If only there was some sort of government oversight… like a committee whose job it was to ensure the NSA wasn’t systematically violating their mandate and the law… Maybe Diane Feinstein could head it.
You totally had me going until this:
Trollish trolley trollies trollfully.
12 Likes
I didn’t mention either of those things.
I know, that’s why I asked about them.
4 Likes
17 Likes
Yeah, unfortunately until that happens we’re stuck with the Senate Intelligence Committee keeping their seats warm.
3 Likes
If the Democrats want a plate at the table, they have to stop shipping corporatists. I will not vote for Hillary. If they want democracy to go up in flames, so be it. I’m sick of the charades.
2 Likes
There’s always one. That can be a good thing, as all opinions should have their mettle tested, and rightly so. Not here though. You’re talking bollocks, see?
4 Likes
Oh, that’s a real knee-slapper! You sure had me goin’! Jeehosaphat!
I know you’re trying to draw me into a Matrix-ish conflagration of anti-facts or some fancy shenanigan, and that’s cute, but I’m just pointing out that the author of this article used a boatload of half-truths for his “fact-checking”, and that’s not cool nor very intelligent.
I’m going to just sit here and enjoy the fact that the “Snowden is a Traitor” crowd can now be dismissed as apologists for Hillary Clinton.
3 Likes
For you and others concerned with that statement, one can look at what has been declassified or otherwise released independently of Snowden (et al). In addition, they didn’t have to be as open as they recently have been towards critics - they could have simply dismissed Snowden as a provider of disinformation.
Only if you limit yourself the actions of Snowden and his supporters. Had nothing been said, the Internet (never mind the United States and citizens thereof) would have remained safer. Now it’s “let’s bash our own country for having secrets or effective intelligence collection” while supporting those who support foreign enemies(like Russia & China).
Even information security has the point of “responsible disclosure”, something which Snowden and friends have not even bothered to do. They’re too busy “sticking it to the man”.
Perhaps if some of you understood the point of classification of information (which is to help release information), or the dangers of releasing information without the proper authority(which neither Snowden nor Greenwald nor Poitras, nor anyone else without the need to know would have) - you might understand just how big of a mistake it is for Snowden to go unpunished.
There is no excuse for substituting your own judgment for the judgment of others that helped bring that intelligence into existence. Snowden betrayed what trust he had and now cannot be trusted with what statements he makes - until he is brought to account in a US court of law.
She has her own faults - Benghazi being the biggest one. However, just because her opinion coincides with the part where Snowden isn’t a hero doesn’t make it more than coincidence.
What worse? Are you suggesting he be assassinated? Really? And you honestly don’t think the American people have a right to know that their government is spying on them in direct contravention of the 4th amendment?
The people who betray the nation are the ones that think the Constitution is just a bunch of words that can be twisted and turned to suit whatever they want to do. Dragnet surveillance of the American people is EXACTLY what the 4th amendment was written to protect us against. In the lead up to the Revolutionary War British soldiers were permitted to enter any abode and search it, whether there was cause or not. This is the root of the 4th amendment. You may not respect the 4th, but neither you, the NSA nor the president have the right to decide for me whether I am protected by it. If you think violation of the 4th amendment is justified to protect us from the extremely weak threat of terrorism, what rights would you abrogate if we faced a real threat? Would you accept the police entering your home without your permission to search for drugs, or weapons, or whatever other fishing expedition they wished to go on? I ask because by accepting the violations of the 4th amendment the NSA is committing as I write this, you are accepting whatever future violations they wish to commit. Once they are permitted to ignore the 4th amendment you have just ceded your right to privacy and if the government decides you are someone they want to punish they can fish through your financial data, private emails, phone calls and person effects to find something, anything they can arrest you for. And believe me, they’ll find something if they want to. Carrying water for the authoritarians won’t protect you.
21 Likes
Be specific. If you think the OP contains half truths, elucidate. Otherwise your comment is meaningless.
5 Likes
Fascinating. Pray tell how we can openly check what the NSA has done?
4 Likes
Yeah right, because hackers don’t find wide open back doors on their own.
We understand the point of classification and we understand the intentional abuses of same. And yes, you are the same guy who has/had a hard-on for Greenwald, so why did you start a new/different login?
Ooh, don’t tell me, I know, it’s classified.
7 Likes
That you can even say this shows how completely disingenuous you’re being. As the article mentions, we’ve all seen how the American court system treats whistle-blowers, and it has very little resemblance to justice.
Are you calling for as much blood from Clapper, who is known to be a perjurer who violated people’s rights, and so someone who has actually betrayed the public interest? Because right now much less has been done to him than Snowden, who is after all stuck in exile from a country that shows no interest at all in giving him a fair hearing.
5 Likes
The only reason the NSA has declassified any relevant or informative documents is in response to the Snowden leaks.
You have absolutely no basis for this claim. Putting back doors in privacy software, weekening encryption standards and creating backdoors in same opens our data to all sorts of nefarious predators. They don’t need the Snowden documents to find the weaknesses the NSA created, they just need the weaknesses themselves. You clearly have little understanding of the relevant technology to make that statement.
Totally incorrect. Many documents have not been released and the journalists working on the story are very careful not to release specifics that could endanger agents. To date the government hasn’t provided one concrete proof that the Snowden documents have harmed anything. The idea that those wishing to harm us were using gmail and skype to communicate before the Snowden leaks is utter silliness. The irony is that much of what Snowden released we already basicaly knew, but didn’t have proof. Now we have proof.
10 Likes
Well, you know, no offense, but why not write a note to the author of the article, instead of saying something vague about half-truths? Because in that way, you aren’t relaying any more information than what you accuse the author of doing, and thus, if true, you are guilty of the same.
2 Likes
The whole story is that the government has only shown one case where dragnet surveillance even tangentially helped locate a “terrorist” and that “terrorist” was merely sending money to a terrorist group, not plotting attacks. If you think the points made in the OP are not the whole story it behooves you to point out the missing information. Otherwise your comment is worthless and meaningless.
3 Likes
It’s meaningless because you say so? That’s a neat trick.
No, I’m not doing your homework for you. Read the article and use your brain.
