They knew, but couldn’t bear the burden of proof. They had no way to get proof.
2 Likes
[quote=“llamaspit, post:21, topic:9458”]
Sorry, but I can’t agree. We might have suspected, but…
[/quote]There were way more than suspicions though. People were writing books about it. There were numerous newspaper and magazine articles. And the ACLU and EFF had a number of lawsuits aimed at stopping various programs.
1 Like
Execute Keith Alexander. He is a traitor of the highest order.
[quote=“Dr_Awkward, post:24, topic:9458, full:true”]
Execute Keith Alexander. He is a traitor of the highest order.
[/quote]Why are people so damned intent on giving congress a pass? They set these programs up, totally legally, right there in front of everyone while people shouted and screamed and warned about how these laws would be abused.
Every time you claim it’s treason, or a secret conspiracy, or the military industrial complex, or an out of control executive, you take the pressure off of the people responsible for fixing it. Congress did this, and they need to fix it.
You brought up the Civil Rights Movement, not me
Did you not to comprehend the context? The greater point? In general being on the wrong side of history on the civil rights movement would mean (to most people, anyway) that one supported segregation, etc.
What I said was not in context of any particular one person or particular event. You focused like a laser on 2 words I used to represent a greater context and seemed to have missed the other 149 words.
Like I said, if you want to debate the pros and cons of specific acts of the civil rights movement, start your own thread on it. It’s off-topic and not even remotely germane to the overall point.
tl;dr I only brought up those two words to put Snowden’s overall actions into context. Please stop trying to derail the thread.
one can criticize Snowden’s approach and not be on the NSA’s “side”
Except that’s a false dichotomy from what I said. Please go back and read my post. There’s a big difference between thinking Snowden’s particular approach could have been better in some vague way than from stating he’s a traitor and maligning him.
Did you completely miss the gist of what I was saying or are you being purposefully obtuse and want to argue for the sake of a nitpicky, beside-the-point argument? I’m terribly not interested.
How about you quit beating around the bush and tell us all what you think Snowden did wrong? At least it wouldn’t be off-topic. For all you know, if it’s not accusing him of lies, being obtuse, purposefully maligning him or stating he’s a traitor, I might even agree with you.
I’m not a black and white thinker that thinks Snowden is infallible and perfect (nor anyone else for that matter). If you’re looking to fight with someone who is like that, you’re inanely barking up the wrong tree.
2 Likes
Yes, I’d be cool with knowing the specifics of what the poster believes Snowden did wrong.
1 Like
NSA: “I accidentally the whole Internet”
8 Likes
“The NSA admits that none of this surveillance ever prevented a terrorist attack.”
That’s because they aren’t trying to prevent terrorist attacks. They are trying to tighten America’s grip on global economics through lies and espionage. The only way to maintain the appearance of prosperity and equal opportunity is by rooting out and suppressing those who threaten that image, and sabotaging the competition.
Capitalism works through incentive. People only work hard if they believe there is a chance they can get ahead. Once everybody realizes that that its all a big con and they are being ripped off by a powerfully wealthy minority the incentive bubble pops.
Nobody wants to play a rigged game.
4 Likes
Every time you claim it’s treason, or a secret conspiracy, or the military industrial complex, or an out of control executive, you take the pressure off of the people responsible for fixing it. Congress did this, and they need to fix it.
That’s very pedantic with black and white thinking. Are you just trying to argue with everyone in this thread because you’re bored of something?
Just because @Dr_Awkward or someone says they’re upset with one person doesn’t mean they think Congress isn’t to blame at all.
No one is letting Congress off the hook by also looking at others that are also responsible. That’s a false dichotomy you’re throwing onto others. Keith Alexander was very recently brought up on boing boing and is also in the news elsewhere:
Geez…
The question still stands, why minimize what he’s done? Or are you just in a bad mood or something?
2 Likes
‘But I didn’t mean to sir!’
You know, that excuse does not fly with We the People when we’re pulled over, or get caught doing something or… whatever. ‘Ignorance is no excuse.’
Somethingsomething FISA shouldn’t have been rubber stamping something something NSA something something Dark Side.
Sorry. Not coherent right now.
1 Like
[quote=“Cowicide, post:26, topic:9458”]Did you not to comprehend the context? The greater point? In general being on the wrong side of history on the civil rights movement would mean (to most people, anyway) that one supported segregation, etc.[/quote]I understood what you’re saying. You seem to be having a hard time separating Snowden from opposition to domestic surveillance. Plenty of us who have criticized him are opposed to domestic surveillance, and you’re arguing that we’re not, that criticism of Snowden is being “on the wrong side”.
I make no claim about congress. I think there is more than enough evidence, however, to prove that Keith Alexander repeatedly lied and twisted the truth when testifying before congress.
I consider that not only a violation of his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, but also treason.
Furthermore, I suspect it will only take one trial and execution to straighten up these congresscritters.
2 Likes
[quote=“Dr_Awkward, post:34, topic:9458”]
I make no claim about congress.[/quote]I think you should. If you care about being spied on, about the constitution, about democracy, and representative government, you should be raising hell about these laws. Not just yelling about being spied on, but about the people responsible for passing them, and for repealing them.
Of course you do. You have made that point ceaselessly on this thread.
You don’t think that one highly justified and very public execution will suffice in changing the way our elected officials see things? You don’t think that advocating for a person’s legally carried out death is rasiing hell?
What? You think that a letter or a call will suffice? You think that hell hasn’t been raised before?
I think my measure is admittedly extreme but I think that’s what it has come to. I also think that my suggestion will work. Corruption amongst our public officials should come with fear of death.
As much as I hate sounding like this, I will leave you with a quote that seems to support my view:
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” -Thomas Jefferson
1 Like
Obama said it was all legal. Maybe he just didn’t understand how it worked. All better now.
2 Likes
It’s not about America’s grip on global economics. It’s about the wealthiest 1%'s grip on economics. I don’t think anyone even gives a shit about appearances at this point. How do corporations lay off workers but still pay top execs obscenely high salaries? Unfortunately, rather than keeping up appearances, this is a step on the route of quashing dissent. If you know everything about those who disagree with policies and the direction of governement, eventually you can find a way to dirty them up and discredit them, or worse, if you can’t find anything, you can plant it.
I realize this sounds somewhat paranoid, but just because one is paranoid, it does not mean someone isn’t after them.
Look what Wikileaks divulged, for example. Why is it Obama’s job to shill for American credit card companies in Russia, to the disadvantage of Russian credit card companies?
How he is representing “the people” this way?
1 Like
We don’t execute people in public. Perjury isn’t a death penalty offense. And these laws were passed by congress. Even if they’re ultimately held to be unconstitutional, no one has ever been charged with treason for carrying out a law later struck down by the supreme court. You’re fantasizing.
And yeah, a letter or a call would be a pretty good idea. We lost the last vote on this by just 13 votes in the 435 member house. It’s not a part of either party’s platform. There are no big special interest groups scoring votes on it and threatening a primary. It’s exactly the sort of issue that things like calling your congressman has an impact on.
Lawsuits also set precedents. Contribute to those who are doing so.
1 Like
“They are trying to tighten America’s grip on global economics through lies and espionage.”
You’re not entirely correct. They are in fact trying to “loosen” America’s grip.
The NSA is a communist organization, and its not a good one.
Your next statement “Capitalism works through incentive.” should have clued you in.
The only organization set to profit from the resulting breach of trust was the NSA.
The NSA has destroyed trust, which is at the very base of our fiat currency.
1 Like
