Snowdon is a dummy

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Personally I do not like to think one man is in charge of deciding what will be harmful and will not.

One man isn't in charge, it's a whole team, and the Guardian's Editor told a select committee hearing that intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic had been contacted "over 100 times."

0 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

I am not even sure Glen Greenwald is trustworthy, but even if he is, he is not qualified in keeping all those document safe.

I've posted quite a bit about it last year: Snowden gave the documents to several he trusted and he thought to be qualified to keep them. (The first to have gotten them were Laura Poitras and Glen Greenwald.)

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Your op-ed says: "if intelligence assessments show that the leaks did substantial damage to national security, something that hasn’t been proved in public". We simply don't know whether he has endangered anyone.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Whatever works for you!

The truth works for me.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Whatever works for you!

The truth works for me.

Great.

So why don't you try going with it rather than with the nonsense you are trying to peddle right now about the American system of justice...and about whether or not I find it to be reasonable. (I do find it reasonable, by the way.)

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

The op-ed also said among a lot of other stuff you chose to ignore:

Quote:

But Snowden did much more than that. The documents that he gave the Washington Post’s Barton Gellman and the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald have, so far, furnished stories about the NSA’s interception of email traffic, mobile phone calls, and radio transmissions of Taliban fighters in Pakistan’s northwest territories; about an operation to gauge the loyalties of CIA recruits in Pakistan; about NSA email intercepts to assist intelligence assessments of what’s going on inside Iran; about NSA surveillance of cellphone calls “worldwide,” an effort that (in the Post’s words) “allows it to look for unknown associates of known intelligence targets by tracking people whose movements intersect.”

4 Replies

@revelette2,

Along with spying on US citizens and other western nations citizens in bulk and no one have any problem with target repeat target spying including myself and Snowden.

Sorry but storing my wife and mine encrypted emails in order to try to attack them sometime in the future is not going to stop any terrorists attacks.

Nor is creating databases of IP addresses that had download such programs as TOR or truecrypt for that matter.

All the terrorists in the world are far less of a threat to us then our own out of control government and the spying is already reducing the freedoms Americans should feel to expressed themselves on the internet. With special note of the subject of our intelligence agencies.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Along with spying on US citizens and other western nations citizens in bulk and no one have any problem with target repeat target spying including myself and Snowden.

Sorry but storing my wife and mine encrypted emails in order to try to attack them sometime in the future is not going to stop any terrorists attacks.

Nor is creating databases of IP addresses that had download such programs as TOR or truecrypt for that matter.

All the terrorists in the world are far less of a threat to us then our own out of control government...

One has to be either insane or a damned fool to think that is so. You are free to choose, Bill.

Quote:

...and the spying is already reducing the freedoms Americans should feel to expressed themselves on the internet.

Yeah, I can see how reluctant people are here in this forum to express their thoughts freely!!!

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/crying-with-laughter.gif

What on Earth are you thinking, Bill?

Quote:

With special note of the subject of our intelligence agencies.

And this sentence means....ahhh...ahhh...oh, never mind!

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Where and how did these charges come about? No sources other than personal opinions without any basis or evidence.

Who made these charges? No sources?

1 Reply

@revelette2,

I did not "chose to ignore" anything. I just don't find that very important. As explained earlier, there is no problem with spying on Talibans etc. it's the spying on bona fide allies and on US citizens which are disputed.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I don't care about your opinion of the US justice system. All I wanted is to test whether you know what you're talking about. Evidently you don't.

1 Reply

The essay Revelette posted was a very well researched (and written) op ed article By Fred Kaplan…in Slate

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/01/edward_snowden_doesn_t_deserve_clemency_the_nsa_leaker_hasn_t_proved_he.html

Of course, people like ci think their hate-filled, anti-American opinions are of more value, but that's good for laughs.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I don't about your opinion of the US justice system.

You asked, remember? You asked...I responded.

Quote:

All I wanted is to test whether you know what you're talking about.

Of course I know what I am talking about.

Quote:

Evidently you don't.

Not sure why you think that, but if it helps you tolerate the life you are living...you have my blessings to think it.

Don't mind if I laugh at you for doing so.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

What charges?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

It was important because Snowden/Glen Greenwald chose to reveal it when it had nothing to do with privacy issues and everything to do with our effort over in the area. We still have troops over there fighting the Taliban.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

Quote:

It was important because Snowden/Glen Greenwald chose to reveal it

NONSENSE there never been any secret that we are spying on our enemies it the spying on our own citizens in bulk that came as a surprise to say the least.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You asked, remember?

Not for your opinion on the US justice system, no. You made that up.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
You asked, remember?

Not for your opinion on the US justice system, no. You made that up.

C'mon, Olivier...you said you wanted to go with the truth...and now you are trying this schtick?

Please.

I did not make anything up.

Earlier, I mentioned that law says it is unfair to allow a jury to hear things without a judge "filtering" what is heard.

You specifically asked me why the law considers it unfair.

That is asking me about the US justice system.

I am responding.

You really have gotten yourself on a merry-to-round...and you do not have enough sense to get off.

Jump, Olivier...jump!

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMuUUjwhqejkr_BF5_rvNjTjtXWKD85Nu7adstrHcX54f_Yp0Q

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

spying on bona fide allies and on US citizens which are disputed.

To say nothing about such behaviors as spying on congress itself.

0 Replies

It is waste of time trying to reason with people with closed minds who refuse to see outside their own preconceived views.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know