White House presses Russia to expel Snowden; sharp words for China

[Hayabusa Rider]

So you don't see the danger in either of those two things? Remember we're the country of Japanese Internment and the McCarthy hearings in The House Committee on Un-American Activities, which fucked up a lot of lives on the mere suspicion of foreign sympathies.

You think our government isn't capable of doing even worse now, with the additional powers it's gained over the years? It may take decades to come to a head, but these 2 things you love so much inevitably lead to abuse, and I've seen nothing more than airy promises and vague, ever-changing numbers attempting to rationalize their use.

"ZOMG it saved us from 7, no 8, no 11, no 50 terrorist attacks! Yeah fifty! That's a good number for the media!" -The NSA

If it saved us from so many, you'd think they could release the technical details for the experts to confirm, at least the specifics about how the metadata helped, but they haven't. Hell why didn't they reveal these purported 50 thwartings as they occurred? Don't have to go into detail, just say "BREAKING NEWS! Today agents of the NSA working in conjunction with local authorities thwarted a terrorist attack in its infancy... *plaster terrorist face and biography on news for two weeks*"

No, this program has no rational justification; that or the government is concealing it for God knows why. It starts with terrorists, and if it's not dismantled it will end with political opponents; all as soon as a few people not as cuddly as Obama get into the right positions.

And even when that happens, people like you will still defend it for some reason, and say that capturing a few innocents is worth the cost of preventing a miniscule amount of death.

I think there is nothing he wouldn't approve of. Internment camps would be a small sacrifice. Note that he believes totalitarianism is needed.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

You're right. It's really the government's reaction that's a problem here. Can you imagine what a DIFFERENT conversation we'd be having if they had been intelligent about this and put the program's biggest detractor in a position to understand the checks and balances on the system? Could you imagine how different this would have been if Obama had gone on national TV and said:

"My fellow Americans,

Recently, an American who believed he was doing his civic duty made you aware of programs that have were classified and kept secret from the American public. These powers were given to the United States Government under act XXXX of XXXXX. These powers are under oversight from the XXXXX and XXXXX, and were enacted in the year of XXXXXX.

We will not be prosecuting Edward Snowden for his actions. We understand that Americans are incredibly concerned over the amount of information that the government has about them. This is not a new concern, and it's one that I share with you.

To that end, we will be bringing these laws, and these programs under intense scrutiny. More specifically, we will be asking Mr. Snowden to aid us in this endeavor. It is the job of the Government of the United States to provide for the safety of its citizens, while still remaining beholden to those citizens."

I, for one, would actually be happy I voted for Obama if that had happened.

Unfortunately they live in this world of fear. Which might be partially warranted, but we will never know because it's "classified." One of the issues is that Obama, and the other senior officials, just trust whatever they are told by the NSA/FBI. "Mr. President, we have a national security threat where we can't see emails of suspected terrorists. We need to monitor all traffic so we can cherry pick the terrorists out of it." There is no public vetting of it. There is no larger questioning. If the NSA/FBI says you're a terrorist then the FISA court says "here is your warrant for whatever you want." Where is the adversarial judiciary process that is a cornerstone of our society? Where is the defense? There is none, and that's a problem.

Perhaps in terms of policy but ask Assange what he thinks when it's the President vs. an individual.

In terms of extradition though it's possible Obama could offer something under the table to get Snowden back, who is obviously guilty because he's a "traitor" and guilty of anything they say he is.

If they get him back straight to Gitmo or the equivalent? A trial? We'd never know what was what because it would be "national security" all the way. Considering the government has already announced his guilt he has no chance at a fair trial and there is no venue that would not be prejudicial, but that old piece of trash known as the Constitution won't stand in the way.

Unfortunately this is how I'd see it going down as well.

As for Manning, he made mistakes. However after watching "We Steal Secrets" documentary, I think he was a troubled kid who was put in a situation he should never have been in. From basic when he was constantly picked on and his peers thought he should be kicked out, to the people deciding to put him in the intelligence section when he had personal things he needed to work through, to his boss as an intelligence officer who notes that he was troubled. He was isolated in the base he was at, was already unstable emotionally/mentally, and had access to a lot of "sensitive" information. It shouldn't surprise anybody that he leaked this stuff.

 

[mnewsham]

But with the cooperation of all the major ISPs and search companies, we conquered that challenge and have made amazing progress in destroying major terror networks around the world over the past 5 years. And now what? All of it down the toilet so that you can have affirmed what you likely already suspected if you weren't a dimwit: that the government reads your email. So what? If you're not a god damn terrorist it doesn't matter.

The problem is if they stop at terrorism, sure they say they are using it to stop terrorist groups, but when does it start to be acceptable to stop pedophiles, or suddenly we lower the standards to allow the information gathering to stop a planned bank robbery, or a drug kingpin, or every day criminals? Eventually this information could be used against many americans for anything the government decides it needs to. This is not a good thing for the government to collect and hold information about not only every US citizen, but citizens in every country of the world, basic privacy should still be maintained and the infiltration of said privacy should be a decision not taken lightly by our government.

I am not saying the spying shouldn't happen at all, but current oversight is non-existent we have proof of this, it is just a rubber stamp, I want real oversight with actual consequences if they ask for warrants needlessly.

 

[momeNt]

Is the US government keeping all these surveillance programs secret because the truth of just how much danger our country is in that terrifying? Would it send the masses into an uproar where we would demand war with like half the countries in the world? Would we start stringing up anybody that looked even remotely Muslim because of how terrifying the information is that warrants the use of these surveillance programs?

If that is true, then isn't the USA the one protecting potential terrorists??!@?#!@$$@

My head just exploded.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Is the US government keeping all these surveillance programs secret because the truth of just how much danger our country is in that terrifying? Would it send the masses into an uproar where we would demand war with like half the countries in the world? Would we start stringing up anybody that looked even remotely Muslim because of how terrifying the information is that warrants the use of these surveillance programs?

If that is true, then isn't the USA the one protecting potential terrorists??!@?#!@$$@

My head just exploded.

Very interesting take on what is happenning!!

 

[mikeymikec]

If that is true, then isn't the USA the one protecting potential terrorists??!@?#!@$$@

From racist damsels in distress.

 

[werepossum]

No, that would encourage more dorks with a hyper-inflated sense of self-importance to jeopardize our national security.

So what's to keep government from seizing ever more power, legally or not, as long as they kill or imprison everyone who tries to stop them or reveal what they are doing?

We've largely lost our 4th Amendment rights, our 2nd Amendment rights are under daily assault, freedom of religion is being stripped out of the 1st Amendment, freedom of the press is also under serious assault, the 10th Amendment is little more than a punch line - where does it stop? WHY would it stop, until we have no freedom at all? Already we have our largest city thinking it's fine to legislate what size soft drink one can purchase; what lies ahead? This is no aberration; Obama is merely continuing down the path of Presidents before him.

 

[unokitty]

When the state has the capability to know everything except the difference between right and wrong, it won't end well.

--Mark Steyn

 

[5150Joker]

How long until Snowden is accused of being Muslim and then a drone sent his way?

 

[FelixDeCat]

Barrack Hussien Obama is the biggest liar ever to hold that office. He should be impeached immediately.

 

[JEDIYoda]

How long until Snowden is accused of being Muslim and then a drone sent his way?

It took 58 posts before the village idiot became involved...hahaa

 

[waggy]

So what's to keep government from seizing ever more power, legally or not, as long as they kill or imprison everyone who tries to stop them or reveal what they are doing?

We've largely lost our 4th Amendment rights, our 2nd Amendment rights are under daily assault, freedom of religion is being stripped out of the 1st Amendment, freedom of the press is also under serious assault, the 10th Amendment is little more than a punch line - where does it stop? WHY would it stop, until we have no freedom at all? Already we have our largest city thinking it's fine to legislate what size soft drink one can purchase; what lies ahead? This is no aberration; Obama is merely continuing down the path of Presidents before him.

the biggest block to a totalitarian government are the 1st amendment, 2nd amendment and freedom of press.

I don't think many would say that the 2nd and freedom of press aren't under assault by this administration.

 

[werepossum]

the biggest block to a totalitarian government are the 1st amendment, 2nd amendment and freedom of press.

I don't think many would say that the 2nd and freedom of press aren't under assault by this administration.

I agree totally, but it's not just this administration. Obama's is the worst, but I fully expect the next administration to be worse regardless of affiliation or professed beliefs. Like many I have been guilty of assuming that laws are passed for the reasons given. I still largely believe that, but what I missed was that power given WILL be power exercised.

 

[xBiffx]

Dumb enough? It helped him get elected didn't it? If you want a list of election promises made by politicians in the last century, it might take a while to compile that list...

You really are an idiot. That wasn't a campaign promise. It was a junior senator spouting his mouth off with regards to the current administration at the time to get some cool points with the anti-Bush left.

Why am I not surprised that you love carrying water for the guy so he can turn it into Kool-aid for the masses.

 

[mikeymikec]

You really are an idiot. That wasn't a campaign promise. It was a junior senator spouting his mouth off with regards to the current administration at the time to get some cool points with the anti-Bush left.

Why am I not surprised that you love carrying water for the guy so he can turn it into Kool-aid for the masses.

What are you talking about? I wasn't defending his behaviour. Someone called Obama dumb for saying what he said, and I was simply pointed out that those sorts of speeches helped him get elected. The person I was responding to didn't even suggest that it was a campaign promise and neither did I.

If anything I was labelling him as a typical politician, which in my opinion is not a compliment in the slightest. I suppose I was calling him "not dumb" as well, but that's not really much of a compliment.

So before you start throwing insults around, it helps to actually understand the comments (and their context) that you're about to criticise.

 

[Vic Vega]

You really are an idiot. That wasn't a campaign promise. It was a junior senator spouting his mouth off with regards to the current administration at the time to get some cool points with the anti-Bush left.

Why am I not surprised that you love carrying water for the guy so he can turn it into Kool-aid for the masses.

Which just proves the guy is a spineless, lying sack of shit with no integrity. I am not sure which is worse.