PDA

View Full Version : Nsa



TheLeviathan
06-12-2013, 10:10 AM
Thoughts?

To me, there is a major problem if this guy is charged with a crime. I understand the importance of having consequences for people revealing national security secrets, but the evidence he is providing indicate just how worthless all the conventional steps to solving the problem actually are. They have a token, rubber-stamping "court" overseeing it and they are rampantly lying to congressional oversight.

If not whistleblowing....how does one voice concerns over government practice?

Also, I'm very upset that both liberal and conservative congressional members are attacking Snowden already. Fact is, there are deeply held lefty and righty beliefs that should be 100% opposed to this, I'd like Congress to act it's part as a balancing arm of the government. Don't rush to condemn, go get answers and hold the other branch accountable.

mike wants wins
06-12-2013, 11:14 AM
He did not reveal some great national secret......

Whatever happened to "give me liberty, or give me death"? Do people not understand what they are "fighting" for? Supposedly, we are fighting for freedom and democracy, as ideals, not to keep the USA in existence as a shadow of its former self.

YMMV, of course......

As for Congress, it is 100% broken, imo. We should seriously reconsider our entire system of governing ourselves. The world is a very different place than 200+ years ago, while what ideals we are tying to live by should not change, how we do that probably should.

TheLeviathan
06-12-2013, 11:31 AM
Whatever you want to call it, he is exposing something they will try to hold him criminally accountable for. I agree with some of your sentiment but I worry the political spin will win out.

PseudoSABR
06-12-2013, 12:18 PM
The type of data-collection that is being reported is very troubling to me--so is the access to that data-collection (evidently); I just don't like the idea of troves of data with which the government (or their agents or, I guess, some GED dipstick) could mine at some later time for whatever ends.

Lots of liberals and libertarians still have trouble with the whole idea of whistle-blowing--some regard it as a betrayal--but really, for me, the greater betrayal is to go against one's principals. And in my opinion one can still be a patriot for their country, even if they betray their government.

Snowden seems to be going it about it in a somewhat honorable way, he's not really revealing secrets so much as secret programs--the secrets are still secret--just not the mechanism through which they were obtained. It may have been a mistake for him to out-himself, as he becomes the story, and his motives become part of the equation with which the publicly will decide where justice actually lies.

The old adage, if you sacrifice freedom for security, you will have neither, seems appropriate.

Fun fact (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fpolitics%2Fc omments%2F1g2hhr%2Fsales_of_orwells_1984_up_69_per cent_on_amazon%2F&ei=Mq24UdDmOeO0yAGUkYCwDQ&usg=AFQjCNGQNFto5wU8QNDVECOB8MNcLMiwkw&sig2=si7so4TeA4el64JrGypIeQ&bvm=bv.47810305,d.aWc): Amazon's sale of Orwell's 1984 has significantly gone up.

Shane Wahl
06-12-2013, 01:25 PM
I like that fun fact, SABR. That book should be required reading to get a high school diploma.

By the way, I love how Greenwald smacked MSNBC the other day on Morning Joe. Mika is nothing more than a Democratic Party shill.

ChiTownTwinsFan
06-12-2013, 02:38 PM
The old adage, if you sacrifice freedom for security, you will have neither, seems appropriate.



It was a Benjamin Franklin quote: "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

TheLeviathan
06-12-2013, 02:51 PM
the way, I love how Greenwald smacked MSNBC the other day on Morning Joe. Mika is nothing more than a Democratic Party shill.

Could you elaborate please? I'm curious what happened but didnt see it due to ranking MSNBC only slightly above Animal Planet on the pantheon of news options.

PseudoSABR
06-12-2013, 03:23 PM
It was a Benjamin Franklin quote: "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
I changed it around some, so it's my quote now.

Shane Wahl
06-13-2013, 10:47 AM
Could you elaborate please? I'm curious what happened but didnt see it due to ranking MSNBC only slightly above Animal Planet on the pantheon of news options.

Mika Brzezinski (you know who her daddy is) made some comment on how no content was actually being spied on, but it was really just innocent overseeing of things. Greenwald then replied something along the lines of "yes, that is your White House talking point" etc. etc.

Shane Wahl
06-13-2013, 10:50 AM
I changed it around some, so it's my quote now.

The "deserve" part is pretty important though.

Brock Beauchamp
06-13-2013, 11:00 AM
As for Congress, it is 100% broken, imo. We should seriously reconsider our entire system of governing ourselves. The world is a very different place than 200+ years ago, while what ideals we are tying to live by should not change, how we do that probably should.

I've loudly proclaimed for years that if meaningful campaign reform were to happen, 75% of our problems would be fixed within two election cycles. I still believe that to be the case. Remove the money, remove duplicitous incentive to screw the American public.

The problem is that no one in charge has any incentive to cut off their own personal cash cow. This idea has to come from the bottom up and I don't see it happening. We're just too damned dumb.

drjim
06-13-2013, 02:03 PM
I've loudly proclaimed for years that if meaningful campaign reform were to happen, 75% of our problems would be fixed within two election cycles. I still believe that to be the case. Remove the money, remove duplicitous incentive to screw the American public.

The problem is that no one in charge has any incentive to cut off their own personal cash cow. This idea has to come from the bottom up and I don't see it happening. We're just too damned dumb.

I think "campaign reform" is kind of a fantasy. Money will get in one way or the other. The best move would be to scrap the income tax incentives that give companies and individuals incentives to donate such large amounts.

I would be in favor of unlimited donations. I think under the current setup it is the only way a true third party candidate could get funded.

mike wants wins
06-13-2013, 02:15 PM
I'm cool with unlimited donations, as long as they are publicly disclosed.

Term limits, ranked voting, different congressional processes, an updated constituion.....lots of options.

PseudoSABR
06-13-2013, 02:32 PM
ranked votingranked voting?

drjim
06-13-2013, 04:16 PM
ranked voting?

Maybe instant runoff?

mike wants wins
06-13-2013, 05:12 PM
Sorry, I always forget that what used to be called ranking is called instant runoff. I wonder when that happened. I recall reading articles 10 years ago, where probably both terms were used.

mikecgrimes
06-14-2013, 04:38 PM
Maybe instant runoff?

The concept when used in past elections would get a lot of people the results they want, but if they actually put that system in place instead of working towards middle ground it would actually push the ballot to the extreams (not a bad thing in my opinion). The end result wouldn't be much different then the end result we get now.

For example if this system was in place in 2012 Mitt Romney would make sure Ron Paul also was on the ballot, Obama would have to find a high profile Green candidate, and some moron like Michael Bloomberg would think he had a chance and take 4% of the vote at random. In the end it would be a close race between the highest profile best funded Republican and Democrat endorsed candidate. Every once in a while a Ross Perot type could have a chance, but that candidate would have to be flawless and get lucky on election day.

mikecgrimes
06-14-2013, 04:40 PM
Sorry, I always forget that what used to be called ranking is called instant runoff. I wonder when that happened. I recall reading articles 10 years ago, where probably both terms were used.

Two separate but similar things. I think the difference is in how you eliminate candidates, something that in my opinion would never create a statistically meaningful difference (could flip results in a statistical tie such as Coleman Franken Barkley ect.)

mikecgrimes
06-14-2013, 04:50 PM
I've loudly proclaimed for years that if meaningful campaign reform were to happen, 75% of our problems would be fixed within two election cycles. I still believe that to be the case. Remove the money, remove duplicitous incentive to screw the American public.

The problem is that no one in charge has any incentive to cut off their own personal cash cow. This idea has to come from the bottom up and I don't see it happening. We're just too damned dumb.

20 years ago money ruled, the internet has taken over. Fundraising beyond a certain level is for show. Usually fundraising will be a good predictor of results but that's like saying the price of homes in a neighborhood will predict the income level of citizens.

diehardtwinsfan
06-23-2013, 04:51 AM
You'll never be able to keep money out, the issue becomes leveling the playing field. Contrary to what the politicians will tell you, it's pretty much setup to allow a handful of elites to control the playing field. They get to do so through PACs to which the corporations/elite can give a nearly unlimited amount of dollars. The easiest way to keep money out is to say that there's a limit (say $2500) on what each person or corporation can give to any part of the political process as well as limit a PAC to that same donation to a politician. Right now, you may as well as them to wear sponsor patches like NASCAR drivers.

Back to the topic at hand though, if what Snowden is saying is true, he should not be prosecuted. It won't happen though. We've come to the day where telling the truth is equivalent to treason.

TheLeviathan
06-23-2013, 08:18 AM
We've come to the day where telling the truth is equivalent to treason.

Exactly. It seems to me that revealing programs exist and their general framework isn't giving away national secrets. Out of one side of their mouth the government is saying "oh yeah, we've been totally transparent!" and out of the other they are indicting this guy for giving away secrets.

mikecgrimes
06-23-2013, 09:23 AM
Back to the topic at hand though, if what Snowden is saying is true, he should not be prosecuted. It won't happen though. We've come to the day where telling the truth is equivalent to treason.

He did commit a crime, I don't think there's any getting around that. That crime was specifically against the people with the power to charge and prosucute. He's as done as Aaron Hernandez. The sad thing is his crime was letting people know what should have been clear to begin with. The problem is Obama is very aware that most Americans are to stupid to know when they are being lied to.

What lie they won't use and what power they won't abuse I don't know. The key question that needs to be asked is will judge Roberts be willing to out Obama for blackmailing him on his Health Care ruling, because there is no question that is what happened.

drjim
06-23-2013, 05:58 PM
What lie they won't use and what power they won't abuse I don't know. The key question that needs to be asked is will judge Roberts be willing to out Obama for blackmailing him on his Health Care ruling, because there is no question that is what happened.

No question.

TheLeviathan
06-23-2013, 07:13 PM
I for one find Glenn Beck a source of the highest esteem. He says it...and it MUST be true.

That said, I wouldn't be shocked at all if something like Prism was used for political gain. That is one of many dangers I see with it.

diehardtwinsfan
07-02-2013, 08:52 PM
I've loudly proclaimed for years that if meaningful campaign reform were to happen, 75% of our problems would be fixed within two election cycles. I still believe that to be the case. Remove the money, remove duplicitous incentive to screw the American public.

The problem is that no one in charge has any incentive to cut off their own personal cash cow. This idea has to come from the bottom up and I don't see it happening. We're just too damned dumb.

This is true... I also think that people actually realized that voting for the lesser of two evils always gets you evil, that they might start voting for a decent candidate regardless of party. It wouldn't take very long for things to change.

diehardtwinsfan
07-02-2013, 08:56 PM
He did commit a crime, I don't think there's any getting around that. That crime was specifically against the people with the power to charge and prosucute. He's as done as Aaron Hernandez. The sad thing is his crime was letting people know what should have been clear to begin with. The problem is Obama is very aware that most Americans are to stupid to know when they are being lied to.

What lie they won't use and what power they won't abuse I don't know. The key question that needs to be asked is will judge Roberts be willing to out Obama for blackmailing him on his Health Care ruling, because there is no question that is what happened.

No, let's get it straight. The government was the one breaking the law. Snowden may have committed a crime in the sense that he leaked classified information, but he was not the one actually breaking the law here. The NSA was. He does have "official channels" to use, but as other whistle blowers have found out over time, that's nothing more than a means for the government to retaliate against the whistleblowers.

What he did needed to be done.