41
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 12:00 pm
@BillRM,
As far as I am aware, only one person in NSA lied to congress, he should have bee fired, not sure why he wasn't.

However, in point of fact, the FISA did find that NSA was less than truthful or more than one occasion. Good thing we have checks and balances.
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 12:02 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I guess because it was only one aspect of a particular program and it is the FISA job to oversea NSA and the surveillance programs, along with those on the intelligence committees in congress.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 12:18 pm
@revelette2,
To repeat what Frank wrote for zillion times
Frank Apisa wrote:
No law...no action...IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL...unless the SCOTUS rules them unconstitutional.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  4  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 12:25 pm
@revelette2,
Sorry but it was not NSA employees but CIA and Homeland that lied to congress one over the massive spying on Americans and the other about the hacking into congressional computer networks.
BillRM
 
  4  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 12:41 pm
@revelette2,
Quote:
it is the FISA job to oversea NSA and the surveillance programs,



FISA does not have the ability to monitor the intelligence community other then by taking their word for it, so it they are lied or just not told about some aspects of their programs unless someone such as Snowden reveals their secrets this court or the federal courts as a whole can not do valid oversights.

Nor can the congress do it job of oversight if they are lied to.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy

People as a whole need to take the matter into their own hands and use encryption end to end so massive spying is no longer possible.
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 12:55 pm
@BillRM,
As far as I know no one stopping you or anyone else to use encryption.

I am not even going to read your link, as far as I am concerned, Greenwald has lost credibility as an objective reporter.

Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 12:57 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
it is the FISA job to oversea NSA and the surveillance programs,



FISA does not have the ability to monitor the intelligence community other then by taking their word for it, so it they are lied or just not told about some aspects of their programs unless someone such as Snowden reveals their secrets this court or the federal courts as a whole can not do valid oversights.

Nor can the congress do it job of oversight if they are lied to.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy

People as a whole need to take the matter into their own hands and use encryption end to end so massive spying is no longer possible.


Or simply stop worrying about the government knowing that your wife sent you an email asking you to pick up eggs, bread, and two boxes of .38 caliber bullets.

You can simply get over the nonsense that this is the first sign that the sky is falling.



0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 01:05 pm
@revelette2,
Quote:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/full-cia-investigation-ca_n_229395.html

WASHINGTON — CIA Director Leon Panetta has terminated a "very serious" covert program the spy agency kept secret from Congress for eight years, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a House Intelligence subcommittee chairwoman, said Friday.

Schakowsky is pressing for an immediate committee investigation of the classified program, which has not been described publicly. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has said he is considering an investigation.

"The program is a very, very serious program and certainly deserved a serious debate at the time and through the years," Schakowsky told The Associated Press in an interview. "But now it's over."

Democrats revealed late Tuesday that CIA Director Leon Panetta had informed members of the House Intelligence Committee on June 24 that the spy agency had been withholding important information about a secret intelligence program begun after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Schakowsky described Panetta as "stunned" that he had not been informed of the program until nearly five months into his tenure as director.

Panetta had learned of the program only the day before informing the lawmakers, according to a U.S. intelligence official. The official spoke on condition of anonymity Friday because he was not authorized to discuss the program publicly.

Panetta has launched an internal probe at the CIA to determine why Congress was not told about the program. Exactly what the classified program entailed is still unclear.

The intelligence official said the program was "on-again/off-again" and that it was never fully operational, but he would not provide details.

Schakowsky, D-Ill., said Friday that the CIA and Bush administration consciously decided not to tell Congress.

"It's not as if this was an oversight and over the years it just got buried. There was a decision under several directors of the CIA and administration not to tell the Congress," she said.

Schakowsky, who chairs the Intelligence subcommittee on oversight and investigations, said in a Thursday letter to Reyes that the CIA's lying was systematic and inexcusable. The letter was obtained by The Associated Press on Friday.

She said Reyes indicated to her the committee would conduct a probe into whether the CIA violated the National Security Act, which requires, with rare exceptions, that Congress be informed of covert activities. She told AP she hopes to conduct at least part of the investigation for the committee.

She said this is the fourth time that she knows of that the CIA has misled Congress or not informed it in a timely manner since she began serving on the Intelligence Committee two and half years ago.


In 2008, the CIA inspector general revealed that the CIA had lied to Congress about the accidental shoot down of American missionaries over Peru in 2001. In 2007, news reports disclosed that the CIA had secretly destroyed videotapes of interrogations of a terrorist suspect.

She would not describe the other incident.

Schakowsky said she thinks Panetta is changing the CIA for the better, adding that the failure to inform Congress was indicative of "contempt" the Bush administration and intelligence agencies under him held for Congress.

"Many times I felt it was an annoyance to them to have to come to us and answer our questions," she said. "There was an impatience and a contempt for the Congress."

The House is expected to take up the 2010 intelligence authorization bill next week. It includes a provision that would require the White House to inform the entire committee about upcoming covert operations rather than just the "Gang of Eight"_ the senior members from both parties on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and the Democratic and Republican leaders in both houses.

The White House this week threatened to veto the final version of the bill if it includes that provision.

Democratic aides said the language may be softened in negotiations with the Senate to address the White House's concern.

But Schakowsky said the wider briefings are the best remedy to avoiding future notification abuses.

Republicans charge that Democratic outrage about the Panetta revelation is just an attempt to provide political cover to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who in May accused the CIA of lying to her in 2002 about its use of waterboarding.

What Pelosi knew about the CIA's interrogation program and when she knew it _ and why she did not object to it sooner _ is expected to be emp
has
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 01:15 pm
@revelette2,
Quote:
I am not even going to read your link, as far as I am concerned, Greenwald has lost credibility as an objective reporter.


But you are oh so willing to trust your freedoms to an intelligence community that have a known history of lying over decades to those who have a duty to oversee them.

Quote:
As far as I know no one stopping you or anyone else to use encryption.


The whole net need to be redesign and steps are now being taken to do so.

Strange is it not that the very thing that the intelligence community had always fear IE the internet going dark is being driven by their own improper actions.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 01:34 pm
NO, SNOWDEN’S LEAKS DIDN’T HELP THE TERRORISTS
Quote:
This most recent study [more about it at the above linked report with link to the study] is the most comprehensive repudiation of these charges to date. Contrary to lurid claims to the contrary, the facts demonstrate that terrorist organizations have not benefited from the NSA revelations, nor have they substantially altered their behavior in response to them. Despite this, don’t expect to hear any change in the rhetoric of those who have been baselessly insisting otherwise.
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 02:00 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

NO, SNOWDEN’S LEAKS DIDN’T HELP THE TERRORISTS
Quote:
This most recent study [more about it at the above linked report with link to the study] is the most comprehensive repudiation of these charges to date. Contrary to lurid claims to the contrary, the facts demonstrate that terrorist organizations have not benefited from the NSA revelations, nor have they substantially altered their behavior in response to them. Despite this, don’t expect to hear any change in the rhetoric of those who have been baselessly insisting otherwise.



The Intercept!!!

A report in The Intercept is being used to demonstrate that "terrorist orgnaizations have not benefited from the NSA revelations, nor have they substantially altered their behavior in response to them."

C'mon, Walter. You have been doing just fine last few posts...and then this?

The Intercept is hardly objective journalism when it comes to Snowden. It will do whatever it can to glorify what Snowden allegedly did...and there will be just about zero objectivity involved.

And you know that...or should strongly suspect it.

As for the "report" reported by NBC...since dozens upon dozens of knowledgeable individuals seem to think that there was benefit to terrorist organizations...why should the report from this one source be accepted in their stead.

MY GUESS: Nobody knows just how much help (IF ANY) the revelations have facilitated...but that should not be the question being asked. What should be asked is: Did Snowden steal classified government documents and release them to people not authorized to receive them...as he is charged with doing?

The question that follows is: Can the government prove that to the satisfaction of a jury?

BillRM
 
  4  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 02:12 pm
@revelette2,
Quote:
As far as I know no one stopping you or anyone else to use encryption.


I assume you know that according to the Snowden papers that anyone who dare to used encryption will find themselves and their messages are being mark for special interest? That they do not care if the messages are from and to Americans they will store those messages in total.

That even downloading such programs as tor or pgp will get the ISP addresses you used to download them into a government database.


Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 02:20 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
As far as I know no one stopping you or anyone else to use encryption.


I assume you know that according to the Snowden papers that anyone who dare to used encryption will find themselves and their messages are being mark for special interest? That they do not care if the messages are from and to Americans they will store those messages in total.

That even downloading such programs as tor or pgp will get the ISP addresses you used to download them into a government database.



So you agree with Revelette...that no one is stopping you or anyone else from using encryption...right?
0 Replies
 
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 02:41 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:

MY GUESS: Nobody knows just how much help (IF ANY) the revelations have facilitated


....Also we really have no idea exactly WHAT has been stolen among these millions of classified documents taken by Edward Snowden.

Anyway, there are too many in the US in key expert positions asserting the opposite that terrorists have altered their methodology as a result of Snowden's theft. NSA is not going to publicly air the details of just what the terrorists have learned from Snowden. Why should I accept the INTERCEPT's report over those in our own country who say the opposite? What do the people who wrote the report have to gain from implying Snowden is innocent and terrorists did not benefit? How would they know when in reality the show is still going on...we're still in the process of waiting for more info to be released by Greenwald, with the results yet to accumulate?

There is much to be released yet of the stolen documents given to Glenn Greenwald, who should not have the final authority over UNITED STATES FEDERAL NSA CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS! Like what omnipotent power created Greenwald more powerful than the US President when it comes to NSA US classified documents?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 03:00 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
A report in The Intercept is being used to demonstrate that "terrorist orgnaizations have not benefited from the NSA revelations, nor have they substantially altered their behavior in response to them."
OBVIOUSLY YOU DIDN'T READ WHAT I POSTED.

From my link:
Quote:
As reported by NBC:

“.…Flashpoint Global Partners, a private security firm, examined the frequency of releases and updates of encryption software by jihadi groups….. It found no correlation in either measure to Snowden’s leaks about the NSA’s surveillance techniques, which became public beginning June 5, 2013.”


And if you had looked at what I wrote, you would have noticed the link to the original survey by Flashpoint Partners: Measuring the Impact of the Snowden Leaks on the Use of Encryption by Online Jihadists

Sorry, Frank, but sometimes I really think you are an a**hole.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 03:06 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Frank Apisa wrote:
A report in The Intercept is being used to demonstrate that "terrorist orgnaizations have not benefited from the NSA revelations, nor have they substantially altered their behavior in response to them."
This is reported until now, by just a quick look through the media:
- both German public tv news,
- NBC
- ABC
- Washington Examiner
- FT
0 Replies
 
Moment-in-Time
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 03:34 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:

Sorry, Frank, but sometimes I really think you are an a**hole.


So why do you resort to this type of obscene name calling, Walter? I honestly thought you had more discipline than that, one of the reasons I admired your posts because of your civilized demeanor. I do not see Frank Apisa as an A-hole, but an accomplished debater. I've often thought of you this way.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 03:34 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
The point being made in the report, that "well prior to Edward Snowden, online jihadists were already aware that law enforcement and intelligence agencies were attempting to monitor them", is commonsensical.
One Eyed Mind
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 03:37 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
Nope, Frank is an asshole with no humanity or emotion.

Definition of a sociopath. Sociopaths are always assholes - they are just the redundancy of all two-faced voids.
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 04:07 pm
@One Eyed Mind,
Some might describe you as an eccentric misfit, One Eyed Mind, but not me. I'm wondering if you are truly for real? Like it's not everyday one encounters a poster quite like you. Between you, me and the lamppost, are you posting from inside a mental ward where in-patients are allowed to use the computer for therapy? Or are you the closed-in-home type who're dangerously close to losing what brains he ever had?
 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 540
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 11:26:16