Snowden and the Pulitzer

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Not per se. But the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

That expression is a warning against the very thing you're advocating. Freedom isn't threatened by a few crazies killing a relative handful of people.

I'd like to add to this that, even ideally, mass surveillance isn't done in defense of freedom; it's done for general protection. And I'm sure you know that other expression concerning liberty and security...

Let's be honest: nothing these terrorists, or even these hypothetical armed dissidents that you fear, can do is a direct threat to our freedom. Not even the detonation of a nuke in New York City. Their indirect threat to freedom is in our reaction to protect ourselves against their acts of violence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I grew up in the era where we learned the lesson that people are only now just learning again as history repeats itself. Honestly some people in this thread remind of my dad who thought communists were running around college campuses inciting Vietnam War protests. He trusted everything the government did to be right. It wasn't.

That kind of unrealistic idealism went out with Ozzy and Harriet. Governments will do what they can get away with and it is exactly the First Amendment, not the Second that keeps a democracy healthy.

10 People Who Exposed US Government Secrets And Lies

You can skip these Joey, you already hand waved them away:
CommonDreams: Thirteen Things the Government is Trying to Keep Secret from You

But you really need to read these because you have been misled that is was just an intelligence mistake. It was not.
Mother Jones: Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq

Forbes: NSA, DEA, IRS Lie About Fact That Americans Are Routinely Spied On By Our Government: Time For A Special Prosecutor


We had a song for believing in John Wayne's world in the 60s:

 

[Joey McGee]

10 People Who Exposed US Government Secrets And Lies

You can skip these Joey, you already hand waved them away:

lol, I skipped the rest of this listverse crap when I read of Gary Webb "there are many who believe he was murdered."

CommonDreams: Thirteen Things the Government is Trying to Keep Secret from You

Do you want to share what is illegal and immoral about what they are provably doing in precise terms that vindicate Snowden?

But you really need to read these because you have been misled that is was just an intelligence mistake. It was not.
Mother Jones: Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq

This crap is your proof that Bush lied the people into a war? Pathetic.

Forbes: NSA, DEA, IRS Lie About Fact That Americans Are Routinely Spied On By Our Government: Time For A Special Prosecutor

I don't get it, I got bored really fast. Can you spoonfeed it to me please? I'm not digging through your links to find the illegal and immoral things that vindicate snowden in your imagination.

Perhaps you can point to JUST ONE. One single claim. Explain it here, in detail, with evidence in an unambiguous way, should take very little time.

 

[applecorped]

Better than Woodward & Bernstein.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is a naive view of the government in this thread for people to believe the administration and the NSA aren't spying on citizens, and aren't lying to the citizens of the country. History says one would be a gullible fool to take that position.

The NSA administrators wouldn't lie? Riight. They're keeping us safe? Yet they can't cite any evidence of more than thwarting a couple entrapment cases. Spying on reporters because they must be terrorists? There's no evidence whatsoever of that, but there is evidence the admin has been trying to intimidate reporters and spying on them in an effort to thwart whistleblowers.

And those whistleblowers are not terrorists or traitors, they are citizens who see government wrongdoing. Maybe they are not perfect, maybe they made mistakes. But they saw government wrongdoing and they spoke up at great personal cost.

 

[Mumbles]

It is a naive view of the government in this thread for people to believe the administration and the NSA aren't spying on citizens, and aren't lying to the citizens of the country. History says one would be a gullible fool to take that position.

And I think it's naive to worry about the NSA over, say, the FBI, the TSA, or worst of all in my experience, the local police force. And that's why I don't fully trust this argument. If the NSA listens to my phone calls, they'll discover nothing significant, and they'll move on. The cops? They just run up pointing guns at you and screaming contradictory orders and threats. Yes, you can say that collecting metadata is unconstitutional (although it's info already owned by a third party, and thus not private), But COINTELPRO is a poor example, given what Hoover and his thugs actually did.

The NSA administrators wouldn't lie? Riight. They're keeping us safe? Yet they can't cite any evidence of more than thwarting a couple entrapment cases. Spying on reporters because they must be terrorists? There's no evidence whatsoever of that, but there is evidence the admin has been trying to intimidate reporters and spying on them in an effort to thwart whistleblowers.

Do people really not understand this? The spy game is not a game. Of course, they lie.

Yes, I am against warrentless wiretaps - and I did read the article you posted, but I didn't see any clear sign that an agent deciding to listen in on phone calls without warrents was considered acceptable by the NSA.

And those whistleblowers are not terrorists or traitors, they are citizens who see government wrongdoing. Maybe they are not perfect, maybe they made mistakes. But they saw government wrongdoing and they spoke up at great personal cost.

Again, both Snowden and Manning released classified info to the public, and to non-US people specifically, of doings that were not at all illegal. They are not whistleblowers.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I'm sure you know that other expression concerning liberty and security...

This one?

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” - Benjamin Franklin

What Ben Franklin Really Said

“In short, Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade.”

Let's be honest: nothing these terrorists, or even these hypothetical armed dissidents that you fear, can do is a direct threat to our freedom. Not even the detonation of a nuke in New York City. Their indirect threat to freedom is in our reaction to protect ourselves against their acts of violence.

2,977 victims of 9/11 beg to differ. Well they would except that they can't, because they're dead! If being murdered is not a direct threat to your freedom, I don't know what is.

Oh wait, I get it now. Terrorists aren't directly taking away our freedom, because we don't have to react in order to protect ourselves. We can just ignore the threat and accept that other option - the freedom to die!

 

[Joey McGee]

It is a naive view of the government in this thread for people to believe the administration and the NSA aren't spying on citizens, and aren't lying to the citizens of the country. History says one would be a gullible fool to take that position.

So you admit you can't prove that they are doing anything illegal, immoral or lying? OK.

there is evidence the admin has been trying to intimidate reporters and spying on them in an effort to thwart whistleblowers.

There is? Where is it?

But they saw government wrongdoing and they spoke up at great personal cost.

Whatever personal cost to them is NOTHING to the cost to their government and their people in reduced capability to keep us safe.

So the things that he's disclosed, the capabilities, and the NSA is a capabilities-based organization, so when we have foreign intelligence targets, legitimate things of interest -- like, terrorists is the iconic example, but it includes things like human traffickers, drug traffickers, people who are trying to build advanced weaponry, nuclear weapons, and build delivery systems for those, and nation-states who might be executing aggression against their immediate neighbors, which you may have some visibility into some of that that's going on right now, the capabilities are applied in very discrete and measured and controlled ways. So the unconstrained disclosure of those capabilities means that as adversaries see them and recognize, "Hey, I might be vulnerable to this," they move away from that, and we have seen targets in terrorism, in the nation-state area, in smugglers of various types, and other folks who have, because of the disclosures, moved away from our ability to have insight into what they're doing. The net effect of that is that our people who are overseas in dangerous places, whether they're diplomats or military, and our allies who are in similar situations, are at greater risk because we don't see the threats that are coming their way.

Babble about how Snowden sacrificed himself makes me want to puke.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

2,977 victims of 9/11 beg to differ. Well they would except that they can't, because they're dead! If being murdered is not a direct threat to your freedom, I don't know what is.

By that perverted logic, fatal car accidents are also a threat to freedom. A greater threat by several orders of magnitude, as it turns out. (426,840 deaths due to car accidents from 2002-2012 compared to approximately 3,000 lost to terrorism in the same period of time.)

Oh wait, I get it now. Terrorists aren't directly taking away our freedom, because we don't have to react in order to protect ourselves. We can just ignore the threat and accept that other option - the freedom to die!

Our response can be far more nuanced than "react" or "don't react". How we react is what determines whether or not there's any kind of a threat to the freedom we, as a society, enjoy. Whatever we do in that regard, we do to ourselves. Outside of subjugation by a foreign power, we're the only ones that are a threat to our country's freedom.

 

[Mumbles]

Okay, I don't really like the idea of spying on ordinary citizens. It doesn't stop murders, it didn't stop the Boston Marathon bombing.

But...

I'll say it again. A few bits of what Snowden and his allies unclosed were entirely legitimate - much of it was standard and reasonable work. And that is what many of you don't get. This is *not* just about finding some rag-tag group of people who want to blow up a plane. Many of the items that both Manning and Snowden disclosed, have very serious, international ramifications.

As one example, take the most recent revelation that the NSA was working to crack the equipment of a Chinese telecom manufacturer, in order to ensure that our lines are secure, and every other country's, is not. Well, so what? We've known for more than a decade that Chinese manufacturers design backdoors in order to let their government access communications in supposedly commercial systems, as well as on US military systems. We've found them out, several times. Why should we not look into designs from Chinese companies to see what's happening there?

Look, I expect heads of State to deny spying. That's simply what they're supposed to do. But when some idiot expat like Snowden lobs them a softball question, and spends months blathering about his amazing hacking abilities, and his "hacking" turns out to be asking people for their network passwords...well, I can't respect that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you admit you can't prove that they are doing anything illegal,

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I find it hilarious that he gave up his life in the United States to live in a place with far less relative freedom. His principles of treason led him to exactly where he deserves to be.

 

[Christian Klippel]

... his "hacking" turns out to be asking people for their network passwords...well, I can't respect that.

Regardless of wether you can respect that or not, it also directly points to a big elephant in the room. Namely that those people are simply unfit to have such data in the first place. They are sitting on that data, supposedly knowing full well how important, secret and whatnot it is, but still handed out access to it rather quickly.

In my book that makes them untustworthy to have that data in the first place. It clearly shows how easy it is for others to get access to it, and thus how high the chance for abusing that system is.

And obviously that is just another aspect of it all that Snowden revealed, simply by being able to do it, and then doing it and show the world ho easy it was.

Dunno about you, but prefer to not have such incompetent hacks accumulate and handle data about my personal life.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Mumbles]

Regardless of wether you can respect that or not, it also directly points to a big elephant in the room. Namely that those people are simply unfit to have such data in the first place. They are sitting on that data, supposedly knowing full well how important, secret and whatnot it is, but still handed out access to it rather quickly.

Well, yes. And as I recall, the people who gave Snowden their passwords had their clearances revoked, which is exactly what should have happened.

ETA: and the fact that they geve him their passwords, rather than simply reporting him to the DoD, suggests that we need to tighten up...

 

[Joey McGee]

By that perverted logic, fatal car accidents are also a threat to freedom. A greater threat by several orders of magnitude, as it turns out. (426,840 deaths due to car accidents from 2002-2012 compared to approximately 3,000 lost to terrorism in the same period of time.)

a) A nuclear event could kill half a million instantly and cause trillions of damage eventually putting tens of millions into poverty worldwide b) We do spend billions of dollars on police patrol, speed traps, courts, check points, laws, studies, education and anti-drunk driving advertising, and the government is pushing/investigating driverless car technology at great expense. It's a little harder since driving is legal, everyone does it and you can't kill or imprison people for doing it. How many people would die if we had none of those implements? How is the public actually suffering from the spying measures that actually exist except for a horrid case of paranoia? I fail to see the comparison.

 

[Joey McGee]

Actually it was passed by all three branches of government so I'm a little confused as to why you would post something entirely unrelated to anything we're talking about. Well, I can guess...

 

[Joey McGee]

Snowden has written an article defending is hilariously stupid softball question to Putin...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/18/vladimir-putin-surveillance-us-leaders-snowden

He's continuing his belief that "Clapper lied, therefore it justifies everything I have done". And apparently, his question was meant to mirror the question that Clapper was asked! Therefore justifying his softball to Putin! Wow this one statement by Clapper has really got legs!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/opinion/testimony-of-the-national-intelligence-director.html?_r=0

This guy is a real winner.

I was surprised that people who witnessed me risk my life to expose
...
Last year, I risked family, life, and freedom

First and foremost you risked other people's lives you dumb, stuck-up piece of ******

a global debate that even Obama himself conceded "will make our nation stronger"

What he actually said, you delusional, narcissistic scumbag was "We would have gotten to the same place without putting people at risk" So shut the **** up!

How do people like this person? There is absolutely nothing redeemable about his actions and motivations at all.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

That poor traitor!

 

[Joey McGee]

I was surprised that people who witnessed me risk my life to expose the surveillance practices of my own country could not believe that I might also criticise the surveillance policies of Russia, a country to which I have sworn no allegiance, without ulterior motive.

LOL, the only thing between you and a life in prison is Putin and you're shocked that people are unsurprised at your softball question that serves him? You left the country to avoid jail, you've proven that you're afraid of a jail cell so... Are you being disingenuous or are you just stupid

Putin's response was remarkably similar to Barack Obama's initial, sweeping denials of the scope of the NSA's domestic surveillance programs, before that position was later shown to be both untrue and indefensible.

Nope, only if we follow your twisted logic and and self-serving interpretations, which we don't.

Clapper's lie – to the Senate and to the public – was a major motivating force behind my decision to go public, and a historic example of the importance of official accountability.

Most Americans want you in jail, Clapper still has his job and there is no evidence that he lied so he will never be prosecuted. No one has been punished, no wrongdoing has been proven, no abuse has surfaced. You have failed, you will be relegated to the dustbin of history as a treasonous kook.You have led many young people down the path of conspiracy theories and delusions about the government lying which saps their political effectiveness and education. And you have caused the country and it's agents to be more vulnerable to attack. You will need to spend your entire life wrapping yourself in more conspiracy theories and non-sequiturs just to escape the shame of what you have done... we haven't heard the last of Snowden, he will never shut up, he will need to keep spewing his delusions lest reality starts to seep in.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

And he'll keep up his efforts to make the US government look bad. No matter where he does it from, no matter how ridiculous it makes him look.
He imagines himself some sort of people's hero. Good grief.