Snowden and the Pulitzer

[jimbob]

What were they doing that violated civil liberties?

"If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about"?

I too can play the strawman game.

 

[applecorped]

Probably in the future they'll have a big bronze statue of Snowden in front of the NSA, and President Rand Paul will award him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

God willing.

 

[Joey McGee]

It's incomprehensibly naive, Joey, to think the government isn't spying on political dissidents as well as reporters. You might want to read a bit of history about Nixon's political spy machine and J Edgar Hoover's personal war on dissidents and Martin Luther King.

So because of these abuses 50 years ago I'm supposed to share your belief that the NSA is abusing it's power against free speech today... hilarious.

 

[Joey McGee]

"If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about"?

I too can play the strawman game.

I don't follow you. Can you explain how the programs Snowden exposed violated civil liberties to me? Maybe I'm a little dumb but I can't figure it out.

 

[applecorped]

Maybe?

 

[Joey McGee]

Maybe if someone actually tried to make the case and defend it, I could learn something.

 

[applecorped]

Maybe if someone actually tried to make the case and defend it, I could learn something.

Maybe not.

 

[Joey McGee]

Maybe not.

Yeah maybe you're right, pearls before swine and all that, maybe it's better just to save your breath until Snowden wins the Nobel Peace Prize so you can really be "vindicated" supporting a crank conspiracy theorist criminal

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Something tells me the, 'NSA isn't spying on any citizens' crowd is more interested in the bias confirming news sources like Fox News, but here's an article by The Nation, a news organization that actually does investigative journalism which is well worth reading.

Government Spying: Why You Can't 'Just Trust Us'
For proof that the current surveillance programs are ripe for abuse, Americans need only look at what preceded them.
By "preceded" they are not talking about the 60s-70s.

FBI agents would have those employees query the database right from the FBI office, mostly using National Security Letters (NSLs)—a means of obtaining information directly from service providers without review by a judge. The purpose was similar to the newly revealed collection program: to allow the government quick access to metadata on any calls made in the United States.

IOW, the NSA actively sought ways to sidestep the law.

Trust us:

A 2010 report by the Justice Department’s inspector general (IG) shows that the predecessor program was a mess. The FBI failed to keep adequate records of requests made by the government to phone companies, frequently violating the limits of what they were entitled to take. More troubling still is a tool the FBI implemented, ostensibly for emergency situations, called “exigent letters”: basically a request to phone companies to provide data immediately, with a promise to provide the appropriate legal paperwork—either an NSL or a subpoena—after the fact. Using exigent letters, the FBI obtained records for more than 3,000 phone numbers, often failing to submit the paperwork, or doing so without the appropriate approvals. Requests were often approved by junior staffers, who had no authority to do so.

Trust us:

Moreover, some requests were not tied, as required, to a specific authorized investigation. Significant numbers (perhaps 17 percent, judging from figures in the IG report) were tied not to national security investigations, but to domestic ones. At times, the FBI requested information on phone numbers when no investigation was pending.

Freedom of the press?

in several cases, the FBI obtained reporters’ phone records by using this method, including the Post’s Ellen Nakashima and the Times’s Jane Perlez.

Yep, stopping them terrorists alright.

At the hearing on Capitol Hill, the NSA and the FBI tried to demonstrate the value of the government’s dragnet by pointing to terrorist plots it helped thwart. Witnesses boasted that ten plots have been foiled with its help over seven years—a rather unimpressive figure when one considers that these “plots” include things like indirect material support of terrorism, and that the government has thwarted five times that many plots just in the last three years. Does this truly require the government to collect all Americans’ phone data? ...When Congressman Schiff asked witnesses whether the same information could have been obtained with individual requests to the phone companies for the data, they admitted that, with some work, they could

But trust them, they cleaned all this recent stuff up. They will only give a few details and the audits are taking place 4 years after the fact but you can trust them because they said so.

 

[Christian Klippel]

I think the reasoning here is that those attacks had they occurred would have been the price of a truly free society.

How many attacks have been prevented due to the spying of the NSA then? For example, the massive collection of phone record meta-data seems to have very little to no effect on terrorism prevention at all.

Initially they were quick to claim that dozens of attacks had been prevented, but then had to admit that it was only one.

There is simply no sane reason to pursue such a program, spending so much effort and money on it, intruding so many peoples privacy, while giving virtually no results.

You are concerned about saving lives of your fellow americans? Well, maybe the efforts and money would be better spent on trying to figure out how to save 30+ thousand lives every year. If it is so easy to restrcit personal freedom when it comes to terrorism, with little results, i'm sure it shouldn't be that much of a problem to restrict personal freedom when it comes to cars, right?

Maybe spend some time to think about falling and poison as well?

All that is stuff that _does_ cost thousands of lifes every year, and which could likely be reduced, if not prevented, by far less privacy and freedom intruding meassures.

Or to put it differently: How many deaths were there in the past 20 years due to terrorism in the states, and how many due to traffic accidents, etc?

Are you aware of that "law of diminishing returns" thingy?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[applecorped]

Yeah maybe you're right, pearls before swine and all that, maybe it's better just to save your breath until Snowden wins the Nobel Peace Prize so you can really be "vindicated" supporting a crank conspiracy theorist criminal

Nobel Peace Price?

Any idiot can win that.

 

[Joey McGee]

Something tells me the, 'NSA isn't spying on any citizens' crowd is more interested in the bias confirming news sources like Fox News,

You got me there. Actually the last time I watched Fox News was their interview with Keith Alexander. Pure propaganda, you might want to watch it so you can more develop your acute sense of moral outrage. lol, uhm, the irony here is pretty hilarious.

but here's an article by The Nation, a news organization that actually does investigative journalism which is well worth reading.

The Nation doesn't strike you as biased at all? Hmmmm

Government Spying: Why You Can't 'Just Trust Us'
For proof that the current surveillance programs are ripe for abuse, Americans need only look at what preceded them.
By "preceded" they are not talking about the 60s-70s.

IOW, the NSA actively sought ways to sidestep the law.

Trust us:


Trust us:


Freedom of the press?

Yep, stopping them terrorists alright.


But trust them, they cleaned all this recent stuff up. They will only give a few details and the audits are taking place 4 years after the fact but you can trust them because they said so.

I missed the part where any of this proves that Snowden exposed abuses that vindicate his actions. Especially lacking is where the NSA is asking people to trust them with no oversight.

 

[Joey McGee]

Nobel Peace Price?

Any idiot can win that.

Yeah they gave it to Mother Teresa, so I guess they are willing to give it to dangerous kooks that live for their cults.

 

[Joey McGee]

How many attacks have been prevented due to the spying of the NSA then? For example, the massive collection of phone record meta-data seems to have very little to no effect on terrorism prevention at all.

It is the opinion of some. Since the intelligence community and many politicians with classified information believe differently (they refuse to do without it) and it is not illegal, I support them having it.

intruding so many peoples privacy

How exactly is this happening? They are altering the how the program operates, are you satisfied with the changes?

You are concerned about saving lives of your fellow americans? Well, maybe the efforts and money would be better spent on trying to figure out how to save 30+ thousand lives every year.

We already know how to do that, driverless car technology, legal in 3 states, needs to happen faster for sure.

If it is so easy to restrcit personal freedom when it comes to terrorism, with little results, i'm sure it shouldn't be that much of a problem to restrict personal freedom when it comes to cars, right?

Driverless car technology will be mandatory for all public roads one day, of this there can be no doubt.

Maybe spend some time to think about falling and poison as well?

They actually do work very hard on these things.

Or to put it differently: How many deaths were there in the past 20 years due to terrorism in the states, and how many due to traffic accidents, etc?

This is literally the stupidest argument I have ever read. We shouldn't try and prevent terrorism because we should be trying to solve falling and car accidents first. WE ALREADY DO THAT. They killed 3000 people in one day. If they didn't decimate al-qaeda and root these people out so well, who knows what they could have pulled off? Are you saying the fact they haven't been successful is evidence we shouldn't have been trying to stop them? Do you realize how many people they have killed or put in prison?

Freedom! Stasi!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

This is literally the stupidest argument I have ever read. We shouldn't try and prevent terrorism because we should be trying to solve falling and car accidents first.

I think at least part of the argument is that the amount of money being spent on "preventing terrorism" is absolutely ridiculous compared to the returns, and even the risks.

They killed 3000 people in one day.

Which, arguably, could have been prevented by something as simple as locking the cockpit doors. There would have been no need to pour billions of dollars into a secret surveillance apparatus that's had little to no provable benefit.

If they didn't decimate al-qaeda and root these people out so well, who knows what they could have pulled off? Are you saying the fact they haven't been successful is evidence we shouldn't have been trying to stop them?

I don't think it's wise to simply assume that because we're engaging in a certain activity and that some other event has not occurred while we've engaged in this activity, that said activity is the reason said event has not occurred.

It's even less wise when reports seem to indicate that said activity has had no significant benefit.

Do you realize how many people they have killed or put in prison?

Are we talking about the terrorists, or the U.S.?

 

[DreadNiK]

The option that seems to be left out here is to not give the terrorists quite so much reason to hate your guts.

sorry I don't have the time to add much more than this to the discussion but I couldn't let this one go...

you appear to be suggesting we give in to/make concession to terrorists. And you think this will cause LESS terrorism?

 

[Christian Klippel]

I think at least part of the argument is that the amount of money being spent on "preventing terrorism" is absolutely ridiculous compared to the returns, and even the risks.

That's exactly my point, yes.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

sorry I don't have the time to add much more than this to the discussion but I couldn't let this one go...

you appear to be suggesting we give in to/make concession to terrorists. And you think this will cause LESS terrorism?

I don't think that this is what H'ethetheth suggested.

Actions have consequences. For example, conducting things like drone attacks to eliminate a suspected terrorist, while that person is, let's say, at a funeral or wedding, and thus also killing a bunch of innocent civilians that happen to be at the same place, will surely cause the general population to get angry. Which in turn is likely to tip more people over to the side of terrorism.

This is different from saying that nothing should be done at all, or to excuse terrorists. But i think it should be pretty obvious to everyone that such actions cause reactions, wether for good or bad reasons. Maybe it's time to rethink the overall strategy, when "surgical strikes" are not that surgical in the end.

Or take the example of Saddam Hussein. The US propped him up, supported him, etc., as long as it was in their interrest. Once done, they put their puppet back in the closet. Then he became a target. I'm not saying that he was innocent or the likes, but there is some history that should be recognized. Fooling around with people in such ways is likely to make them angry and/or radicalize them. Sure, hindsight and all that, but no genius needed to have seen such things coming.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[H'ethetheth]

sorry I don't have the time to add much more than this to the discussion but I couldn't let this one go...

you appear to be suggesting we give in to/make concession to terrorists. And you think this will cause LESS terrorism?

That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting the relationship between the west and the rest of the world hasn't been exactly fair or pleasant. There are good reasons to dislike the West for some of its foreign policies. Starting more wars, and futile wars at that, will probably not improve the situation.

 

[Joey McGee]

I think at least part of the argument is that the amount of money being spent on "preventing terrorism" is absolutely ridiculous compared to the returns, and even the risks.

I don't agree.

Which, arguably, could have been prevented by something as simple as locking the cockpit doors. There would have been no need to pour billions of dollars into a secret surveillance apparatus that's had little to no provable benefit.

I don't agree.

I don't think it's wise to simply assume that because we're engaging in a certain activity and that some other event has not occurred while we've engaged in this activity, that said activity is the reason said event has not occurred.

You don't think that the vast amount of people we've killed and arrested from al-Qaeda has any connection with the lack of terror attacks? I don't agree.

It's even less wise when reports seem to indicate that said activity has had no significant benefit.

These "reports" amount to opinions. When we are forced to rely on opinions, I look to the most reputable and relevant expert opinions. For instance, the majority of the military intelligence community says that these things have been useful and could be useful in the future. I'm going to stick with those guys on this issue.

Are we talking about the terrorists, or the U.S.?

The Terrorists. We have done a fantastic job of killing them and putting them in prison. It's the number one proven way to prevent someone from attacking you again when they have declared war on you.