spread 'em.

BroncoBeavis
06-12-2013, 08:12 AM
Safer than if there was no security. TSA is ridiculous, but I still think it's better than no security at all. As should anyone with any common sense.

There wasn't 'no security' before. This is a False Choice™

baja
06-12-2013, 08:14 AM
We should surrender all constitutional rights, submit to sexual assault, and subject our possessions to theft in order to board a plane. That's the only way to keep us safe, and in doing so will guarantee that nobody will get anything past the TSA. The ground crew, the airport workers, and the crew members are cool... don't worry about them.

The American people have allowed the USA to become what is best described as Saturday Night Live skit

How in hell did thiis insane invasion of personal rights of privacy happen.

Pony Boy
06-12-2013, 08:21 AM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LMfhC4CwUnM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thank you, internet.

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

― George Orwell, 1984

houghtam
06-12-2013, 08:36 AM
Par for the course.

Occupational insult followed by braggadocio about income and net worth in 3...2...1...

Pony Boy
06-12-2013, 08:46 AM
The American people have allowed the USA to become what is best described as Saturday Night Live skit

How in hell did thiis insane invasion of personal rights of privacy happen.

My wife and I were at a Chili's restaurant last week and seated in the bar area. I would guess that 90% of the patrons were under 25 and they all had their faces glued to their iPhones. None were aware of what was going on around them. Most walked out like zombies with iPhone in hand, now that should be a Saturday Night Live skit.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-12-2013, 08:49 AM
My wife and I were at a Chili's restaurant last week and seated in the bar area. I would guess that 90% of the patrons were under 25 and they all had their faces glued to their iPhones. None were aware of what was going on around them. Most walked out like zombies with iPhone in hand, now that should be a Saturday Night Live skit.

Gotta let everyone on Facebook know that I'm at Chili's. And we are totally going to tip that waiter cuz he likes the sooners.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 09:29 AM
There wasn't 'no security' before. This is a False Choice™

Except the "before" version allowed terrorists to hijack 3 airplanes with box cutters. How many times has this, or anything remotely resembling this, happened since?

BroncoInferno
06-12-2013, 09:39 AM
Except the "before" version allowed terrorists to hijack 3 airplanes with box cutters. How many times has this, or anything remotely resembling this, happened since?

Eh, I gotta say, that's sounds an awful lot like the defense given by GW supporters over the years, i.e. "we haven't been attacked since 9/11, therefore the measures worked and have been worth it." All that was needed to prevent 9/11 were locks on the cockpit doors. That's it.

houghtam
06-12-2013, 09:58 AM
Eh, I gotta say, that's sounds an awful lot like the defense given by GW supporters over the years, i.e. "we haven't been attacked since 9/11, therefore the measures worked and have been worth it." All that was needed to prevent 9/11 were locks on the cockpit doors. That's it.

This.

I must say I'm quite surprised at the reactions by people like Tony and elsid. I highly doubt they had the same views on this as they had in the early 2000's, which lends credence to the double standard claim the conservatives are making. We have enough double standards from the right when they bellyache about this stuff as if Obama and the democrats were somehow the masterminds...we don't need it from you, too.

I think the more important question here is what does everyone planning on doing about it? I see a whole helluva lot of whining, outrage and feigned shock and surprise, but I don't see anyone proposing any solutions, and certainly nothing of what people are planning on doing on a personal level to address it.

You can complain all you want, but unless and until you're ready to get out on the front lines and DO something, you're still a sheep, whether your name is Beavis or Tony.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 10:00 AM
^ That's fair, BI. And I don't know how this discussion got to the TSA topic to begin with. I'm just trying to get these guys to explain what level of security and/or surveillance should be used. They're attacking the NSA programs, understandably, but they're not offering alternatives and they're not admitting that had Obama scrapped such programs they'd be attacking him the other direction. This was a political loser for Obama from the start. In the political environment he inherited there was no way these programs were going to be shelved. Few, if any, on "the right" complained about this stuff then. Now it's the end of the world. I don't particularly like it, but at the same time I'm not ready to impeach Obama because the NSA has technology which scans emails.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-12-2013, 10:02 AM
Unsecured cockpits. Planes full of people unaware that the hijackers wanted to die using kamikaze tactics. Passengers who thought if they just cooperated with the hijackers, they might get out unharmed. This situation will never happen again, and it has nothing to do with groping grandma and stealing ipads.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 10:05 AM
Yes, houghtam, and the double standard goes both ways. That's what I'm trying to point out to Beavis and Doc and other but they won't approach it. Just like they won't admit directly and/or specifically what their concerns are or what the solutions are. I admit I had more concerns then that I do now. I think a large part of that is that I didn't trust the Bush administration and was disgusted with the Iraq war. I trust the Obama administration more, although perhaps I shouldn't. I'm not saying this is all okay just because Obama is in charge now. I am saying that I'm surprised everyone is so surprised that the NSA is doing this, and I want them to explain what their concerns are. I get nothing but deflective humor and generalities on the latter.

BroncoBeavis
06-12-2013, 10:13 AM
This.

I must say I'm quite surprised at the reactions by people like Tony and elsid. I highly doubt they had the same views on this as they had in the early 2000's, which lends credence to the double standard claim the conservatives are making. We have enough double standards from the right when they bellyache about this stuff as if Obama and the democrats were somehow the masterminds...we don't need it from you, too.

I think the more important question here is what does everyone planning on doing about it? I see a whole helluva lot of whining, outrage and feigned shock and surprise, but I don't see anyone proposing any solutions, and certainly nothing of what people are planning on doing on a personal level to address it.

You can complain all you want, but unless and until you're ready to get out on the front lines and DO something, you're still a sheep, whether your name is Beavis or Tony.

It'll be interesting to see what Europe does. They have a real market opportunity to create competing services that guarantee privacy. And even if that doesn't turn out to be true, at least they have less vested interest in the politics and beliefs of those living halfway across the planet.

Otherwise I don't know what to tell you. I won't support anyone who takes the Feinstein/Graham/Boehner line on this. I'd like them all removed at this point (Democratically) to be honest. I've been pretty surprised at some of the right's reaction. Both sides are literally split in two over this, which I didn't expect. Yes, you can always assume some people are posturing. But today, if a Republican comes out in support of this, you know for sure, they're really ok with it (because posturing would work the other direction)

I really wish there were a libertarian middle. That just isn't the reality at this point.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-12-2013, 10:14 AM
I have this idea that maybe we should follow the US Constitution. Use that as a guide as to what might be permissible and whatnot. I'm pretty sure it says something about probable cause, the right to privacy, freedom, etc. Crazy, I know.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 11:06 AM
Both sides are literally split in two over this...

This is a very interesting development. When I saw you using the ACLU to support your position, and Bill Kristol is basically supporting mine, I knew we were going to have some fun!

BroncoInferno
06-12-2013, 11:16 AM
^ That's fair, BI. And I don't know how this discussion got to the TSA topic to begin with. I'm just trying to get these guys to explain what level of security and/or surveillance should be used. They're attacking the NSA programs, understandably, but they're not offering alternatives and they're not admitting that had Obama scrapped such programs they'd be attacking him the other direction. This was a political loser for Obama from the start. In the political environment he inherited there was no way these programs were going to be shelved. Few, if any, on "the right" complained about this stuff then. Now it's the end of the world. I don't particularly like it, but at the same time I'm not ready to impeach Obama because the NSA has technology which scans emails.

I get what you're saying. Right-wingers who didn't make a peep of complaint when the Bush administration enacted most of these procedures are pretending like it's all the evil-doing of President Blackenstein. Still, that doesn't excuse Obama for continuing these policies.

Pony Boy
06-12-2013, 11:27 AM
Yes, houghtam, and the double standard goes both ways. That's what I'm trying to point out to Beavis and Doc and other but they won't approach it. Just like they won't admit directly and/or specifically what their concerns are or what the solutions are. I admit I had more concerns then that I do now. I think a large part of that is that I didn't trust the Bush administration and was disgusted with the Iraq war. I trust the Obama administration more, although perhaps I shouldn't. I'm not saying this is all okay just because Obama is in charge now. I am saying that I'm surprised everyone is so surprised that the NSA is doing this, and I want them to explain what their concerns are. I get nothing but deflective humor and generalities on the latter.

It's time to introduce passenger profiling that includes taking religious background into account. "It's a fact that over the past 34 years, starting with the Munich Olympics, the majority of terrorist attacks have been carried out by Muslims. It’s time to quit picking on Grandma and the kids for the sake of being politically correct.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 11:43 AM
Right-wingers who didn't make a peep of complaint when the Bush administration enacted most of these procedures are pretending like it's all the evil-doing of President Blackenstein. Still, that doesn't excuse Obama for continuing these policies.

It's also worth noting that Obama largely has bipartisan congressional support on this. Which also doesn't make it okay. The point here would be that people should be mad at government in general, not just Obama.

baja
06-12-2013, 12:02 PM
I get what you're saying. Right-wingers who didn't make a peep of complaint when the Bush administration enacted most of these procedures are pretending like it's all the evil-doing of President Blackenstein. Still, that doesn't excuse Obama for continuing these policies.

What the hell is wrong with you people this framework for tyranny is against all of us regardless of political affiliation.

It's like being trapped in a burning room and arguing about who started the fire while the flames press to engulf the room.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 12:09 PM
What the hell is wrong with you people...

Make note of his very last comment.

cutthemdown
06-12-2013, 12:14 PM
What the hell is wrong with you people this framework for tyranny is against all of us regardless of political affiliation.

It's like being trapped in a burning room and arguing about who started the fire while the flames press to engulf the room.

This! At some point when it comes to issues like these we have to all get on the same page. The problem is the party in power will never admit any wrongdoing because then you won't stay in power.

cutthemdown
06-12-2013, 12:16 PM
It's also worth noting that Obama largely has bipartisan congressional support on this. Which also doesn't make it okay. The point here would be that people should be mad at government in general, not just Obama.

Here is why we can be pissed at Obama. He got elected saying he would stand up to it, would do something about it. Hell he is on video saying just that. He preached that crap and make it his issue. Now had Obama said well i think Bush and Cheney are spot on. We need to be safe and to do that you give up some privacy. But......We all know that isn't what Senator/Campaigner Obama said is it?

cutthemdown
06-12-2013, 12:16 PM
Obama pointed at Bush and said look at that guy I will be different. Then he did the same if not worst.

Rohirrim
06-12-2013, 12:45 PM
It's pretty simple, really. We all want to stop terrorism. This is the wrong way to do it. The government needs to kill this program and come up with something else.

baja
06-12-2013, 01:03 PM
Make note of his very last comment.

I didn't intend to single out Inferno (thus the "you people" comment)

My guess is the shadowy elite sit around smoking cigars and laughing their asses off at all the silly people arguing rather it's the right arm or left arm of the same sinister body pooping on them. And then there is the other large group that thinks the benevolent government is using this information for their protection.

Some future date people will be amazed (like we are about the people of Germany WWII era) how we all laid down for this. That is if there is a future time.

cutthemdown
06-12-2013, 01:11 PM
It's pretty simple, really. We all want to stop terrorism. This is the wrong way to do it. The government needs to kill this program and come up with something else.

**** the probably have two other programs doing the same thing lol. Also anyone who thinks Europe, Russia, China aren't also doing the same thing is kidding themselves.

It really is just like Orwell said it would be.

mhgaffney
06-12-2013, 01:17 PM
Did you notice the Catch-22?

Here's the passage:

A federal judge agreed, ruling the ACLU, Amnesty International, Global Fund for Women, Global Rights, Human Rights Watch, International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association, The Nation magazine, PEN American Center, Service Employees International Union and other plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case because they could not demonstrate that they were subject to the warrantless eavesdropping.

So how would the plaintiffs even know if they had been subject to warrantless wiretapping -- which is stealthy by its very nature?

The Judge's decision shows an arrogance that boggles any sane mind. But it's not surprising -- given all we've seen.
MHG

mhgaffney
06-12-2013, 01:19 PM
It's pretty simple, really. We all want to stop terrorism. This is the wrong way to do it. The government needs to kill this program and come up with something else.

The reality is that the biggest purveyors of terrorism are governments --not dissidents.

Pony Boy
06-12-2013, 01:20 PM
**** the probably have two other programs doing the same thing lol. Also anyone who thinks Europe, Russia, China aren't also doing the same thing is kidding themselves.

It really is just like Orwell said it would be.



Sales of Orwell's '1984' up over 6,000 percent after NSA news

http://www.today.com/news/sales-orwells-1984-over-6-000-percent-after-nsa-news-6C10282307

baja
06-12-2013, 01:28 PM
Sales of Orwell's '1984' up over 6,000 percent after NSA news

http://www.today.com/news/sales-orwells-1984-over-6-000-percent-after-nsa-news-6C10282307


It portrayed a horribly oppressive world but grossly underestimated the technology. If they ever complete their take over we are fked

houghtam
06-12-2013, 01:41 PM
It portrayed a horribly oppressive world but grossly underestimated the technology. If they ever complete their take over we are fked

It was set in 1984. I think you mean he overestimated the technology.

I'm not saying that we're just now reaching the point where the government can listen in to the extent portrayed in the novel...considering the first voice recognition tech became publicly available in the late 90s, this has likely been going on since the early 90s or earlier, even, which is why I don't really get the surprise a lot of people have.

But I suggest you re-read the novel...some of the stuff in there we don't even have yet, and definitely didn't have 30 years ago.

cutthemdown
06-12-2013, 01:47 PM
True our lives are better then what orwell portrayed. But the big brother watching part is spot on. Hopefully we would never stand for a truly oppressive govt. It's not perfect but Im still not too worried about the NSA busting me for talking about smoking some weed in an email. I guess if you use email and phone to talk about illegal activities it would be smart to find a new way to communicate.

baja
06-12-2013, 01:53 PM
It was set in 1984. I think you mean he overestimated the technology.

I'm not saying that we're just now reaching the point where the government can listen in to the extent portrayed in the novel...considering the first voice recognition tech became publicly available in the late 90s, this has likely been going on since the early 90s or earlier, even, which is why I don't really get the surprise a lot of people have.

But I suggest you re-read the novel...some of the stuff in there we don't even have yet, and definitely didn't have 30 years ago.


Yes I didn't state that correctly. The point I want to make is given today's technology it would be very hard to break out of the tyranny once it is dialed in. No place to run no way to organize we would be in total lock down while they calmly go about their culling of the herd down to the 500 million they have as a target global population.

houghtam
06-12-2013, 02:14 PM
Yes I didn't state that correctly. The point I want to make is given today's technology it would be very hard to break out of the tyranny once it is dialed in. No place to run no way to organize we would be in total lock down while they calmly go about their culling of the herd down to the 500 million they have as a target global population.

True, but the real horror Orwell was writing about wasn't the technology. It wasn't even necessarily the oppressive government. It was the silent complicity of the ignorant public. He purposely didn't write much about how things got to be that way. Oppression on a macro level is a danger, for sure. But according to Orwell, oppression on the individual level, that is, fearmongering which causes the citizenry to turn on one another (and eventually themselves) is the true terror. He even more or less explicitly explained this in the scene where Winston witnesses the mob react in the crowded square. It was there he realized "if there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated."

B cannot happen without A.

To put it another way, oppression isn't the cause of loss of individualism. The voluntary, fear-based decision to give up on individuality sets up an environment ripe for government oppression.

Pony Boy
06-12-2013, 02:17 PM
Yes I didn't state that correctly. The point I want to make is given today's technology it would be very hard to break out of the tyranny once it is dialed in. No place to run no way to organize we would be in total lock down while they calmly go about their culling of the herd down to the 500 million they have as a target global population.

Also given today's technology this senerio in 2001: A Space Odyssey seems very realastic.

HAL: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

HAL: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?

[on Dave's return to the ship, after HAL has killed the rest of the crew]

HAL: Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

HAL: I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you.

baja
06-12-2013, 02:36 PM
True, but the real horror Orwell was writing about wasn't the technology. It wasn't even necessarily the oppressive government. It was the silent complicity of the ignorant public. He purposely didn't write much about how things got to be that way. Oppression on a macro level is a danger, for sure. But according to Orwell, oppression on the individual level, that is, fearmongering which causes the citizenry to turn on one another (and eventually themselves) is the true terror. He even more or less explicitly explained this in the scene where Winston witnesses the mob react in the crowded square. It was there he realized "if there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated."

B cannot happen without A.

To put it another way, oppression isn't the cause of loss of individualism. The voluntary, fear-based decision to give up on individuality sets up an environment ripe for government oppression.

Yes good observation. I was just making this point in a round about way on another thread

mhgaffney
06-13-2013, 10:58 AM
Aussie network interviews Julian Assange

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35259.htm

TonyR
06-14-2013, 09:48 AM
The “best-case” scenario for him telling Chinese media that we’re spying on China is that he figures that inflaming local sentiment against the U.S. will make it harder for Chinese/Hong Kong authorities to extradite him. Which is to say, instead of gratuitously humiliating America, in this scenario he’s merely betraying state semi-secrets to protect himself. Somewhere Obama’s watching this CNN clip and smiling because he knows that, like it or not, he’s locked in a battle for public opinion with Snowden right now. And everyone who saw this segment this afternoon is now thinking the same thing: If Snowden’s willing to tell China this, what else is he willing to them that he knows? Advantage: Obama. http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/12/snowden-tells-chinese-paper-yes-the-u-s-is-hacking-chinese-and-hong-kong-computers/

Rohirrim
06-14-2013, 10:13 AM
The reality is that the biggest purveyors of terrorism are governments --not dissidents.

That's not true at all. When is the last time a government set off a bomb in a nightclub, or in a bus, or at the finish line of a marathon?

Rohirrim
06-14-2013, 10:14 AM
True, but the real horror Orwell was writing about wasn't the technology. It wasn't even necessarily the oppressive government. It was the silent complicity of the ignorant public. He purposely didn't write much about how things got to be that way. Oppression on a macro level is a danger, for sure. But according to Orwell, oppression on the individual level, that is, fearmongering which causes the citizenry to turn on one another (and eventually themselves) is the true terror. He even more or less explicitly explained this in the scene where Winston witnesses the mob react in the crowded square. It was there he realized "if there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated."

B cannot happen without A.

To put it another way, oppression isn't the cause of loss of individualism. The voluntary, fear-based decision to give up on individuality sets up an environment ripe for government oppression.

Somebody once said, "The only thing we need to fear is fear itself." ;D

Rohirrim
06-15-2013, 07:16 AM
Al Gore says NSA spying violates the Constitution:
"This in my view violates the constitution. The fourth amendment and the first amendment – and the fourth amendment language is crystal clear," he told The Guardian, which revealed the agency's phone surveillance and reported on its Internet data-mining. "It is not acceptable to have a secret interpretation of a law that goes far beyond any reasonable reading of either the law or the constitution and then classify as top secret what the actual law is."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/al-gore-nsa_n_3443646.html

baja
06-15-2013, 07:28 AM
Al Gore says NSA spying violates the Constitution:
"This in my view violates the constitution. The fourth amendment and the first amendment – and the fourth amendment language is crystal clear," he told The Guardian, which revealed the agency's phone surveillance and reported on its Internet data-mining. "It is not acceptable to have a secret interpretation of a law that goes far beyond any reasonable reading of either the law or the constitution and then classify as top secret what the actual law is."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/al-gore-nsa_n_3443646.html

Good for Al, finally steps up for America.

Dukes
06-15-2013, 08:10 AM
Al Gore says NSA spying violates the Constitution:
"This in my view violates the constitution. The fourth amendment and the first amendment – and the fourth amendment language is crystal clear," he told The Guardian, which revealed the agency's phone surveillance and reported on its Internet data-mining. "It is not acceptable to have a secret interpretation of a law that goes far beyond any reasonable reading of either the law or the constitution and then classify as top secret what the actual law is."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/al-gore-nsa_n_3443646.html

We live in strange times. I agree with Al Gore.

Rohirrim
06-23-2013, 06:23 AM
BTW, did everybody know that Booz Allen is owned by the Carlyle Group? And why is this huge private equity corporation involved in this whole Snowden deal? Snowden was a CIA employee contracted out to Booz Allen. How does that work? And Booz Allen is a "consulting" corporation specializing in (according to Wiki) ... strategic planning, human capital and learning, communications, operational improvement, information technology work, systems engineering, organizational change efforts, modeling and simulation, program management, assurance and resilience, and economic business analysis. Anybody know what that means? And, according to Wiki, 99% of Booz Allen's income comes from the federal government?

So I assume what we have now are corporate entities spying on U.S. citizens and supplying the U.S. government with that information for a fee? And in turn, CIA employees, like Snowdon, work in those corporations while drawing a six figure salary from the federal government? Or was Booz Allen signing Snowdon's paycheck? I guess it wouldn't matter, as all of Booz Allen's money comes from the government anyway. At least, as far as we know.

Meanwhile, the SCOTUS gives corporations personhood allowing them to control political campaigns? Funny, when you look at the corporate letterhead of the Carlyle Group, it's filled with cronies from the Bush1 and Clinton administrations. Anybody interested in the links between the Carlyle Group and Bush's Arbusto Energy?

Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.

baja
06-23-2013, 06:29 AM
BTW, did everybody know that Booz Allen is owned by the Carlyle Group? And why is this huge private equity corporation involved in this whole Snowden deal? Snowden was a CIA employee contracted out to Booz Allen. How does that work? And Booz Allen is a "consulting" corporation specializing in (according to Wiki) ... strategic planning, human capital and learning, communications, operational improvement, information technology work, systems engineering, organizational change efforts, modeling and simulation, program management, assurance and resilience, and economic business analysis. Anybody know what that means? And, according to Wiki, 99% of Booz Allen's income comes from the federal government?

So I assume what we have now are corporate entities spying on U.S. citizens and supplying the U.S. government with that information for a fee? And in turn, CIA employees, like Snowdon, work in those corporations while drawing a six figure salary from the federal government? Or was Booz Allen signing Snowdon's paycheck?

Meanwhile, the SCOTUS gives corporations personhood allowing them to control political campaigns? Funny, when you look at the corporate letterhead of the Carlyle Group, it's filled with cronies from the Bush1 and Clinton administrations.

Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.

Maybe you will take a second look at what this conspiracy theory kook has been saying for years. The question you will at some point ask yourself is how far down the rabbit hole do I want to do go.

Rohirrim
06-23-2013, 07:12 AM
Snowdon has fled Hong Kong for Russia. Reports are that he intends to travel to Caracas.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/23/edward-snowden-hong-kong_n_3486459.html

cutthemdown
06-23-2013, 07:56 AM
What an embarrasment for us.

baja
06-23-2013, 07:57 AM
What an embarrasment for us.

Embarrassment or wake up call?

barryr
06-23-2013, 08:59 AM
So when the NY Times revealed secrets of the CIA and how and where they were taking the captured a handful of years ago, they were applauded by mostly the liberals, but now revealing secrets about our government is a bad thing now? Can these people ever be consistent on anything? If people are truly worried about our security and what is truly right or wrong, then party affiliation should not be a factor.

Bacchus
06-23-2013, 09:08 AM
"I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/09/four-things-to-know-about-surveillance-leaker-edward-snowden/

THis man is a hero.

baja
06-23-2013, 09:14 AM
THis man is a hero.


Totally!

peacepipe
06-23-2013, 09:41 AM
It's one thing to be a whistle blower, it's another if he's giving all these details to China,Russia,Venezuela or cuba. He's shopping what he knows to whatever country that will harbor him.
When it was just an issue of him being whistle blower I didn't have an issue with what he did,but the fact that he's traveling to every known antagonist country we disagree with poses a lot of questions.
Does anyone actually think the Chinese government didn't monitor & have a sit down with snowden?
Hong Kong could've easily extradited snowden, Hong Kong on any other extradition would only need to know someone was charged and it was to the U.S. in order to extradite a person. Now all of the sudden they want to claim the paperwork wasn't properly filed.
In the end I don't buy the hype that he's some kind of hero. Initially,I thought he was,but as more facts/news comes out about this the more I think he crossed the line from being a simple whistle blower to someone selling out his country for simple self interest.

houghtam
06-23-2013, 10:17 AM
So when the NY Times revealed secrets of the CIA and how and where they were taking the captured a handful of years ago, they were applauded by mostly the liberals, but now revealing secrets about our government is a bad thing now? Can these people ever be consistent on anything? If people are truly worried about our security and what is truly right or wrong, then party affiliation should not be a factor.

More generalizations from Generalissimo Idiotini.

Question: When you talk to people in real life, do you ever address them directly?

nyuk nyuk
06-23-2013, 10:43 AM
An apparently freedom-loving man ashamed of his own country flees to a country noted for unfree conditions, political prisoners, intimidation of journalists and human rights groups members.

No, he was always a lefty. And a blind one at that. One way to spot a radical leftist is that he hates his country for doing watered-down versions of what favored lefty regimes do, kind of like how gay rights only matters in capitalist pig countries.

nyuk nyuk
06-23-2013, 10:44 AM
THis man is a hero.

Where he seeks refuge is indicative of who he really is. Heroic? Not in the least.

Rohirrim
06-23-2013, 10:59 AM
Some people are perfectly happy with their government violating the Constitution every day in order to spy on them. All they need is for somebody in big daddy government to pat them on the head and say, "We're doing it for your safety."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-4%20Pixies:Pixies:Position1

What is vital to recognize is that the NSA is collecting and storing staggering sums of communications every day. Back in 2010, the Washington Post reported that "every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications." Documents published by the Guardian last week detail that, in March 2013, the NSA collected three billions of pieces of intelligence just from US communications networks alone.

In sum, the NSA is vacuuming up enormous amounts of communications involving ordinary Americans and people around the world who are guilty of nothing. There are some legal constraints governing their power to examine the content of those communications, but there are no technical limits on the ability either of the agency or its analysts to do so. The fact that there is so little external oversight is what makes this sweeping, suspicion-less surveillance system so dangerous. It's also what makes the assurances from government officials and their media allies so dubious.

Rohirrim
06-23-2013, 11:16 AM
Where he seeks refuge is indicative of who he really is. Heroic? Not in the least.

Yeah. He's obviously a guy who likes empanadas.

Bacchus
06-23-2013, 11:53 AM
Where he seeks refuge is indicative of who he really is. Heroic? Not in the least.

HAHAHa. well yeah he seeks refuge because he would do life in a federal prison if he didn't.

peacepipe
06-23-2013, 11:56 AM
An apparently freedom-loving man ashamed of his own country flees to a country noted for unfree conditions, political prisoners, intimidation of journalists and human rights groups members.

No, he was always a lefty. And a blind one at that. One way to spot a radical leftist is that he hates his country for doing watered-down versions of what favored lefty regimes do, kind of like how gay rights only matters in capitalist pig countries.

He's a libertarian. LOL hard to imagine why rand Paul would heap praise on a person you discribe as a radical leftist.

Rohirrim
06-23-2013, 12:00 PM
What shocks me is that a corporation (Booz Allen) owned by the Carlyle Group has CIA agents on its payroll who are spying on Americans for the U.S. government. Seriously. WTF? Meanwhile, America goes, "Meh." Doesn't give me much hope for the future.

nyuk nyuk
06-23-2013, 12:00 PM
HAHAHa. well yeah he seeks refuge because he would do life in a federal prison if he didn't.

The idea is that it was a shock to his system and he felt so badly he couldn't live in such a country that spies on its citizens.

So what does he do? A global hopscotch across some of the most grotesque regimes on the planet where he is welcomed - who all spy on their citizens and treat dissidents like cannon fodder.

It only makes sense if he was an America-hating lefty to begin with...

Or perhaps just yet another brain dead ignorant liberal.

Rohirrim
06-23-2013, 12:03 PM
The idea is that it was a shock to his system and he felt so badly he couldn't live in such a country that spies on its citizens.

So what does he do? A global hopscotch across some of the most grotesque regimes on the planet where he is welcomed - who all spy on their citizens and treat dissidents like cannon fodder.

It only makes sense if he was an America-hating lefty to begin with...

Or perhaps just yet another brain dead ignorant liberal.

Good. Good. Let the hate flow through you, drama llama. Ha!
Maybe he used to be a Marxist, just like you?

peacepipe
06-23-2013, 12:04 PM
The idea is that it was a shock to his system and he felt so badly he couldn't live in such a country that spies on its citizens.

So what does he do? A global hopscotch across some of the most grotesque regimes on the planet where he is welcomed - who all spy on their citizens and treat dissidents like cannon fodder.

It only makes sense if he was an America-hating libertarian to begin with...

Or perhaps just yet another brain dead ignorant libertarian.

FIFY.

Bacchus
06-23-2013, 12:08 PM
The idea is that it was a shock to his system and he felt so badly he couldn't live in such a country that spies on its citizens.

So what does he do? A global hopscotch across some of the most grotesque regimes on the planet where he is welcomed - who all spy on their citizens and treat dissidents like cannon fodder.

It only makes sense if he was an America-hating lefty to begin with...

Or perhaps just yet another brain dead ignorant liberal.

Ok, so what sacrifices have you made for stuff you believe in. This man lost everything. They only thing he has left is his freedom.

nyuk nyuk
06-23-2013, 12:14 PM
What shocks me is that a corporation (Booz Allen) owned by the Carlyle Group has CIA agents on its payroll who are spying on Americans for the U.S. government. Seriously. WTF? Meanwhile, America goes, "Meh." Doesn't give me much hope for the future.

The DHS never should have been created to begin with and the Patriot Act and similar should never have been put into law. They are either mindless, emotional overreactions or were waiting in the wings to be put into place the minute a viable pretext came along.

There is one simple and very obvious way to stop this homeland terrorism: Stop importing people from violent toilets. We never had this problem until we loosened immigration law. Apparently in some eyes its more morally acceptable to spy on everyone than it is to stop importing people from hell holes. Isn't that special? One word explains this behavior : liberalism. We just can't be diskirminatin' and sheeeeet, can we? So we'll do as we always do and harass everybody instead of looking at troublemakers because that would be "profiling" regardless of how much the shoe fits.

Unfortunately, if the media goes "Meh," so often do Americans. The media hyped Alar in the 80s so everyone pooped their pants. Last year they hyped extremely rare murders with "assault weapons" so everyone pooped their pants. Now this. Meh.

nyuk nyuk
06-23-2013, 12:15 PM
Ok, so what sacrifices have you made for stuff you believe in. This man lost everything. They only thing he has left is his freedom.

This topic isn't about me. I've explained here already why I believe that his motive either wasn't what he said it was or that he is an ignorant fool. You don't fight government spying by moving to a country with even more government spying. That makes no sense and it stinks.

Bacchus
06-23-2013, 12:19 PM
This topic isn't about me. I've explained here already why I believe that his motive either wasn't what he said it was or that he is an ignorant fool. You don't fight government spying by moving to a country with even more government spying. That makes no sense and it stinks.

you're silly

nyuk nyuk
06-23-2013, 12:19 PM
Good. Good. Let the hate flow through you, drama llama. Ha!
Maybe he used to be a Marxist, just like you?

Yes, "hate." Another popular catchword among the left political herd animals who think best in one-word sentences.

If you take issue with what I say, then state what the issue is.

I'm not saying that he may used to be a Marxist. I'm saying he may be one now.

You don't flee to left-wing regimes with known human rights abuses because you're a lover of freedom. You do it because you're a lover of leftism.

nyuk nyuk
06-23-2013, 12:20 PM
you're silly

A grown man calling a name most commonly used by preteen girls.

Now I've seen everything.

nyuk nyuk
06-23-2013, 12:24 PM
Some people are perfectly happy with their government violating the Constitution every day in order to spy on them. All they need is for somebody in big daddy government to pat them on the head and say, "We're doing it for your safety."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-4%20Pixies:Pixies:Position1

Oh there's plenty of dissent, but you can't expect to see much of it in the mainstream media.

Unfortunately there is a lot of truth to the criticism of the MSM by the likes of Chomsky in that they definitely tow the line for the politically and financially powerful. You aren't going to get the full truth from them and you are more than not going to be told what to think and what are the acceptable boundaries of thought and behavior are.

This government is extremely corrupt and specifically by powerful special interests and are also using the media to market their agenda, quite clearly.

I think we should do with corrupt government officials like they do in China - execute them. My tolerance level with governmental corruption has vanished to a nub of a fuse. What is being done right now is simply not working.

Rohirrim
06-23-2013, 12:29 PM
Yes, "hate." Another popular catchword among the left political herd animals who think best in one-word sentences.

If you take issue with what I say, then state what the issue is.

I'm not saying that he may used to be a Marxist. I'm saying he may be one now.

You don't flee to left-wing regimes with known human rights abuses because you're a lover of freedom. You do it because you're a lover of leftism.

Or maybe because you know your own government will incarcerate you for life (See: Bradley Manning) for revealing that they are serial violators of the Constitution, ergo, best to travel through countries that won't extradite you. Gee, ya think? No. Of course you don't.

nyuk nyuk
06-23-2013, 12:46 PM
Or maybe because you know your own government will incarcerate you for life (See: Bradley Manning) for revealing that they are serial violators of the Constitution, ergo, best to travel through countries that won't extradite you. Gee, ya think? No. Of course you don't.

Not when you do it in the name of freedom and then free to some of the most unfree toilets on earth, no. It doesn't add up.

BroncoBeavis
06-24-2013, 05:33 AM
Not when you do it in the name of freedom and then free to some of the most unfree toilets on earth, no. It doesn't add up.

I'd like to see the list of 'free' nations that wouldn't just pick the guy up and turn him over.

This country has lost its collective mind. It has no standing to call out its whistleblowers on principles.

baja
06-24-2013, 06:58 AM
I'd like to see the list of 'free' nations that wouldn't just pick the guy up and turn him over.

This country has lost its collective mind. It has no standing to call out its whistleblowers on principles.

QFT

Rohirrim
06-24-2013, 07:12 AM
I notice that the corporate media has now shifted the story to "The Hunt for Red Snowden" instead of the real story: Is the U.S. government lying through its teeth and violating the Constitution on a daily basis while it builds the largest, most intrusive surveillance apparatus in history? In other words, is Snowden right?

But I guess the more entertaining story is "Where's Waldo?"

baja
06-24-2013, 09:19 AM
I notice that the corporate media has now shifted the story to "The Hunt for Red Snowden" instead of the real story: Is the U.S. government lying through its teeth and violating the Constitution on a daily basis while it builds the largest, most intrusive surveillance apparatus in history? In other words, is Snowden right?

But I guess the more entertaining story is "Where's Waldo?"

It's what I have been saying for years, "Where the hell is the outrage"

I think back the the protests during the Viet Nam war and compare the citizenry then to todays group of zombies and do not hold out much hope for the people to take back their government. It does not matter the latest outrage people just do not give a damn. I see the future as a combination of two movies, The Hunger Games & Idiocracy

peacepipe
06-24-2013, 09:26 AM
I notice that the corporate media has now shifted the story to "The Hunt for Red Snowden" instead of the real story: Is the U.S. government lying through its teeth and violating the Constitution on a daily basis while it builds the largest, most intrusive surveillance apparatus in history? In other words, is Snowden right?

But I guess the more entertaining story is "Where's Waldo?"

I agree the nsa needs some serious oversight & some heads need to roll,but the nsa isn't listening to nor does it have the capability to listen to every phone call made. The nsa needs to be investigated.

BroncoBeavis
06-24-2013, 09:32 AM
It's what I have been saying for years, "Where the hell is the outrage"

I think back the the protests during the Viet Nam war and compare the citizenry then to todays group of zombies and do not hold out much hope for the people to take back their government. It does not matter the latest outrage people just do not give a damn. I see the future as a combination of two movies, The Hunger Games & Idiocracy

I think the 'take to the streets' barometer isn't the best one to use in this day and age. Back in the '60's and 70's, making your opposition known required just that kind of public display. But just as we no longer have to go down to the coffee or barber shop to have political discussions, the need for taking to the streets in protest isn't what it used to be. Although that's not to say it can't come to that.

TonyR
06-24-2013, 09:35 AM
I think the 'take to the streets' barometer isn't the best one to use in this day and age.

Not in this country, anyway. But take a look at what's going on in Turkey and Brazil, for example.

BroncoBeavis
06-24-2013, 09:39 AM
I agree the nsa needs some serious oversight & some heads need to roll,but the nsa isn't listening to nor does it have the capability to listen to every phone call made. The nsa needs to be investigated.

It doesn't have to listen, only record. Then you can focus on the 'threats' real, imagined, or contrived at your leisure, and as they become known.

Say some firebrand local politician starts making hay and building a national following that might lead to a popular movement the government doesn't like.

It doesn't matter whether they've been listening to his calls up until then. Now that he's on their radar they can take their time, go back to everything he's ever done and turn his life inside out.

You control this kind of data, and you effectively control the population, at least when it comes to governance.

BroncoBeavis
06-24-2013, 09:43 AM
Not in this country, anyway. But take a look at what's going on in Turkey and Brazil, for example.

Yeah, it's still possible. But those places aren't exactly renowned for open avenues of political discourse.

houghtam
06-24-2013, 10:00 AM
It doesn't have to listen, only record. Then you can focus on the 'threats' real, imagined, or contrived at your leisure, and as they become known.

Say some firebrand local politician starts making hay and building a national following that might lead to a popular movement the government doesn't like.

It doesn't matter whether they've been listening to his calls up until then. Now that he's on their radar they can take their time, go back to everything he's ever done and turn his life inside out.

You control this kind of data, and you effectively control the population, at least when it comes to governance.

I think that's a vast overestimation of the capabilities of the program. I have a hard time believing there's enough storage capacity to allow them to hold on to everything everyone does forever.

The point still stands that this can (and probably will/already has) be abused. From my perspective, the first step to even beginning a policy discussion on this is to demand that both the FISA court be made public, and to remove any and all ability to independently investigate from individual agents. I would love to see a coalition of congressmen and women come out publicly and say something like "If you think GOP cooperation was bad, you haven't seen anything yet. We will do absolutely NOTHING until we get both of these guarantees." Then spend every day on the airwaves talking in depth about the program so that the American people support the congressmen and women. Basically do a reverse Obama. Drum up public support before forcing the establishment to make a change.

BroncoBeavis
06-24-2013, 10:22 AM
I think that's a vast overestimation of the capabilities of the program. I have a hard time believing there's enough storage capacity to allow them to hold on to everything everyone does forever.

It probably is an overestimation of current capability. But not for lack of trying, or due to any intentional curbs put in place. And because of that, capability makes little difference when it comes to the principles at stake (at least to me) If technical limits are their only limits, the rest only becomes a matter of hurdles cleared over time.

And also, in practice, secret-selectiveness doesn't make that much difference in the ability to silence critics. You wouldn't necessarily need the data. Just the rational threat of having it.

BroncoBeavis
06-24-2013, 10:29 AM
I would love to see a coalition of congressmen and women come out publicly and say something like "If you think GOP cooperation was bad, you haven't seen anything yet. We will do absolutely NOTHING until we get both of these guarantees."

The sad fact is, I'm not sure there's even naked-majority opposition to what's really going on. Prominent rationalizers and excuse-makers on all sides. That's been the most disheartening part.

Pony Boy
06-24-2013, 12:05 PM
32478

razorwire77
06-24-2013, 11:33 PM
I notice that the corporate media has now shifted the story to "The Hunt for Red Snowden" instead of the real story: Is the U.S. government lying through its teeth and violating the Constitution on a daily basis while it builds the largest, most intrusive surveillance apparatus in history? In other words, is Snowden right?

But I guess the more entertaining story is "Where's Waldo?"

Look over here! Over here! Look over here! It's a manhunt! Horse-race! Chasing! Over here! Let's have a winners and losers debate about the manhunt! Over here! How do Republicans feel about how Obama is handling the manhunt? How do Democrats respond to Republicans' attacks on how Obama is handling the manhunt?

Over here! Over here! Over here!

Disgusting.

baja
06-25-2013, 05:57 AM
Look over here! Over here! Look over here! It's a manhunt! Horse-race! Chasing! Over here! Let's have a winners and losers debate about the manhunt! Over here! How do Republicans feel about how Obama is handling the manhunt? How do Democrats respond to Republicans' attacks on how Obama is handling the manhunt?

Over here! Over here! Over here!

Disgusting.

It's time to turn to God without that there will be no personal peace

cutthemdown
06-25-2013, 07:09 AM
It's time to turn to God without that there will be no personal peace

Bono of U2 gave a great interview on his faith and why he spends almost all his time and money now on trying to help people. If all the rich people were like Bono and some others we wouldn't have to tax the crap out of them. I'm a fan of his now even though he always seemed like sort of a douche.

Rohirrim
06-25-2013, 08:10 AM
It's time to turn to God without that there will be no personal peace

If an asteroid hit the Earth tomorrow and obliterated this planet to dust, not a tear in the universe would be shed. It would just go on. You'd have as much luck receiving mercy or peace praying to the ocean. Nobody cares. Our fate is in our own hands. If we destroy this planet for ourselves, it doesn't matter. The cockroaches will take over. The amoebae. The alga. The cnidarians. They won't care either.

baja
06-25-2013, 08:31 AM
If an asteroid hit the Earth tomorrow and obliterated this planet to dust, not a tear in the universe would be shed. It would just go on. You'd have as much luck receiving mercy or peace praying to the ocean. Nobody cares. Our fate is in our own hands. If we destroy this planet for ourselves, it doesn't matter. The cockroaches will take over. The amoebae. The alga. The cnidarians. They won't care either.

Are you one of those that suffer anxiety?

houghtam
06-25-2013, 08:46 AM
Are you one of those that suffer anxiety?

Realizing that if there is a god, he has either no interest or no ability to intervene in your life is one of the most freeing experiences I've ever had.

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 09:11 AM
Realizing that if there is a god, he has either no interest or no ability to intervene in your life is one of the most freeing experiences I've ever had.

How could God breathe the universe into existence, yet have no ability to intervene in your life?

baja
06-25-2013, 09:24 AM
Realizing that if there is a god, he has either no interest or no ability to intervene in your life is one of the most freeing experiences I've ever had.

Well really there is not much I can say to you than.

houghtam
06-25-2013, 09:33 AM
How could God breathe the universe into existence, yet have no ability to intervene in your life?

You are assigning omnipotence and intelligence to a conveniently-anthropomorphized-fit-for-human-understand idea.

I am not.

Rohirrim
06-25-2013, 09:36 AM
Are you one of those that suffer anxiety?

Any conscious organism faced with its own inevitable demise must deal with some form of anxiety. N'est-ce pas? ;D

BroncoInferno
06-25-2013, 09:38 AM
How could God breathe the universe into existence, yet have no ability to intervene in your life?

Well, if a God does exist, and has the ability to intervene in our lives, then there is no other rational conclusion to draw but that that God is a truly evil tyrant (sadistic, really), totally unworthy of worship.

If you found out that a particular individual could have prevented the murder and rape of a child but chose not to, what conclusions would you draw about this person? Or what if they had the power to prevent a tsunami that results in the deaths of thousands, but again chooses not to? And, please, spare me some variation of "God works in mysterious ways."

TonyR
06-25-2013, 09:38 AM
A growing body of evidence seems to support the idea that the nonreligious have an easier time coping with death than do the religious, at least with their own mortality. Religious people appear to be more afraid of death than are nonreligious people. Nonreligious people are less likely to use aggressive means to extend their lives and exhibit less anxiety about dying than do religious people. That seems remarkably counterintuitive since the nonreligious are much less likely to believe in an afterlife, which is supposed to help people cope with death. But factor in that religious people are contemplating their eternal fate and it begins to make more sense. Even if they have done everything their religion says they are supposed to do, there is always a bit of uncertainty about where they might end up. As a result, religious people appear to have a greater fear of dying than do nonreligious people. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/17/are-atheists-better-at-dying-than-the-religious/

Rohirrim
06-25-2013, 09:45 AM
Who knows? There's still hope. As Einstein put it, “Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.” And since some part of us is energy...

Perhaps we just return to the primordial sea of life, like a droplet from a cloud?

cutthemdown
06-25-2013, 09:54 AM
I've had prayers answered before. In fact I have only prayed really hard for something a few times and God came through 4 out 5 times. My brother finding a bone marrow donor the big one. The lady that was his donor is deeply religious and said she one morning she awoke and decided she could do more for others. In her research on things she could do to help she came upon the bone marrow registry and what it did for people. Long story short she signed up and 4 weeks later was saving my brother life. Without her he would be dead.

Knowing that god intervened in my brothers life was an eye opening experience for me. Anyone who thinks god hasn't played a role in people lives is very short sighted. He works in mysterious ways friends way beyond what science could ever explain. Looking for science to prove there is no god, or is a god is very foolish.

houghtam
06-25-2013, 09:57 AM
Well, if a God does exist, and has the ability to intervene in our lives, then there is no other rational conclusion to draw but that that God is a truly evil tyrant (sadistic, really), totally unworthy of worship.

If you found out that a particular individual could have prevented the murder and rape of a child but chose not to, what conclusions would you draw about this person? Or what if they had the power to prevent a tsunami that results in the deaths of thousands, but again chooses not to? And, please, spare me some variation of "God works in mysterious ways."

It's either that or a "gold is better after tested in fire" argument...which is where the sadism comes in.

But that's a very good question...I wonder what the conservative religious response would be to Benghazi if the administration had just said "The President works in mysterious ways, guys. Mere citizens cannot know or understand." Seems like a bit of a double standard to demonize a guy who may have been able to prevent a terrorist attack, yet continually make excuses for the motives of someone who can supposedly literally stop any bad thing from happening anywhere at any time, doesn't it? ;)



And Tony, to your article, that's an interesting summary of the question of spirituality and belief in God in the first place. Oh, the sweet irony of an idea invented (or at least perpetuated) to help people cope with the trials of life which actually causes more emotional pain than it eases.

Personally as a non-religious person, I'm terrified of death. But when I mull things over, I find that it's more because I realize that I still have a lot more left to do, and to die without accomplishing it would not only cut my dreams short, but sell my family and children short as well. I'm sure as I get older and the tapestry of my life unfolds, I'll be able to see the whole picture more clearly and appreciate where I've been and what I've done.

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 10:02 AM
Well, if a God does exist, and has the ability to intervene in our lives, then there is no other rational conclusion to draw but that that God is a truly evil tyrant (sadistic, really), totally unworthy of worship.

If you found out that a particular individual could have prevented the murder and rape of a child but chose not to, what conclusions would you draw about this person? Or what if they had the power to prevent a tsunami that results in the deaths of thousands, but again chooses not to? And, please, spare me some variation of "God works in mysterious ways."

Well, I don't want to hijack the thread too much down this road. But I think the doctrine is that it's mankind and his decisions which made utopia impossible. Look around society today and it's hard to argue against that point definitively.

Garcia Bronco
06-25-2013, 10:03 AM
They're saying now that the NSA has been black mailing SCotUS justices, Reps, and god knows who else.

BroncoInferno
06-25-2013, 10:06 AM
Well, I don't want to hijack the thread too much down this road. But I think the doctrine is that it's mankind and his decisions which made utopia impossible.

What do "mankind and his decisions" have to do with a tsunami or an earthquake, or some other "act of God" that results in death and hardship?

Would you give a person a pass if you found out that they had the power to prevent the murder of a two year old? Literally, stop it from happening? If not, why should the same standards not be applied to a god? Are you really satisfied with a "man and his decisions" type of argument when comes to such a thing? Or do you simply stop thinking at this point and reach for your handy "God works in mysterious ways" crutch?

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 10:17 AM
What do "mankind and his decisions" have to do with a tsunami or an earthquake, or some other "act of God" that results in death and hardship?

Would you give a person a pass if you found out that they had the power to prevent the murder of a two year old? Literally, stop it from happening? If not, why should the same standards not be applied to a god? Are you really satisfied with a "man and his decisions" type of argument when comes to such a thing? Or do you simply stop thinking at this point and reach for your handy "God works in mysterious ways" crutch?

I'm not going to derail the thread any more on this here. Feel free to start a new one if you're really interested in a discussion on that. On the way over, ask yourself, would any of it ever have any possibility of really changing your mind? If not, why beat each other up?

BroncoInferno
06-25-2013, 10:21 AM
I'm not going to derail the thread any more on this here.

You're the one who started the thread down that path.

On the way over, ask yourself, would any of it ever have any possibility of really changing your mind? If not, why beat each other up?

LOL Do you know what forum you're in? Do you expect me to believe that you post here out of a pure desire to change hearts and minds, when so many of your posts drip with contempt?

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 11:07 AM
You're the one who started the thread down that path.

Read again.

Do you know what forum you're in? Do you expect me to believe that you post here out of a pure desire to change hearts and minds, when so many of your posts drip with contempt?

Politics and religion are different. Or at least should be.

BroncoInferno
06-25-2013, 11:09 AM
Politics and religion are different. Or at least should be.

Really? Do you mean to say that your religious beliefs are more sacred than anothers political beliefs?

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 12:18 PM
Really? Do you mean to say that your religious beliefs are more sacred than anothers political beliefs?

Can only speak to my beliefs. Not yours.

Rohirrim
06-25-2013, 12:24 PM
They're saying now that the NSA has been black mailing SCotUS justices, Reps, and god knows who else.

Who?

BroncoInferno
06-26-2013, 05:39 AM
Can only speak to my beliefs. Not yours.

So, basically, you feel justified in calling into question and even ridiculing the beliefs of others, but you expect your religious beliefs to be treated with kid gloves. Typical. There's no reason religious beliefs should not be held to the same standards of debate as any other belief. Your belief in a god is due no more deference than the belief of someone else in abortion rights or a single payer insurance system (etc).

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 06:02 AM
So, basically, you feel justified in calling into question and even ridiculing the beliefs of others, but you expect your religious beliefs to be treated with kid gloves. Typical. There's no reason religious beliefs should not be held to the same standards of debate as any other belief. Your belief in a god is due no more deference than the belief of someone else in abortion rights or a single payer insurance system (etc).

See. It is true. Politics is your guys' religion. LOL

Regardless. I didn't say I wouldn't discuss it. I have before. Just not here. I know you guys would love to discuss anything and everything but the Transparenceh Presidency. LOL
But I'm not taking this particular bait.

BroncoInferno
06-26-2013, 06:20 AM
See. It is true. Politics is your guys' religion. LOL

And there you go proving my point. In any case, personal beliefs - religious or otherwise - are due deference in-so-far as they are kept private. But once you choose to interject your beliefs (whatever they may be) into a public debate, then they are fair game.

Regardless. I didn't say I wouldn't discuss it. I have before. Just not here.

By "not here" you mean only this thread, correct? That's incredibly silly. What difference does it make? Seems like a deflection to me.

I know you guys would love to discuss anything and everything but the Transparenceh Presidency. LOL

Several of us have expressed our disappointment with Obama (unlike boot-lickers like you did with your boy Bush). There seems to be a near consensus agreement between the left and right (on this board at least) regarding the CIA breach (for one example).

But I'm not taking this particular bait.

Bait....you mean like your "Transparenceh Presidency" comment above? In any case, I'm not sure how I'm baiting you when our current back and forth started when I responded to comment you made.

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 07:22 AM
By "not here" you mean only this thread, correct? That's incredibly silly. What difference does it make? Seems like a deflection to me.

And to me, in this thread, it seems like a prototypical red herring. I apologize for addressing it at all in the first place. If you really want to talk about it instead of avoiding talking about Snowden, start a thread. Have at it.

Bait....you mean like your "Transparenceh Presidency" comment above? In any case, I'm not sure how I'm baiting you when our current back and forth started when I responded to comment you made.

Well, if it was bait, at least it was relevant bait. :)

TonyR
06-27-2013, 10:07 AM
I’m going to make a prediction here: Snowden isn’t going to Ecuador. He’s staying in Russia. Why? Because that’s what “free men” with troves of valuable data—just look at how hard the White House is fighting to get him back—and even more valuable revenge potential do when they take a strange detour to South America through Moscow and, mysteriously, get stuck. …

Putin said that Russian security services—which, again, are swarming the airport—”have not and are not working” with Snowden. Feels like there’s a missing word there, like, oh, I don’t know, “yet.” I’m going to call bull**** on that one, but if you don’t believe me, listen to Ellen Barry, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Moscow Bureau Chief for the Times. “If #Snowden’s been at Sheremetyevo all this time but FSB did not approach, it’s like a hungry man looking at a hamburger and not touching it,” she tweeted. (A Russian security source told a Reuters reporter that “he is a tasty morsel for any, any, secret service, also for ours.”)

I promise you, dear reader, that that hamburger—or tasty morsel—will get eaten, if it hasn’t been devoured already. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113622/putin-edward-snowden-free-man-will-stay-russia-angela-davis

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 10:12 AM
I've had prayers answered before. In fact I have only prayed really hard for something a few times and God came through 4 out 5 times. My brother finding a bone marrow donor the big one. The lady that was his donor is deeply religious and said she one morning she awoke and decided she could do more for others. In her research on things she could do to help she came upon the bone marrow registry and what it did for people. Long story short she signed up and 4 weeks later was saving my brother life. Without her he would be dead.


Glad things worked out for your brother, but still:

Hilarious!Hilarious!Hilarious!

Why did god save your brother, and not 2500 toddlers/year who die of cancer? Are you an extra good pray-er?

houghtam
06-27-2013, 10:36 AM
Glad things worked out for your brother, but still:

Hilarious!Hilarious!Hilarious!

Why did god save your brother, and not 2500 toddlers/year who die of cancer? Are you an extra good pray-er?

Because he prayed. Duh.

None of those kids at Newtown did, though. Besides, god loves guns and hates cancer. It was a no brainer.

cutthemdown
06-27-2013, 10:45 AM
I even pray for fools like Houghtam to get a job and stop living off his wife.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 10:47 AM
I even pray for fools like Houghtam to get a job and stop living off his wife.

He and his wife seem happy with the arrangement. What's your beef? Why is it a problem for the woman to be the breadwinner in a relationship?

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 10:48 AM
I saw your comment Beavis. Nice wiff on the sarcasm detector.

;)

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 11:02 AM
I saw your comment Beavis. Nice wiff on the sarcasm detector.

;)

It just occurred to me that I was going down the same road I already said I should't have taken (in this thread)

And if you're implying Hough's being sarcastic, I'm not sure that's the case. Maybe mockery is a form of sarcasm. But regardless that wouldn't change what I said. :)

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 11:25 AM
And if you're implying Hough's being sarcastic, I'm not sure that's the case. Maybe mockery is a form of sarcasm. But regardless that wouldn't change what I said. :)

"Sarcasm is "a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt."[1][2] In modern usage, the word "sarcasm" is commonly interpreted as involving irony,[3] or employs ambivalence,[4] but traditionally sarcasm was not necessarily irony."

Though perhaps the better synonym to use would have been sardonic.

TonyR
06-28-2013, 09:01 AM
“They’re reporting classified ****. Moreover, who the f*** are the anonymous sources telling them this? Those people should be shot in the balls.”
– Edward Snowden on leakers, in 2009.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/edward-snowden-blasted-new-york-times-leaks-in-2009-leakers-should-be-shot-in-the-balls/

Rohirrim
06-28-2013, 10:50 AM
– Edward Snowden on leakers, in 2009.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/edward-snowden-blasted-new-york-times-leaks-in-2009-leakers-should-be-shot-in-the-balls/

Interesting stuff. I still haven't made a judgment call whether this guy should be considered a hero, or a traitor. I'm sure the conspiracy lovers among us will call this the first salvo in the smear campaign against Snowden. Then again, maybe he's just a shallow, little, self-centered dweeb? Always the danger with these cases. Keep holding up the lamp, looking for the truth. :)

I'm just glad the government has been made highly uncomfortable by these revelations. What they've been doing is a clear violation of the 4th amendment, IMHO.

houghtam
06-28-2013, 11:01 AM
Interesting stuff. I still haven't made a judgment call whether this guy should be considered a hero, or a traitor. I'm sure the conspiracy lovers among us will call this the first salvo in the smear campaign against Snowden. Then again, maybe he's just a shallow, little, self-centered dweeb? Always the danger with these cases. Keep holding up the lamp, looking for the truth. :)

I'm just glad the government has been made highly uncomfortable by these revelations. What they've been doing is a clear violation of the 4th amendment, IMHO.

Technically he cannot be a traitor. Treason can only be charged if the US is in a state of declared war against a declared enemy. I think you mean espionage. Small but important difference.

Rohirrim
06-28-2013, 11:08 AM
Technically he cannot be a traitor. Treason can only be charged if the US is in a state of declared war against a declared enemy. I think you mean espionage. Small but important difference.

I was talking about all the rhetoric being thrown around in the media and on Capitol Hill. It's the binary world. You're supposed to join one camp or the other. Or, if you don't join one, you're assigned to the other. ;D

houghtam
06-28-2013, 11:11 AM
I was talking about all the rhetoric being thrown around in the media and on Capitol Hill. It's the binary world. You're supposed to join one cam or the other.

Which side has better hats? :)

(RIP George Carlin)

Rohirrim
06-28-2013, 03:36 PM
The Gray Lady comes down hard against Obama and the NSA:

This view is wrong — and not only, or even mainly, because of the privacy issues raised by the American Civil Liberties Union and other critics. The two programs violate both the letter and the spirit of federal law. No statute explicitly authorizes mass surveillance. Through a series of legal contortions, the Obama administration has argued that Congress, since 9/11, intended to implicitly authorize mass surveillance. But this strategy mostly consists of wordplay, fear-mongering and a highly selective reading of the law. Americans deserve better from the White House — and from President Obama, who has seemingly forgotten the constitutional law he once taught.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

(cont.)
We may never know all the details of the mass surveillance programs, but we know this: The administration has justified them through abuse of language, intentional evasion of statutory protections, secret, unreviewable investigative procedures and constitutional arguments that make a mockery of the government’s professed concern with protecting Americans’ privacy. It’s time to call the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs what they are: criminal.

Bacchus
06-29-2013, 04:14 PM
A grown man calling a name most commonly used by preteen girls.

Now I've seen everything.

so silly, maybe you need to stop acting like a preteen girl.

As far as the neg rep you left that pussy you smelled must be you.

Rohirrim
06-30-2013, 08:55 AM
These guys are completely out of control:

The European Union has demanded that the United States explain a report in a German magazine that Washington is spying on the group, using unusually strong language to confront its closest trading partner over its alleged surveillance activities.

A spokeswoman for the European Commission said on Sunday the EU contacted U.S. authorities in Washington and Brussels about a report in Der Spiegel magazine that the U.S. secret service had tapped EU offices in Washington and Brussels and at the United Nations.

"We have immediately been in contact with the U.S. authorities in Washington D.C. and in Brussels and have confronted them with the press reports," the spokeswoman said.

"They have told us they are checking on the accuracy of the information released yesterday and will come back to us," she added in a statement.

Der Spiegel reported on its website on Saturday that the National Security Agency had bugged EU offices and gained access to EU internal computer networks in the latest revelation of alleged U.S. spying that has prompted outrage from EU politicians.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/30/us-spying-on-europe_n_3525320.html

peacepipe
06-30-2013, 10:12 AM
I've been riding the fence on this issue & although I'm not a supporter of snowden, I agree with Roh. The NSA needs be put in its place. FISA needs to be made public,it's unconstitutional to have a "secret" court that has rubber stamped every warrant ever presented to it. Except for 1. Something like 2000 warrants were applied for & 2000 approved by this court.

DenverBrit
06-30-2013, 11:11 AM
Is there no credible oversight that can be 'installed' to monitor agency activities and court approved surveillance?

It's out of control and they won't voluntarily reign it in.

elsid13
06-30-2013, 12:10 PM
I've been riding the fence on this issue & although I'm not a supporter of snowden, I agree with Roh. The NSA needs be put in its place. FISA needs to be made public,it's unconstitutional to have a "secret" court that has rubber stamped every warrant ever presented to it. Except for 1. Something like 2000 warrants were applied for & 2000 approved by this court.

You do realize by going "public" you allow those group we're trying to protect ourselves from knowing we have an eye on them? There is reason that the things are compartmentalised.

houghtam
06-30-2013, 12:14 PM
You do realize by going "public" you allow those group we're trying to protect ourselves from knowing we have an eye on them? There is reason that the things are compartmentalised.

You do realize be keeping it "secret" you allow this court to operate unsupervised and without any system of checks and balances? There is a reason our government was set up with those in place. Secret courts are not my idea of a free society under the Constitution.

peacepipe
06-30-2013, 12:17 PM
You do realize by going "public" you allow those group we're trying to protect ourselves from knowing we have an eye on them? There is reason that the things are compartmentalised.

You're telling me they didn't already know?

elsid13
06-30-2013, 01:12 PM
You're telling me they didn't already know?

Yes I am. We aren't going against super villains.

peacepipe
06-30-2013, 01:17 PM
Yes I am. We aren't going against super villains.

OBL wasn't using couriers cause he thought it was a faster way of communicating.

Rohirrim
06-30-2013, 01:21 PM
You do realize by going "public" you allow those group we're trying to protect ourselves from knowing we have an eye on them? There is reason that the things are compartmentalised.

Our government is committing serial and blatant violations of the Constitution.

Rohirrim
06-30-2013, 01:24 PM
Yes I am. We aren't going against super villains.

Good. Then we shouldn't violate our own Constitution in order to combat them. What greater victory could we give them than to destroy what we stand for out of fear?

BTW, why didn't this program stop the Boston Marathon bombers? Didn't the Russians tell us to watch this guy?

elsid13
06-30-2013, 01:26 PM
OBL wasn't using couriers cause he thought it was a faster way of communicating.

And how that work out for him? War is fought on many fronts, and by getting into his decision cycle you win most of the time. Most of the general members of Al Queda and it affiliates are ill educated and don't understand the technology advantage the US has. What we can do is now out of the bag.

elsid13
06-30-2013, 01:31 PM
Good. Then we shouldn't violate our own Constitution in order to combat them. What greater victory could we give them than to destroy what we stand for out of fear?

BTW, why didn't this program stop the Boston Marathon bombers? Didn't the Russians tell us to watch this guy?

No program or technology is prefect. This program was designed to intercept non-US communications, analysis and identify external threats/support to those trying to do harm inside the US. In Boston it was "lone" wolf action and they didn't receive external logistic support or direction.

mhgaffney
06-30-2013, 01:31 PM
Bradley Manning nominated for Nobel Peace Prize...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35458.htm

elsid13
06-30-2013, 01:32 PM
Our government is committing serial and blatant violations of the Constitution.

How do you know that? The problem with classified programs is no one that really knows the policy or procedures can openly talk about them, so all you get is the internet rumor mill and half truths.

mhgaffney
06-30-2013, 01:36 PM
Attacks from America: NSA Spied on European Union Offices

By Laura Poitras, Marcel Rosenbach, Fidelius Schmid and Holger Stark

June 30, 2013 "Information Clearing House - "Spiegel" -- America's NSA intelligence service allegedly targeted the European Union with its spying activities. According to SPIEGEL information, the US placed bugs in the EU representation in Washington and infiltrated its computer network. Cyber attacks were also perpetrated against Brussels in New York and Washington.

Information obtained by SPIEGEL shows that America's National Security Agency (NSA) not only conducted online surveillance of European citizens, but also appears to have specifically targeted buildings housing European Union institutions. The information appears in secret documents obtained by whistleblower Edward Snowden that SPIEGEL has in part seen. A "top secret" 2010 document describes how the secret service attacked the EU's diplomatic representation in Washington.

The document suggests that in addition to installing bugs in the building in downtown Washington, DC, the EU representation's computer network was also infiltrated. In this way, the Americans were able to access discussions in EU rooms as well as emails and internal documents on computers.

The attacks on EU institutions show yet another level in the broad scope of the NSA's spying activities. For weeks now, new details about Prism and other surveillance programs have been emerging that had been compiled by whistleblower Snowden. Details have also emerged that the British intelligence service GCHQ operates a similar program under the name Tempora with which global telephone and Internet connections are monitored.

mhgaffney
06-30-2013, 01:40 PM
How do you know that? The problem with classified programs is no one that really knows the policy or procedures can openly talk about them, so all you get is the internet rumor mill and half truths.

You have not been paying attention. Did you read Bamford's THE SHADOW FACTORY?

Check this out. MHG

Greenwald: NSA can obtain one billion cell phone calls a day, store them and listen

http://rt.com/usa/nsa-greenwald-call-store-427/

Rohirrim
06-30-2013, 01:40 PM
How do you know that? The problem with classified programs is no one that really knows the policy or procedures can openly talk about them, so all you get is the internet rumor mill and half truths.

Let me borrow the statement of somebody who has been there at the highest levels:

"This in my view violates the constitution. The fourth amendment and the first amendment – and the fourth amendment language is crystal clear. It is not acceptable to have a secret interpretation of a law that goes far beyond any reasonable reading of either the law or the constitution and then classify as top secret what the actual law is. I quite understand the viewpoint that many have expressed that they are fine with it and they just want to be safe but that is not really the American way." Al Gore

mhgaffney
06-30-2013, 01:42 PM
OK but Gore is a poor choice to cite, here. Gore = Mr. sleaze bag.

Rohirrim
06-30-2013, 01:45 PM
No program or technology is prefect. This program was designed to intercept non-US communications, analysis and identify external threats/support to those trying to do harm inside the US. In Boston it was "lone" wolf action and they didn't receive external logistic support or direction.

So. You're making the argument that we should violate our own Constitution to protect ourselves, but we can't expect it to protect us? How far down the paranoia rabbit hole do you want to go?

Rohirrim
06-30-2013, 01:48 PM
OK but Gore is a poor choice to cite, here. Gore = Mr. sleaze bag.

I think there are only a very few "perfect" people in your eyes - You and Chomsky being two of them.

cutthemdown
06-30-2013, 02:29 PM
How long before W*gs demands to know what a comet is?

BroncoBeavis
07-01-2013, 05:59 AM
So. You're making the argument that we should violate our own Constitution to protect ourselves, but we can't expect it to protect us? How far down the paranoia rabbit hole do you want to go?

It takes a special kind to watch them call monitoring, mail reading, surf patrolling, transaction watching, and then when tshtf, throw out a "well you can't expect them to know everything"

cutthemdown
07-01-2013, 06:02 AM
Amazing the couldn't stop the boston bombers with all this eavesdropping added to the fact they were tipped off by Russia the brothers were terrorists

DenverBrit
07-01-2013, 07:50 AM
I think there are only a very few "perfect" people in your eyes - You and Chomsky being two of them.

And of course.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Gagebox-full-full.jpg

BroncoBeavis
07-01-2013, 07:51 AM
Amazing the couldn't stop the boston bombers with all this eavesdropping added to the fact they were tipped off by Russia the brothers were terrorists

Defense of Civil Liberties™ required that they only surveil the innocent, not the guilty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/us/officials-say-they-didnt-have-authority-to-monitor-tamerlan-tsarnaev.html

Mind blowing.

Rohirrim
07-01-2013, 09:05 AM
Defense of Civil Liberties™ required that they only surveil the innocent, not the guilty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/us/officials-say-they-didnt-have-authority-to-monitor-tamerlan-tsarnaev.html

Mind blowing.

Ha! A secret court gives them carte blanche to search everybody's communications on Earth, but if we get a warning from a foreign government that somebody is actually dangerous, we need a warrant to investigate.

Arkie
07-01-2013, 10:57 AM
It only makes sense if he was an America-hating lefty to begin with...

Or perhaps just yet another brain dead ignorant liberal.

He must be the latter. Why else would a liberal donate $500 to Ron Paul?

peacepipe
07-01-2013, 12:16 PM
He must be the latter. Why else would a liberal donate $500 to Ron Paul?

He's a libertarian, that's why he donated to Ron Paul.

Rohirrim
07-01-2013, 03:18 PM
CEO and editor of Foreign Policy magazine sums it up:

Edward Snowden broke the law and if the United States can bring him in, he deserves to be prosecuted. But the ones who should be in their own hot seat are those who created, approved and rationalized into existence the sprawling, seemingly uncontainable global intelligence and cyberwarfare apparatus that is as much of a threat to the kind of country we want to be as any terrorist group.
The problem for us, of course, is the only people with the power to restore balance and common sense limitations to these programs are the ones who let them get so out of control in the first place.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/01/opinion/rothkopf-surveillance-revelations/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

mhgaffney
07-01-2013, 03:54 PM
I think there are only a very few "perfect" people in your eyes - You and Chomsky being two of them.

hahahahaha

you will be interested to know my next piece will be titled:
NOAM CHOMSKY IS IN DENIAL ABOUT 9/11

I kid you not. :)

BroncoBeavis
07-01-2013, 04:03 PM
hahahahaha

you will be interested to know my next piece will be titled:
NOAM CHOMSKY IS IN DENIAL ABOUT 9/11

I kid you not. :)

Thus forever enshrining the No True Scotsman theory as inviolable rhetorical law. :)

barryr
07-02-2013, 07:19 AM
I have mixed feelings about Snowden. He did reveal secrets that could hurt our nation's security, but he did reveal how hypocritical this country is about that security, especially in the media. Do nothing about the border. Do not follow muslims around. But keep records of what grandma does after she leaves the Bingo game. Ridiculous. It would not surprise me if Islamists have already sneaked a nuke or 2 in this country waiting for the right time with the idiocy that has gone on for so many years. One thing is clear in all of this: None of this is about securing our nation. This is all about politics, especially if true the NSA has been using info. to blackmail people. It appears playing politics is going to get more people killed. This is what people are proud of. Those that were so against the Patriot Act before 2009 are sure silent today. But it's not about politics LOL

DenverBrit
07-02-2013, 07:29 AM
I have mixed feelings about Snowden. He did reveal secrets that could hurt our nation's security, but he did reveal how hypocritical this country is about that security, especially in the media. Do nothing about the border. Do not follow muslims around. But keep records of what grandma does after she leaves the Bingo game. Ridiculous. It would not surprise me if Islamists have already sneaked a nuke or 2 in this country waiting for the right time with the idiocy that has gone on for so many years. One thing is clear in all of this: None of this is about securing our nation. This is all about politics, especially if true the NSA has been using info. to blackmail people. It appears playing politics is going to get more people killed. This is what people are proud of. Those that were so against the Patriot Act before 2009 are sure silent today. But it's not about politics LOL

So it's all 'clear' to you. Explain how the NSA eavesdropping is 'all about politics'.

houghtam
07-02-2013, 07:32 AM
I have mixed feelings about Snowden. He did reveal secrets that could hurt our nation's security, but he did reveal how hypocritical this country is about that security, especially in the media. Do nothing about the border. Do not follow muslims around. But keep records of what grandma does after she leaves the Bingo game. Ridiculous. It would not surprise me if Islamists have already sneaked a nuke or 2 in this country waiting for the right time with the idiocy that has gone on for so many years. One thing is clear in all of this: None of this is about securing our nation. This is all about politics, especially if true the NSA has been using info. to blackmail people. It appears playing politics is going to get more people killed. This is what people are proud of. Those that were so against the Patriot Act before 2009 are sure silent today. But it's not about politics LOL

On this board, at least, I've found more people who were for it but now against it now that there's a D in office.

whine about rights violations from the Patriot Act despite still unable to find one law abiding citizen whose rights have been violated

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2256023&postcount=152

The pissants complain about the Patriot Act, but have yet to offer even one, much less the countless people that claim whose rights would be violated from it. Forget it has actually saved lives. That's beside the point for the "smart" ones.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2414145&postcount=5

The Patriot Act was supposedly so bad and would take away everyone's rights, yet I have yet to see whose rights have been violated.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2728706&postcount=11

And none of these are even prior to Obama getting in office! Yep, it's not about politics, dummy. You've just been exposed as a fraud (again). :yayaya:

BroncoInferno
07-02-2013, 08:05 AM
^ LOL @ barryr always complaining about hypocrites (even though he never gives any concrete examples) given his own hypocrisy (as demonstrated above). What a joke. As they say, he who smelt it, dealt it.

houghtam
07-02-2013, 08:29 AM
^ LOL @ barryr always complaining about hypocrites (even though he never gives any concrete examples) given his own hypocrisy (as demonstrated above). What a joke. As they say, he who smelt it, dealt it.

He was for it before he was against it. Hilarious!

houghtam
07-02-2013, 09:54 AM
That's where I'm conflicted. The 9/11 hijackers were American. it would be great to catch them BEFORE something bad happens. I know that's spying on Americans, but I don't want another homegrown terrorist plot...

Found this gem, too.

It appears little will change from the Bush administration anti-terrorist doctrine, based on his choices on the national security team. If he continues with the fundamental parts of the Patriot Act and coordinates a slow, but steady, policy towards the troops in Iraq, I have no problem coming back here and saying that I was wrong about Obama. It will be fantastic if he doesn't turn out to be the knee-jerk liberal I (and others) were fearing...

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2208529&postcount=10

Where's Crush to tell us all how wrong he was?

mhgaffney
07-02-2013, 01:35 PM
Let's face it this surveillance and eavesdropping issue has become a nightmare for the US gov't.

It does appear that the Snowden case has FINALLY awakened the world to the implications of what has in fact been going on for many years.
MHG

Germany Ready to Charge UK and US Intelligence over Alleged Bugging Operations

BY TONY PATERSON IN BERLIN

July 01, 2013 "Information Clearing House - "Belfast Telegraph"--- Germany is preparing to bring charges against US and British intelligence amid fresh allegations that the services spied far more extensively than thought on German phone and internet traffic and bugged European Union offices in America.

A report alleging a major and continuous US National Security Agency spying operation in Germany was published by Der Spiegel magazine yesterday, prompting outrage from Berlin MPs still reeling from reports about extensive British surveillance in their country.

The German Justice Minister, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenburger, demanded an immediate explanation and said the behaviour of the intelligence services was “reminiscent of the actions against enemies during the Cold War”. “It defies belief that our friends in the US see the Europeans as their enemies,” she said.

The leak, which Der Spiegel said came from fugitive ex-CIA analyst Edward Snowden, claimed that the NSA tapped into half a billion German phone calls, emails and SMS messages each month. Reports last week revealed extensive tapping of German phone and internet traffic by British intelligence under its so-called Tempora programme. The information was said to be shared with the NSA.

A spokesman for the Federal Prosecutor said the office was preparing to bring charges against “persons unknown” in relation to the reports.

There was also widespread and mounting anger at official European Union level yesterday following disclosures that the NSA had spied on EU computer networks at its offices in New York and Washington and that it had also bugged the premises. Martin Schulz, head of the European Parliament, demanded “full clarification” from the US and said that if the disclosures proved true they would have a severe impact on US-EU ties.

It also emerged that the UK Government had invited German MPs and justice officials to attend a video conference at British Embassy in Berlin today during which the issue of spying would be addressed.

Der Spiegel said the NSA’s German phone and internet surveillance operation was the biggest in the EU. On 7 January 2013 it tapped into some 60 million German phone calls in a single day.

The magazine said that Canada, Australia, Britain and New Zealand were exempt from NSA surveillance but Germany was regarded as a country open for “spy attacks”.

© Belfasttelegraph.co.uk

barryr
07-02-2013, 02:03 PM
On this board, at least, I've found more people who were for it but now against it now that there's a D in office.



http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2256023&postcount=152



http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2414145&postcount=5



http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2728706&postcount=11

And none of these are even prior to Obama getting in office! Yep, it's not about politics, dummy. You've just been exposed as a fraud (again). :yayaya:

LOL, figures the limp dick liberals change the subject. Spying on potential terrorists, you know the muslims that come here on Visas that Obama wants to be off limits by the way, is not the same as spying on EVERY single American. You were for the Patriot Act before 2009? Where?

barryr
07-02-2013, 02:04 PM
So it's all 'clear' to you. Explain how the NSA eavesdropping is 'all about politics'.

So you were for all of this before 2009? Where?

barryr
07-02-2013, 02:05 PM
Found this gem, too.



http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2208529&postcount=10

Where's Crush to tell us all how wrong he was?

You were for this before 2009? Where?

houghtam
07-02-2013, 02:10 PM
You were for this before 2009? Where?

I was never for this, nor am I now, nor are many liberals on this board.

You need to learn how to read, and pull your head out of your ass.

Hit a little too close to home? Care to explain how YOUR opinion on the subject just magically changed from for to against once a D became the president?

Didn't think so. You're worthless.

DenverBrit
07-02-2013, 02:19 PM
You were for this before 2009? Where?

Nice attempt at deflecting.....as usual.

Now back to my question. Explain how the NSA eavesdropping is 'all about politics'.

Are you going to deflect again, or substantiate your assertion with facts??

Rohirrim
07-10-2013, 01:43 PM
Majority of Americans see Snowden as whistleblower, not traitor.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/10/19394570-poll-more-than-half-of-voters-say-snowden-is-whistle-blower-not-traitor?lite

Bronco Yoda
07-10-2013, 01:54 PM
Do we want:

1. Unobstructed Civil Liberties, with the trade-off being security failures and domestic attacks we consider collateral damage of a free country.

2. High Security, a dragnet that perhaps catches the 9/11 conspirators or the Boston Brothers with the trade off not knowing where, when and for how long that data is used and stored.

To me a strong domestic defense comprises not only military might but also strong informatics that identify and diffuse threats.... perhaps the the question that needs to be asked is what is the spirit of the Constitution, the 4th Amendment as it applies to 2013?

I'll take door #1.

It's just too bad this guy couldn't have done this a little more tactfully without spitting the gut wide open.

mhgaffney
07-10-2013, 02:12 PM
Former NSA whistleblower says Snowden's expose only scratches the surface..

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35505.htm

mhgaffney
07-10-2013, 02:13 PM
This guy is saying the NSA has been spying on generals, admirals, congressmen, senators, even supreme court justices...

why? obviously -- for the purpose of blackmail.

And why is the intelligence community NOT being affected by the sequester???

mhgaffney
07-14-2013, 03:15 PM
America's NSA 'in bed with' Germany and most others: Snowden

By Stephen Brown

BERLIN | Sun Jul 7, 2013 11:33am EDT

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/07/us-usa-security-germany-idUSBRE9660C020130707

(Reuters) - America's National Security Agency works closely with Germany and other Western states on a 'no questions asked'-basis, former NSA employee Edward Snowden said in comments that undermine Chancellor Angela Merkel's indignant talk of "Cold War" tactics.

"They are in bed with the Germans, just like with most other Western states," German magazine Der Spiegel quotes him as saying in an interview published on Sunday that was carried out before he fled to Hong Kong in May and divulged details of extensive secret U.S. surveillance.

"Other agencies don't ask us where we got the information from and we don't ask them. That way they can protect their top politicians from the backlash in case it emerges how massively people's privacy is abused worldwide," he said.

His comments about cooperation with governments overseas, which he said were led by the NSA's Foreign Affairs Directorate, appear to contradict the German government's show of surprise at the scale of the U.S. electronic snooping.

Germany has demanded explanations for Snowden's allegations of large-scale spying by the NSA, and by Britain via a programme codenamed 'Tempora', on their allies including Germany and other European Union states, as well as EU institutions and embassies.

Chancellor Angela Merkel pointed out during President Barack Obama's recent visit that Germany had avoided terrorist attacks thanks to information from allies. But she says there must be limits to the intrusion on privacy and wants this discussed next week in parallel with the start of EU-U.S. free trade talks.

Berlin has alluded repeatedly to "Cold War" tactics - Merkel used the term again on Saturday at a political rally - and has said spying on friends is unacceptable. Her spokesman has said a transatlantic trade deal requires a level of "mutual trust".

ELECTION ISSUE

The domestic intelligence chief has said he knew nothing of such widespread surveillance by the NSA. But German opposition parties - with an eye on September's federal election - insist that somebody in Merkel's office, where the German intelligence agencies are coordinated, must have known what was going on.

The government did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Der Spiegel report, which follows a report last week in French daily Le Monde saying France also had an extensive surveillance programme.

Der Spiegel has reported that on an average day, the NSA monitored about 20 million German phone connections and 10 million internet data sets, rising to 60 million phone connections on busy days.

Germans are particularly sensitive about eavesdropping because of the intrusive surveillance in the communist German Democratic Republic (GDR) and during the Nazi era.

Snowden, a U.S. citizen, fled in May a few weeks before the details he provided about the NSA were published and is believed to have been holed up in Moscow airport since June 23.

Bolivia offered asylum on Saturday to Snowden, joining leftist allies Venezuela and Nicaragua in defiance of Washington, which is demanding his arrest for divulging details of the secret U.S. spy programs.

Der Spiegel said the interview was conducted while Snowden was living in Hawaii, via encrypted emails with U.S. documentary maker Laura Poitras and hacker Jacob Appelbaum.

Snowden told them that America's closest allies sometimes went even further than the NSA in their zeal for gathering data.

Drunken.Broncoholic
07-17-2013, 01:38 PM
According to some in our govt the answer to Russia guarding Snowden is to punish OUR American athletes and boycott the Olympics.

Man this country sucks.

mhgaffney
07-17-2013, 04:40 PM
Email Exchange Between Edward Snowden and Former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

'I believe you have done the right thing in exposing what I regard as massive violation of the United States constitution'
Beta

By Glenn Greenwald

July 17, 2013 "Information Clearing House - Former two-term GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey of New Hampshire emailed Edward Snowden yesterday [emphasis added]:

Mr. Snowden,

Provided you have not leaked information that would put in harms way any intelligence agent, I believe you have done the right thing in exposing what I regard as massive violation of the United States Constitution.

Having served in the United States Senate for twelve years as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee and the Judiciary Committee, I think I have a good grounding to reach my conclusion.

I wish you well in your efforts to secure asylum and encourage you to persevere.

Kindly acknowledge this message, so that I will know it reached you.

Regards,
Gordon J. Humphrey
Former United States Senator
New Hampshire

After I contacted Sen. Humphrey to confirm its authenticity, he wrote to me [emphasis added]:

Mr. Greenwald,

Yes. It was I who sent the email message to Edward Snowden, thanking him for exposing astonishing violations of the US Constitution and encouraging him to persevere in the search for asylum.

To my knowledge, Mr. Snowden has disclosed only the existence of a program and not details that would place any person in harm's way. I regard him as a courageous whistle-blower.

I object to the monumentally disproportionate campaign being waged by the U.S. Government against Edward Snowden, while no effort is being made to identify, remove from office and bring to justice those officials who have abused power, seriously and repeatedly violating the Constitution of the United States and the rights of millions of unsuspecting citizens.

Americans concerned about the growing arrogance of our government and its increasingly menacing nature should be working to help Mr. Snowden find asylum. Former Members of Congress, especially, should step forward and speak out.

Regards,
Gordon Humphrey

Snowden's reply to Sen. Humphrey:

Mr. Humphrey,

Thank you for your words of support. I only wish more of our lawmakers shared your principles - the actions I've taken would not have been necessary.

The media has distorted my actions and intentions to distract from the substance of Constitutional violations and instead focus on personalities. It seems they believe every modern narrative requires a bad guy. Perhaps it does. Perhaps, in such times, loving one's country means being hated by its government.

If history proves that be so, I will not shy from that hatred. I will not hesitate to wear those charges of villainy for the rest of my life as a civic duty, allowing those governing few who dared not do so themselves to use me as an excuse to right these wrongs.

My intention, which I outlined when this began, is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them. I remain committed to that. Though reporters and officials may never believe it, I have not provided any information that would harm our people - agent or not - and I have no intention to do so.

Further, no intelligence service - not even our own - has the capacity to compromise the secrets I continue to protect. While it has not been reported in the media, one of my specializations was to teach our people at DIA how to keep such information from being compromised even in the highest threat counter-intelligence environments (i.e. China).

You may rest easy knowing I cannot be coerced into revealing that information, even under torture.

With my thanks for your service to the nation we both love,

Edward Snowden

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited

Rohirrim
07-17-2013, 04:47 PM
The media is handling this about as well as they handled the Zimmerman/Martin case.

We're in deep ****.

baja
07-17-2013, 05:04 PM
The media is handling this about as well as they handled the Zimmerman/Martin case.

We're in deep ****.


Finally!!!!

barryr
07-17-2013, 05:13 PM
I have a feeling if one find out all Snowden knows, not only the level of spying going on in this country, but the double standards of who and when as well which will really make people angry. We have already seen out government picking and choosing based on politics who to target when it comes to the IRS. The NSA will be no different and probably worse.

baja
07-17-2013, 05:18 PM
I have a feeling if one find out all Snowden knows, not only the level of spying going on in this country, but the double standards of who and when as well which will really make people angry. We have already seen out government picking and choosing based on politics who to target when it comes to the IRS. The NSA will be no different and probably worse.

What American citizens should be worried about is access to this level of information is all that is needed to black mail and thus control governments, judicial systems and any platform of power. This is the problem with the abuse of this technology not what Joe Shmoe is doing with his first cousin.

BroncoBeavis
07-24-2013, 07:17 AM
This is rich.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57595213/national-security-agency-surveillance-programs-backers-fight-vote-to-end-data-gathering/

According to the Carney, any Congressional effort to rein in the NSA's secret surveillance needs to be "the product of an informed, open or deliberative process"

LOL

peacepipe
07-24-2013, 05:42 PM
Funny that a lg majority of beavis heros voted against reigning in the NSA,while majority of dems voted to reign them in.

BroncoBeavis
07-24-2013, 11:08 PM
Funny that a lg majority of beavis heros voted against reigning in the NSA,while majority of dems voted to reign them in.

Probably warms your little heart to see The Messiah joined arm in arm with Boner, Pelosi and Bachmann in support of your dream security state.

peacepipe
07-25-2013, 05:11 AM
Probably warms your little heart to see The Messiah joined arm in arm with Boner, Pelosi and Bachmann in support of your dream security state.

Why would it,i'm glad to see dems voting to reign in the NSA. You conservatives yap about evil government all the time,yet your party is always first in line to support/vote for it.

BroncoBeavis
07-25-2013, 05:53 AM
Why would it,i'm glad to see dems voting to reign in the NSA. You conservatives yap about evil government all the time,yet your party is always first in line to support/vote for it.

There's no legal basis for what they're doing. Its your President and his Imperial interpretation of the law that allows this Constitutional abuse to occur.

Should he resign? Are you on board with that?

peacepipe
07-25-2013, 06:43 AM
There's no legal basis for what they're doing. Its your President and his Imperial interpretation of the law that allows this Constitutional abuse to occur.

Should he resign? Are you on board with that?
Then why is your party supporting it?

houghtam
07-25-2013, 06:45 AM
Then why is your party supporting it?

No, no no...Beavis is an independent. He just plays a Republican shill on the internet. :wave:

Oh, and here's a link to the votes on the Amash amendment.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml

BroncoBeavis
07-25-2013, 08:31 AM
Then why is your party supporting it?

It's not about party. I want Boehner removed. I want Cantor removed. I want Bachmann removed. I want Pelosi removed. I want Hoyer removed. I want Obama removed.

See how that works? How about you?

I've already said I'll support anyone who opposes this practice over anyone who conducts it, supports it, or abets it. I'm not usually a one-issue voter. At this critical point in history, I am.

Fedaykin
07-25-2013, 10:01 AM
There's no legal basis for what they're doing. Its your President and his Imperial interpretation of the law that allows this Constitutional abuse to occur.

Should he resign? Are you on board with that?

I'm continually amazed at the narrative that tries to imply this only started with Obama, or this particular program for that matter.

Every administration, every legislature is complicit going back at least as far as the 60s -- and that's just for electronic methods. Privacy has been dead a long, long time.

Arkie
07-25-2013, 10:11 AM
My dad used to say "Everybody does it, but Nixon got caught."

mhgaffney
07-25-2013, 10:22 AM
Nixon was brought down because the CIA wanted him gone. Nixon and the CIA did not get along

houghtam
07-25-2013, 10:36 AM
I'm continually amazed at the narrative that tries to imply this only started with Obama, or this particular program for that matter.

Every administration, every legislature is complicit going back at least as far as the 60s -- and that's just for electronic methods. Privacy has been dead a long, long time.

But he said its not about party, so...

LOL

BroncoBeavis
07-25-2013, 10:49 AM
I'm continually amazed at the narrative that tries to imply this only started with Obama, or this particular program for that matter.

Every administration, every legislature is complicit going back at least as far as the 60s -- and that's just for electronic methods. Privacy has been dead a long, long time.

I agree, in part. But you can't ignore how much technology has drastically expanded their reach. And to borrow the Nixon analogy, at least when daylight saw what he was really up to, the public was outraged and a corrective course was set.

The most troubling thing about this whole episode isn't that it's been going on. Usurpers will sometimes usurp, after all. The real alarm comes from the widespread indifference. And the our checks and balances essentially shrugging it off. Although I don't think the judiciary has really weighed in yet (with FISA basically being an arm of the administration)

Fedaykin
07-25-2013, 11:07 AM
I agree, in part. But you can't ignore how much technology has drastically expanded their reach.


The biggest change in recent time has been social, not technological. The old joke, of course is "The XXX agency is very proud of its new "facebook" application.


And to borrow the Nixon analogy, at least when daylight saw what he was really up to, the public was outraged and a corrective course was set. The most troubling thing about this whole episode isn't that it's been going on. Usurpers will sometimes usurp, after all. The real alarm comes from the widespread indifference.

And the our checks and balances essentially shrugging it off. Although I don't think the judiciary has really weighed in yet (with FISA basically being an arm of the administration


I see plenty of public outrage, except when there's something more interesting to bicker about that is. Of course, anyone involved in tech has known this type of thing goes on all the time, so, to our fault, we're a bit numb to it.

And really, the problem isn't lack of outrage outrage, it's fear. This whole country is so damn pants peeing scared of the damn terrorists that they'll roll over for pretty much anything. And the politicians are afraid to take a stand against this sort of this, because they know they'll be crucified for it the next time someone gets harmed in a terror attack.

It's pretty much this:

9/11/PATRIOT Act happens:

Public:Holy ****, we need to DOOOO something
Politicians: Ok, we'll just toss out the 4th, as well as a bunch of other liberties. It'll help us make you safer, and we'll get to oogle hot chicks in the airport line! Err. redact that last part.


PRISM Get's Leaked:

Public: ZOMG, why are you doing all these horrible things?
Politicans: Well, you said you wanted to do something, and no one really complained when we said we were going to do these types of things...

And then, in the future if PRISM is actually taken down:

Some terrorist event:

Public: ZOMG, why didn't we know about this? What is the government doing to protect me?!?!
Politicians: Oh, so scrap the 4th again eh?

and so on and so forth.

Fedaykin
07-25-2013, 11:14 AM
And to be clear:

It's always something we're afraid of, not just terrorists and not just in the last 10 years.

Nips, Krauts, Reds, Long Hairs, Child Predators, Pirates (the digital kind), Drugs, and so on and so forth.

peacepipe
07-25-2013, 11:15 AM
It's not about party. I want Boehner removed. I want Cantor removed. I want Bachmann removed. I want Pelosi removed. I want Hoyer removed. I want Obama removed.

See how that works? How about you?

I've already said I'll support anyone who opposes this practice over anyone who conducts it, supports it, or abets it. I'm not usually a one-issue voter. At this critical point in history, I am.
So I can put you down as a supporter of the majority of dems who voted to reign in the NSA.