42
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 02:41 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
My guess would be that any information that shows the effectiveness of the procedure would NEVER be made public in any kind of detail...and any off hand references would be muted and maybe even stifled.


Would you guess that members of the Presidential NSA panel would not have been told the truth and or would be willing to lied about the matter!!!!!

If NSA was willing to lied directly to a panel appointed by the command and chief then that alone would show that they are completely out of control

Their statement was that massive US phone records collections have not been shown to had stop one terrorist attack since it been set up.

Quote:


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/nsa-program-stopped-no-terror-attacks-says-white-house-panel-v21975158


A member of the White House review panel on NSA surveillance said he was “absolutely” surprised when he discovered the agency’s lack of evidence that the bulk collection of telephone call records had thwarted any terrorist attacks.


“It was, ‘Huh, hello? What are we doing here?’” said Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, in an interview with NBC News. “The results were very thin.”

While Stone said the mass collection of telephone call records was a “logical program” from the NSA’s perspective, one question the White House panel was seeking to answer was whether it had actually stopped “any [terror attacks] that might have been really big.”

“We found none,” said Stone.

Under the NSA program, first revealed by ex-contractor Edward Snowden, the agency collects in bulk the records of the time and duration of phone calls made by persons inside the United States.

Stone was one of five members of the White House review panel – and the only one without any intelligence community experience – that this week produced a sweeping report recommending that the NSA’s collection of phone call records be terminated to protect Americans’ privacy rights.

The panel made that recommendation after concluding that the program was “not essential in preventing attacks.”

“That was stunning. That was the ballgame,” said one congressional intelligence official, who asked not to be publicly identified. “It flies in the face of everything that they have tossed at us.”


Despite the panel’s conclusions, Stone strongly rejected the idea they justified Snowden’s actions in leaking the NSA documents about the phone collection. “Suppose someone decides we need gun control and they go out and kill 15 kids and then a state enacts gun control?” Stone said, using an analogy he acknowledged was “somewhat inflammatory.” What Snowden did, Stone said, was put the country “at risk.”

“My emphatic view," he said, "is that a person who has access to classified information -- the revelation of which could damage national security -- should never take it upon himself to reveal that information.”

Stone added, however, that he would not necessarily reject granting an amnesty to Snowden in exchange for the return of all his documents, as was recently suggested by a top NSA official. “It’s a hostage situation,” said Stone. Deciding whether to negotiate with him to get all his documents back was a “pragmatic judgment. I see no principled reason not to do that.”

The conclusions of the panel’s reports were at direct odds with public statements by President Barack Obama and U.S. intelligence officials. “Lives have been saved,” Obama told reporters last June, referring to the bulk collection program and another program that intercepts communications overseas. “We know of at least 50 threats that have been averted because of this information.”


White House stands by claim that NSA surveillance saved lives NBC NEWS


But in one little-noticed footnote in its report, the White House panel said the telephone records collection program – known as Section 215, based on the provision of the U.S. Patriot Act that provided the legal basis for it – had made “only a modest contribution to the nation’s security.” The report said that “there has been no instance in which NSA could say with confidence that the outcome [of a terror investigation] would have been any different” without the program.

The panel’s findings echoed that of U.S. Judge Richard Leon, who in a ruling this week found the bulk collection program to be unconstitutional. Leon said that government officials were unable to cite “a single instance in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk collection metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature.”


Stone declined to comment on the accuracy of public statements by U.S. intelligence officials about the telephone collection program, but said that when they referred to successes they seemed to be mixing the results of domestic metadata collection with the intelligence derived from the separate, and less controversial, NSA program, known as 702, to intercept communications overseas.

The comparison between 702 overseas interceptions and 215 bulk metadata collection was “night and day,” said Stone. “With 702, the record is very impressive. It’s no doubt the nation is safer and spared potential attacks because of 702. There was nothing like that for 215. We asked the question and they [the NSA] gave us the data. They were very straight about it.”

He also said one reason the telephone records program is not effective is because, contrary to the claims of critics, it actually does not collect a record of every American’s phone call. Although the NSA does collect metadata from major telecommunications carriers such as Verizon and AT&T, there are many smaller carriers from which it collects nothing. Asked if the NSA was collecting the records of 75 percent of phone calls, an estimate that has been used in briefings to Congress , Stone said the real number was classified but “not anything close to that” and far lower.


Tech leaders ask Obama to overhaul NSA NBC NEWS CHANNEL


When panel members asked NSA officials why they didn’t expand the program to include smaller carriers, the answer they gave was “money,” Stone said. “They were setting financial priorities,” said Stone, and that was “really revealing” about how useful the bulk collection of telephone calls really was.

An NSA spokeswoman declined to comment on any aspect of the panel’s report, saying the agency was deferring to the White House. Asked Wednesday about the surveillance panel’s conclusions about telephone record collection, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that “the president does still believe and knows that this program is an important piece of the overall efforts that we engage in to combat threats against the lives of American citizens and threats to our overall national security.”

Related:

JTT
 
  1  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 02:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
CI: In this country, we are free to speak our minds about what our government does wrong without fear of any consequence.
-----
Rolling Eyes Laughing
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 02:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You're repeating your bull shyt ad nausem!


Try to stay under control, ci. You are repeating your stuff as often as I...and yet you do not think you are doing it ad nauseam.



Quote:
DUE PROCESS means those who broke the law first must be charged and taken to court.


Really. When did you get your law degree? Under any circumstances...there are exceptions to that...and this may well be one of them. The SCOTUS, not you, will decide.

Quote:
SCOTUS does not have the authority to break the laws of our land. No branch of government has the right to overturn the laws of our Constitution. They cannot take away rights established by our Constitution.


No...but the SCOTUS can interpret the law.

You do not have that power, ci. Try to stay calm...and think it over. You will see I am correct about that.

Quote:

Quote:
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.



And the SCOTUS will determine what it means...NOT YOU.
BillRM
 
  2  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 02:57 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Yes, what Edward Snowden is charged with doing...IS AGAINST THE LAW.

I am not ignoring that...you are!


LOL but you are more then willing to overlook federal judges ruling that what the Federal government is doing is against the constitution and given that Snowden was under oath to uphold the constitution that would seems to override secret classifications being used to hide unconstitutional behaviors.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 02:59 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
My guess would be that any information that shows the effectiveness of the procedure would NEVER be made public in any kind of detail...and any off hand references would be muted and maybe even stifled.


Would you guess that members of the Presidential NSA panel would not have been told the truth and or would be willing to lied about the matter!!!!!


Reword that question in at least grammar school form...and I will respond. Get a kid to help you if you can't do it yourself.

Quote:
If NSA was willing to lied directly to a panel appointed by the command and chief then that alone would show that they are completely out of control


Whew...what torture!

Quote:
Their statement was that massive US phone records collections have not been shown to had stop one terrorist attack since it been set up.

Quote:


Their statement was worded a hell of a lot more intelligently than yours.

And they may be lying...because they are trying to protect secrets that may be important.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/nsa-program-stopped-no-terror-attacks-says-white-house-panel-v21975158


Quote:
A member of the White House review panel on NSA surveillance said he was “absolutely” surprised when he discovered the agency’s lack of evidence that the bulk collection of telephone call records had thwarted any terrorist attacks.


Okay...so he was surprised. He may be naive...and he may have an ax to grind.

Neither of us know.

So???


Quote:
“It was, ‘Huh, hello? What are we doing here?’” said Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, in an interview with NBC News. “The results were very thin.”


They are not going to add to the problem.

But if all this is so...why doesn't Snowden come back to the US and stand trial. Sounds to me that he would be exonerated with no problem...if you are correct.

Quote:
While Stone said the mass collection of telephone call records was a “logical program” from the NSA’s perspective, one question the White House panel was seeking to answer was whether it had actually stopped “any [terror attacks] that might have been really big.”

“We found none,” said Stone.


Yes...but I have dealt with this before. And what does this have to do with Snowden allegedly stealing classified documents?

Under the NSA program, first revealed by ex-contractor Edward Snowden, the agency collects in bulk the records of the time and duration of phone calls made by persons inside the United States.

Stone was one of five members of the White House review panel – and the only one without any intelligence community experience – that this week produced a sweeping report recommending that the NSA’s collection of phone call records be terminated to protect Americans’ privacy rights.

The panel made that recommendation after concluding that the program was “not essential in preventing attacks.”

“That was stunning. That was the ballgame,” said one congressional intelligence official, who asked not to be publicly identified. “It flies in the face of everything that they have tossed at us.”


Despite the panel’s conclusions, Stone strongly rejected the idea they justified Snowden’s actions in leaking the NSA documents about the phone collection. “Suppose someone decides we need gun control and they go out and kill 15 kids and then a state enacts gun control?” Stone said, using an analogy he acknowledged was “somewhat inflammatory.” What Snowden did, Stone said, was put the country “at risk.”

“My emphatic view," he said, "is that a person who has access to classified information -- the revelation of which could damage national security -- should never take it upon himself to reveal that information.”

Stone added, however, that he would not necessarily reject granting an amnesty to Snowden in exchange for the return of all his documents, as was recently suggested by a top NSA official. “It’s a hostage situation,” said Stone. Deciding whether to negotiate with him to get all his documents back was a “pragmatic judgment. I see no principled reason not to do that.”

The conclusions of the panel’s reports were at direct odds with public statements by President Barack Obama and U.S. intelligence officials. “Lives have been saved,” Obama told reporters last June, referring to the bulk collection program and another program that intercepts communications overseas. “We know of at least 50 threats that have been averted because of this information.”


White House stands by claim that NSA surveillance saved lives NBC NEWS


But in one little-noticed footnote in its report, the White House panel said the telephone records collection program – known as Section 215, based on the provision of the U.S. Patriot Act that provided the legal basis for it – had made “only a modest contribution to the nation’s security.” The report said that “there has been no instance in which NSA could say with confidence that the outcome [of a terror investigation] would have been any different” without the program.

The panel’s findings echoed that of U.S. Judge Richard Leon, who in a ruling this week found the bulk collection program to be unconstitutional. Leon said that government officials were unable to cite “a single instance in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk collection metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature.”


Stone declined to comment on the accuracy of public statements by U.S. intelligence officials about the telephone collection program, but said that when they referred to successes they seemed to be mixing the results of domestic metadata collection with the intelligence derived from the separate, and less controversial, NSA program, known as 702, to intercept communications overseas.

The comparison between 702 overseas interceptions and 215 bulk metadata collection was “night and day,” said Stone. “With 702, the record is very impressive. It’s no doubt the nation is safer and spared potential attacks because of 702. There was nothing like that for 215. We asked the question and they [the NSA] gave us the data. They were very straight about it.”

He also said one reason the telephone records program is not effective is because, contrary to the claims of critics, it actually does not collect a record of every American’s phone call. Although the NSA does collect metadata from major telecommunications carriers such as Verizon and AT&T, there are many smaller carriers from which it collects nothing. Asked if the NSA was collecting the records of 75 percent of phone calls, an estimate that has been used in briefings to Congress , Stone said the real number was classified but “not anything close to that” and far lower.


Tech leaders ask Obama to overhaul NSA NBC NEWS CHANNEL


When panel members asked NSA officials why they didn’t expand the program to include smaller carriers, the answer they gave was “money,” Stone said. “They were setting financial priorities,” said Stone, and that was “really revealing” about how useful the bulk collection of telephone calls really was.

An NSA spokeswoman declined to comment on any aspect of the panel’s report, saying the agency was deferring to the White House. Asked Wednesday about the surveillance panel’s conclusions about telephone record collection, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that “the president does still believe and knows that this program is an important piece of the overall efforts that we engage in to combat threats against the lives of American citizens and threats to our overall national security.”

Related:




BOTTOM LINE: Whether the surveillance was effective or not is not the question. If the atomic bomb had not worked...it would not have impacted on any charges if someone had stolen plans for the bomb and made them public.

Snowden is accused of stealing classified government documents...and releasing them to the public.

He ought to stand trial on that charge. It is a serious one.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 02:59 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Yes, what Edward Snowden is charged with doing...IS AGAINST THE LAW.

I am not ignoring that...you are!


LOL but you are more then willing to overlook federal judges ruling that what the Federal government is doing is against the constitution and given that Snowden was under oath to uphold the constitution that would seems to override secret classifications being used to hide unconstitutional behaviors.


This thread is about Snowden.

If other people have to be charged...let the people be charged.

BillRM
 
  2  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 03:14 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
This thread is about Snowden.

If other people have to be charged...let the people be charged.


I have no idea that Robert had appointed you the monitor of this thread and you had rule that we need to ignore the conditions under which Snowden had acted in releasing this material.
BillRM
 
  2  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 03:28 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
He ought to stand trial on that charge. It is a serious one.


So is breaking the constitution and using the power of a secret stamp to hide your actions from both congress and the american people.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 03:35 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
This thread is about Snowden.

If other people have to be charged...let the people be charged.


I have no idea that Robert had appointed you the monitor of this thread and you had rule that we need to ignore the conditions under which Snowden had acted in releasing this material.



Terrible try, Bill.

It matters not what I think of the extenuating material...or what what you think of it. Just the courts.

In any case, you asked...and I answered.

Now you want to negate my answer???

C'mon!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 03:36 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
He ought to stand trial on that charge. It is a serious one.


So is breaking the constitution and using the power of a secret stamp to hide your actions from both congress and the american people.


That is a separate matter, Bill.

Because some guy held up a gas station in Peoria...does not impact on the fact that Snowden is charged with a particular crime...and should stand trial. Wink
BillRM
 
  2  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 04:10 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
That is a separate matter, Bill.

Because some guy held up a gas station in Peoria...does not impact on the fact that Snowden is charged with a particular crime...and should stand trial.


BULLSHIT the fact that we have an out of control intelligence community and people willing to use secret stamps to cover up their actions is directly related to Snowden actions as he did not act in a vacuum.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 04:18 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
That is a separate matter, Bill.

Because some guy held up a gas station in Peoria...does not impact on the fact that Snowden is charged with a particular crime...and should stand trial.


BULLSHIT the fact that we have an out of control intelligence community and people willing to use secret stamps to cover up their actions is directly related to Snowden actions as he did not act in a vacuum.


Sorry, Bill...but you are dead wrong.

And the way to test that is to have Snowden stand trial and use the defense that the intelligence community is out of control...and he was trying to rein it in.

My personal thoughts are: The courts will decide these matters...not any of us.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 04:30 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You know absolutely nothing about 'conflict of interest.' A government that breaks the laws, and hides it from its citizens is the biggest crime. Something you seem to ignore in your "guesses."
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 04:34 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You know absolutely nothing about 'conflict of interest.' A government that breaks the laws, and hides it from its citizens is the biggest crime. Something you seem to ignore in your "guesses."


I don't ignore anything, ci...you do.

I am saying that I do not know how the courts will decide all these questions. I am acknowledging that I do not have command of all the subtle arguments that will be used by both sides.

You, on the other hand...have already decided what is and what is not constitutional and what is not.

Like I asked: Where did you get your law degree?
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 04:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
And I want to acknowledge that once again you had to frame your response in terms of what, in your opinion, I do not know.

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 04:36 pm
@Frank Apisa,
The courts cannot take away what is guaranteed in our Constitution. Those who try to overturn our Constitution are the criminals.

All government officials must swear to protect the Constitution when they take office.

No individual or branch of government has any rights to destroy our Constitution.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 04:37 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

The courts cannot take away what is guaranteed in our Constitution. Those who try to overturn our Constitution are the criminals.


But the courts CAN decide what actually is guaranteed in our Constitution, ci...NOT YOU.

You simply cannot acknowledge that.

Your burden to bear.
BillRM
 
  2  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 04:42 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
You, on the other hand...have already decided what is and what is not constitutional and what is not.

Like I asked: Where did you get your law degree?


Unlike you it would seems that Snowden and the rest of us can read and understand the following without a law license..........

Quote:
FOURTH AMENDMENT

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 04:44 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I have posted support for my position; all you've done is provide your guesses.

Your inability to understand your own Constitution shows your ignorance.

I have never - ever - said I'm an authority in the interpretation of our laws. The courts and legal opinions support what I've said, because I used their words - not mine.

Your opinions as always are not worth the cyberspace you waste with your repetitions - ad nauseam.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 04:46 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
You, on the other hand...have already decided what is and what is not constitutional and what is not.

Like I asked: Where did you get your law degree?


Unlike you it would seems that Snowden and the rest of us can read as follow..........

Quote:
FOURTH AMENDMENT

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



Unlike you and ci...I can understand that there are subtleties involved here that we here simply are not qualified to decide.

But I understand that you are such a genius that how could you possibly be wrong.

I have some nerve suggesting that I do not know...and that the answers to these questions are far from being decided.

You two are absurd!
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 304
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 03/11/2025 at 12:28:30