Snowden and the Pulitzer

[Joey McGee]

Why Metadata matters

The government COULD do a lot of things if a) It wanted to b) There was no oversight or tracking c) it was legal d) It was full of people who do not care about the rights and freedoms of people.

They could even fake a terror attack! Have you ever seen the Operation Northwoods document?

 

[applecorped]

They could even fake a terror attack! Have you ever seen the Operation Northwoods document?

Conspiracy Theories>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[Beth]

The problem with that is that A) the president, Feinstein, many other of his colleagues have fully accepted Clapper's side of the story, B) That's only 6 members of congress out of 435.

So which group of politicians do you trust? It's the president's administration that's responsible for all this so I'm not surprised that he accepts the story. I'm not sure how many of rest of the politicians fully accept Clapper's side of the story. Are you claiming that all of the remaining 429 have no doubts about his sincerity?

Government can't function if you fire somebody every time there is a minor disagreement like this...

I know that you don't seem to find this behavior troublesome, but I wouldn't call this a 'minor disagreement'. This is a major deal to a lot of people!

At that level of government, people can get fired for far less odious behavior and government will continue to function. When somebody like Clapper gets canned for that behavior, it sends a message about the priority of providing truthful accurate information under oath. The other heads of government organizations will be cognizant of that fact. The fact that he was not canned for it sends an entirely different signal to other agency heads. It communicates that honest and accurate testimony is not required. It signals to me, as a citizen and voter, that we have a seriously broken/corrupt political system. Of course, that phrase may quality as redundant.

Again, Clapper's version makes more sense to me. "Not wittingly" fits with his story that he was thinking of 702, since they "not wittingly" intercept american communications sometimes under that... it doesn't make sense that he was lying about the metadata, he would have said something else, There is a reasonable explanation, you don't go firing people and assuming the wost whenever there is a minor disagreement like that, it would be hysterical and immature.

I can only say that we have a major disagreement regarding whether or not it is reasonable to classify what happened as a 'minor disagreement' even assuming he was telling the truth. Which I don't.

Just curious, if it were to be established that Clapper actually did lie, i.e. that he was not 'unwitting' about his testimony but deliberate, what do you think should have been the reaction? A fine? A demotion? A note in his file? Or do you think perjury before congress on the matter would be sufficient grounds for letting the man go?

I honestly don't see your point, it looks like oversight of an overseer worked. Or how did this actually occur? It's like the oversight worked or something.

The point is that the claim of oversight being sufficient, so we don't need to be concerned about overreach and abuse, is not compelling. The information we get from the oversight we currently have makes it clear that we have serious problems and the current system of oversight is not sufficient to keep problems and abuse from occurring.

It "appears"? Where does it "appear"?Who were caught and the NSA reported the instances to their overseers. Is this an argument that we shouldn't have these tools to catch terrorists? Insane. Perhaps an argument for stricter auditing and access...

passing on information to police agencies in order to bust drug dealers:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805
Notice this was uncovered due to Snowden.

federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

 

[Joey McGee]

So which group of politicians do you trust? It's the president's administration that's responsible for all this

Actually no Bush started it

so I'm not surprised that he accepts the story.

But you said that 6 congresspeople not accepting it means something, I'm saying the President, Feinstein and obviously many other congresspeople who didn't join their letter accepting it means just as much if not more.

I'm not sure how many of rest of the politicians fully accept Clapper's side of the story. Are you claiming that all of the remaining 429 have no doubts about his sincerity?

Obviously not but where are they all if they feel so strongly?

I know that you don't seem to find this behavior troublesome, but I wouldn't call this a 'minor disagreement'. This is a major deal to a lot of people!

Did you catch the fact that Wyden is basically alone, well, one other person with his viewpoint on the metadata on the committees he sits on?

At that level of government, people can get fired for far less odious behavior and government will continue to function. When somebody like Clapper gets canned for that behavior, it sends a message about the priority of providing truthful accurate information under oath.

You don't just fire someone like Clapper, exemplary record and abilities, to placate a bunch of hysterical whiners, sorry. Again, Wyden asked him to expose a classified program which is illegal, Feinstein asked him not to but he did it anyway because he's a jackass, his question was misleading, a dossier?

The other heads of government organizations will be cognizant of that fact. The fact that he was not canned for it sends an entirely different signal to other agency heads. It communicates that honest and accurate testimony is not required. It signals to me, as a citizen and voter, that we have a seriously broken/corrupt political system.

I think it sends a message that the President is a reasonable person and isn't going to bend to the shrill and immature demands that someone be fired over a simple mistake over a poorly posed question that should never have been asked in the first place. WOW look we are STILL talking about this? Doesn't it just go to show that there is an absence of anything substantive to complain about. smh

Just curious, if it were to be established that Clapper actually did lie, i.e. that he was not 'unwitting' about his testimony but deliberate, what do you think should have been the reaction? A fine? A demotion? A note in his file? Or do you think perjury before congress on the matter would be sufficient grounds for letting the man go?

I think this isn't worth talking about. A real question is, why did Wyden ignore Feinstein and ask a question that was meant to force Clapper to break the law and reveal a classified program? Why didn't Wyden take that burden on himself?

The point is that the claim of oversight being sufficient, so we don't need to be concerned about overreach and abuse, is not compelling. The information we get from the oversight we currently have makes it clear that we have serious problems and the current system of oversight is not sufficient to keep problems and abuse from occurring.

Literally no one is making the claim that we do not have to be worried about abuse. Oversight and accountability can always be made stronger, there will always be a better way or a safer way, everyone involved is committed to this goal and this process. Civilian law enforcement have been abusing their powers to look up their romantic partners for generations, no one is suggesting that the police shouldn't have access to the tools they have... instead the focus is put on records, keystroke software, and these kinds of things.

passing on information to police agencies in order to bust drug dealers:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805
Notice this was uncovered due to Snowden.

So what? Did you read the whole article? It is only an opinion by some that there is anything illegal or untoward going on here. In the course of their regular, legal investigations sometimes they come across information that can help bust drug dealers. The point is to keep their sources and investigative methods secret, not cover up the fact that there is abuse of NSA powers happening. It doesn't mean that they are abusing their powers to spy on civilians... Are you saying that this is proof that the NSA is abusing it's powers to spy on Americans? Please.

 

[Belz...]

Well we should get rid of the entire military and intelligence community then in case they decide to set off a nuke and put us under permanent martial law or something.

If that's what you conclude from what I said, it's no wonder you're consistently in the wrong, here.

Pop "2012 300 times metadata" into google it will be good exercise for you.

It was a rhetorical question to try and put into question the reliability of the source. But it went right above your head.

You tell me, you're not willing to make any detailed, unambiguous claims are you.

I ask again: what did that have to do with me or what I said ? I can't tell you, because you're the one who posted it.

Why do you put a space before every question mark? That's not proper formatting.

I find it easier to read. What's "proper" is what works.

 

[Belz...]

Who were caught and the NSA reported the instances to their overseers.

But it was an instance of abuse, was it not ?

What's your theory on Obama having identical positions as me?

Obama isn't a god. He's wrong on a great number of issues.

 

[Dragoonster]

What's your theory on Obama having identical positions as me?

Both are apologists? Neither has any real concern about US Constitution violations? Both are egregiously wrong on this particular issue? I'm no fan of Obama btw.

I thought you were done with me? Anyway bye again.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Both are apologists? Neither has any real concern about US Constitution violations? Both are egregiously wrong on this particular issue? I'm no fan of Obama btw.

I thought you were done with me? Anyway bye again.

Is it possible, do you think, that the POTUS knows more than you and is given more information? That he's better equipped to make the calls we make from the comfort of our armchairs?

 

[Beth]

I know that you don't seem to find this behavior [Clapper's false testimony] troublesome, but I wouldn't call this a 'minor disagreement'. This is a major deal to a lot of people!

Did you catch the fact that Wyden is basically alone, well, one other person with his viewpoint on the metadata on the committees he sits on?

Did you catch the fact that while you and many of our congresspeople consider this a 'minor disagreement', a great many of us do not?

At that level of government, people can get fired for far less odious behavior and government will continue to function. When somebody like Clapper gets canned for that behavior, it sends a message about the priority of providing truthful accurate information under oath.

You don't just fire someone like Clapper, exemplary record and abilities, to placate a bunch of hysterical whiners, sorry.

So you think the 6 congresspeople who were willing to go on record as wanting him fired are a 'bunch of hysterical whiners' for getting upset about being given inaccurate and misleading testimony?

The other heads of government organizations will be cognizant of that fact. The fact that he was not canned for it sends an entirely different signal to other agency heads. It communicates that honest and accurate testimony is not required. It signals to me, as a citizen and voter, that we have a seriously broken/corrupt political system.

I think it sends a message that the President is a reasonable person and isn't going to bend to the shrill and immature demands that someone be fired over a simple mistake over a poorly posed question that should never have been asked in the first place. WOW look we are STILL talking about this?

Yes, we are still talking about this.

Doesn't it just go to show that there is an absence of anything substantive to complain about.

No. It shows that for many people, this IS a substantive issue.

Just curious, if it were to be established that Clapper actually did lie, i.e. that he was not 'unwitting' about his testimony but deliberate, what do you think should have been the reaction? A fine? A demotion? A note in his file? Or do you think perjury before congress on the matter would be sufficient grounds for letting the man go?

I think this isn't worth talking about.

This doesn't answer my question. If he was deliberately lying to congress under oath, what would you consider to be an appropriate response?

A real question is, why did Wyden ignore Feinstein and ask a question that was meant to force Clapper to break the law and reveal a classified program? Why didn't Wyden take that burden on himself?

My assumption is he asked those questions for the same reason Snowden revealed the truth about what was going on. They both felt the american public deserved to know the truth about what the NSA was doing. Personally, I am grateful to both for their actions.

passing on information to police agencies in order to bust drug dealers:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805
Notice this was uncovered due to Snowden.

So what?

You apparently don't remember the question you asked that I answered.

Beth: It does appear that our government is doing this sort of thing from spying on political protesters to passing on information to police agencies in order to bust drug dealers.

Joey: It "appears"? Where does it "appear"?

The point is to keep their sources and investigative methods secret, not cover up the fact that there is abuse of NSA powers happening. It doesn't mean that they are abusing their powers to spy on civilians... Are you saying that this is proof that the NSA is abusing it's powers to spy on Americans? Please.

I disagree. Yes, I feel this is proof that the NSA is abusing it's powers. It's not supposed to be passing on the information obtained in this way to other law enforcement agencies. This was institutional undermining of rules they were supposed to be operating under and obfuscation of that misbehavior. Oversight did not catch this and bring it to the public attention. Snowden did.

 

[jimbob]

Did you catch the fact that while you and many of our congresspeople consider this a 'minor disagreement', a great many of us do not?

So you think the 6 congresspeople who were willing to go on record as wanting him fired are a 'bunch of hysterical whiners' for getting upset about being given inaccurate and misleading testimony?
Yes, we are still talking about this.
No. It shows that for many people, this IS a substantive issue.

This doesn't answer my question. If he was deliberately lying to congress under oath, what would you consider to be an appropriate response?

My assumption is he asked those questions for the same reason Snowden revealed the truth about what was going on. They both felt the american public deserved to know the truth about what the NSA was doing. Personally, I am grateful to both for their actions.

You apparently don't remember the question you asked that I answered.

Beth: It does appear that our government is doing this sort of thing from spying on political protesters to passing on information to police agencies in order to bust drug dealers.

Joey: It "appears"? Where does it "appear"?

I disagree. Yes, I feel this is proof that the NSA is abusing it's powers. It's not supposed to be passing on the information obtained in this way to other law enforcement agencies. This was institutional undermining of rules they were supposed to be operating under and obfuscation of that misbehavior. Oversight did not catch this and bring it to the public attention. Snowden did.

Key part highlighted.


Just because "bad people" were affected shouldn't be any cause for complacency. It is a situation where the wider requirements of justice conflict with bringing any individual wrongdoer to trial.

This is why the US has a legal concept of "Fruit of the poisonous tree"

The doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule, which, subject to some exceptions, prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being admitted in a criminal trial. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is intended to deter police from using illegal means to obtain evidence.

The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if:

1. it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source; or
2. it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
3. the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
4. the search warrant was not found to be valid based on probable cause, but was executed by government agents in good faith (called the good-faith exception).

This doctrine was also used by the European Court of Human Rights in Gäfgen v. Germany.

I'd struggle to see how these exemptions are valid in the situations described.

 

[The Norseman]

Key part highlighted.


Just because "bad people" were affected shouldn't be any cause for complacency. It is a situation where the wider requirements of justice conflict with bringing any individual wrongdoer to trial.

This is why the US has a legal concept of "Fruit of the poisonous tree"




I'd struggle to see how these exemptions are valid in the situations described.

They aren't, which is why the police agencies are told explicitly how to "find" the evidence that they were handed -- illegally.

 

[Joey McGee]

It was a rhetorical question to try and put into question the reliability of the source. But it went right above your head.

I don't think it's possible to have a discussion about these things I guess, nothing that is ever offered through the hands of the government or the intelligence community can be trusted, they could have fabricated all of it. I guess the only way to know for sure is if we surveillance everyone in the government at all times. Oh no wait, we should get rid of the swawwy spies?

 

[Joey McGee]

Neither has any real concern about US Constitution violations?

No such thing happened. Did you know that Obama was a constitutional law professor? Did you know that 15 federal judges approved the programs? Did you know it's only an opinion?

I thought you were done with me? Anyway bye again.

If you can restrain yourself from talking about millions of murders and things like that, I'll give you a second chance.

 

[Joey McGee]

Is it possible, do you think, that the POTUS knows more than you and is given more information? That he's better equipped to make the calls we make from the comfort of our armchairs?

Pfft how can it be good if it makes me scared?

 

[Joey McGee]

Did you catch the fact that while you and many of our congresspeople consider this a 'minor disagreement', a great many of us do not?

Yes I did!

So you think the 6 congresspeople who were willing to go on record as wanting him fired are a 'bunch of hysterical whiners' for getting upset about being given inaccurate and misleading testimony?

Yep! a) The programs were confirmed as legal by 15 federal judges and voted on by senate, congress b) The question by Wyden was cowardly and stupid, trying to set someone up to disclose classified details because no one else agreed with him that they should be public c) given the circumstances the explanations given by Clapper and Litt seem absolutely reasonable and understandable d) It looks like people are desperate to make something out of this because they actually have nothing else to go on.

This doesn't answer my question. If he was deliberately lying to congress under oath, what would you consider to be an appropriate response?

Why do you ask this question? Are you trying to gain legitimacy for your concerns?

My assumption is he asked those questions for the same reason Snowden revealed the truth about what was going on. They both felt the american public deserved to know the truth about what the NSA was doing. Personally, I am grateful to both for their actions.

Why didn't Wyden take the burden on himself to reveal it? Why didn't snowden go to congress or any of the whistleblowing channels available to him? Oh right because snowden is a crank who didn't trust the system man! Better to go to Hong Kong and put himself in the hands of those people! OMG how did that work out why didn't you stay there? HAHAHA

You apparently don't remember the question you asked that I answered.

Beth: It does appear that our government is doing this sort of thing from spying on political protesters to passing on information to police agencies in order to bust drug dealers.

Joey: It "appears"? Where does it "appear"?I disagree. Yes, I feel this is proof that the NSA is abusing it's powers. It's not supposed to be passing on the information obtained in this way to other law enforcement agencies. This was institutional undermining of rules they were supposed to be operating under and obfuscation of that misbehavior. Oversight did not catch this and bring it to the public attention. Snowden did.

That's what people are suspecting, doesn't make it true that they got this information from the metadata or prism! That connection has been invented. They don't use this tactic to cover up illegal activity, they use it to protect sources and investigative methods and its common across the board with government agencies, rarely the NSA.... did you really look into it?

 

[Joey McGee]

They aren't, which is why the police agencies are told explicitly how to "find" the evidence that they were handed -- illegally.

That is an opinion, an idea that many experts and authorities contradict directly in that article, people want to use this as evidence that the NSA is spying on citizens and covering it up, but it's actually something that many government law agencies do in order to cover up their sources and tactics, which could be the reason why no one its not exactly bringing the government to a halt. What it is not is any kind of evidence that the NSA spying on citizens...

 

[The Norseman]

That is an opinion, an idea that many experts and authorities contradict directly in that article, people want to use this as evidence that the NSA is spying on citizens and covering it up, but it's actually something that many government law agencies do in order to cover up their sources and tactics, which could be the reason why no one its not exactly bringing the government to a halt. What it is not is any kind of evidence that the NSA spying on citizens...

I don't want a dictionary quote -- what do you mean by 'spying'?

 

[Beth]

They aren't, which is why the police agencies are told explicitly how to "find" the evidence that they were handed -- illegally.

That is an opinion, an idea that many experts and authorities contradict directly in that article, people want to use this as evidence that the NSA is spying on citizens and covering it up, but it's actually something that many government law agencies do in order to cover up their sources and tactics, which could be the reason why no one its not exactly bringing the government to a halt. What it is not is any kind of evidence that the NSA spying on citizens...

Why would the NSA need to be covered up as a source if what they were doing was legal?

 

[Beth]

So you think the 6 congresspeople who were willing to go on record as wanting him fired are a 'bunch of hysterical whiners' for getting upset about being given inaccurate and misleading testimony?

Yep!

Thanks for answering that question.

This doesn't answer my question. If he was deliberately lying to congress under oath, what would you consider to be an appropriate response?

Why do you ask this question? Are you trying to gain legitimacy for your concerns?

You still didn't answer this question. Why should I answer your questions when you didn't answer mine?

 

[The Norseman]

Why would the NSA need to be covered up as a source if what they were doing was legal?

Good catch, I didn't think of that.