Snowdon is a dummy

@revelette2,

What military secrets have been revealed? Please show proof.

@cicerone imposter,

This is a dishonest request because you know the answer ahead of time and when we answer "its classified" you will answer, "the government always says that."

1 Reply

@revelette2,

You mean they always tell us the truth? Did GW Bush and his gang tell congress and the world the truth about Saddam's WMD's?

Why then did Obama's advisers tell him to do away with the NSA's mass data collecting?

That tells me a lot more than any government agency.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

What military secrets have been revealed? Please show proof.

After Jonathan Pollard gave military secrets to Israel who in turn turned same over to Russia, the US spent billions changing its security etc. No ordinary American were ever made aware exactly what secrets were stolen by Pollard. Years later, it was speculated an enormous number of security codes were changed, but the changes were so extensive, it was like starting afresh from the beginning to outwit Russia. For you to expect the average American to know which secrets were stolen is being disingenuous.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

You mean they always tell us the truth?

No Aamericans are usually kept in the dark regarding NSA security matters.

Quote:

Did GW Bush and his gang tell congress and the world the truth about Saddam's WMD's?

Of course not. The GWB administration knew from the outset Saddam Hussein did not have WMD. After all, the UN inspectors had been in Iraq searching and destroying whatever they found. And what little existed had expired on the shelves.

Quote:

Why then did Obama's advisers tell him to do away with the NSA's mass data collecting?

It's hard to believe Obama's advisors told him to do away with NSA's mass data collection. I believe they're supposed to be altering it so as to not to invade Americans' privacy. The NSA program is too vital to security to do away with entirely.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

“We found none,” said Stone.

Well, the show isn't really over yet, is it. Let's see what the future brings....hope springs eternal!

0 Replies

@Moment-in-Time,

You wrote,

Quote:

No Aamericans are usually kept in the dark regarding NSA security matters.

They kept Americans in the dark, because what they were doing was declared illegal by the people who understands what they have been doing.

Many in the government also understood that the Patriot Act was illegal in many ways. From the NYT.

Quote:

Judge Rules Provisions in Patriot Act to Be Illegal

By SUSAN JO KELLER
Published: September 27, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — A federal judge in Oregon ruled Wednesday that crucial parts of the USA Patriot Act were not constitutional because they allowed federal surveillance and searches of Americans without demonstrating probable cause.

I trust this judge more than I trust you or our government!

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

CI, in my opinion there is no difference. Spying is spying. Industry does it and sells it to whom ever has the money to buy that information. So by your definition its ok for industry to spy and sell it to a government agency. Does that make since to you, it sure dosent to me. But I bet it would make since to the SC because it involves industry who can, as a voting person, do no wrong. If you really want something to worry about how about a SC so politicized that it intentionally misinterperts the Constitution for the benefit of the very rich and big business. As far as I am concerned it has done much more damage to "MY" freedom than spying.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Boy, this is really dishonest, this is in 2007 when GWB was spying without going through the "secret courts" they soon amended it. It has nothing do with data collecting.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Quote:

Quote:
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.

So, the program made a modest contribution in the nation's security. The other program, 702, has made enormous help in tracking down oversees terrorist. So all in all, it has helped.

"Modest contribution" is polite, American understatement / officialese parlance for "no discernible result". The rest of the quote says it all: " 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." (emphasis added)

The eavesdropping of international communications focused on hotspots eg Iraq or Somalia (program 702 in the CBS article), is known to be super useful. No debate about that. A strong argument can be made that the US should forego mass spying and spend a fraction of that saved money on hotspot eavesdropping instead. Because it makes good intel business sense to invest where the highest return lies.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

I think they are changing some things. It would be fine with me if it were dropped. My biggest gripe is from folks such as yourself who have claimed it was illegal without any legal basis for it as of yet. A couple of court rulings don't really render a legal consequence because the next one will cancel out the other.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I trust this judge more than I trust you or our government!

Bingo for you. Personally, I don't expect you to trust me at all, after all, you don't know anything about me, CI. I do know this, if the government gets the proper authorization and show *cause,* it's very easy to place some Americans under federal surveillance. This was demonstrated during the GWB administration when the ailing Ashcroft was in the hospital for an operation, and the Attorney General rushed there to get his authorization and Ashcroft's wife would not let him be disturbed. BTW, Ashcroft objected to NSA program.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Most people here arguing in support of the NSA's mass data collection probably has no awareness about cost/benefit issues. As you say, concentrating on terrorists and their activities will be more efficient and cost effective.

Collecting billions of American communications every day is a big waste of our assets.

0 Replies

@Moment-in-Time,

I can only go by what you've posted on a2k. And from that alone, I can judge your judgment about the NSA's mass data collection of American communication.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Quote:

I think they are changing some things. It would be fine with me if it were dropped. My biggest gripe is from folks such as yourself who have claimed it was illegal without any legal basis for it as of yet. A couple of court rulings don't really render a legal consequence because the next one will cancel out the other.

Even that is part of the problem and the frustration at US institutions expressed by ci. Why oh why can't the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of the most controversial programs right away? Instead, the issue will linger in legalese limbo for years to come, with plenty of time for building an industry of legal smokescreens and lobbies and personal files on judges and justices and what not... So that when the issue finally comes to the SC, there'll be a huge set of claims and counter-claims crowding out common sense and obscuring the debate, and--perish the thought--the full detail of each and every justice's sexual preferences and financial turpitudes will be at the NSA's fingertips...

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

OK I wont talk rot. When Russia violates someones sovereignty you point the U S of A consists of a bunch of ass holes. When China violates someones sovereignty Oliver points out the U S of A consists of a bunch of ass holes. I am beginning to think that no matter what happens in the world, in your and Olivers opinion, we, the U S of A are at fault. So as far as I am concerned you can both kiss my you know what and my next order of business is a letter to my president informing him that I am against sending any troops to Europe and demanding we bring what troops we have home. That should make both of you happy as hell. If I can convince him it will certainly make me happy. The quicker we bring our troops home from around the world the happier I will be. We can use them to defend ourselves against Mexico and the Canadians.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I notice that you have resorted to name calling like stupid and such things. Sure shows what kind of person you are.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

He knows that Rev, he is just resorting to BS thinking it bolsters his position.

0 Replies

@Moment-in-Time,

Smart way of doing it, but in essence, not different from leaking privileged information.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:

I think they are changing some things. It would be fine with me if it were dropped. My biggest gripe is from folks such as yourself who have claimed it was illegal without any legal basis for it as of yet. A couple of court rulings don't really render a legal consequence because the next one will cancel out the other.

Even that is part of the problem and the frustration at US institutions expressed by ci. Why oh why can't the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of the most controversial programs right away? Instead, the issue will linger in legalese limbo for years to come, with plenty of time for building an industry of legal smokescreens and lobbies and personal files on judges and justices and what not... So that when the issue finally comes to the SC, there'll be a huge set of claims and counter-claims crowding out common sense and obscuring the debate, and--perish the thought--the full detail of each and every justice's sexual preferences and financial turpitudes will be at the NSA's fingertips...

Oh, I see...the judicial process of the United States should be changed in order for you and ci to seem more rational!

Give it a break, Olivier.

My guess is that almost none of the items your hero, Edward Snowden, revealed will be found to be illegal or unconstitutional.

I am willing to take ci's word for what we should think about Snowden...as he set it out during the first couple of pages of this long thread...although I would not call Snowden a traitor, as ci did.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know