Confirmed: Countless lives saved because of NSA Data Gathering.

[OutHouse]

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-s...ns-about-leakers-security-access/1680625.html



Each of those attacks likely would have resulted in many deaths, for each attack we prevent many lives are saved. The NSA data gathering has already proven a success at saving countless lives from these attacks.

well it sure as shit didnt stop 9/11 or Boston. and it was in place then.

OP fail at life.

 

[OutHouse]

Do you have anyone with reasonable accountability/authority to vouch for it, like say the NSA chief?

that asshat has ZERO accountability or credibility in my book.

 

[OutHouse]

On a separate note, I thought this was pretty hilarious:

http://gawker.com/sean-hannity-doesnt-know-hes-being-recorded-513136491

He's my favorite.

i knew you watched that crap.

 

[BoberFett]

Well the terrorists have confirmation that the program actually exists, so that's the first effective measure the US lost. They wouldn't be trying to figure ways around it if they didn't know about it in the first place.

Do you think that up until a week ago, terrorists were unaware that phones could be tapped and email could be captured? The only difference is that spying on people used to require a warrant, which required a reason to spy on somebody that could convince a judge it was reasonable. Now they spy on everybody all the time. That does not change the tactics of criminals in any way. They will still take countermeasures, just as they always have. It's naive to believe this information changes anything.

I'm not saying i believe everything they're saying since the NSA did say earlier they didn't do it.

So you admit they have a history of lying about their actions, but then go on to say:

HOWEVER, if someone is making making accusations that someone else is directly lying then there should be some basis for it other than the "OMG US GOV is out to GET ME AND SUPPRESS MY FREEEDOOOMMM!!" argument. For example, just because someone came from Pakistan doesn't mean they're a terrorist if a naysayer accuses them of being one.

If you're going to admit that the NSA are liars, then claiming they're not liars is going to need some evidence other than "OMG THE TURRISTS R TRYIN TO KILLLLLL MEEEEEEEE!!!!"

I'm saying I don't believe everything that naysayers are saying.

That's because you're a gullible twat.

 

[fskimospy]

i knew you watched that crap.

Gawker?

 

[OutHouse]

Gawker?

hannity, with your big brother stance you are a republican, common just admit it. I promise you will feel better.

 

[sunzt]

Do you think that up until a week ago, terrorists were unaware that phones could be tapped and email could be captured? The only difference is that spying on people used to require a warrant, which required a reason to spy on somebody that could convince a judge it was reasonable. Now they spy on everybody all the time. That does not change the tactics of criminals in any way. They will still take countermeasures, just as they always have. It's naive to believe this information changes anything.

If their tactics involved the assumption of a warrant to gather information then it does. If they've been in contact with people who thought were not being tracked because they don't have a warrant for them then they just gained operationally useful knowledge.

So you admit they have a history of lying about their actions, but then go on to say:



If you're going to admit that the NSA are liars, then claiming they're not liars is going to need some evidence other than "OMG THE TURRISTS R TRYIN TO KILLLLLL MEEEEEEEE!!!!"

They are briefing the entire Senate about classified operations, not just the intelligence panel. So yes, i think they're coming clean about it. I'm not sure what more you want from them.

That's because you're a gullible twat.

You sound offended. Calm down.

What's more gullible, someone who believes any random accusation that anyone on the Internet says (especially accusations against a national agency with proven history of work that has been vouched for by other reputable persons). Or someone that just wants more evidence to justify any accusations before drawing conclusions..... hmmmm.....

 

[fskimospy]

hannity, with your big brother stance you are a republican, common just admit it. I promise you will feel better.

You got me, totally a Republican. Good job.

 

[Nebor]

that asshat has ZERO accountability or credibility in my book.

He's a 4 star Army General. He's sworn to support and defend the constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

[rudder]

Bullshit...

http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...ive-obama-terror-dragnet-excludes-mosques.htm

 

[sunzt]

He's a 4 star Army General. He's sworn to support and defend the constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Doesn't matter, the general did something he didn't like so he is a WORM... A WORM i tell ya!

 

[Genx87]

On a separate note, I thought this was pretty hilarious:

http://gawker.com/sean-hannity-doesnt-know-hes-being-recorded-513136491

He's my favorite.

Sean Hannity and Laura Ingrahm are the reason I stopped listening to talk radio. Though I do listen to Micheal Medved. Only because he actually debates people instead of yelling talking points and faux rage into the microphone for 2 hours a day.

I started losing interest in talk radio in early to mid 2005 when it was non-stop droning on about the 04 election being a mandate. Then using that mandate to save terry schiavo and torpedo immigration and SS reform.

It has been delicious to listen to these people suddenly turn libertarian when they were cheerleaders during the bus years.

Though I will admit I supported a lot of these policies under Bush. Unlike them when the next republican gets into office. I wont flipsides because my team won. If jeb Bush wins in 2016 Sean Hannity will be back on about how these are vital policies to save us from terra!

 

[DCal430]

Clapper did not lie in march, people need to understand the Government or DoD definition of collection is not theirs. Clapper recently explained this in an interview.

 

[xBiffx]

He's a 4 star Army General. He's sworn to support and defend the constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

So does every federal politician. At that rank they are nothing more than a politician/bureaucrat. Guessing you have a different standard for politicians than soldiers?

Once officers get to a high enough rank they are a soldier second and a politician first. I don't trust them anymore than the wackos in Washington at that point. Outhouse had a good point, IMO.

 

[Genx87]

Clapper did not lie in march, people need to understand the Government or DoD definition of collection is not theirs. Clapper recently explained this in an interview.

I will be honest and say you have to be a troll or somebody easily lead by authority.

 

[Darwin333]

Freedoms or security? Choose wisely.

Both, thanks.

 

[ivwshane]

Both, thanks.

Sorry thats not an option.

 

[fskimospy]

Sean Hannity and Laura Ingrahm are the reason I stopped listening to talk radio. Though I do listen to Micheal Medved. Only because he actually debates people instead of yelling talking points and faux rage into the microphone for 2 hours a day.

I started losing interest in talk radio in early to mid 2005 when it was non-stop droning on about the 04 election being a mandate. Then using that mandate to save terry schiavo and torpedo immigration and SS reform.

It has been delicious to listen to these people suddenly turn libertarian when they were cheerleaders during the bus years.

Though I will admit I supported a lot of these policies under Bush. Unlike them when the next republican gets into office. I wont flipsides because my team won. If jeb Bush wins in 2016 Sean Hannity will be back on about how these are vital policies to save us from terra!

There's nothing wrong with changing your mind. I opposed eliminating the filibuster when the Republicans were trying to do it and I support getting rid of it now. I'm sure that seems self serving, but I also know that I won't change my mind when the day comes that the Republicans take it back.

Sean Hannity is just the worst. Most (all?) political pundits interpret things selectively, but I've never seen anyone else who is quite so brazen in his shittiness.

 

[mect]

He's a 4 star Army General. He's sworn to support and defend the constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

He doesn't seem to be doing a great job of that.

 

[mect]

Sorry thats not an option.

Only if we won't let it be. Sure, there will always be some tradeoffs, but the current model sure as hell does not maximize privacy and security. If we are going to move towards a decrease in privacy, someone better be showing some pretty convincing data that these actions actually result in increased security. Do you feel like TSA has brought us increased security?

 

[ivwshane]

Only if we won't let it be. Sure, there will always be some tradeoffs, but the current model sure as hell does not maximize privacy and security. If we are going to move towards a decrease in privacy, someone better be showing some pretty convincing data that these actions actually result in increased security. Do you feel like TSA has brought us increased security?

How do you show proof for things that did not happen?

One could say that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil by a foreigner for 13 years, does that mean all the measures we have taken worked? Does it mean they were necessary?

You can't expect to be safe from a group whose members are scattered all over the world, who gets new members/recruits all the time and who communicates via various methods including cellular and through the Internet without allowing the government to monitor their communication methods.
And because these terrorist groups don't consist of a particular population of people (as in located in the same area) and because their members come from a wide spectrum of people (financially, socially, speaking) you can't expect the government to be able to limit the scope of their dragnet.

So again, the question is; are you willing to give up freedoms for security? You can add stipulations, what if's, buts, and ands but the core question/issue remains.

 

[DrPizza]

How do you show proof for things that did not happen?

With statistics. If they're claiming that they stopped dozens of attacks via these wiretaps, etc., then they have a damn near perfect record of stopping terrorist attacks. And, with one attack last year - by someone they SHOULD have been keeping an eye on... that leads to quite a bit of skepticism right there.

The statistical likelihood of them miraculously stopping dozens of terrorist acts, without 100% surveillance, and then missing the Boston attack... And then, no one finds out about the acts that they stopped - no relatives have come forward "men in black cars took my husband away" - come on.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

That's nothing, concealed carry and high capacity mags have saved trillions of American lives. I read it on the Internet so it must be true.

 

[woolfe9998]

How do you show proof for things that did not happen?

One could say that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil by a foreigner for 13 years, does that mean all the measures we have taken worked? Does it mean they were necessary?

You can't expect to be safe from a group whose members are scattered all over the world, who gets new members/recruits all the time and who communicates via various methods including cellular and through the Internet without allowing the government to monitor their communication methods.
And because these terrorist groups don't consist of a particular population of people (as in located in the same area) and because their members come from a wide spectrum of people (financially, socially, speaking) you can't expect the government to be able to limit the scope of their dragnet.

So again, the question is; are you willing to give up freedoms for security? You can add stipulations, what if's, buts, and ands but the core question/issue remains.

I don't see how you can ask the question in that simplistic a manner. It depends on how much security versus how much privacy. One could easily support one program to thwart terrorism as a reasonable tradeoff but not another.

 

[mect]

How do you show proof for things that did not happen?

One could say that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil by a foreigner for 13 years, does that mean all the measures we have taken worked? Does it mean they were necessary?

You can't expect to be safe from a group whose members are scattered all over the world, who gets new members/recruits all the time and who communicates via various methods including cellular and through the Internet without allowing the government to monitor their communication methods.
And because these terrorist groups don't consist of a particular population of people (as in located in the same area) and because their members come from a wide spectrum of people (financially, socially, speaking) you can't expect the government to be able to limit the scope of their dragnet.

So again, the question is; are you willing to give up freedoms for security? You can add stipulations, what if's, buts, and ands but the core question/issue remains.

The problem with this question is that the answer is completely tied up in the stipulations, the what if's and the buts. Anyone that simply answers yes or no is either a fool or a partisan. How much security for how much freedom? Are there better alternatives? Its like offering someone a tourniquet and asking them if they would rather lose their leg or die? Except, one little detail is that they are sitting in a hospital where they could just get stitches instead.