A deal for Snowden?

[Joey McGee]

Of course, that sort of thing has never happened before <cough>Herbert Hoover<cough>, right?

You act like the fact that blackmail has happened in the history of human beings, it justifies your belief that it was happening in this case. Or that somehow I'm saying it's impossible that it was happening here. I really can't get through to you huh... I truly give up then. Perhaps I should rephrase, what do you think is more likely, the fact they were looking for something to blackmail her with or trying to figure out how her policies would affect their interests so they could move on this intelligence? Honestly...

But that's OK, because they are foreigners. At least we can be comfortable in the knowlegdge that we now we live in a time when the US government (but not necessarily closely allied governments) would never spy upon US citizens.

Russ Tice! Yeah for some reason not a lot of people take his word for it, could be that he has no proof, could be that he was ruled to suffer from psychotic paranoia... great source wow! Do you share his belief they did that to shut him up? lol

You might say that these things, when they have happened, have been stopped (including some programs revealed by the Snowden leaks about which intelligence officials have lied) and that this proves the system works. Such a view is disingenuous, however, because oversight is rarely, if ever, the reason why these abuses have been stopped.

And you just state this like it's a fact! Great...

The reason has been whistleblowers (and let's be clear about it, the administration is cracking down harder than ever and the real reason why Snoweden could not ever get any sort of a deal is that if he was ever captured nothing which did not make an example out of him would be acceptable).

Your unfounded beliefs aren't really interesting. The reason he wouldn't get any kind of deal is because he broke the law, put people at risk, cost the government countless man hours and billions of dollars and had no moral or logical reason to do it the way he did, he's just a Paultard with too much time on his hands, he should have left the house more.

Be that as it may, whistleblowers only get you so far. All you will get are cosmetic fixes as long as you don't fix the real issues with oversight.

Pfft this is all about oversight? I could understand if there was NO oversight, but there is enough for the majority of experts and reps, while everyone agrees it could be better just not by douche***** like Snowden leaking operational details to kooks like Greenwald!

Have fun with that one!

 

[cosmicaug]

Are you saying that the DD is considering named one of their buildings after Ellsberg?

No, it was hyperbole and actually a reference to Herbert O. Yardley, founder of the predecessor of the NSA, who they wanted to prosecute under the espionage act for a book he wrote and who was inducted into the NSA's hall of honor in 1999. So no buildings.

Again, though, my actual point is what would the answers be (from your "intelligence experts" not from the New York Times) if you had taken a poll back then?

 

[Joey McGee]

No, it was hyperbole

So you're admitting your arguments are not genuine?

and actually a reference to Herbert O. Yardley, founder of the predecessor of the NSA, who they wanted to prosecute under the espionage act for a book he wrote and who was inducted into the NSA's hall of honor in 1999. So no buildings.

Did they induct him because of the book he wrote or because of his service? A complete joke...

Again, though, my actual point is what would the answers be (from your "intelligence experts" not from the New York Times) if you had taken a poll back then?

How the **** should I know and what does it have to do with this?

 

[cosmicaug]

And yes, certainly some of the reps are stupid and delusional, have you heard of ron paul? rand paul?

I was referring to Bamford & Schneier.

 

[babycondor]

Originally Posted by babycondor
“I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe . . . Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.”
― Daniel Webster

Did you read the last sentence in your quote. I submit we are talking about the "means of detecting the wrong", which you and the traitor want to take away.

In the last sentence, "make them intelligent" means make the people intelligent, "give them the means of detecting the wrong" means give the people the means of detecting the wrong.

The framers of the Bill of Rights made a big deal about freedom of the press. Snowden leaked his information to the press. He detected a wrong, and he wanted the people to know about it.

 

[cosmicaug]

Did they induct him because of the book he wrote or because of his service?

You are acting like some poll of "intelligence experts" means something. Whether the NSA inducted him because of the book or because of his service is moot. Do you really think that a known traitor and "spy" would be inducted into the NSA hall of honor under any circumstance? It tells me that "intelligence experts" (including people of influence in the agency) have had a major change in perspective over the decades regarding Yardley's career.

A complete joke...How the **** should I know and what does it have to do with this?

You are the one who thinks what "intelligence experts" think on Snowden, etc. matters. I'm just pointing out that there are a whole bunch of other previous leaks by whistleblowers (as well as revealing books relying on the same) which are now considered at best a good thing and a public service and at worst not treacherous and which would have been strenuously condemned by "intelligence experts" at the time they took place. In doing so, I am questioning the significance of the poll you cite.

 

[cosmicaug]

What I am seeing here is Snowden/Greenwald being Paultards being brought up again and again. Why is this happening? This sort of insistence logically implies that if the same actions had been carried out having the perfectly reasonable thinking processes of an Obama fanboi as their impetus then it would change the nature of the actions themselves (for instance, it might be that if a whistleblower's thinking is defined by Paultardanism, they are spies whereas if a whistleblower's thinking is defined by Obama fanboism, they are acting out of a benevolent sense of duty to the public).

If this is not the case, then these repeated allusions to Snowden/Greenwald are nothing but transparent attempts at poisoning the well. Well done!

 

[cosmicaug]

Russ Tice! Yeah for some reason not a lot of people take his word for it, could be that he has no proof, could be that he was ruled to suffer from psychotic paranoia... great source wow! Do you share his belief they did that to shut him up? lol

You act as though warrantless surveillance didn't happen. You act as though it was a figment of someone's imagination.

Hopefully that is not really your position. I think your position is that there exists adequate oversight and that whatever deficits may exist in oversight should always be addressed by the fiction of proper whistleblowing channels. The fact is that warrantless surveillance not restricted to metadata would still be going on were it not for whistleblowing and the fact is that such whistleblowing did not go through "proper channels" (someone talked to the New York Times).

 

[Joey McGee]

You are acting like some poll of "intelligence experts" means something.

Of course it does. Look at how the questions are framed, it is not their political or personal opinions that are being consulted, it is their professional ones, which of course can be colored by the former, but it isn't much different from canvassing the opinions of climate scientists over whether excessive CO2 releases are harmful. I don't need their opinions to make my point, I'm just pointing out what the reality is in the world when people think about this person, people who aren't armchair observers.

Whether the NSA inducted him because of the book or because of his service is moot.

Wow this is embarrassing. He wasn't prosecuted because what he did wasn't even illegal at the time, they later amended the Act. They inducted him despite his actions, nothing to do with them. He was a founder, a pioneer, the head of MI-8. What did snowden do? Button pusher, sys admin... you have the nerve to compare this man with Snowden?

Do you really think that a known traitor and "spy" would be inducted into the NSA hall of honor under any circumstance? It tells me that "intelligence experts" (including people of influence in the agency) have had a major change in perspective over the decades regarding Yardley's career.

No, you're telling yourself that. It would be an easy enough theory to prove, why didn't you spend five minutes trying to find the leadership praising him for doing something for the same reasons and motivation as Snowden? What a complete farce... what a fantasy.

You are the one who thinks what "intelligence experts" think on Snowden, etc. matters. I'm just pointing out that there are a whole bunch of other previous leaks by whistleblowers (as well as revealing books relying on the same) which are now considered at best a good thing and a public service and at worst not treacherous and which would have been strenuously condemned by "intelligence experts" at the time they took place. In doing so, I am questioning the significance of the poll you cite.

Oh I'm fully aware that you're trying to handwave their professional opinions as well as the statements by the current Director of National Intelligence away by making nonsensical and unsupported comparisons and assertions.

 

[Joey McGee]

What I am seeing here is Snowden/Greenwald being Paultards being brought up again and again. Why is this happening?

Because they are provably idiots with radical ideas that are motivating their actions. Or as one of the greatest mind-scientists in the world said "self-serving, paranoid nihilists" lol.

This sort of insistence logically implies that if the same actions had been carried out having the perfectly reasonable thinking processes of an Obama fanboi as their impetus then it would change the nature of the actions themselves (for instance, it might be that if a whistleblower's thinking is defined by Paultardanism, they are spies whereas if a whistleblower's thinking is defined by Obama fanboism, they are acting out of a benevolent sense of duty to the public).

Someone with the same ideas and thinking style as Obama would never in a million years support his actions... so what are you talking about?

If this is not the case, then these repeated allusions to Snowden/Greenwald are nothing but transparent attempts at poisoning the well. Well done!

You wish! So analyzing someone's political beliefs and psychology after you've already decided their actions were immoral and insane is proof that we're poisoning the well? Wow you really don't understand the list of fallacies at all! You didn't read this article... did you?

 

[Joey McGee]

You act as though warrantless surveillance didn't happen. You act as though it was a figment of someone's imagination.

Nope, what a lame attempt to turn it back on me. You're the one providing an interview with Tice as evidence, when it is not.

Hopefully that is not really your position. I think your position

You should stop thinking. Looking and reading is a better strategy when you're trying to assess the reality

is that there exists adequate

There will never be enough oversight, but it must be balanced with the need for secrecy, and protected from kooks and political opportunists like snowden

oversight and that whatever deficits may exist in oversight should always be addressed by the fiction of proper whistleblowing channels.

Prove it!

The fact is that warrantless surveillance not restricted to metadata would still be going on were it not for whistleblowing and the fact is that such whistleblowing did not go through "proper channels" (someone talked to the New York Times).

It's your opinion and not a fact, which you should really try and prove because you're basing your entire moral argument on it.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

A quite a horrible sequence of events that allowed it to happen, including an anti-leak software package that was never installed at his location that would have prevented this. He was able to lie to people with higher clearances that he needed their logins to do his job which is how he did this, those people all lost their jobs. So what? People in the military use their training against the United States all the time, snipers changed sides and were killing our people in Afghanistan and Iraq, betrayal, mental illness and treason happens all the time. That's not an argument to stop trying... at all. Improvements will happen. Wow if we had your nerve in the face of the enemy we might as well just give upYou meant the metadata? This is your opinion... it has been rejected by me, and the administration... good luck getting the program pulled guys And this bothers you? It's too bad they got caught! Look bad to people with no depth or experience... Your problem is that you never consider the other side, or look for it. Poor form...

John Schindler, a former NSA official, noted that planning for the terrorist attacks on Sept 11, 2001 had taken place in Hamburg.

“If 9/11 had happened to Germany and been planned in NY not Hamburg, I’d expect [German] intel to monitor USA top 2 bottom,” he wrote on Twitter.

A German intelligence official, quoted by Die Welt, said: “The Americans did not want to rely exclusively on us after September 11th. That is understandable.”

Another told the newspaper: “Without information from the Americans, there would have been successful terrorist attacks in Germany in the past years.”

Why do you think they were, if true, monitoring her communications then? Perhaps for blackmail information? Or perhaps to understand what decisions they might take in the future that might affect national security?

I think a realistic answer would be that someone figured out how to do it, and nobody stopped them. I doubt the information was used for anything.

Your working assumption seems to be that these people know what they are doing and are pursuing useful objectives. I don't agree. I don't trust official reassurances the way you apparently do.

 

[Joey McGee]

I think a realistic answer would be that someone figured out how to do it, and nobody stopped them.

What the hell are you talking about?

I doubt the information was used for anything.

On what basic do you doubt this other than you're just a Snowden support and general malcontent?

Your working assumption seems to be that these people know what they are doing and are pursuing useful objectives. I don't agree.

Why? Do you think the intelligence services never do anything useful? Or EVER stop terrorism? lol

I don't trust official reassurances the way you apparently do.

LOL I have reasons why I think they know what they are doing and they have actually proven themselves, you think you can just paint yourself as the wise skeptic and no one is going to notice your malcontent is based on nothing?

 

[cosmicaug]

Someone with the same ideas and thinking style as Obama would never in a million years support his actions... so what are you talking about?

Prove it.

 

[cosmicaug]

You didn't read this article... did you?

Of course I did. It is another example of the same. It would be like me saying that I dispute the usefulness of PCR because Kary Mullis says a raccoon with glowing green eyes talks to him.

 

[Joey McGee]

Prove it.

Because Obama has said that he is a criminal who needs to be prosecuted, that he believes that all of these changes or updates to the system would have happened anyway, and that snowden's assertion that he couldn't have gone through official and legal channels is incorrect, amongst many other things, but that should do it for you, no?

Of course I did. It is another example of the same. It would be like me saying that I dispute the usefulness of PCR because Kary Mullis says a raccoon with glowing green eyes talks to him.

What? You aren't even paying attention. Whether or not Snowden is a paranoid, self-serving nihilist who follows radically stupid politicians and is incredibly delusional about the way the world works doesn't change whether or not his leaking was a good thing for the world, those are indeed separate arguments. But we have already decided that his leaking was an incredibly bad thing for the world, and have gone on to investigating why someone would be possessed to do something so stupid. It's very fitting that the best you've got is Russ Tice.

 

[cosmicaug]

But I have already decided that his leaking was an incredibly bad thing for the world and no conceivable evidence to the contrary would ever change my mind.

FTFY.

 

[Joey McGee]

FTFY.

How childish... I have asked for evidence over and over again... where were you? So far all I have heard from the other side is how much I love my government and how blind I am to the evidence to the contrary I am because I love my government... It's just so obvious man! Why don't you just say that a child could figure it out? Arguing with the twoofers and all kinds of conspiracists is always the same...

 

[cosmicaug]

How childish... I have asked for evidence over and over again... where were you? So far all I have heard from the other side is how much I love my government and how blind I am to the evidence to the contrary I am because I love my government... It's just so obvious man! Why don't you just say that a child could figure it out? Arguing with the twoofers and all kinds of conspiracists is always the same...

Childish? It describes reality. It is you who has decided (certainly not I and certainly not other folk who do not neatly fit into a paranoid fringe category). Furthermore, you contend that it is "an incredibly bad thing" presumably because the Russians (sorry, "the terrorists" --the justification for absolutely everything these days is that it's about the war on terrah, isn't it?) are going to learn soopersekret stuff as releases trickle out through Greenwald et al when we all know that the real "crime" here is the American people learning of these things.

As for evidence which would change your mind, why don't you tell us what it would look like?


P.S. By the way, do you really think that Snowden is the first one to think of doing this at the NSA? It's just as likely he's only the first one to announce it after the fact and to release to the press rather than to potentially hostile governments for pay.

 

[Peephole]

It strikes me as extremely ridiculous that people ask such questions. If someone really wanted to know the answer, they could simply look to the claims by the officials and independent experts who are making the claim of harm. Why are supporters of Snowden always so willfully ignorant?

Yes, because officials and "independent" experts have no self interest, and would never lie.

Like James Clapper. He would NEVER EVER lie.

NEVER.

So, do you have anything else other than some weird and irrelevant poll?

Like an actual example of how Snowden's revelations endangered anyone. You know, some actual evidence? This is a forum for skeptics, you know.