Edward Snowden & The N.S.A Revelations

ajedigecko

Byrnzie wrote:

ajedigecko wrote:

This was the most important nnews for weeeks.

Seems to be forgotten now.

Is that the plan?

Attemtpt to get snowden to make a tactical error.

It's not been forgotten by most people in the World - see 'Latin America fallout' above, although I can understand why the U.S government lackeys within mainstream U.S media would attempt to brush this topic under the carpet.

Trust me...i have been following what the "media" does not want our populace to know.

Byrnzie

Guitar92player wrote:

They have lots of info that most of the time means nothing and people wasted time listening, watching, reading info. Then one may ask "then why do it?" They probably don't have to. If they did indeed stop attacks, and we suddenly drop the program, and then suddenly an attack happens, all I want to say is that no one should complain then. And if it is dropped and nothing happens, then oh well. Good for us.

Is it possible you can at least agree with me on that point? (fingers-crossed).

They don't need to spy on 300 million Americans in order to catch a terrorist, or a group of terrorists. Before 9/11 they had evidence that Al Queda-affiliated terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft in an imminent terrorist attack, yet they did nothing about it. And apparently they also had been warned by Russian intelligence that one of the Boston bombers posed a security threat, yet they did nothing about it.

The way I see it, they need to spend less time and money on spying on every single American, and millions of citizens of other countries, and focus more on acting on the information that they already have - information gained from actual anti-terrorism units whose job it is to identify actual threats.
I actually think these mass-surveillance operations exposed by Snowden having nothing at all to do with any attempt to avert terrorism.

Byrnzie

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i saw a poll on the news tonight that said the majority of americans asked actually support snowden. i have to try to find a link to it.

You don't need to look too far. Check the article I posted above on this very page.

Byrnzie

Guitar92player wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/10/snowden-denies-information-russia-china

Snowden: I never gave any information to Chinese or Russian governments

Just because he says it doesn't mean its true. You act like Snowden is a perfect little angel. :roll:

I'm not accusing him (anymore) of giving info to Russia or China, but it could happen.

Ever hear the phrase "Even if I did I wouldn't tell ya!"? Just sayin...

It's the only evidence we have. And I'll take his word over an anonymous government source any day.

gimmesometruth27

Byrnzie wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i saw a poll on the news tonight that said the majority of americans asked actually support snowden. i have to try to find a link to it.

You don't need to look too far. Check the article I posted above on this very page.

:oops:

i wasn't sure if that was the same poll, but now that i re-read it i think it is the same one. i was looking for an american news source as well to back the guardian piece.

Guitar92player

Byrnzie wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

They have lots of info that most of the time means nothing and people wasted time listening, watching, reading info. Then one may ask "then why do it?" They probably don't have to. If they did indeed stop attacks, and we suddenly drop the program, and then suddenly an attack happens, all I want to say is that no one should complain then. And if it is dropped and nothing happens, then oh well. Good for us.

Is it possible you can at least agree with me on that point? (fingers-crossed).

The way I see it, they need to spend less time and money on spying on every single American, and millions of citizens of other countries, and focus more on acting on the information that they already have - information gained from actual anti-terrorism units whose job it is to identify actual threats.
I actually think these mass-surveillance operations exposed by Snowden having nothing at all to do with any attempt to avert terrorism.

Do you know what they actually need to spend more money on? Infrastructure. I don't know if you ever been here, but there are soooooo many shitty bridges and building that need either fixed or demolished. Also, education needs to be dealt with.

I personally think the US shouldn't worry about others causing trouble in other countries. If they are not a threat to us, then who cares. But if its a domestic thing, then yeah take care of it.

And even if it "has nothing at all to do with any attempt to avert terrorism" then the info they have is useless still. They can't do anything with it.

Byrnzie

Guitar92player wrote:

And even if it "has nothing at all to do with any attempt to avert terrorism" then the info they have is useless still. They can't do anything with it.

Maybe. Or maybe they can use personal details to smear, or intimidate people they deem to be a threat - dissenters, e.t.c. Or they can at least threaten to intimidate people. It wouldn't be difficult. Even just some innocent flirting on Facebook, or by e- mail, could be used to intimidate someone into silence. The amount of control such access to personal information affords them is greater than you think, and it's not beyond these power-obsessed control freaks to use it.

Byrnzie

Guitar92player wrote:

I don't know if you ever been here, but there are soooooo many shitty bridges and building that need either fixed or demolished. Also, education needs to be dealt with.

I've been to the U.S many times. And yeah, I can think of far more useful things for the government - and the British government too - to spend their money on than snooping on everyone, and waging wars overseas.
Finding some alternative energy sources wouldn't be a bad start. There's way too many polluting cars on the roads.

Byrnzie

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i saw a poll on the news tonight that said the majority of americans asked actually support snowden. i have to try to find a link to it.

You don't need to look too far. Check the article I posted above on this very page.

:oops:

i wasn't sure if that was the same poll, but now that i re-read it i think it is the same one. i was looking for an american news source as well to back the guardian piece.

I forgive you

London Bridge

Byrnzie wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

And even if it "has nothing at all to do with any attempt to avert terrorism" then the info they have is useless still. They can't do anything with it.

Maybe. Or maybe they can use personal details to smear, or intimidate people they deem to be a threat - dissenters, e.t.c. Or they can at least threaten to intimidate people. It wouldn't be difficult. Even just some innocent flirting on Facebook, or by e- mail, could be used to intimidate someone into silence. The amount of control such access to personal information affords them is greater than you think, and it's not beyond these power-obsessed control freaks to use it.

You're a Funny F

You are probably at the top of the people most monitored list
Stop posting immediately.
Get off the internet.
Throw away your cell phone

Guitar92player

Byrnzie wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

I don't know if you ever been here, but there are soooooo many shitty bridges and building that need either fixed or demolished. Also, education needs to be dealt with.

I've been to the U.S many times. And yeah, I can think of far more useful things for the government - and the British government too - to spend their money on than snooping on everyone, and waging wars overseas.
Finding some alternative energy sources wouldn't be a bad start. There's way too many polluting cars on the roads.

Agree fully.

Byrnzie

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... ernational

Edward Snowden: US officials are preventing me claiming asylum

NSA whistleblower calls meeting with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch at Sheremetyevo airport


Peter Walker and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Friday 12 July 2013


The NSA surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden has said US officials are waging a campaign to prevent him from taking up asylum offers as he called a meeting in Moscow airport with human rights groups.

In a letter sent to groups including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the former intelligence agency contractor claimed there was "an unlawful campaign by officials in the US government to deny my right to seek and enjoy … asylum under article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and invited them to meet him at 5pm local time.

"The scale of threatening behaviour is without precedent: never before in history have states conspired to force to the ground a sovereign president's plane to effect a search for a political refugee," he wrote to the groups.

"This dangerous escalation represents a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America or my own personal security, but to the basic right shared by every living person to live free from persecution."

Reuters quoted an airport official as saying Snowden would meet the groups on Friday afternoon in the transit area of Sheremetyevo, where he has remained since flying to Russia from Hong Kong on 23 June...

polaris_x

what i find interesting in reading posts on this thread is ...

i wonder how many people would feel the way they feel if this was under Bush or Romney!?? ... on another thread - someone can cry foul of the loss of civil liberties which is an essential part of the constitution and then on another say it really isn't that big of a deal ...

is it any wonder why the US gov't is simply a puppet for corporations and actually gets away with it? ... is there a gov't anywhere in the world that is more influenced by corporations than the US? ... i don't think so ...

Sludge Factory

Guitar92player wrote:

Yes, it might violate the Constitution, but as years go on, and technology keeps getting better, and enemies get smarter, the Constitution may hold us back from using measures to protect us.

To be clear, I respect your view and know you are a caring American as well. Glad you are an aware citizen.

See, that right there DOES make you less Patriotic according to the historical non-GOP warped definition of the term. You are okay with Constitutional violations by those who took oaths to uphold that very document. This is not okay and does not make you a Patriot. I don't care how many people try to twist my words here, it is pretty much fact that our forefathers' actual display of patriotism would not match up even remotely to what you just professed here.

I'm fine with people coming to there own conclusions that differ from me, but don't call it something it isn't then.

I do appreciate your friendly gesture there.

Sludge Factory

Guitar92player wrote:

Yes he did what was right, but at the same time he did something wrong, despite the program being good and bad at the same time. He is a great American, no doubt. But he is a coward for running, in my opinion. But I get why he is doing it. If he believes he is a hero then why run? If he has nothing else to unleash than he isn't fighting for another day to do something else.

It would behoove you to read up on all the past whistleblowers and how aggressively they have been prosecuted by the current administration. Snowden did the smart thing. He blew the whistle and has so far protected himself from having to go through a similar crimes against humanity scenario as Manning. I would hold no person at fault for doing so.

Sludge Factory

Guitar92player wrote:

Snowden just sounds like a typical paranoid American who believes the government has a secret agenda that will crush and indenture all Americans. (which so far in my life it seems like extremist conservatives act like this, but I will adjust my views accordingly when shown otherwise). I don't want a completely new Bill of Rights, just small adjustments.

I had to go back and address this part of your statement too. Snowden is not the typical paranoid American. I'm not sure if you watched the interviews with him or not, but in them he clearly states the type of information and undermining that was going on. These activities were directed at the American public. That is not paranoia when signs of tyranny are already actually occurring.

Sludge Factory

JimmyV wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

So...people who disagree with you are also brainwashed and deluded? I see.

No, that's not what I said. And it's not what Sludgefactory said either.

No, I don't believe Sludgefactory ever did say anything like that. Nor did I say he/she did. You on the other hand...your words speak for themselves.

I went back and re-read this a couple times and still don't come to the conclusion that you are. The conclusion I come to is that Byrnzie is basically just stating that those who do not have the capacity or wherewithal to question their government, to question authority are brainwashed and deluded. I would add to that that they may also be involved in the deceptions.

I don't see the connection to Byrnzie saying people are deluded and brainwashed if they disagree with him. I can see if someone does believe the U.S. government/corporations represent America taking issue with this and feeling like they were just called deluded and brainwashed, though. That's on them though if they believe those kinds of things when, at every step of the way, the U.S. government/corporations only have their own interests at heart under the guise of 'morally protecting us'.

JimmyV

Worth pointing out here that Webster's definition of Patriotism is "love for or devotion to one's country". Not love or devotion to one's government and not love or devotion to the constitution of any government. People can show that devotion in a variety of ways. Wanting to see their country be kept safe and secure is one. Wanting the government to be held to both the letter and spirit of all laws is another. That one person feels more strongly about one and another feels more strongly about the other makes neither more or less Patriotic.

JimmyV

Sludge Factory wrote:

I went back and re-read this a couple times and still don't come to the conclusion that you are. The conclusion I come to is that Byrnzie is basically just stating that those who do not have the capacity or wherewithal to question their government, to question authority are brainwashed and deluded. I would add to that that they may also be involved in the deceptions.

I don't see the connection to Byrnzie saying people are deluded and brainwashed if they disagree with him. I can see if someone does believe the U.S. government/corporations represent America taking issue with this and feeling like they were just called deluded and brainwashed, though. That's on them though if they believe those kinds of things when, at every step of the way, the U.S. government/corporations only have their own interests at heart under the guise of 'morally protecting us'.

Neither of us is under any obligation to come to the same conclusions as the other. It is quite alright that we disagree. Healthy, even, for the sake of discussion and debate. I do, however, stand by my conclusion. The full exchange in questions reads:

Byrnzie wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

God damn, Byrnzie! You are tireless in your posting on this topic. I appreciate it and applaud you for that. It makes me sad that here we have someone who isn't even a U.S. citizen displaying more U.S. patriotism than many others in this thread who are U.S. citizens. I mostly just see nationalist apologists misdirecting the real issue at hand.

Because U.S. citizens exercising their right to free speech by posting opinions you do not agree with somehow makes them less patriotic than others? :?

No, U.S citizens jumping to the defense of the government/corporations because they're deluded, and have been brainwashed into believing that that same government, and those same corporations, represent 'America'.

I'm unclear who these deluded and brainwashed Americans are other than those who disagree with Byrnzie's take on this issue. Who do you mean when you say "those who do not have the capacity or wherewithal to question their government, to question authority are brainwashed and deluded"? Who are we talking about? And who has decided that they do not have this capacity or wherewithal? What is the standard used to determine this? I have a hard time believing the standard here is not those who disagree with yours and Byrnzie's opinions/conclusions on this topic.

I personally believe speaking one's mind can show quite a bit of Patriotism. Again, that there is a disagreement is a good thing. We can disagree and not label those we disagree with delusional and brainwashed.

London Bridge

JimmyV wrote:

Worth pointing out here that Webster's definition of Patriotism is "love for or devotion to one's country". Not love or devotion to one's government and not love or devotion to the constitution of any government. People can show that devotion in a variety of ways. Wanting to see their country be kept safe and secure is one. Wanting the government to be held to both the letter and spirit of all laws is another. That one person feels more strongly about one and another feels more strongly about the other makes neither more or less Patriotic.