Ellsberg on Snowden... and John Kerry.

  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    May 30, 2014 5:38 PM GMT
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/daniel-ellsberg-snowden-fair-trial-kerry-espionage-act


    "John Kerry's challenge to Snowden to return and face trial is either disingenuous or simply ignorant that current prosecutions under the Espionage Act allow no distinction whatever between a patriotic whistleblower and a spy. Either way, nothing excuses Kerry's slanderous and despicable characterizations of a young man who, in my opinion, has done more than anyone in or out of government in this century to demonstrate his patriotism, moral courage and loyalty to the oath of office the three of us swore: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jun 01, 2014 3:26 AM GMT
    agreed
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2014 7:20 AM GMT
    Hear! Hear! Let's invite him to Washington to be the Grand Marshall in a parade up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House!

    Do you think he'd come?
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Jun 01, 2014 2:48 PM GMT
    Since the politicians won`t be open about all the surveillance going on, it falls to private individuals like Snowden to do it.

    An undesirable situation, but the likes of Kerry have created it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2014 3:08 PM GMT
    As long as America keeps on treating whistleblowers as though they are enemies of the state it will look so bad to the rest of the world.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jun 03, 2014 8:46 PM GMT
    GAMRican saidHear! Hear! Let's invite him to Washington to be the Grand Marshall in a parade up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House!

    Do you think he'd come?

    lol. I think appealing to his vanity is a great way to lure him back here, so we can prosecute him.

    I think most United Staters want to keep the NSA, because it is there to protect the country from terrorism, and uphold our laws.

    Shall we get rid of the police and the FBI, too? /smh.

    Most Snowden supporters come off as anarchists who just hate Obama and want to see the U.S. fail.

    Meanwhile, we keep spoon feeding our personal info to anyone who wants to take a peak. It's not like the NSA is the only agency, corporation, et al with a data center.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2014 9:11 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]I think most United Staters want to keep the NSA, because it is there to protect the country from terrorism, and uphold our laws.

    Shall we get rid of the police and the FBI, too? /smh.

    Most Snowden supporters come off as anarchists who just hate Obama and want to see the U.S. fail.

    Meanwhile, we keep spoon feeding our personal info to anyone who wants to take a peak. It's not like the NSA is the only agency, corporation, et al with a data center.[/quote]

    Even if the majority of americans want to continue to surrender their rights to an out of control executive branch doesn't mean it is a good idea.

    And I am a supporter of liberty, not necessarily Snowden and i don't hate Obama. What i hate are the policies started under GWB and continued under Obama that trample on the bill of rights.

    Now, before you think I am some wild eyed idiot, white supremacist hiding in the woods with my "Dont Tread on Me" flags... I am not.

    I am highly educated, don't own a gun, believe that government has a role to play in modern society. However I believe strongly in the Bill of Rights, in all of them. I find it incredibly disturbing that Obama thinks that secret deliberations within the executive branch, using secret memos to create secret criteria that generate a secret kill list of U.S. citizens.
    Bad people should be arrested, bad people should be put on trial, and sometimes, bad people must be killed to keep the USA safe and secure. However, there must be limits on the governments power. Because sometimes the government makes a mistake. We all have a right to a trial with a lawyer. Anwar al-Aulaqi should have been tried in abstentia. Secret deliberations run by the same people who decided to assassinate him in the first place doesn't cut it as "due process".

    It's easy to dislike the people who are mostly targeted in the 'War on Terror'. They are not nice people. But if their rights can be taken away on a whim, so can any of ours.

    So yes, i am glad Snowdon blew a whistle. For his sake i hope he makes it to Brazil. I for one would rather be in exile there than Russia!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2014 9:33 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    GAMRican saidHear! Hear! Let's invite him to Washington to be the Grand Marshall in a parade up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House!

    Do you think he'd come?

    lol. I think appealing to his vanity is a great way to lure him back here, so we can prosecute him.

    I think most United Staters want to keep the NSA, because it is there to protect the country from terrorism, and uphold our laws.

    Shall we get rid of the police and the FBI, too? /smh.

    Most Snowden supporters come off as anarchists who just hate Obama and want to see the U.S. fail.

    Meanwhile, we keep spoon feeding our personal info to anyone who wants to take a peak. It's not like the NSA is the only agency, corporation, et al with a data center.


    Nobody should be holding all that information though. Was spying on the Angela Merkel really for America's protection? (Britain is just as bad before anyone says Anything)

    I think Mr Snowden is a modern day hero and I wish the British government had the balls to grant Snowden asylum in the UK.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jun 03, 2014 9:49 PM GMT
    I just haven't heard anyone come up with an actual (as in non-conspiracy theory) reason why the NSA shouldn't collect data. That's like saying traffic police are spying, simply because they park on side of the highway and watch for reckless drivers.

    I think when the Snowden story broke, people pictured seedy bureaucrats in dark basements watching them take a shower, but that's just not how it works. The NSA doesn't infringe on freedom of speech, or get involved in the day-to-day lives of Americans, so many of whom are screaming for as much attention as they can get on Twitter, as it is.

    I think people were glad that Snowden blew the whistle, at first, but now many are realizing that the undercover operations of our nation's security agency are warranted, and that we'd be in the dark without them.

    Snowden's just become a pied piper for anarchists, and not the humble conscientious objector he originally pretended to be.

    There is a great need for whistleblowers, but you have to take them in a case by case basis, and I just don't think Snowden has a case.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jun 03, 2014 9:52 PM GMT
    Danny_boy93 said
    HottJoe said
    GAMRican saidHear! Hear! Let's invite him to Washington to be the Grand Marshall in a parade up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House!

    Do you think he'd come?

    lol. I think appealing to his vanity is a great way to lure him back here, so we can prosecute him.

    I think most United Staters want to keep the NSA, because it is there to protect the country from terrorism, and uphold our laws.

    Shall we get rid of the police and the FBI, too? /smh.

    Most Snowden supporters come off as anarchists who just hate Obama and want to see the U.S. fail.

    Meanwhile, we keep spoon feeding our personal info to anyone who wants to take a peak. It's not like the NSA is the only agency, corporation, et al with a data center.


    Nobody should be holding all that information though. Was spying on the Angela Merkel really for America's protection? (Britain is just as bad before anyone says Anything)

    I think Mr Snowden is a modern day hero and I wish the British government had the balls to grant Snowden asylum in the UK.

    Tell that to google, if you're really all that concerned.icon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2014 1:05 AM GMT
    You epwant someone to say it?
    Fine, I'll say it. The NSA should not be collecting data on people without a warrant.
    The government is supposed to be us. So the NSA should be working for us. We should know what they are collecting and why. We should be able to say "these are the limits".
    Practically speaking it's Congress' job (they are more directly answerable to the people) to oversee this. Also the job of the judiciary to make sure no ones rights are violated.
    The NSA should also have to prove that it works. They currently get a blank check to collect as much data as they want on whomever they want and to store it for as long as they want. And we are supposed to trust that no one will ever abuse this power.
    Which if you trust the government not to abuse it's power then you're at best naive. They have been doing it since before the Internet existed. The post office used to target men who subscribed to gay porn. The FBI sent letters to MLK to convince him to commit suicide over affairs they knew about through spying.
    And don't say you have nothing to hide. Do you want the world to know about your porn tastes? What if your an environmentalist who likes to clean up beaches and march in protests and one of your colleagues at green peace is secretly in ELF?
    I have no love for the Tea Party. But the way the IRS targeted them was a gross abuse of power. What about next cycle when someone like Chris Christie is president? Do you want the NSA to then keep track of who talks shit about him on the RJ message boards?
    And while I'm at it, yes google and all other companies on the net should have to tell you what data they collect and what they do with it. And you should be able to opt out.
    The bandwidth that tv, radio and the Internet travels on belongs to us, the people. We are the ones who should be writing the rules for how it is used. And the. Rules should advantage an individual person over corporations.
    The amount of information and power we are giving away to companies and the government
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jun 04, 2014 4:23 AM GMT
    I can see why gay people would be worried in general about the government turning on us. Like you said, the government is the people, and people haven't always liked us. They used to sic the cops on us. Thankfully, the homophobes are dwindling, not because we got rid of the cops, but because cops don't go after gay people, and neither does the NSA.

    If we lost our rights and the people of our country decided to hunt us like terrorists, then yeah the NSA would be a nightmare. Like people have said, it's a powerful weapon, and it's supposed to be tough in our arsenal against terrorists, because we don't want to be sitting ducks.

    The NSA collects data, to search for terrorists. If the FBI didn't need search warrants to collect data, they'd probably focus on child porn, human trafficking, illegal drug and weapons trade, and maybe prevent a mass murder or two. One could easily argue that the moral failure is not that we collect data, but that we don't even use the data we have to protect people who are in real danger.

    A lot of various governments and corporate agencies all over the world collect data, as do hackers who steal money, identities, or worse. We live in an e-world, and anything we want to deposit into the cloud is there for someone to catch in a net. It's not about whether there is a trail of data, it's about whether we want a sheriff to follow the trail and try to act on our national security. I think that's ultimately the more relevant legal question.

    Snowden started this discussion, only to become a sideshow distracting people from the whole point of why we even need an NSA. And based on that alone he just seems like a fame seeker who blew the whistle prematurely, because it was in his own self interest.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2014 4:34 AM GMT
    HottJoe said...

    I think when the Snowden story broke, people pictured seedy bureaucrats in dark basements watching them take a shower, but that's just not how it works. The NSA doesn't infringe on freedom of speech, or get involved in the day-to-day lives of Americans, so many of whom are screaming for as much attention as they can get on Twitter, as it is.

    ...


    Damn! You mean I put on ALL THOSE FREAKY SHOWS with my cell phone deliberately "charging" in the bathroom, and ALL FOR NOTHING?????
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 04, 2014 6:27 PM GMT
    We no longer have a "government", a "state", that is made up of us. We have an unelected corporatist "republic."

    "The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not “abolished.” It dies out."

    Friedrich Engels, "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific."

    Government of persons: 0
    Administration of things: Game, set, and match.

    And remember; Engels thinks this is a GOOD.

  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 04, 2014 6:51 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]HottJoe said[/cite]I just haven't heard anyone come up with an actual (as in non-conspiracy theory) reason why the NSA shouldn't collect data. That's like saying traffic police are spying, simply because they park on side of the highway and watch for reckless drivers.

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

    See where it says "EFFECTS..."?
    See where is says "SECURE IN..."?
    See where it says "SEIZURE.." (not just SEARCH)..?
    See where is says "PROBABLE CAUSE..."?
    See where it says "and PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING...the PLACE...PERSONS....THINGS..."?
    (The latter we call the prohibition on General Warrants...you know, like "MASS collection...").

    You've heard an "actual reason" now.

  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jun 05, 2014 5:04 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said[quote][cite]HottJoe said[/cite]I just haven't heard anyone come up with an actual (as in non-conspiracy theory) reason why the NSA shouldn't collect data. That's like saying traffic police are spying, simply because they park on side of the highway and watch for reckless drivers.

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

    See where it says "EFFECTS..."?
    See where is says "SECURE IN..."?
    See where it says "SEIZURE.." (not just SEARCH)..?
    See where is says "PROBABLE CAUSE..."?
    See where it says "and PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING...the PLACE...PERSONS....THINGS..."?
    (The latter we call the prohibition on General Warrants...you know, like "MASS collection...").

    You've heard an "actual reason" now.


    The key word is unreasonable. I just don't see how it's unreasonable to treat the internet and electronic media like public space, since it's a fallacy to think anything we do online was ever private. I think the NSA should need a warrant to search someone's house, but that they should be able to obtain a warrant based on evidence they find online which gives them probable cause.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jun 05, 2014 5:30 PM GMT
    People need to know that texts, emails, and other digital correspondence goes in the cloud and becomes fodder for any government, corporation, or hacker. Going after the NSA, as though what they're doing is even surprising, just comes off as disingenuous. The people who hate the NSA are like the people who hated the FBI at one time. I don't hate the system. I just stay vigilant that the system is fair, laws are just, and justice is blind. There ARE many good reasons to the blow the whistle on corruption, or on unjustified profiling or targeting of a certain group of people. I don't have blind trust in the government, but I'm not a conspiracy theorist either. The NSA was just doing its job, which is to prevent people from being shot or killed in an explosion just for going to school or a mall. Why protect criminals so much? We already have a society where everyone thinks that crime prevention is hopeless and mass killings are common and inevitable, but I don't think the future has to be a repeat of the past.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jun 05, 2014 5:31 PM GMT
    ^^

    yeah and "reasonable" means whatever you want it to mean

    but hey, some people just like gargantuan, overreaching governments because they're scared and can't make their own decisions
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jun 05, 2014 5:54 PM GMT
    tj85016 said^^

    yeah and "reasonable" means whatever you want it to mean

    but hey, some people just like gargantuan, overreaching governments because they're scared and can't make their own decisions

    That doesn't make any sense. The NSA isn't making decisions for people. The NSA is a security agency. The decision being made is what to do about terrorism prevention.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jun 05, 2014 6:07 PM GMT
    ^^

    it was a just comment pointing out that some people just like gigantic governments because they believe the Straw Man argument that it provides safety - when, in fact, it just fleeces your wealth and liberty in most cases - leaving the vast majority nothing more than peons
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2014 6:08 PM GMT
    HottJoe-

    Terrorist attacks and mass murders (Sandyhook, etc) are incredibly rare, despite how spectacular they are. You are less likely to die a violent death than at anytime in history. The problem is the NSA is spying on ALL of us to MAYBE catch a few. They have never, despite congressional hearings demanding it, offered evidence of a single terrorist attack that has been thwarted because of their massive spying campaign. So the question isn't liberty vs security, which is a reasonable debate for an informed citizenry to have. Rather, our freedoms are taken and we are given a vague "trust me, this is for your good."

    And just because the US government doesn't target gays now doesn't mean they won't again.

    And you can say "I have nothing to hide." but how do you know? Here are memos about national security laws that the WH refuse to release. In other words you can be guilty and not know it!!!

    Donate to the wrong charity, send money to a friend in the wrong country, attend the wrong meeting and you are flagged. And the executive branch (GWB and BO) has already shown they don't care about things like trials and access to lawyers before locking up and killing US citizens. So why should we trust them?!?


    WrestlerBoy, please run for office
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 05, 2014 6:17 PM GMT
    "The key word is unreasonable. I just don't see how it's unreasonable to treat the internet and electronic media like public space, since it's a fallacy to think anything we do online was ever private. I think the NSA should need a warrant to search someone's house, but that they should be able to obtain a warrant based on evidence they find online which gives them probable cause."

    The KEY wordS are....

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, AND no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and PARTICULARLY describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    And you know this is the "key" word because in The Freedom Act just coughed up by the House on May 22 by a bipartisan 303-121 vote, what do you think the major sticking point was, and all the closed-door (behind our backs) haggling was about? I'll tell you.

    The NSA et al. were most concerned about the definition of what it is the government must SPECIFY to a judge it is interested in collecting, known as a SPECIFIC SELECTION TERM. The version of the bill passed by the two committees defined a specific selection term as "a term used to uniquely describe a person, entity, or account."

    Do you see how "entity or account" of this bullshit new "standard" of "specific selection TERM" has just eviscerated the Fourth Amendment's clear intent of "particularly describing..."?
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 05, 2014 6:26 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]Wyndahoi said[/cite]HottJoe-

    Terrorist attacks and mass murders (Sandyhook, etc) are incredibly rare, despite how spectacular they are. You are less likely to die a violent death than at anytime in history. The problem is the NSA is spying on ALL of us to MAYBE catch a few. They have never, despite congressional hearings demanding it, offered evidence of a single terrorist attack that has been thwarted because of their massive spying campaign. So the question isn't liberty vs security, which is a reasonable debate for an informed citizenry to have. Rather, our freedoms are taken and we are given a vague "trust me, this is for your good."

    And just because the US government doesn't target gays now doesn't mean they won't again.

    And you can say "I have nothing to hide." but how do you know? Here are memos about national security laws that the WH refuse to release. In other words you can be guilty and not know it!!!

    Donate to the wrong charity, send money to a friend in the wrong country, attend the wrong meeting and you are flagged. And the executive branch (GWB and BO) has already shown they don't care about things like trials and access to lawyers before locking up and killing US citizens. So why should we trust them?!?




    +1

    "Doctor, Doctor, give me the news, I got a bad case of..."
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jun 05, 2014 6:28 PM GMT
    "And just because the US government doesn't target gays now doesn't mean they won't again."

    Before Stonewall, gay people were targeted by the police, but we didn't get rid of the police. We fought for gay rights. The NSA is like the online police, patrolling traffic by watching every car that goes past. Of course we don't want them coming after gay people, anymore than we want the cops coming after us.

    To say that the NSA are spies is like saying the police are spies. They're not coming into our homes. They're recording electronic data which we send out into the world. We simply don't have privacy online, and we never really did. That would be the case with or without the NSA.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jun 05, 2014 6:31 PM GMT
    The only other discussion is whether Snowden was a legitimate whistle blower, and I don't think he was. He just pointed out that the NSA was doing its job thoroughly, but in doing so he undermined their operations and caused an international uproar, which is all lip service anyway, since probably all governments hack and monitor online data. That's where hackers who want to be cops go for careers, which is better than the hackers who want to rip us all off.