Whether or not I believe these programs have prevented terrorism is beside the point. You stated that these programs have NOTHING to do with protecting America. With that I disagree as nothing is a rather absolute term. Keep on trying to change the argument though.
What argument am I trying to change? I stated that these programs have nothing to do with protecting Americans from terrorism. You disagree with me, though you're unable to provide any evidence that these programs have protected America. Then in your desperate attempt to appear smart, you claim that whether or not you believe these programs have prevented terrorism is beside the point.
Let me know if you have anything constructive to add to the thread topic.
I asked you to prove a statement you presented as a fact. You apparently cannot. Rather than admit that you are attempting to make the argument about my beliefs. My beliefs have nothing to do with your statement.
And it is not on me to prove these programs HAVE protected America. That was not your statement. Your statement was that these programs have nothing to do with protecting America. As I said earlier, making the claim that these programs have nothing at all to do with protecting America is an overstatement that takes away from the legitimate case which can be made against the NSA.
I asked you to prove a statement you presented as a fact. You apparently cannot. Rather than admit that you are attempting to make the argument about my beliefs. My beliefs have nothing to do with your statement.
And it is not on me to prove these programs HAVE protected America. That was not your statement. Your statement was that these programs have nothing to do with protecting America.
As I said earlier, making the claim that these programs have nothing at all to do with protecting America is an overstatement that takes away from the legitimate case which can be made against the NSA.
Your opinion that my comments were an overstatement is just that - an opinion. And it's an opinion that you're unable to support with any evidence. Though your smugness prohibits you from simply stating that you disagree with me on this point, and so we get two pages of tedious mental masturbation.
I asked you to prove a statement you presented as a fact. You apparently cannot. Rather than admit that you are attempting to make the argument about my beliefs. My beliefs have nothing to do with your statement.
And it is not on me to prove these programs HAVE protected America. That was not your statement. Your statement was that these programs have nothing to do with protecting America.
As I said earlier, making the claim that these programs have nothing at all to do with protecting America is an overstatement that takes away from the legitimate case which can be made against the NSA.
Your opinion that my comments were an overstatement is just that - an opinion. And it's an opinion that you're unable to support with any evidence. Though your arrogance prohibits you from simply stating that you disagree with me on this point, and so we get two pages of tedious mental masturbation.
Of course I disagree. This again is why I asked you to prove it.
Of course I disagree. This again is why I asked you to prove it.
And it's why I asked you to prove the contrary opinion.
In the meantime, I suggest you just stick to posting emoticons. They're more interesting to look at than the two pages of tedious drivel I've just been reading.
Of course I disagree. This again is why I asked you to prove it.
And it's why I asked you to prove the contrary opinion.
In the meantime, I suggest you just stick to posting emoticons. They're more interesting to look at than the two pages of tedious drivel I've just been reading.
One final time...the statement was yours, not mine. That you cannot prove it is fine, but it is not up to me to disprove it. As you clearly cannot I think we can all move on with our lives now.
One final time...the statement was yours, not mine. That you cannot prove it is fine, but it is not up to me to disprove it. As you clearly cannot I think we can all move on with our lives now.
Except in your smugness you're forgetting that I'm not obliged to prove anything. I made a statement that you disagree with. I then provided my reasons for making that statement - i.e, if the surveillance operations had prevented any acts of terrorism, we'd know about it, especially in the wake of the Snowden revelations. You disagreed with those reasons, yet were unable to prove me wrong considering you have zero evidence to the contrary.
If you choose to challenge a statement then I suggest you at least have some proof that the statement made is false. Instead, you have nothing.
Although he claims he would not release any information that would harm the US, he just did. Once he released this statement he jeopardized the security of the US. Once he released this statement, all claims of being a patriotic whistleblower went out the window and Snowden proved that he deserves the label traitor to the United States of America.
Friend or foe, how many countries or groups would NOW like to get their hands on those laptops and thumb drives?
Say what you want, but this is not a movie, Snowden will have to share his information with Russia. Russia has the layers of sophisticated IT personnel capable of breaking that blueprint exposing economic, trade, military, corporate and personal information and secrets.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
I, from the start, thought Snowden’s actions constituted treason and his actions were those of any traitor. I stand by my opinion of Snowden.
Because anyone exposing the lies and crimes of government is a traitor, right?
Do you also think Daniel Ellsberg is a traitor?
Ellsberg didn't release defense strategy. He exposed the government's opinion and brutal tactics in the Vietnam War.
Snowden released defense strategy, whether you (or the Guardian) think so or not.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Also, regarding Ellsberg, at least he surrendered to the US gov't despite being charged with Espionage. Snowden is a coward.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
I, from the start, thought Snowden’s actions constituted treason and his actions were those of any traitor. I stand by my opinion of Snowden.
Because anyone exposing the lies and crimes of government is a traitor, right?
Do you also think Daniel Ellsberg is a traitor?
Do I hold that opinion because Snowden’s information could embarrass NSA or any other intelligence or law enforcement agencies, NO!
Do I hold that opinion because Snowden’s information could harm the integrity of our government officials, NO!
I hold it, because he planned this sh-t, thinking the shock would make him the ‘hero’ whistleblower. Problem, the only shock was that other governments got caught off guard. There was no massive shock, just surprises at how easy we were blindly led to the water trough.
Whatever so-called good intentions Snowden claims he had initially, Snowden has crossed the line, so let’s stop talking like this is some corporate espionage of product trade secrets whereby people will have to find a different favorite coffee and everybody should be happy because it was brought to light.
This is government espionage wherein whole countries and countless peoples’ way of life can be impacted. We don't know all the information Snowden stole and even Snowden doesn't know the impact of the information he has in his possession that could be cross-referenced with harmful consequences to the US or our allies if placed in the wrong hands.
What Snowden is doing is playing a dangerous game by dangling tipbits of information that placing governments on edge.
July 16, 2013, 8:02 AM
Russia conducts biggest war games since Soviet era
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Also, regarding Ellsberg, at least he surrendered to the US gov't despite being charged with Espionage. Snowden is a coward.
A coward? You regard someone who sacrificed his comfortable life in Hawaii with his girlfriend and well paid job, in order to expose government lies and massive over-reach, as a coward?
Snowden made the right call when he fled the U.S.
By Daniel Ellsberg
July 07, 2013
Many people compare Edward Snowden to me unfavorably for leaving the country and seeking asylum, rather than facing trial as I did. I don’t agree. The country I stayed in was a different America, a long time ago.
After the New York Times had been enjoined from publishing the Pentagon Papers — on June 15, 1971, the first prior restraint on a newspaper in U.S. history — and I had given another copy to The Post (which would also be enjoined), I went underground with my wife, Patricia, for 13 days. My purpose (quite like Snowden’s in flying to Hong Kong) was to elude surveillance while I was arranging — with the crucial help of a number of others, still unknown to the FBI — to distribute the Pentagon Papers sequentially to 17 other newspapers, in the face of two more injunctions. The last three days of that period was in defiance of an arrest order: I was, like Snowden now, a “fugitive from justice.”
Yet when I surrendered to arrest in Boston, having given out my last copies of the papers the night before, I was released on personal recognizance bond the same day. Later, when my charges were increased from the original three counts to 12, carrying a possible 115-year sentence, my bond was increased to $50,000. But for the whole two years I was under indictment, I was free to speak to the media and at rallies and public lectures. I was, after all, part of a movement against an ongoing war. Helping to end that war was my preeminent concern. I couldn’t have done that abroad, and leaving the country never entered my mind.
There is no chance that experience could be reproduced today, let alone that a trial could be terminated by the revelation of White House actions against a defendant that were clearly criminal in Richard Nixon’s era — and figured in his resignation in the face of impeachment — but are today all regarded as legal (including an attempt to “incapacitate me totally”).
I hope Snowden’s revelations will spark a movement to rescue our democracy, but he could not be part of that movement had he stayed here. There is zero chance that he would be allowed out on bail if he returned now and close to no chance that, had he not left the country, he would have been granted bail. Instead, he would be in a prison cell like Bradley Manning, incommunicado.
He would almost certainly be confined in total isolation, even longer than the more than eight months Manning suffered during his three years of imprisonment before his trial began recently. The United Nations Special Rapporteur for Torture described Manning’s conditions as “cruel, inhuman and degrading.” (That realistic prospect, by itself, is grounds for most countries granting Snowden asylum, if they could withstand bullying and bribery from the United States.)
Snowden believes that he has done nothing wrong. I agree wholeheartedly. More than 40 years after my unauthorized disclosure of the Pentagon Papers, such leaks remain the lifeblood of a free press and our republic. One lesson of the Pentagon Papers and Snowden’s leaks is simple: secrecy corrupts, just as power corrupts.
In my case, my authorized access in the Pentagon and the Rand Corp. to top-secret documents — which became known as the Pentagon Papers after I disclosed them — taught me that Congress and the American people had been lied to by successive presidentsand dragged into a hopelessly stalemated war that was illegitimate from the start.
Snowden’s dismay came through access to even more highly classified documents — some of which he has now selected to make public — originating in the National Security Agency (NSA). He found that he was working for a surveillance organization whose all-consuming intent, he told the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald, was “on making every conversation and every form of behavior in the world known to them.”
It was, in effect, a global expansion of the Stasi, the Ministry for State Security in the Stalinist “German Democratic Republic,” whose goal was “to know everything.” But the cellphones, fiber-optic cables, personal computers and Internet traffic the NSA accesses did not exist in the Stasi’s heyday.
As Snowden told the Guardian, “This country is worth dying for.” And, if necessary, going to prison for — for life.
I hold it, because he planned this sh-t, thinking the shock would make him the ‘hero’ whistleblower.
Whatever so-called good intentions Snowden claims he had initially, Snowden has crossed the line...This is government espionage wherein whole countries and countless peoples’ way of life can be impacted.
Yeah, "he planned this shit". So what? He planned it after long and careful consideration of the lies and over-reach of government.
And just what line did he cross? The line that forbids people from exposing government lies and over-reach? You would rather the U.S government conduct it's activities in total secrecy with no accountability or transparency? Sounds like you don't hold much respect for the Constitution of your country.
And talking of "government espionage"...really, the fact that you miss the irony here says it all.
Ellsberg didn't release defense strategy. He exposed the government's opinion and brutal tactics in the Vietnam War.
Snowden released defense strategy, whether you (or the Guardian) think so or not.
No he didn't. He released details of a mass surveillance operation against the Worlds citizens. Nothing to do with defense.
According to The Guardian it wasn't for defense. You have no actual proof other than what that newspaper says.
And before you ask me, I have no proof. I heard something on the news that terror plots were stopped, but I don't necessarily believe it until I know more. I don't like the media here as much, nor anywhere, including The Guardian. All media is bias.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Also, regarding Ellsberg, at least he surrendered to the US gov't despite being charged with Espionage. Snowden is a coward.
A coward? You regard someone who sacrificed his comfortable life in Hawaii with his girlfriend and well paid job, in order to expose government lies and massive over-reach, as a coward?
Snowden made the right call when he fled the U.S.
By Daniel Ellsberg
July 07, 2013
Many people compare Edward Snowden to me unfavorably for leaving the country and seeking asylum, rather than facing trial as I did. I don’t agree. The country I stayed in was a different America, a long time ago.
After the New York Times had been enjoined from publishing the Pentagon Papers — on June 15, 1971, the first prior restraint on a newspaper in U.S. history — and I had given another copy to The Post (which would also be enjoined), I went underground with my wife, Patricia, for 13 days. My purpose (quite like Snowden’s in flying to Hong Kong) was to elude surveillance while I was arranging — with the crucial help of a number of others, still unknown to the FBI — to distribute the Pentagon Papers sequentially to 17 other newspapers, in the face of two more injunctions. The last three days of that period was in defiance of an arrest order: I was, like Snowden now, a “fugitive from justice.”
Yet when I surrendered to arrest in Boston, having given out my last copies of the papers the night before, I was released on personal recognizance bond the same day. Later, when my charges were increased from the original three counts to 12, carrying a possible 115-year sentence, my bond was increased to $50,000. But for the whole two years I was under indictment, I was free to speak to the media and at rallies and public lectures. I was, after all, part of a movement against an ongoing war. Helping to end that war was my preeminent concern. I couldn’t have done that abroad, and leaving the country never entered my mind.
There is no chance that experience could be reproduced today, let alone that a trial could be terminated by the revelation of White House actions against a defendant that were clearly criminal in Richard Nixon’s era — and figured in his resignation in the face of impeachment — but are today all regarded as legal (including an attempt to “incapacitate me totally”).
I hope Snowden’s revelations will spark a movement to rescue our democracy, but he could not be part of that movement had he stayed here. There is zero chance that he would be allowed out on bail if he returned now and close to no chance that, had he not left the country, he would have been granted bail. Instead, he would be in a prison cell like Bradley Manning, incommunicado.
He would almost certainly be confined in total isolation, even longer than the more than eight months Manning suffered during his three years of imprisonment before his trial began recently. The United Nations Special Rapporteur for Torture described Manning’s conditions as “cruel, inhuman and degrading.” (That realistic prospect, by itself, is grounds for most countries granting Snowden asylum, if they could withstand bullying and bribery from the United States.)
Snowden believes that he has done nothing wrong. I agree wholeheartedly. More than 40 years after my unauthorized disclosure of the Pentagon Papers, such leaks remain the lifeblood of a free press and our republic. One lesson of the Pentagon Papers and Snowden’s leaks is simple: secrecy corrupts, just as power corrupts.
In my case, my authorized access in the Pentagon and the Rand Corp. to top-secret documents — which became known as the Pentagon Papers after I disclosed them — taught me that Congress and the American people had been lied to by successive presidentsand dragged into a hopelessly stalemated war that was illegitimate from the start.
Snowden’s dismay came through access to even more highly classified documents — some of which he has now selected to make public — originating in the National Security Agency (NSA). He found that he was working for a surveillance organization whose all-consuming intent, he told the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald, was “on making every conversation and every form of behavior in the world known to them.”
It was, in effect, a global expansion of the Stasi, the Ministry for State Security in the Stalinist “German Democratic Republic,” whose goal was “to know everything.” But the cellphones, fiber-optic cables, personal computers and Internet traffic the NSA accesses did not exist in the Stasi’s heyday.
As Snowden told the Guardian, “This country is worth dying for.” And, if necessary, going to prison for — for life.
America today is just as corrupt as back then, a bit more but not entirely different. And what Ellsberg did was different, he unveiled something that was not directly tied to US citizens. I know you don't think so Byrnzie, but its a matter of defense strategy, and that is why Snowden should go to trial. I believe that if he does he will eventually be acquitted. I don't want or think Snowden will end up in jail. Let him face a jury of his own peers. I know he did what was right, but it was a defense strategy (I know you dont think so and PLEASE do not give me an excerpt of the Guardian again saying it wasn't), so he should still obey the law.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
America today is just as corrupt as back then, a bit more but not entirely different. And what Ellsberg did was different, he unveiled something that was not directly tied to US citizens. I know you don't think so Byrnzie, but its a matter of defense strategy, and that is why Snowden should go to trial. I believe that if he does he will eventually be acquitted. I don't want or think Snowden will end up in jail. Let him face a jury of his own peers. I know he did what was right, but it was a defense strategy (I know you dont think so and PLEASE do not give me an excerpt of the Guardian again saying it wasn't), so he should still obey the law.
The Vietnam war was a conscript war. American citizens were being sent off to fight and be maimed, and die in that war. To say it wasn't tied to U.S citizens is just bullshit.
And the U.S's massive spying campaign has nothing to do with defense. Again, that's bullshit.
As for the U.S being as corrupt today as it was then, so what? The treatement of whistle-blowers isn't the same, as has been shown with the treatement of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange.
'...when I surrendered to arrest in Boston, having given out my last copies of the papers the night before, I was released on personal recognizance bond the same day. Later, when my charges were increased from the original three counts to 12, carrying a possible 115-year sentence, my bond was increased to $50,000. But for the whole two years I was under indictment, I was free to speak to the media and at rallies and public lectures. I was, after all, part of a movement against an ongoing war. Helping to end that war was my preeminent concern. I couldn’t have done that abroad, and leaving the country never entered my mind.'
There is no chance that experience could be reproduced today...'
America today is just as corrupt as back then, a bit more but not entirely different. And what Ellsberg did was different, he unveiled something that was not directly tied to US citizens. I know you don't think so Byrnzie, but its a matter of defense strategy, and that is why Snowden should go to trial. I believe that if he does he will eventually be acquitted. I don't want or think Snowden will end up in jail. Let him face a jury of his own peers. I know he did what was right, but it was a defense strategy (I know you dont think so and PLEASE do not give me an excerpt of the Guardian again saying it wasn't), so he should still obey the law.
The Vietnam war was a conscript war. American citizens were being sent off to fight and be maimed, and die in that war. To say it wasn't tied to U.S citizens is just bullshit.
And the U.S's massive spying campaign has nothing to do with defense. Again, that's bullshit.
Okay, I guess the war did directly hurt Americans. Although bullshit, they were trying to help a country. I'd say the same with Iraq War, even though I hated that war too and I think it was bullshit as well.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Okay, I guess the war did directly hurt Americans. Although bullshit, they were trying to help a country. I'd say the same with Iraq War, even though I hated that war too and I think it was bullshit as well.
Trying to help a country? By devasting it with ten years of carpet bombing, agent orange, and the killing of 2 million people? How does that constitute helping a country?
You think Iraq was helped by the U.S invasion that killed an estimated 1 million people, produced 4-5 million refugees, and turned it into a killing ground and training ground for terrorists, including al-Queda.
Now go ahead and make another reference to the Guardian.
Okay, I guess the war did directly hurt Americans. Although bullshit, they were trying to help a country. I'd say the same with Iraq War, even though I hated that war too and I think it was bullshit as well.
Trying to help a country? By devasting it with ten years of carpet bombing, agent orange, and the killing of 2 million people? How does that constitute helping a country?
You think Iraq was helped by the U.S invasion that killed an estimated 1 million people, produced 4-5 million refugees, and turned it into a killing ground and training ground for terrorists, including al-Queda.
Regarding Vietnam, we wanted communism out of that country. What we did was horrible.
Regarding Iraq, we took out a dictator (which to me doens't matter, cuz there are many dictators. So getting rid of one may be good but there are still more). And again, what we did was horrible.
I am not defending what we did, but what we tried to do was good, but how we did was terrible.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Regarding Iraq, we took out a dictator (which to me doens't matter, cuz there are many dictators. So getting rid of one may be good but there are still more). And again, what we did was horrible.
I am not defending what we did, but what we tried to do was good, but how we did was terrible.
No, what you tried to do was secure that country's natural resources - oil. And the devastation and loss of life was predicted beforehand, and could have been foreseen by any four year old.
Regarding Iraq, we took out a dictator (which to me doens't matter, cuz there are many dictators. So getting rid of one may be good but there are still more). And again, what we did was horrible.
I am not defending what we did, but what we tried to do was good, but how we did was terrible.
No, what you tried to do was secure that country's natural resources - oil. And the devastation and loss of life was predicted beforehand, and could have been foreseen by any four year old.
Oh, I am sorry, I don't get my info from The Guardian, so I guess whatever I know isn't true.
Vietnam was one war of many during the Cold War, a surrogate war, of Democracy vs. Communism. We helped S. Vietnam to fight the North who was aided by Russia and other communist countries (including the one you are living in right now, by the way). Or does the Guardian say different. :roll:
I don't doubt your second statement. But we did get rid of a dictator. Can you at least give us that as a victory.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Regarding Vietnam, we wanted communism out of that country.
Think of this statement. What business is it of any country to send your military to adjust another country's way of life. Such motivation is essentially the same as attacking a country for having different religious beliefs (again... another way of life). With this said (and I could be wrong)... I think the decision to invade Vietnam had more to do with flexing muscles than actually trying to do any good.
Honest question: is communism still viewed as an evil thing that gets people's backs up?
Given the effect capitalism has had in polarizing and dividing society, I would think that one could place a reasonable argument for communism. Fortunate ones born to wealthy people, with their place already at the trough and atop of the pecking order, would argue differently. So would others- such as myself- far removed from the bleak existence afforded to so many that struggle. But the ideals of communism might appeal to some given the way in which capitalism has mutated and continues to do so.
Regarding Vietnam, we wanted communism out of that country.
Think of this statement. What business is it of any country to send your military to adjust another country's way of life. Such motivation is essentially the same as attacking a country for having different religious beliefs (again... another way of life). With this said (and I could be wrong)... I think the decision to invade Vietnam had more to do with flexing muscles than actually trying to do any good.
Honest question: is communism still viewed as an evil thing that gets people's backs up?
Given the effect capitalism has had in polarizing and dividing society, I would think that one could place a reasonable argument for communism. Fortunate ones born to wealthy people, with their place already at the trough and atop of the pecking order, would argue differently. So would others- such as myself- far removed from the bleak existence afforded to so many that struggle. But the ideals of communism might appeal to some given the way in which capitalism has mutated and continues to do so.
I think it was both to fight off communism and to do with "flexing muscles." The U.S wanted to show that they were dominant, not the USSR, and at the same time they could get another country on their side. But, we all know how that ended up...
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
I hold it, because he planned this sh-t, thinking the shock would make him the ‘hero’ whistleblower.
Whatever so-called good intentions Snowden claims he had initially, Snowden has crossed the line...This is government espionage wherein whole countries and countless peoples’ way of life can be impacted.
Yeah, "he planned this shit". So what? He planned it after long and careful consideration of the lies and over-reach of government.
And just what line did he cross? The line that forbids people from exposing government lies and over-reach? You would rather the U.S government conduct it's activities in total secrecy with no accountability or transparency? Sounds like you don't hold much respect for the Constitution of your country.
And talking of "government espionage"...really, the fact that you miss the irony here says it all.
Has the WE GOTTCHA AMERICA, put you in such a euphoric state of mind that all logic is lost!
You seem to want me to believe Snowden was so disillusioned with our government’s policy that his only recourse was to commit an act of treason against his country. BULLSHIT!
It’s a fine line between whistleblower and traitor and nothing erases the fact that Snowden committed such an act once he started peddling his stolen information for a place the sleep.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
You seem to want me to believe Snowden was so disillusioned with our government’s policy that his only recourse was to commit an act of treason against his country. BULLSHIT!
I don't really care what you believe. I've already posted Snowden's comments on his motivation for exposing the governments lies and over-reach. If you choose not to believe them, and want to paint him as a traitor, whilst ignoring the fact that James Clapper lied on oath to Congress, then that's your business.
Though maybe you can go ahead and tell us what you think Snowden's true motivation was?
Comments
We will need to help each other through the propaganda.
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-domes ... red-2013-7
I asked you to prove a statement you presented as a fact. You apparently cannot. Rather than admit that you are attempting to make the argument about my beliefs. My beliefs have nothing to do with your statement.
And it is not on me to prove these programs HAVE protected America. That was not your statement. Your statement was that these programs have nothing to do with protecting America. As I said earlier, making the claim that these programs have nothing at all to do with protecting America is an overstatement that takes away from the legitimate case which can be made against the NSA.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Your opinion that my comments were an overstatement is just that - an opinion. And it's an opinion that you're unable to support with any evidence. Though your smugness prohibits you from simply stating that you disagree with me on this point, and so we get two pages of tedious mental masturbation.
Of course I disagree. This again is why I asked you to prove it.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
And it's why I asked you to prove the contrary opinion.
In the meantime, I suggest you just stick to posting emoticons. They're more interesting to look at than the two pages of tedious drivel I've just been reading.
One final time...the statement was yours, not mine. That you cannot prove it is fine, but it is not up to me to disprove it. As you clearly cannot I think we can all move on with our lives now.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Except in your smugness you're forgetting that I'm not obliged to prove anything. I made a statement that you disagree with. I then provided my reasons for making that statement - i.e, if the surveillance operations had prevented any acts of terrorism, we'd know about it, especially in the wake of the Snowden revelations. You disagreed with those reasons, yet were unable to prove me wrong considering you have zero evidence to the contrary.
If you choose to challenge a statement then I suggest you at least have some proof that the statement made is false. Instead, you have nothing.
Feel free to move on with your life.
Snowden has gone beyond the eavesdropping issues; Snowden professed that he was in possession of so called ‘blueprints’ of NSA policies and practices.
http://www.latimes.com/news/world/world ... 2076.story
Although he claims he would not release any information that would harm the US, he just did. Once he released this statement he jeopardized the security of the US. Once he released this statement, all claims of being a patriotic whistleblower went out the window and Snowden proved that he deserves the label traitor to the United States of America.
Friend or foe, how many countries or groups would NOW like to get their hands on those laptops and thumb drives?
Snowden is now formally working on seeking 'temporary' asylum in Russia. http://www.latimes.com/news/world/world ... 9246.story
Say what you want, but this is not a movie, Snowden will have to share his information with Russia. Russia has the layers of sophisticated IT personnel capable of breaking that blueprint exposing economic, trade, military, corporate and personal information and secrets.
Because anyone exposing the lies and crimes of government is a traitor, right?
Do you also think Daniel Ellsberg is a traitor?
Ellsberg didn't release defense strategy. He exposed the government's opinion and brutal tactics in the Vietnam War.
Snowden released defense strategy, whether you (or the Guardian) think so or not.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Do I hold that opinion because Snowden’s information could embarrass NSA or any other intelligence or law enforcement agencies, NO!
Do I hold that opinion because Snowden’s information could harm the integrity of our government officials, NO!
I hold it, because he planned this sh-t, thinking the shock would make him the ‘hero’ whistleblower. Problem, the only shock was that other governments got caught off guard. There was no massive shock, just surprises at how easy we were blindly led to the water trough.
Whatever so-called good intentions Snowden claims he had initially, Snowden has crossed the line, so let’s stop talking like this is some corporate espionage of product trade secrets whereby people will have to find a different favorite coffee and everybody should be happy because it was brought to light.
This is government espionage wherein whole countries and countless peoples’ way of life can be impacted. We don't know all the information Snowden stole and even Snowden doesn't know the impact of the information he has in his possession that could be cross-referenced with harmful consequences to the US or our allies if placed in the wrong hands.
What Snowden is doing is playing a dangerous game by dangling tipbits of information that placing governments on edge.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-575 ... oviet-era/
July 16, 2013, 8:02 AM
Russia conducts biggest war games since Soviet era
No he didn't. He released details of a mass surveillance operation against the Worlds citizens. Nothing to do with defense.
A coward? You regard someone who sacrificed his comfortable life in Hawaii with his girlfriend and well paid job, in order to expose government lies and massive over-reach, as a coward?
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013 ... -snowden-s
Snowden made the right call when he fled the U.S.
By Daniel Ellsberg
July 07, 2013
Many people compare Edward Snowden to me unfavorably for leaving the country and seeking asylum, rather than facing trial as I did. I don’t agree. The country I stayed in was a different America, a long time ago.
After the New York Times had been enjoined from publishing the Pentagon Papers — on June 15, 1971, the first prior restraint on a newspaper in U.S. history — and I had given another copy to The Post (which would also be enjoined), I went underground with my wife, Patricia, for 13 days. My purpose (quite like Snowden’s in flying to Hong Kong) was to elude surveillance while I was arranging — with the crucial help of a number of others, still unknown to the FBI — to distribute the Pentagon Papers sequentially to 17 other newspapers, in the face of two more injunctions. The last three days of that period was in defiance of an arrest order: I was, like Snowden now, a “fugitive from justice.”
Yet when I surrendered to arrest in Boston, having given out my last copies of the papers the night before, I was released on personal recognizance bond the same day. Later, when my charges were increased from the original three counts to 12, carrying a possible 115-year sentence, my bond was increased to $50,000. But for the whole two years I was under indictment, I was free to speak to the media and at rallies and public lectures. I was, after all, part of a movement against an ongoing war. Helping to end that war was my preeminent concern. I couldn’t have done that abroad, and leaving the country never entered my mind.
There is no chance that experience could be reproduced today, let alone that a trial could be terminated by the revelation of White House actions against a defendant that were clearly criminal in Richard Nixon’s era — and figured in his resignation in the face of impeachment — but are today all regarded as legal (including an attempt to “incapacitate me totally”).
I hope Snowden’s revelations will spark a movement to rescue our democracy, but he could not be part of that movement had he stayed here. There is zero chance that he would be allowed out on bail if he returned now and close to no chance that, had he not left the country, he would have been granted bail. Instead, he would be in a prison cell like Bradley Manning, incommunicado.
He would almost certainly be confined in total isolation, even longer than the more than eight months Manning suffered during his three years of imprisonment before his trial began recently. The United Nations Special Rapporteur for Torture described Manning’s conditions as “cruel, inhuman and degrading.” (That realistic prospect, by itself, is grounds for most countries granting Snowden asylum, if they could withstand bullying and bribery from the United States.)
Snowden believes that he has done nothing wrong. I agree wholeheartedly. More than 40 years after my unauthorized disclosure of the Pentagon Papers, such leaks remain the lifeblood of a free press and our republic. One lesson of the Pentagon Papers and Snowden’s leaks is simple: secrecy corrupts, just as power corrupts.
In my case, my authorized access in the Pentagon and the Rand Corp. to top-secret documents — which became known as the Pentagon Papers after I disclosed them — taught me that Congress and the American people had been lied to by successive presidentsand dragged into a hopelessly stalemated war that was illegitimate from the start.
Snowden’s dismay came through access to even more highly classified documents — some of which he has now selected to make public — originating in the National Security Agency (NSA). He found that he was working for a surveillance organization whose all-consuming intent, he told the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald, was “on making every conversation and every form of behavior in the world known to them.”
It was, in effect, a global expansion of the Stasi, the Ministry for State Security in the Stalinist “German Democratic Republic,” whose goal was “to know everything.” But the cellphones, fiber-optic cables, personal computers and Internet traffic the NSA accesses did not exist in the Stasi’s heyday.
As Snowden told the Guardian, “This country is worth dying for.” And, if necessary, going to prison for — for life.
Yeah, "he planned this shit". So what? He planned it after long and careful consideration of the lies and over-reach of government.
And just what line did he cross? The line that forbids people from exposing government lies and over-reach? You would rather the U.S government conduct it's activities in total secrecy with no accountability or transparency? Sounds like you don't hold much respect for the Constitution of your country.
And talking of "government espionage"...really, the fact that you miss the irony here says it all.
According to The Guardian it wasn't for defense. You have no actual proof other than what that newspaper says.
And before you ask me, I have no proof. I heard something on the news that terror plots were stopped, but I don't necessarily believe it until I know more. I don't like the media here as much, nor anywhere, including The Guardian. All media is bias.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
America today is just as corrupt as back then, a bit more but not entirely different. And what Ellsberg did was different, he unveiled something that was not directly tied to US citizens. I know you don't think so Byrnzie, but its a matter of defense strategy, and that is why Snowden should go to trial. I believe that if he does he will eventually be acquitted. I don't want or think Snowden will end up in jail. Let him face a jury of his own peers. I know he did what was right, but it was a defense strategy (I know you dont think so and PLEASE do not give me an excerpt of the Guardian again saying it wasn't), so he should still obey the law.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
The Vietnam war was a conscript war. American citizens were being sent off to fight and be maimed, and die in that war. To say it wasn't tied to U.S citizens is just bullshit.
And the U.S's massive spying campaign has nothing to do with defense. Again, that's bullshit.
As for the U.S being as corrupt today as it was then, so what? The treatement of whistle-blowers isn't the same, as has been shown with the treatement of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange.
'...when I surrendered to arrest in Boston, having given out my last copies of the papers the night before, I was released on personal recognizance bond the same day. Later, when my charges were increased from the original three counts to 12, carrying a possible 115-year sentence, my bond was increased to $50,000. But for the whole two years I was under indictment, I was free to speak to the media and at rallies and public lectures. I was, after all, part of a movement against an ongoing war. Helping to end that war was my preeminent concern. I couldn’t have done that abroad, and leaving the country never entered my mind.'
There is no chance that experience could be reproduced today...'
Okay, I guess the war did directly hurt Americans. Although bullshit, they were trying to help a country. I'd say the same with Iraq War, even though I hated that war too and I think it was bullshit as well.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Trying to help a country? By devasting it with ten years of carpet bombing, agent orange, and the killing of 2 million people? How does that constitute helping a country?
You think Iraq was helped by the U.S invasion that killed an estimated 1 million people, produced 4-5 million refugees, and turned it into a killing ground and training ground for terrorists, including al-Queda.
Now go ahead and make another reference to the Guardian.
Regarding Vietnam, we wanted communism out of that country. What we did was horrible.
Regarding Iraq, we took out a dictator (which to me doens't matter, cuz there are many dictators. So getting rid of one may be good but there are still more). And again, what we did was horrible.
I am not defending what we did, but what we tried to do was good, but how we did was terrible.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Did you read that on the back of a box of cereal?
No, what you tried to do was secure that country's natural resources - oil. And the devastation and loss of life was predicted beforehand, and could have been foreseen by any four year old.
Oh, I am sorry, I don't get my info from The Guardian, so I guess whatever I know isn't true.
Vietnam was one war of many during the Cold War, a surrogate war, of Democracy vs. Communism. We helped S. Vietnam to fight the North who was aided by Russia and other communist countries (including the one you are living in right now, by the way). Or does the Guardian say different. :roll:
I don't doubt your second statement. But we did get rid of a dictator. Can you at least give us that as a victory.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
thank you interweb
i would love to hear the logic and path to that conclusion!
Think of this statement. What business is it of any country to send your military to adjust another country's way of life. Such motivation is essentially the same as attacking a country for having different religious beliefs (again... another way of life). With this said (and I could be wrong)... I think the decision to invade Vietnam had more to do with flexing muscles than actually trying to do any good.
Honest question: is communism still viewed as an evil thing that gets people's backs up?
Given the effect capitalism has had in polarizing and dividing society, I would think that one could place a reasonable argument for communism. Fortunate ones born to wealthy people, with their place already at the trough and atop of the pecking order, would argue differently. So would others- such as myself- far removed from the bleak existence afforded to so many that struggle. But the ideals of communism might appeal to some given the way in which capitalism has mutated and continues to do so.
I think it was both to fight off communism and to do with "flexing muscles." The U.S wanted to show that they were dominant, not the USSR, and at the same time they could get another country on their side. But, we all know how that ended up...
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Has the WE GOTTCHA AMERICA, put you in such a euphoric state of mind that all logic is lost!
You seem to want me to believe Snowden was so disillusioned with our government’s policy that his only recourse was to commit an act of treason against his country. BULLSHIT!
It’s a fine line between whistleblower and traitor and nothing erases the fact that Snowden committed such an act once he started peddling his stolen information for a place the sleep.
I don't really care what you believe. I've already posted Snowden's comments on his motivation for exposing the governments lies and over-reach. If you choose not to believe them, and want to paint him as a traitor, whilst ignoring the fact that James Clapper lied on oath to Congress, then that's your business.
Though maybe you can go ahead and tell us what you think Snowden's true motivation was?