US Intelligence Community So Readily Admits To Fantasies Of Killing Ed Snowden


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grand Magus wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:


Perhaps we should make a law which says openly admitting to dreams of
murdering an American Citizen is grounds for immediate removal of security-clearance(s).
That is absolutely stupid.

So, you can post your thoughts of killing your neighbors on the internet and not get in trouble?

Go ahead and try, I bet you $1000 you can't do it.

I'll let the Nuge answer for you:

"If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year."

"We need to ride onto that battlefield and chop their heads off in November."

Those are the easy off the cuff ones. SO yes, you can go around and threaten in the media and online to kill people without getting in trouble.

I'll take my payment in the form of Paizo products.

.

The bet is you have to post your thoughts of killing your neighbors.
I understand though, you twisted the meaning of the bet to suite your needs. It's what FOX News does too.
.

Let me fix your spelling for you:

Faux News.

I understand how you could make the mistake, many people do. ;p

However I would point out that my "neighbors" is anyone and everyone, and while I do not expect payment I again point out that the posting of the thought that you should kill someone on the internet and doing so often is not odd or even something that will cause you trouble in most cases. Regardless of if that person is the president of the USA, or someone that is living in the house beside you.

That was the true point of his post. That posting up stuff that "incites violence" would get you in trouble or that 'internet death threats' will cause problems.

It will not. I can demonstrate such likely a hundred times over because people do it everyday and have nothing come of it.

Personally I think if you read more of my posts and think on this you'll realize that I'm not being anymore of an ass than I normally am.

I'm simply pointing out his point is crap.


Hypothetical situation:
Your government is, without any semblance of doubt, engaged in highly illegal and highly immoral acts. Your government is, for all intents and purposes, CHAOTIC EVIL!!!

In response to this situation, you do everything in your power to expose said evil, up to and including breaking the law.
Are you a traitor?

Non-hypothetical situation: see above.


Raven_Black wrote:

Hypothetical situation:

Your government is, without any semblance of doubt, engaged in highly illegal and highly immoral acts. Your government is, for all intents and purposes, CHAOTIC EVIL!!!

In response to this situation, you do everything in your power to expose said evil, up to and including breaking the law.
Are you a traitor?

Non-hypothetical situation: see above.

Hypothetical question: You find yourself in a position to be an expert about a situation. However that situation requires you to tell no one about it.

Someone comes out with a large number of accusations against you that other than your oath you can prove untrue. The person releases parts of papers convenient to his accusations and no one bothers to look through open source documents that provide evidence to his idiocy.

Do you break your oath or stand silent while that person rants against you?

Non Hypothetical situation: The position the USA intelligence services find themselves in.

Bonus points: How do you convince people with evidence of points they arrived at without evidence and with an abundance of paranoia?

Consider the opposite side of this if you would.

Also let me ask you another question: Someone accuses you of something to the cops with what looks to be evidence of your wrong doing. The cops go get a warrant investigate and find nothing was wrong.

Should they make public the accusations against you after they find out they were false? How about before they find out they are false. What if they want to provide evidence of why it was false that would unfortunately expose your business secrets that you don't want your competitors getting? What if the situation that brought about the investigation was a misunderstanding of what was an innocence situaiton?

Would it be better if the investigation and accusations simply disappear? Especially if the claim was one of say terrorism?

Would you want it out that you were investigated for terrorism? Some people have called for the death of other people at the start of investigations. Let alone waiting for an actual trial. I would suggest that if nothing comes of the investigation, and no one is the wiser that it happened it falls under no harm no foul.


Two final point:

Notice that Chelsea is in prison. Even those that readily admit to being traitors to the states and selling secrets have received trials and been kept in prison humanely.

So if Snowden really thought what he was doing was right and he actually honestly knew anything about the community he claims he knows about... then why didn't he know about the fact his life wasn't in danger?

We literally haven't executed anyone for spying in decades. That's public record.

Second point:

The conversation of what our intelligence agencies do in our names is a discussion worth having. We must watch ourselves because we are the government and we need to be sure that each step we take is a sure one of reasoned precaution and not knee-jerk paranoia.

But if person after person that knows about these programs that you would normally trust to work against corporate interests, to call out government wrong doing on multiple occasions and to be what you would consider upstanding citizens stands even with people you know they don't like, and don't agree with and generally can't even stand to be around and says, "These accusations are not correct and don't stand in the face of the actual facts."

Isn't worth considering that the poster boy of the supposed cause and whistle-blowing is simply a blowhard idiot with delusions of grandeur?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Idiot? Not bloody likely, or he wouldn't have gotten a job at the NSA. Blowhard? What was he supposed to do, say "sorry I was probably wrong" and go back to work? Delusions of grandeur? Did it never strike you that the reason he got this amount of attention is because what he revealed is toxic, awful stuff that quite rightly puts into question what the intelligence community in the US is doing?

If you want evidence of wrongdoing, there is quite enough to go on. The complete public image of what has been going on is horrible.

As for Chelsea, you do know they keep her in suicide watch, meaning they wake her up every fifteen minutes? You do know she hasn't had that trial yet, just been stuffed away at a military base since a pretty good while back now? And, that she could be sentenced to death if she does get a trial this century?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Idiot? Not bloody likely, or he wouldn't have gotten a job at the NSA. Blowhard? What was he supposed to do, say "sorry I was probably wrong" and go back to work? Delusions of grandeur? Did it never strike you that the reason he got this amount of attention is because what he revealed is toxic, awful stuff that quite rightly puts into question what the intelligence community in the US is doing?

If you want evidence of wrongdoing, there is quite enough to go on. The complete public image of what has been going on is horrible.

As for Chelsea, you do know they keep her in suicide watch, meaning they wake her up every fifteen minutes? You do know she hasn't had that trial yet, just been stuffed away at a military base since a pretty good while back now? And, that she could be sentenced to death if she does get a trial this century?

Someone's data is out of date:

Quote:

Manning spent a year and a half in pretrial confinement, apparently longer than any accused awaiting court-martial in U.S. military law. The presiding military judge, Colonel Denise Lind, nevertheless ruled that the government had not violated the defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The legal proceedings began in December 2011 and continued for the next twenty months, ending in August 2013.

While Lind eventually acquitted Manning of aiding the enemy (the most serious charge, which carried a life sentence), she found Manning guilty of twenty other crimes and handed down a sentence of thirty-five years in prison. Though Lind had ruled that a portion of Manning’s confinement had been excessively harsh and unlawful, she granted Manning only 112 days credit on the long sentence.

Ms. Manning has already been sentence and didn't get the death sentence.

And at that she was given consideration for her unduly harsh treatment.

But hey let's continue with running off at the mouth without knowing what we are talking about.

My point is and continues to be that you have only part of a story and even on that part you only have what you have been told and even that is understood poorly.

EDIT
Yes. In my opinion Snowden is a coward and an idiot. Consider that even the NSA must need carpets cleaned and trash taken out and even the 'smartest' of people technically are not actually smart all aspects.

He's already lied about his own history and deeds.

If he wanted to make a stand he should have made a stand and done it in the fine and honorable tradition of civil disobedience like Rosa Parks, Martin Luther and many many others.

Instead he simply ran away when things looked inconvenient and we only have his word on his real reasoning.

After all it's not at all convenient he went to countries known for opposing the USA on the grounds that they can instead of say Europe... and it's rather convenient the countries that would be willing to pay for secrets instead of say Germany...

oh wait, they denied him a visa, or any form of asylum.


Paul Watson wrote:

Abraham,

So you accept the US used illegally harsh treatment on a whistle-blower? Excellent. So why should Snowden trust his treatment would be better when he released more serious material?

Also, do you have ther whole story? No? Then why is your position of ignorance better than anyone else's?

Actually we pretty much do have Ms. Manning's entire story -- notice how it's widely and publicly available, and honestly that's much better than what happened at say Abu Ghraib.

But here's the thing: We find these things out. They are announced by the government for crying out loud. The government literally goes, "This was done and it was wrong and here is how we are going about punishing those that did it, and how we are trying to compensate the victims, even if there can never be full compensation for what they endured."

Is the government perfect? No. However I would point out that in general it fesses up to wrong doing.

How is my position better?

Lets start with my question again:

How what would you do in the intelligence community's position?

How would you defend yourself without exposing things that do not need exposed?

Would you violate your oath to defend yourself and if so how would you prove anything in your defense?

I'm pointing out that what we have is one side that of an admitted criminal that ran away, and the excerpts of what he's released to attack with. Then I'm asking how you would defend yourself against those attacks.

Heck while I disagree with Ms. Manning at least she stuck it out and stood her ground. She actually said this was her point and made a stand.


Abraham spalding wrote:
If you believe this then you should also want post-humus charges pressed against President Lincoln -- after all he knowingly and without trial had citizens of the USA killed by the military without trial. And the crimes the citizens supposedly committed are crimes only congress can judge.

I was wondering if you could substantiate this. I recall Lincoln suspending habeas corpus and running some Copperheads out of the country, but I don't recall any executions.

Oh, except for those Dakotas.

EDIT: Unless you're talking about waging the Civil War in the first place.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

Idiot? Not bloody likely, or he wouldn't have gotten a job at the NSA. Blowhard? What was he supposed to do, say "sorry I was probably wrong" and go back to work? Delusions of grandeur? Did it never strike you that the reason he got this amount of attention is because what he revealed is toxic, awful stuff that quite rightly puts into question what the intelligence community in the US is doing?

If you want evidence of wrongdoing, there is quite enough to go on. The complete public image of what has been going on is horrible.

As for Chelsea, you do know they keep her in suicide watch, meaning they wake her up every fifteen minutes? You do know she hasn't had that trial yet, just been stuffed away at a military base since a pretty good while back now? And, that she could be sentenced to death if she does get a trial this century?

Someone's data is out of date:

Quote:

Manning spent a year and a half in pretrial confinement, apparently longer than any accused awaiting court-martial in U.S. military law. The presiding military judge, Colonel Denise Lind, nevertheless ruled that the government had not violated the defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The legal proceedings began in December 2011 and continued for the next twenty months, ending in August 2013.

While Lind eventually acquitted Manning of aiding the enemy (the most serious charge, which carried a life sentence), she found Manning guilty of twenty other crimes and handed down a sentence of thirty-five years in prison. Though Lind had ruled that a portion of Manning’s confinement had been excessively harsh and unlawful, she granted Manning only 112 days credit on the long sentence.

Ms. Manning has already been sentence and didn't get the death sentence.

And at that she was given consideration for her unduly harsh treatment.

But hey let's continue with...

slow clap

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:
And at that she was given consideration for her unduly harsh treatment.

And by unduly harsh treatment you mean unconstitutionally bad, bad enough that another government was even asked to intercede on her behalf? And Snowden, who doesn't have another government to plead for him, and who did far more than she did, is an idiot for not turning himself in?

Quote:
But here's the thing: We find these things out. They are announced by the government for crying out loud. The government literally goes, "This was done and it was wrong and here is how we are going about punishing those that did it, and how we are trying to compensate the victims, even if there can never be full compensation for what they endured."

That has to be the most adorable and naive sentiment I've ever seen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Again, it's all about how Snowden was bad and how he might have been treated and how Manning was treated and how she behaved differently: It's never about what they actually revealed.

Never about the lies and unconstitutional activities of the government. Never about the secrets or even lying to Congress.


What amazes me is that you link to the first of your two articles, Abraham Spalding, but you still think this was a decent way for things to go down. I am sorry... I can't understand it. But thank you for the article, it was a good one.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:

Again, it's all about how Snowden was bad and how he might have been treated and how Manning was treated and how she behaved differently: It's never about what they actually revealed.

Never about the lies and unconstitutional activities of the government. Never about the secrets or even lying to Congress.

Both conversations have a time and a place.


ShadowcatX wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Again, it's all about how Snowden was bad and how he might have been treated and how Manning was treated and how she behaved differently: It's never about what they actually revealed.

Never about the lies and unconstitutional activities of the government. Never about the secrets or even lying to Congress.

Both conversations have a time and a place.

Perhaps.

But one seems very often to be used as a distraction from the other.

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Due process tends to be thrown out whenever its deemed convenient by authorities.

Authorities always find due process inconvenient.

And due process doesn't exist on the battlefield. Especially when you don't control the area well enough to simply capture people. Even when the battlefield is as undefined as the War on Terror. The root cause is choosing to pursue the War on Terror as war and rely primarily on military tactics rather than as a international police/criminal problem. All the other abuses flow from that.

I'm a bit late to the party but needed to comment on that: Practically all major Islmaic terror groups use tactics that make a "international police/criminal" approach an invalid option of dealing with them. They are too well organized, well equipped and willing to commit violence to be a manageable threat for anything less than an opposing army. The entire reason something like a police can function is that it has complete superiority and it's environment - you don't shot back at the cops, because that would be futile and could only end badly for you.

Thing with Islamic terrorists is that they don't care as much if things end up bad for them, and they also have the home field advantage if you try to stop them at their countries. Any sort of an active attempt to quench terror by force simply has to be drastic.


Lord Snow wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Due process tends to be thrown out whenever its deemed convenient by authorities.

Authorities always find due process inconvenient.

And due process doesn't exist on the battlefield. Especially when you don't control the area well enough to simply capture people. Even when the battlefield is as undefined as the War on Terror. The root cause is choosing to pursue the War on Terror as war and rely primarily on military tactics rather than as a international police/criminal problem. All the other abuses flow from that.

I'm a bit late to the party but needed to comment on that: Practically all major Islmaic terror groups use tactics that make a "international police/criminal" approach an invalid option of dealing with them. They are too well organized, well equipped and willing to commit violence to be a manageable threat for anything less than an opposing army. The entire reason something like a police can function is that it has complete superiority and it's environment - you don't shot back at the cops, because that would be futile and could only end badly for you.

Thing with Islamic terrorists is that they don't care as much if things end up bad for them, and they also have the home field advantage if you try to stop them at their countries. Any sort of an active attempt to quench terror by force simply has to be drastic.

Maybe. It's certainly a valid approach to deal with terrorist groups exporting terror to countries where they don't have a strong local base - attacks on the US or on the West. Or even within much of the Arabic world.

It's really only in places where the group rises to the level of open rebellion or where the local government really isn't in control that police/criminal approaches can't work.

Sadly, our policies have helped create more such places.

Liberty's Edge

Abraham spalding wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
LazarX wrote:

Expressions of personal sentiments are one thing. I wouldn't be surprised that they personally hate him, after all Snowden hit them all deeply where they live... the making and trading of secrets.

If any of these individuals were actually CAUGHT doing this, they're liable for prosecution.

BTW, Buzzfeed, you can't be anomynous and on the record, they're mutually exclusive.

Then why hasn't President Obama been charged with murder? He has ordered the killing of American citizens.
There are laws governing killing. Not all killings are murder. If you think that Obama has broken any laws, you're welcome to write a U.S. attorney and make your views known.
You're hilarious.
And correct. Let's not pretend that government-sanctioned killing of its own citizens is new or even frowned upon in all instances.
Legal government sanctioned killing involves a trial and conviction. President Obama gave the citizens he ordered killed neither.
If you believe this then you should also want post-humus charges pressed against President Lincoln -- after all he knowingly and without trial had citizens of the USA killed by the military without trial. And the crimes the citizens supposedly committed are crimes only congress can judge.

The South seceded and declared war on the Union. There was no way in hell the Union was going to reciprocate with a formal declaration of war, as that would have acknowledged the Confederacy's legitimacy as a sovereign nation, not a rebellion. You don't formally declare war on a rebellion, you just put it down.


In Sweden, there was a fire at a party a number of years ago. Sixty-three youths died, more injured. The local hospital was swamped by over five thousand people who came there simply because they felt they needed to be there.

That was sixty-three people.

Nobody knows how many casualties the US government's wars and policies have caused, but putting it within the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands since 2001 seems to be pretty reasonable.

Do the maths.

Liberty's Edge

But you gave the world IKEA, so whose the real villain here?


Krensky wrote:
But you gave the world IKEA, so whose the real villain here?

the answer is Canada, for giving the world Bryan Adams and Celine Dion:)


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
If you believe this then you should also want post-humus charges pressed against President Lincoln -- after all he knowingly and without trial had citizens of the USA killed by the military without trial. And the crimes the citizens supposedly committed are crimes only congress can judge.

I was wondering if you could substantiate this. I recall Lincoln suspending habeas corpus and running some Copperheads out of the country, but I don't recall any executions.

Oh, except for those Dakotas.

EDIT: Unless you're talking about waging the Civil War in the first place.

The civil war in the first place -- I have heard about him suspending habeas corpus in a few places I don't have anything to substantiate it, and I have heard of some voting irregularities that happened in his favor but again gossip nothing to prove anything.

For the record -- I think the confederates were traitors to their country and wrong and that President lincoln did an exceptional job in a very hard time... however that doesn't mean everything was roses or that some choices made might not have been the wrong ones. Such happens.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
And at that she was given consideration for her unduly harsh treatment.

And by unduly harsh treatment you mean unconstitutionally bad, bad enough that another government was even asked to intercede on her behalf? And Snowden, who doesn't have another government to plead for him, and who did far more than she did, is an idiot for not turning himself in?

Quote:
But here's the thing: We find these things out. They are announced by the government for crying out loud. The government literally goes, "This was done and it was wrong and here is how we are going about punishing those that did it, and how we are trying to compensate the victims, even if there can never be full compensation for what they endured."
That has to be the most adorable and naive sentiment I've ever seen.

part 1

Gee, no one has ever asked another country to intervene for them in the USA before -- or asked the USA to intervene in something for political reasons, if that happened then it must have been horrible. Also again -- a problem admitted and considered, which plays into...

part 2
So you are saying you have proof the government did not admit it's wrong doing? I mean hell if you have proof the government didn't say it I would love to see it.

The government is not perfect, however it does have a nice history of admitting its faults and it has been doing so faster in recent years that it has in the past. Does this mean all is forgiven? Never, but at the same time recognition where recognition is due.

which brings us back to my questions

Do you have an answer for them?

I mean really I'm genuinely curious how you would solve this problem. Because I think you are purposefully ignoring it because it leads to the uncomfortable position that you don't have a solution and have no clue how to help it.

It's easy to beat a guy that can't defend himself, especially when you have someone telling you he is the criminal -- but do you really have proof of that fact, and do you really have all of the facts or even all of the parts you think you have?

And again -- if you were in the other position how would you defend yourself against these accusations without breaking your oath?


houstonderek wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
LazarX wrote:

Expressions of personal sentiments are one thing. I wouldn't be surprised that they personally hate him, after all Snowden hit them all deeply where they live... the making and trading of secrets.

If any of these individuals were actually CAUGHT doing this, they're liable for prosecution.

BTW, Buzzfeed, you can't be anomynous and on the record, they're mutually exclusive.

Then why hasn't President Obama been charged with murder? He has ordered the killing of American citizens.
There are laws governing killing. Not all killings are murder. If you think that Obama has broken any laws, you're welcome to write a U.S. attorney and make your views known.
You're hilarious.
And correct. Let's not pretend that government-sanctioned killing of its own citizens is new or even frowned upon in all instances.
Legal government sanctioned killing involves a trial and conviction. President Obama gave the citizens he ordered killed neither.
If you believe this then you should also want post-humus charges pressed against President Lincoln -- after all he knowingly and without trial had citizens of the USA killed by the military without trial. And the crimes the citizens supposedly committed are crimes only congress can judge.
The South seceded and declared war on the Union. There was no way in hell the Union was going to reciprocate with a formal declaration of war, as that would have acknowledged the Confederacy's legitimacy as a sovereign nation, not a rebellion. You don't formally declare war on a rebellion, you just put it down.

Agreed -- but at the same time that puts us in the awkward spot of killing civilians without court order. It's ugly and it's problematic and we still don't have a good solution for the situation all these years later.


thejeff wrote:


Never about the lies and unconstitutional activities of the government. Never about the secrets or even lying to Congress.

How do you defend against such accusations?

Can you answer my questions on this?

IF you know what you are doing is legal, but you have sworn an oath to not talk about it how do you defend yourself?

and what can you say that people won't immediately dismiss as lies?

What proof would change your mind about the legality of this that could reasonably be provided by the government?

If there isn't such proof I would point out we are wasting our time because you didn't arrive at the position you are at with logic or evidence and as such you can't be argued out of it with logic or evidence.


Sissyl wrote:

In Sweden, there was a fire at a party a number of years ago. Sixty-three youths died, more injured. The local hospital was swamped by over five thousand people who came there simply because they felt they needed to be there.

That was sixty-three people.

Nobody knows how many casualties the US government's wars and policies have caused, but putting it within the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands since 2001 seems to be pretty reasonable.

Do the maths.

These are not unknowable numbers:

Iraq
Afghanistan
Afghanistan Civilians

So don't act like it's a huge mystery -- it isn't (yes there are more recent numbers, this was the 1 minute pull).

It's not like these numbers are hidden either.

And while any loss of life is tragic I would point out these are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is it irrelevant when other people in the thread point out that US foreign policy has very effectively turned people against the US, or is it just you dismissing everything I say?

The answer to your question, now: The responsibility lies squarely on the government for allowing the intelligence agencies too much power. See, you CAN'T defend yourself if everything you do is classified. Thus, there are two options: Defend current practices with escalating responses to maintain the broken status quo, or make sure the intelligence practices adapt to the various principles of your society: The legal underpinnings, civil rights, and popular opinion - just like other things the state does. Also, you institute a system of accountability for those working in it. The real point of this is that if you do, you don't have to worry about leaks in the first place.


Sissyl wrote:

Is it irrelevant when other people in the thread point out that US foreign policy has very effectively turned people against the US, or is it just you dismissing everything I say?

No, it is understandable why some people are against the current USA policy. However the people in this thread are claiming that the USA government is constantly, maliciously and purposefully lying.

But again and again I can and have shown how that's not factual.

I'm not saying that the government is right, only that the cases people are claiming it's obfuscating and lying about aren't cases it's actually obfuscating or lying about.

If the claims about it being obfuscating and lying about things aren't actually true that actually begins to suggest that maybe the other points that people think they have aren't true too.

It does not guarantee it but it does call into question the accuracy of what they are reporting.

Quote:


The answer to your question, now: The responsibility lies squarely on the government for allowing the intelligence agencies too much power. See, you CAN'T defend yourself if everything you do is classified. Thus, there are two options: Defend current practices with escalating responses to maintain the broken status quo, or make sure the intelligence practices adapt to the various principles of your society: The legal underpinnings, civil rights, and popular opinion - just like other things the state does. Also, you institute a system of accountability for those working in it. The real point of this is that if you do, you don't have to worry about leaks in the first place.

Tell me what do you actually know about how this system as it stands now actually operates, and how it's supposed to operate under the current rules.

You assume there is no accountability, bu what do you actually know about the system in place, the legal underpinnings involved and the actual status quo?

EDIT:
Let me put this another way:

Did you see the Bill Nye/creationist debate? Bill Nye was asked what would change his mind -- he replied evidence. The creationist was asked what would change his mind -- he replied nothing.

You could convince me the government is in the wrong here with evidence. I cannot convince you of anything because you have already decide that nothing can convince you.

People have pointed out there is systems of accountability and there are legal underpinnings for what is going and there are safeguards in place to protect civil liberties.

You do not care. You seem to have refused to consider these things, and consider that there is no way that you can trust the government in any fashion.

As such there will never be a solution for you -- regardless of what the government does, says or presents your mind is made up and you cannot be persuaded otherwise. They could can the whole thing tomorrow and you will just as likely believe the next guy that claims they did not because you do not trust that they can have or will.

So again in such a case whatever the other guy does it does not matter, you are unchanging.

Second edit

In any situation I have come to ask myself, "what can change my mind?"

If nothing can it suggests two things:
1. That changing my mind would violate a core belief of my being.

2. I am being a roadblock to success and problem solving.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No. You tell me what accountability there is. Tell me some stories of people who have broken the rules for what is allowed to collect in the intelligence community and were held accountable for it. Please.

Edit because of an edit: Sure, you can convince me. If you have evidence. So far, all I have seen is a stinking mire of flagrant abuse of what laws there are supposed to be. From the Patriot act, to Guantanamo, to nonexistent WMDs, to foreign wars leaving entire countries in shambles and fertile soil for more hatred, to vile pressure on other countries to cease using checks and balances and due process, to predatory copyright practices, to radiation of people in airports (turns out those things DID have a special mode that could send all gathered images to some central location, precisely against what the government claimed at the time, who knew???), to unthinking defense of policemen and intelligence people caught doing wrong, and so on and so forth.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you claiming it's not so while ignoring the evidence that it is doesn't change anything. And trying to take the high ground by painting the other party as an unchanging fanatic is not good practice, Abraham.

Edit because of another edit: It IS a core belief of my being that every kind of authoritarianism is dangerous. At best. At worst, it means immense suffering and horror. History has proven this right every single time. So, when I see the US acting that way, given its power, I am not going to change my views of it to accomodate the very interests who push it that direction. I know the US can do better, and it's past time it did now. Once I see change in the right direction, supporting that will be a happier activity.

To clarify: The evidence you need would need to fit with what can actually be seen around us.


Sissyl wrote:
No. You tell me what accountability there is. Tell me some stories of people who have broken the rules for what is allowed to collect in the intelligence community and were held accountable for it. Please.

To what point and purpose? You said nothing will change your mind.


Oooookay. Where did I say that?


With your edit, you did not -- and you clearly stated that you could be convinced otherwise.

So are you aware that the NSA reports on itself every year to the public?

Current report

Also have you read the laws and documents in connection to what the NSA does? They are referenced in the above report.


I did not edit away anything like that, Abraham. The entire discussion about me not being able to change my mind was all you.

Now, see here... if the NSA hires enough PR consultants, it can sell any message with a decent chance of success. Enough to deflect further inquiry, certainly. What the NSA claims to do, while entirely protected against scrutiny by classification, is of little enough consequence. As I said, in that situation, you CAN'T defend yourself. And here is where leaks come into the picture. If the leaks (which have not been claimed to be false to my knowledge) paint an entirely different picture than the official communications, the NSA probably isn't being entirely honest, is it now?

Give me evidence, Abraham. As I said, it must match what we can see around us. Resting your arguments on what the most entrenched parts of the intelligence community claim to be doing is not it.


I didn't accuse you of changing your stance, you did edit because of my edit -- because of your edit I understood your position better. I did not make clear that was my meaning and I should have.

Also: If you are unwilling to listen to what they have to say how can you say you are willing to change your mind?

Obviously you say you are willing to change, but again you aren't willing to pay attention to their responses to your concerns?

Those reports have been coming out every year, long before Snowden and long before Ms. Manning.

I would suggest reading EO 12333 and the actual laws in effect with regards to this subject.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the only criteria you would accept for me BEING ABLE to change my mind is that I DO change my mind, that's not very impressive, is it? What that leaves me with is that I either change my mind and accept what the people accused of wrongdoing say is all true, or I am a fanatic who won't ever change my mind. Sorry, not playing that game.

I will say it again: Extraordinary claims (the intelligence community is doing things by the book and not more than they have popular support for, as I understand you) require extraordinary evidence. What the NSA themselves say about it... doesn't qualify. There is absolutely no way to even check if any of it is true. And as for the legality of what they do, well, if the laws actually permit these paranoid fantasies, then the laws that do are equally part of the problem.

Now, having discussed my stance on it enough... what evidence would you accept to agree that the current situation in surveillance is a problem? Further, what situation could bring such evidence to light? Am I right in interpreting you as: Only if the NSA wrote in their report that this situation shouldn't go on would you change your mind? If they did, would you demand change then?


On second thought, I am bowing out of this discussion. There is no need to press things further. I apologize if I have expressed myself poorly above.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Not too badly, I think. It might be useful for everyone to revisit standards of evidence. "Subject to independent varification" is generally one of them, which implies that "The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true" doesn't count, and neither does "The NSA isn't doing anything shady because the NSA says it's not doing anything shady."

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Abraham spalding wrote:
No, it is understandable why some people are against the current USA policy. However the people in this thread are claiming that the USA government is constantly, maliciously and purposefully lying..

That is not what is being claimed as the relevant consequence of the Snowden files. What is being demonstrated is that there is a significant arm of the intelligence communities and other aspects of government with black box budgets, which are operating above and beyond not only their mandates, but beyond the standard mechanisms for government and public oversight, operating in effect as a shadow government. And this shadow government has been growing without any real means to check it.

I'll have to add that it does help to read extensively on this. I had absolutely no appreciation for Snowden's side of the story until I read The Snowden Files.


Sissyl wrote:
On second thought, I am bowing out of this discussion. There is no need to press things further. I apologize if I have expressed myself poorly above.

I stand by every post from the last go round. Down with Obama and racist American imperialism! Free Chelsea Manning! Hands off Assange and Snowden!

Vive le Galt!!!


Thanks, you guys. :-)


Vive le Madame Sissyl!


Kirth Gersen wrote:
"Subject to independent verification"

Fixed that for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
White Knight Doodlebug wrote:
Vive le Madame Sissyl!

La Madame. Gender agreement is a thing in French, no matter how postmodern and/or feminist one wishes to be!


P.S. Love the new alias, Doodles. Perfect for politrolling Comrade thejeff.


It's not French, you fascist, it's Galtanese!

EDIT: I actually developed this alias to defend Madame Sissyl. Or was it Anita Sarkeesian? [Shrugs] I forget.


White Knight Doodlebug wrote:
It's not French, you fascist, it's Galtanese!

Fascist?! I'm a freethinker -- it says so right in my profile (which, as the NSA will attest, constitutes ironclad proof of its veracity). We were the first group the fascists tried to stamp out!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was referring to the Stuffy Grammarian, Kirth, not you.

I heard Anonymous exposed her as a Klan member.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is obviously true, too. I mean, someone claimed it was true, right?


To illustrate a point I made earlier (in my opinion poorly):

If a female age 18 goes to the doctor to get an abortion and the doctor tries to talk her out of it and refuses to perform the procedure. The woman goes somewhere else and gets the procedure done. The woman's parents come in demanding to know why the doctor performed an abortion. Because of HIPPA he can say he does not perform abortions but he cannot discuss the specifics of the woman's case to the point he cannot even say if she was pregnant in the first place. The law is in place to protect the woman and doctor but in this case he cannot defend himself from the specific claim because he cannot discuss the case.

Similar situations happen with lawyers and social workers too, as well as in the military.

***************************************************
In regards to Kirth Gersen and LazarX points

I'm not saying not to be suspicious or to not verify what you can of what the NSA puts out. But Sissyl outright dismissed anything said by the NSA.

It's akin to saying, "You can defend yourself but I don't care what you say."

Sissyl has repeatedly claimed the government lies and breaks the laws... but if you do not actually listen to what they say then how can you claim they lie?

I still haven't heard anyone say they know the laws involved either which has been my other major suggestion -- open source information on this is available.

In regards to honesty my point has been thus:

The government is not perfect but it has been rather open in regards to when it screws up. Does this mean the screw ups did not happen? No, but it is hardly fair to question the honesty of someone that outright admits its flubs and broadcasts them and then ignore the fact the guy making claims about them has outright be proven to lied about his own actions.

It's funny that people will almost always believe a known liar when that liar claims someone else is lying.

***************************************************
As to denial or lack there of to claims
This is standard for anything legal these days and anyone in the military already knows that you can confirm or deny nothing. There is a significant chance that everything involved with anything leaked has not been provided. Either because it would hurt the claimant's case or for some other reason.

Realize that just because there is a release of information that does not mean the information is declassified. If it is still classified anyone with clearance discussing it without permission is violating the law just as a doctor discussing a known pregnancy of one of his patients with someone else is breaking the law.

Just because something might be out there does not mean the professionals involved can discuss it.

***************************************************

Tangent topic:

Many people are technically inept when it comes to technology. They have no understanding of radio or broadcast technology, telephonic law, or anything concerning the internet (for example it's extremely erroneous to even suggest that facebook is a private setting which is also an extremely common mistake made by the public).

I would suggest that learning more about the technologies you use every day, how they work, what parts of their workings is considered public domain, and how your use of the technology exposes you to risks is something that would benefit the discussion as a whole.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I did say the government lied, yes. They claimed the terahertz body scanners at the airports did not have any way tosend such images to a central database. A while back, it was shown that there was a special mode they could be put in which allowed sending the images. Are you saying this was someone else's doing, someone who pulled a fast one on the government?

The US government has lied. Sometimes in very high profile issues. That doesn't make what they do say uninteresting, only less trustworthy. We do listen... But what they say is not good enough. There are steps between being a paladin and a blackguard. Dichotomous rhetorics are tiresome. And no, if the NSA is to be completely protected by classification, they are unable to defend themselves. Pretty obvious, really. That doesn't mean they have to be cut any sort of slack, just that it's a poor idea to have that level of secrecy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The government is also hardly open when it screws up. Sometimes it's open after it has been revealed by somebody else that it's screwed up. Often only after it can't suppress that revelation or discredit the source any longer.

101 to 150 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / US Intelligence Community So Readily Admits To Fantasies Of Killing Ed Snowden All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.