Still think Edward Snowden is a hero? (1 Viewer)

[Otis]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

I still don't think I've seen an answer

That's because you are measuring people's responses by what does and does not bother Otis.

I'm actually not. I'm asking what about it bothers you. What are you afraid of someone finding out? Why does it matter?

Not afraid. Its our right to privacy, until we give it up, I choose to retain it fully.

So, like, just out of spite? Seems kind of silly.

 

[Politician Spock]

Well, there's abortion. Religion should be arriving soon.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Well, there's abortion. Religion should be arriving soon.

Abortion is a privacy and personal rights issue, so it applies here. I actually think that is a great question Tommyboy will punt out of bounds.

 

[Rove!]

The CIA failed us on 9 11

They failed us on Iraq

They failed the world in Paris

They operate secret prisons

They assassinate leaders

They helped arm ISIS

And now we're supposed to believe them on Snowden.

Sorry, but there track record is pretty awful to grant them such credibility...

 

[Politician Spock]

Well, there's abortion. Religion should be arriving soon.

Abortion is a privacy and personal rights issue, so it applies here. I actually think that is a great question Tommyboy will punt out of bounds.

So is religion.

 

[grateful zed]

The CIA failed us on 9 11

They failed us on Iraq

They failed the world in Paris

They operate secret prisons

They assassinate leaders

They helped arm ISIS

And now we're supposed to believe them on Snowden.

Sorry, but there track record is pretty awful to grant them such credibility...

we do have our heroin.

 

[timschochet]

Well, there's abortion. Religion should be arriving soon.

It just seems interesting to me because tommyboy has been very vocal in some of the abortion threads condemning it as murder. Which is a perfectly legitimate point of view, except that usually the people who make that argument argue strenuously that there is NO right to privacy in the Constitution, and that the Supreme Court was therefore incorrect in Roe vs. Wade. Since tommyboy now believes that there IS a right to privacy, I'm just curious how he reconciles the two opposing viewpoints.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

The CIA failed us on 9 11

They failed us on Iraq

They failed the world in Paris

They operate secret prisons

They assassinate leaders

They helped arm ISIS

And now we're supposed to believe them on Snowden.

Sorry, but there track record is pretty awful to grant them such credibility...

I sent this over to them, expect a phone call within the hour.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Well, there's abortion. Religion should be arriving soon.

It just seems interesting to me because tommyboy has been very vocal in some of the abortion threads condemning it as murder.

Of course he has. Snowden is a hero, a woman having an abortion is a murderer, and everything terrible that has happened in the past 8 years is Obama or Hillary's fault. Reads like a a CSI Miami episode.

 

[hagmania]

I go back to this point.

Aren't they [NSA] a part of the government which is working for the people, and if the people don't want to be spied on, then that's that? Do the best with what you have within the legal limits of our constitution.

If Obama were to declare we were at war and as Commander-in-Chief ordered this, I wouldn't be able to argue from the viewpoint. I agree to sacrifice liberties when it is appropriate.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I go back to this point.

Aren't they [NSA] a part of the government which is working for the people, and if the people don't want to be spied on, then that's that? Do the best with what you have within the legal limits of our constitution.

If Obama were to declare we were at war and as Commander-in-Chief ordered this, I wouldn't be able to argue from the viewpoint. I agree to sacrifice liberties when it is appropriate.

ISIS is a stateless entity, we can't be at war with them in a legal sense.

Look, this is a really complicated time and the external threat to the U.S. is greater today, than it has been since 1945 IMO. I'm not alone in this thinking, these are critical times. I'm not telling any American to give up any of their individual rights, but they also need to have an open mind about what we are actually facing. A seriously motivated and unstable external threat. To combat that threat, the United States will do what it has always done, it will do what is best to preserve the union.

 

[hagmania]

I go back to this point.

Aren't they [NSA] a part of the government which is working for the people, and if the people don't want to be spied on, then that's that? Do the best with what you have within the legal limits of our constitution.

If Obama were to declare we were at war and as Commander-in-Chief ordered this, I wouldn't be able to argue from the viewpoint. I agree to sacrifice liberties when it is appropriate.

ISIS is a stateless entity, we can't be at war with them in a legal sense.

Look, this is a really complicated time and the external threat to the U.S. is greater today, than it has been since 1945 IMO. I'm not alone in this thinking, these are critical times. I'm not telling any American to give up any of their individual rights, but they also need to have an open mind about what we are actually facing. A seriously motivated and unstable external threat. To combat that threat, the United States will do what it has always done, it will do what is best to preserve the union.

Then write it in. There are rules for a reason, dammit! I don't want precedent to be set in times of hostility to be taken advantage of in times of peace.

 

[Politician Spock]

I go back to this point.

Aren't they [NSA] a part of the government which is working for the people, and if the people don't want to be spied on, then that's that? Do the best with what you have within the legal limits of our constitution.

If Obama were to declare we were at war and as Commander-in-Chief ordered this, I wouldn't be able to argue from the viewpoint. I agree to sacrifice liberties when it is appropriate.

ISIS is a stateless entity, we can't be at war with them in a legal sense.

Look, this is a really complicated time and the external threat to the U.S. is greater today, than it has been since 1945 IMO. I'm not alone in this thinking, these are critical times. I'm not telling any American to give up any of their individual rights, but they also need to have an open mind about what we are actually facing. A seriously motivated and unstable external threat. To combat that threat, the United States will do what it has always done, it will do what is best to preserve the union.

Honest question.... how can terrorists bring down the union?

 

[hagmania]

And arguing about what the terrorists can and can't do is missing the point imo.

edit: They are the enemy and I recognize it. But I want our government to function like it should. I'm too optimistic.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I go back to this point.

Aren't they [NSA] a part of the government which is working for the people, and if the people don't want to be spied on, then that's that? Do the best with what you have within the legal limits of our constitution.

If Obama were to declare we were at war and as Commander-in-Chief ordered this, I wouldn't be able to argue from the viewpoint. I agree to sacrifice liberties when it is appropriate.

ISIS is a stateless entity, we can't be at war with them in a legal sense.

Look, this is a really complicated time and the external threat to the U.S. is greater today, than it has been since 1945 IMO. I'm not alone in this thinking, these are critical times. I'm not telling any American to give up any of their individual rights, but they also need to have an open mind about what we are actually facing. A seriously motivated and unstable external threat. To combat that threat, the United States will do what it has always done, it will do what is best to preserve the union.

Then write it in. There are rules for a reason, dammit! I don't want precedent to be set in times of hostility to be taken advantage of in times of peace.

#### man, I work with enough lawyers already. Let them and the greasy politicians write it in, I don't write laws I enforce them.

 

[hagmania]

#### man, I work with enough lawyers already. Let them and the greasy politicians write it in, I don't write laws I enforce them.

But I want our government to function like it should. I'm too optimistic.

 

[Steve Tasker]

DD, you know far more about the military and our government's surveillance programs than I do. I respect your opinion on these matters.

Are we really so far down the rabbit-hole militarily that our only hope of preventing terrorist attacks on US soil is covert NSA tracking of everyone's phone records, etc.? Because if that's the case today, I fail to see how it's going to get better in the near future. The ME isn't becoming more stable, radical Islam isn't going away in the next five years. Where does it stop? The military-industrial complex in this country is absurd as it is. I'm not some whackjob conspiracy theorist who thinks 9/11 was an inside job or that the moon landing was faked, but it's kinda difficult to not be skeptical of John Brennan's claims on all of this.

The Man said it best....I am just not comfortable giving up my liberties in this case.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I go back to this point.

Aren't they [NSA] a part of the government which is working for the people, and if the people don't want to be spied on, then that's that? Do the best with what you have within the legal limits of our constitution.

If Obama were to declare we were at war and as Commander-in-Chief ordered this, I wouldn't be able to argue from the viewpoint. I agree to sacrifice liberties when it is appropriate.

ISIS is a stateless entity, we can't be at war with them in a legal sense.

Look, this is a really complicated time and the external threat to the U.S. is greater today, than it has been since 1945 IMO. I'm not alone in this thinking, these are critical times. I'm not telling any American to give up any of their individual rights, but they also need to have an open mind about what we are actually facing. A seriously motivated and unstable external threat. To combat that threat, the United States will do what it has always done, it will do what is best to preserve the union.

Honest question.... how can terrorists bring down the union?

Well if we have a bunch of Paris-like attacks in the U.S., I think we would have so much internal strife that the country would be in trouble. To bring down the union entirely it would have to be a complete world war. But imagine ISIS or Al-Qaeda capture a Pakistani nuclear launch facility and start lobbing nukes on the "crusaders" and whoever else. Far-fetched? Not as much as you think. I'm not the paranoid type either, but this escalating to a point where we lose control is not impossible.

 

[Eminence]

Not a hero. The privacy nerds need to accept the monitoring is for the greater good. Guess what, nobody really cares that you went to Target or worked on your basement finishing project this weekend or that you watched a pron on the web, so stop pretending like you're hiding really important personal stuff from the govrnement.

If monitoring me means a better chance of me and mine not being kilt, have at it. You'll quickly become bored with what you're seeing and move on to the next guy.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

DD, you know far more about the military and our government's surveillance programs than I do. I respect your opinion on these matters.

Are we really so far down the rabbit-hole militarily that our only hope of preventing terrorist attacks on US soil is covert NSA tracking of everyone's phone records, etc.?

No, I think that we can monitor external threats without having to infringe on the rights of 99% of Americans. But to guarantee the rights of 100% of Americans is just not possible in this environment, when you make an omelet, you're gonna break some eggs. But unless you have a reason to hide something that is of national security interest, I really don't think you have to worry. One good thing about America is we are great at pointing out the that we do. If Snowden had just taken this to the media without downloading all the stuff he did, I'd have a completely different opinion of him.

Because if that's the case today, I fail to see how it's going to get better in the near future. The ME isn't becoming more stable, radical Islam isn't going away in the next five years. Where does it stop? The military-industrial complex in this country is absurd as it is. I'm not some whackjob conspiracy theorist who thinks 9/11 was an inside job or that the moon landing was faked, but it's kinda difficult to not be skeptical of John Brennan's claims on all of this.

I am not a company guy, and I hate rules and regulations. I'm a natural boat rocker and I hate inefficient and mediocre government. The Pat Tillman stuff? That was a cover-up, brutal and disgusting. The guys who reported it and made it public are great Americans IMO, we don't need that bull####. We are here to protect and serve the best interests of the American people, not hide mistakes and failure. That said for the most part, your government is not trying to hide things from you. They are overly cautious for certain, because of the level of criticism from the lunatic fringe that seems to move consciousness for some reason.

It's not going to get better anytime soon and this battle may go on for a very long time. Agree the military industrail complex is bloated, welcome to the Reagan era and beyond. We had relative peace under Clinton and it's been a mess since. I'd love to not send more Americans to their deaths for like five ####### years.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Not a hero. The privacy nerds need to accept the monitoring is for the greater good. Guess what, nobody really cares that you went to Target or worked on your basement finishing project this weekend or that you watched a pron on the web, so stop pretending like you're hiding really important personal stuff from the govrnement.

If monitoring me means a better chance of me and mine not being kilt, have at it. You'll quickly become bored with what you're seeing and move on to the next guy.

I don't necessarily disagree with you here but you seem to have some kind of weird obsession with acting like a terrorist is going to gun you down any day now. This is the 2nd thread in a matter of days where you've posted in a tone that implies there's about an 80% chance of you or your kids are going to get killed by a terrorist within the next week. There are about a million more things that are likely to kill you that are much easier to mitigate the risks for that you ignore every day.

 

[grateful zed]

DD, you know far more about the military and our government's surveillance programs than I do. I respect your opinion on these matters.

Are we really so far down the rabbit-hole militarily that our only hope of preventing terrorist attacks on US soil is covert NSA tracking of everyone's phone records, etc.? Because if that's the case today, I fail to see how it's going to get better in the near future. The ME isn't becoming more stable, radical Islam isn't going away in the next five years. Where does it stop? The military-industrial complex in this country is absurd as it is. I'm not some whackjob conspiracy theorist who thinks 9/11 was an inside job or that the moon landing was faked, but it's kinda difficult to not be skeptical of John Brennan's claims on all of this.

The Man said it best....I am just not comfortable giving up my liberties in this case.

i am.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Can we go back to the part where someone explains to me what freedom I give up if someone is watching me?

Yes. The freedom to know that you wont be charged and possibly convicted of something... which is irregardless of whether you have done anything wrong.

Like for example?

You'll need to finite it yourself.

Just search "wrongfully arrested" or "wrongfully convicted" or "wrongfully searched" and you will find examples if you look hard enough.

Ill I can give you offhand is anecdotal.

I'll take your word for it.

I wasnt even looking for it, just popped up on site...

from today (11/19/2015)...

Police used apparently illegal wiretaps to make hundreds of arrestsSource: USA Today

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — Prosecutors in the Los Angeles suburb responsible for a huge share of the nation’s wiretaps almost certainly violated federal law when they authorized widespread eavesdropping that police used to make more than 300 arrests and seize millions of dollars in cash and drugs throughout the USA.

The violations could undermine the legality of as many as 738 wiretaps approved in Riverside County, Calif., since the middle of 2013, an investigation by USA TODAY and The Desert Sun, based on interviews and court records, has found. Prosecutors reported that those taps, often conducted by federal drug investigators, intercepted phone calls and text messages by more than 52,000 people.

... In Riverside County — a Los Angeles suburb whose court and prosecutors approved almost one of every five U.S. wiretaps last year — the district attorney turned the job of reviewing the applications over to lower-level lawyers, interviews and court records show. That practice almost certainly violated the federal wiretapping law and could jeopardize prosecutors’ ability to use the surveillance in court.

... That also creates a legal problem for Riverside’s massive wiretapping operation, which had come under scrutiny from Justice Department lawyers. Last week, USA TODAY and The Desert Sun reported that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration had secretly helped turn the county into the nation’s wiretap capital, even though federal prosecutors repeatedly warned that the surveillance orders violated a separate part of the wiretapping law and would not withstand a legal challenge.

Read more: http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/2015/11/19/riverside-county-wiretaps-violated-federal-law/76064908/

They dont care about legal or illegal. Freedoms or privacy. All they need or want is an opening to press charges.

A person shouldnt get all one-for-one and worry about a perfect analogy/comparison. If a person get stuck on the small details then this is beyond their comprehension.

 

[tommyboy]

Well, there's abortion. Religion should be arriving soon.

It just seems interesting to me because tommyboy has been very vocal in some of the abortion threads condemning it as murder. Which is a perfectly legitimate point of view, except that usually the people who make that argument argue strenuously that there is NO right to privacy in the Constitution, and that the Supreme Court was therefore incorrect in Roe vs. Wade. Since tommyboy now believes that there IS a right to privacy, I'm just curious how he reconciles the two opposing viewpoints.

I have not. I'm personally against abortion but think it should be legal.Until the supreme court rules that we no longer have a right to privacy, I shall choose to retain that right.

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/

 

[timschochet]

Well, there's abortion. Religion should be arriving soon.

It just seems interesting to me because tommyboy has been very vocal in some of the abortion threads condemning it as murder. Which is a perfectly legitimate point of view, except that usually the people who make that argument argue strenuously that there is NO right to privacy in the Constitution, and that the Supreme Court was therefore incorrect in Roe vs. Wade. Since tommyboy now believes that there IS a right to privacy, I'm just curious how he reconciles the two opposing viewpoints.

I have not. I'm personally against abortion but think it should be legal.Until the supreme court rules that we no longer have a right to privacy, I shall choose to retain that right.

Fair enough, thank you.

 

[Maelstrom]

Not a hero. The privacy nerds need to accept the monitoring is for the greater good. Guess what, nobody really cares that you went to Target or worked on your basement finishing project this weekend or that you watched a pron on the web, so stop pretending like you're hiding really important personal stuff from the govrnement.

If monitoring me means a better chance of me and mine not being kilt, have at it. You'll quickly become bored with what you're seeing and move on to the next guy.

I understand completely that the government will abuse this power and I'm cool with it given the end game. When they start popping up on my TV and telling me the pron is going away, then I draw the line.

Yes give away your liberty. Give away your freedoms someone fought and died for. All for the illusion of safety and it is am illusion. Your children will reap what you sow.

What liberty and freedom am I giving away here? So the government wants to listen in on my FaceTime with my kids? K. They wanna see the receipt from my trip to Lowe's? OMG MY FREEDOM

I'll never get that sentiment. I guess if you're doing stuff that's illegal and you won't want them to find out, maybe it's an issue. My life isn't that exciting.

Is this more a "slippery slope" concern? Like today they're looking at your Home Depot shopping list, and tomorrow they're not letting you go to Home Depot anymore!

?

You can give up your right to privacy. You cannot give up my right. Or the rights of anyone else. So you have nothing to hide and you are ok with someone watching every move you make? That's fine. Other people aren't, and those they aren't ok giving up that right do not have to because you don't think anyone has anything to "hide".

As for Snowden...that's a load of hogwash. The fact terrorists use encryption has been known for the last 15 years. His disclosures have absolutely ZERO to do with the failure of intelligence agencies.

You know what else? Terrorism is not even a problem. It's only a problem if we allow it to change our way of life. Like allowing the gov't to monitor everything we do. Statistically, it is extremely unlikely any of us will die to a terrorist. Yes it sucks, and I hate the people that do this, but the number of people affected is absolutely miniscule in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Maelstrom]

Can we go back to the part where someone explains to me what freedom I give up if someone is watching me?

It does not matter one bit whether you believe you are losing a freedom. As long as there are people who DO believe that, and it is a protected right, your opinion doesn't matter because you cannot give up someone else's right.

 

[Maelstrom]

Not a hero. The privacy nerds need to accept the monitoring is for the greater good. Guess what, nobody really cares that you went to Target or worked on your basement finishing project this weekend or that you watched a pron on the web, so stop pretending like you're hiding really important personal stuff from the govrnement.

If monitoring me means a better chance of me and mine not being kilt, have at it. You'll quickly become bored with what you're seeing and move on to the next guy.

Monitoring has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "greater good". Monitoring is not going to decrease your chances of being killed in a terrorist attack, it is already extremely low.

According to the 2011 National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) report, Americans are more likely to be killed from a myriad of random objects and activities, before they should ever have to worry about being targeted and killed in a terrorist attack. To put it in perspective, more people are crushed to death by their televisions or furniture each year, than they are targeted or harmed by any terrorist. The police in your own city pose more of a threat to your liberty than any terrorist ever would. According to 2011 data, the chances of you being attacked by a terrorist are roughly 1 in 20 million. Compared to the likelihood of you drowning in a bathtub (1 in 800,000), losing your life in a car crash (1 in 19,000), dying in a building fire (1 in 99,000), or being struck by lightning (1 in 5,500,000). We should honestly be more concerned about heart disease, strokes, or cancer, before we should worry about any terrorist threat.

BAN ALL FURNITURE AND TVS!!!!

 

[Politician Spock]

I go back to this point.

Aren't they [NSA] a part of the government which is working for the people, and if the people don't want to be spied on, then that's that? Do the best with what you have within the legal limits of our constitution.

If Obama were to declare we were at war and as Commander-in-Chief ordered this, I wouldn't be able to argue from the viewpoint. I agree to sacrifice liberties when it is appropriate.

ISIS is a stateless entity, we can't be at war with them in a legal sense.

Look, this is a really complicated time and the external threat to the U.S. is greater today, than it has been since 1945 IMO. I'm not alone in this thinking, these are critical times. I'm not telling any American to give up any of their individual rights, but they also need to have an open mind about what we are actually facing. A seriously motivated and unstable external threat. To combat that threat, the United States will do what it has always done, it will do what is best to preserve the union.

Honest question.... how can terrorists bring down the union?

Well if we have a bunch of Paris-like attacks in the U.S., I think we would have so much internal strife that the country would be in trouble. To bring down the union entirely it would have to be a complete world war. But imagine ISIS or Al-Qaeda capture a Pakistani nuclear launch facility and start lobbing nukes on the "crusaders" and whoever else. Far-fetched? Not as much as you think. I'm not the paranoid type either, but this escalating to a point where we lose control is not impossible.

We've been through two world wars. They don't divide the country. They unite us. What divides the country is when the Federal government goes around flexing its muscles attacking other countries and ####.

Look, I completely agree that the threat of the country being attacked is very, very high. I however completely disagree that it puts us closer to the union crumbling. If anything, every step the Federal government takes to gain more and more power abroad AND DOMESTIC puts us closer to the union crumbling.

Thank you for being one who enforces the law.... please obey it too.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Whether we should have the program or not is totally different from the question of whether the people should know about the program, which was, is and will always be unconstitutional. However the public knowing about the program, which they have a right to know, defeats the purpose of the program, which in its most ideal form has laudable goals (but in its worst case scenario is an authoritarian nightmare). Tough one to untangle.

My problem with Snowden is that despite whatever ideals he proclaimed he is now with the world's no. 1 authoritarian, Vlad Putin, so really Snowden as a whole was a joke and full of it. He's a tool for much worse things now than what he was working for,

 

[Foosball God]

The right you are giving up is an unreasonable search of something that should be a private exchange. Snowden isn't a hero IMO, but I'm also glad the NSA got outed for what they were doing.

If you really feel like this is a matter of National Security and that people should acquiesce to it, then at least do it out in the open and not skulk in the dark and deny your're doing it.

Sort of defeats the purposes of trying to snoop on the terrorists' phone calls when you go and announce to the world "hey everyone, we are going to listen to your phone calls in case *wink wink* you know who is listening"

You really think they didn't already suspect?

 

[Foosball God]

I go back to this point.

Aren't they [NSA] a part of the government which is working for the people, and if the people don't want to be spied on, then that's that? Do the best with what you have within the legal limits of our constitution.

If Obama were to declare we were at war and as Commander-in-Chief ordered this, I wouldn't be able to argue from the viewpoint. I agree to sacrifice liberties when it is appropriate.

ISIS is a stateless entity, we can't be at war with them in a legal sense.

Look, this is a really complicated time and the external threat to the U.S. is greater today, than it has been since 1945 IMO. I'm not alone in this thinking, these are critical times. I'm not telling any American to give up any of their individual rights, but they also need to have an open mind about what we are actually facing. A seriously motivated and unstable external threat. To combat that threat, the United States will do what it has always done, it will do what is best to preserve the union.

Honest question.... how can terrorists bring down the union?

Well if we have a bunch of Paris-like attacks in the U.S., I think we would have so much internal strife that the country would be in trouble. To bring down the union entirely it would have to be a complete world war. But imagine ISIS or Al-Qaeda capture a Pakistani nuclear launch facility and start lobbing nukes on the "crusaders" and whoever else. Far-fetched? Not as much as you think. I'm not the paranoid type either, but this escalating to a point where we lose control is not impossible.

Seems like at that point we'd just nuke the whole area wouldn't we? Nuclear should be a last choice, but in that situation I would be for it.

 

[Slapdash]

I go back to this point.

Aren't they [NSA] a part of the government which is working for the people, and if the people don't want to be spied on, then that's that? Do the best with what you have within the legal limits of our constitution.

If Obama were to declare we were at war and as Commander-in-Chief ordered this, I wouldn't be able to argue from the viewpoint. I agree to sacrifice liberties when it is appropriate.

ISIS is a stateless entity, we can't be at war with them in a legal sense.

Look, this is a really complicated time and the external threat to the U.S. is greater today, than it has been since 1945 IMO. I'm not alone in this thinking, these are critical times. I'm not telling any American to give up any of their individual rights, but they also need to have an open mind about what we are actually facing. A seriously motivated and unstable external threat. To combat that threat, the United States will do what it has always done, it will do what is best to preserve the union.

Honest question.... how can terrorists bring down the union?

Well if we have a bunch of Paris-like attacks in the U.S., I think we would have so much internal strife that the country would be in trouble. To bring down the union entirely it would have to be a complete world war. But imagine ISIS or Al-Qaeda capture a Pakistani nuclear launch facility and start lobbing nukes on the "crusaders" and whoever else. Far-fetched? Not as much as you think. I'm not the paranoid type either, but this escalating to a point where we lose control is not impossible.

Seems like a good argument for not arming "rebels" and creating power vacuums that give rise to groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. The groups that exist should be monitored closely and infiltrated by intelligence agencies. I'm just not sure where the collect all electronic info on our own citizens helps us much there.

 

[whoknew]

There is some major fear mongering going on in here. ISIS is going to tear the US apart? We are in greater danger than anytime in the last 75 years? Come on. That's absurd.

We make ISIS out to be the boogeyman because its good for government business. The more scared the people are, the more money and freedom the CIA/FBI/NSA/Military have.

Everyone needs to chill the #### out and realize that the world is relatively peaceful compared to history. And while there are terrorists out there, they generally do a small amount of damage and are a small percentage of the population.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Thank you for being one who enforces the law.... please obey it too.

Ok then.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

There is some major fear mongering going on in here. ISIS is going to tear the US apart? We are in greater danger than anytime in the last 75 years? Come on. That's absurd.

We make ISIS out to be the boogeyman because its good for government business. The more scared the people are, the more money and freedom the CIA/FBI/NSA/Military have.

Everyone needs to chill the #### out and realize that the world is relatively peaceful compared to history. And while there are terrorists out there, they generally do a small amount of damage and are a small percentage of the population.

Good over-reactive post here. If you are going to respond to something I said, then reply to me and address the points. I never said ISIS is going to tear the US apart, or that we are in greater danger than we have been in the past 75 years. Go back and read it again, I'm not fear mongering and it's an opinion. If you don't like it, I really don't care but don't misinterpret what I actually said.

 

[Politician Spock]

There is some major fear mongering going on in here. ISIS is going to tear the US apart? We are in greater danger than anytime in the last 75 years? Come on. That's absurd.

We make ISIS out to be the boogeyman because its good for government business. The more scared the people are, the more money and freedom the CIA/FBI/NSA/Military have.

Everyone needs to chill the #### out and realize that the world is relatively peaceful compared to history. And while there are terrorists out there, they generally do a small amount of damage and are a small percentage of the population.

Good over-reactive post here. If you are going to respond to something I said, then reply to me and address the points. I never said ISIS is going to tear the US apart, or that we are in greater danger than we have been in the past 75 years. Go back and read it again, I'm not fear mongering and it's an opinion. If you don't like it, I really don't care but don't misinterpret what I actually said.

Matching the bolded to the bolded.

ISIS is a stateless entity, we can't be at war with them in a legal sense.

Look, this is a really complicated time and the external threat to the U.S. is greater today, than it has been since 1945 IMO. I'm not alone in this thinking, these are critical times. I'm not telling any American to give up any of their individual rights, but they also need to have an open mind about what we are actually facing. A seriously motivated and unstable external threat. To combat that threat, the United States will do what it has always done, it will do what is best to preserve the union.

I also think when you say "preserve the union" you are insinuating that it is at risk of failing, or as others have put it, be torn apart.

 

[Politician Spock]

Thank you for being one who enforces the law.... please obey it too.

Ok then.

Finding that funny makes you an ###.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

There is some major fear mongering going on in here. ISIS is going to tear the US apart? We are in greater danger than anytime in the last 75 years? Come on. That's absurd.

We make ISIS out to be the boogeyman because its good for government business. The more scared the people are, the more money and freedom the CIA/FBI/NSA/Military have.

Everyone needs to chill the #### out and realize that the world is relatively peaceful compared to history. And while there are terrorists out there, they generally do a small amount of damage and are a small percentage of the population.

Good over-reactive post here. If you are going to respond to something I said, then reply to me and address the points. I never said ISIS is going to tear the US apart, or that we are in greater danger than we have been in the past 75 years. Go back and read it again, I'm not fear mongering and it's an opinion. If you don't like it, I really don't care but don't misinterpret what I actually said.

Matching the bolded to the bolded.

ISIS is a stateless entity, we can't be at war with them in a legal sense.

Look, this is a really complicated time and the external threat to the U.S. is greater today, than it has been since 1945 IMO. I'm not alone in this thinking, these are critical times. I'm not telling any American to give up any of their individual rights, but they also need to have an open mind about what we are actually facing. A seriously motivated and unstable external threat. To combat that threat, the United States will do what it has always done, it will do what is best to preserve the union.

I also think when you say "preserve the union" you are insinuating that it is at risk of failing, or as others have put it, be torn apart.

I said the external threat to the U.S. is greater today, than it has been since 1945. That isn't insinuating anything.Also since ISIS is just a "boogeyman" that is good for government business, I'm now sure we have nothing to worry about. Carry on.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Thank you for being one who enforces the law.... please obey it too.

Ok then.

Finding that funny makes you an ###.

Saying it at all makes you an even bigger ###.

 

[fatness]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

I still don't think I've seen an answer

That's because you are measuring people's responses by what does and does not bother Otis.

I'm actually not. I'm asking what about it bothers you. What are you afraid of someone finding out? Why does it matter?

Government violating the constitution bothers me. I am afraid of a Federal government that is not limited by the constitution. The constitution matters.

I guess that's where we differ. I'm less concerned with constitutionally questionable activity on the margins if it's for the greater good and can potentially substantially decrease the chances that I'll lose my legs to a backpack bomb on my way home from the office.

Did the surveillance state save those poor people at the Boston marathon? Next strawman

No, but maybe it has saved tens of hundreds of others. We'll never know. And that's probably a good thing. How many terror plots have been foiled in the past few years?

This seems solid.

 

[Politician Spock]

Thank you for being one who enforces the law.... please obey it too.

Ok then.

Finding that funny makes you an ###.

Saying it at all makes you an even bigger ###.

I understand you are well liked around here. But I've seen this side of you for years, and I find it sickening. People in positions of law enforcement who think they're above having to obey the laws, or hate hate rules and regulations (your exact words from earlier in this thread), are a major problem in this country. I'm not saying it's a bigger problem than terrorism, but a lot of people are victimized by it none the less. I speculate for your sake that it's not a reflection of you as a person, but is due to a culture that exists in many government run agencies. On behalf of the people of this country, please obey the law too.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Thank you for being one who enforces the law.... please obey it too.

Ok then.

Finding that funny makes you an ###.

Saying it at all makes you an even bigger ###.

I understand you are well liked around here. But I've seen this side of you for years, and I find it sickening. People in positions of law enforcement who think they above having to obey the laws, or hate hate rules and regulations (your exact words from earlier in this thread), are a major problem in this country. I'm not saying it's a bigger problem than terrorism, but a lot of people are victimized by it none the less. I speculate for your sake that it's not a reflection of you as a person, but is due to a culture that exists in many government run agencies. On behalf of the people of this country, please obey the law too.

Great speech coach.

When I say rules and regulations those are internal to government itself, as in the rules and regulations created to make government inefficient and ineffective. Not the enforcement of laws, regulations, or rules at is applies to the overall mission of the department. I thought that was clear in my post, but obviously you read it differently.

I obey the laws with the best of them, but thanks for caring enough to think you had to create some senseless diatribe thinking you know anything at all about me.

 

[Maelstrom]

I'm actually not. I'm asking what about it bothers you. What are you afraid of someone finding out? Why does it matter?

Government violating the constitution bothers me. I am afraid of a Federal government that is not limited by the constitution. The constitution matters.

I guess that's where we differ. I'm less concerned with constitutionally questionable activity on the margins if it's for the greater good and can potentially substantially decrease the chances that I'll lose my legs to a backpack bomb on my way home from the office.

Did the surveillance state save those poor people at the Boston marathon? Next strawman

No, but maybe it has saved tens of hundreds of others. We'll never know. And that's probably a good thing. How many terror plots have been foiled in the past few years?

This seems solid.

Except Otis, we actually will know and what we know so far is the the surveillance state has done precious little to actually prevent terror plots.

Edit to add: the telephone dragnet program:

Millions of dollars and over 10 years of effort later, two independent panels held there was no indication that the mass domestic telephone collection had ever assisted in thwarting a domestic terrorist attack.

 

[Politician Spock]

I obey the laws with the best of them

Your many posts over the years lead me to seriously doubt that.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I obey the laws with the best of them

Your many posts over the years lead me to seriously doubt that.

Remember when you melted down and stopped posting here for a few years?

Yeah, go back to that.

 

[RCon]

Gotta give Tim credit. He has spent a lot of time arguing in favor of the surveillance state, but at least he was never had to resort to the "if you got nothing to hide..." crap.

I never argued in favor of a surveillance state. I argued in favor of the principle of obtaining bulk warrants for emails in order to run algorithms so as to locate keywords that terrorists might use, after which the NSA could then go back to the court to obtain a specific warrant to investigate that specific email further. I believed, and still do, that in theory this sort of procedure would not violate the 4th Amendment and could be necessary for security. But I've always maintained my concern over the execution of this practice. I never feared that it would lead to a 1984 scenario, but I did think that if we weren't careful it could lead to some Kafkaesque horrors, mainly because of government screwups. I also recommended, after the Clapper hearings in which he so clearly lied to the public, that the entire program should be halted pending a full investigation and examination of the legalities involved.

For some reason, you still don't understand how this would work. In order to do this, the NSA would have to create and keep a copy of every e-mail.

Your concept of "bulk warrant" is also utterly ridiculous. What's the point of requiring a warrant at all if they can simply obtain a single warrant that entitles them to everything. "Don't worry, your honor, it's all on the up and up. We have this get-out-of-jail-free warrant that satisfies the Fourth Amendment. What's that, you want to know how it applies to this case? Well, our warrant says we can search and seize everything, and this case is a subset of everything, so..."

 

[RCon]

Well, there's abortion. Religion should be arriving soon.

It just seems interesting to me because tommyboy has been very vocal in some of the abortion threads condemning it as murder. Which is a perfectly legitimate point of view, except that usually the people who make that argument argue strenuously that there is NO right to privacy in the Constitution, and that the Supreme Court was therefore incorrect in Roe vs. Wade. Since tommyboy now believes that there IS a right to privacy, I'm just curious how he reconciles the two opposing viewpoints.

A lot of people feel that the ultimate decision in Roe was correct, although the reasoning to get there (via the right to privacy) was atrocious. That would seem to reconcile these views, no?

 

[RCon]

DD, you know far more about the military and our government's surveillance programs than I do. I respect your opinion on these matters.

Are we really so far down the rabbit-hole militarily that our only hope of preventing terrorist attacks on US soil is covert NSA tracking of everyone's phone records, etc.?

No, I think that we can monitor external threats without having to infringe on the rights of 99% of Americans. But to guarantee the rights of 100% of Americans is just not possible in this environment, when you make an omelet, you're gonna break some eggs. But unless you have a reason to hide something that is of national security interest, I really don't think you have to worry. One good thing about America is we are great at pointing out the that we do. If Snowden had just taken this to the media without downloading all the stuff he did, I'd have a completely different opinion of him.

I don't understand how you can reconcile the bolded with storing and searching all e-mails, phone records, web browsing, etc. of all Americans. As I understand it, the NSA isn't searching e-mails only of people who have contacted suspected terrorists, but rather searching the data of ALL people, in the hope of discovering suspected terrorists they didn't already know about. Those are two wildly different things.

 

[grateful zed]

wow, this escalated quickly.