I can't get this Snowden thing off my mind lately. Now, granted... it isn't Snowden so much as it is our own government willingly pushing aside our individual and collective rights to better "protect" us from real or imagined harm... but I'll continue to call it the "Snowden thing" for my own personal convenience.
In one of F Ryan's previous posts, he wrote:
" I can not separate the man into EITHER a genuine whistle blower OR a traitor. He is absolutely both. The former for revealing domestic abuses, the latter for revealing legitimate foreign operations. So again I ask this point blank - why did he collect and leak the details of the NSA's legitimate foreign operations? The people targeted in Pakistan (or even Merkel for that matter, if you want to be technical), are not protected by the 4th Amendment. The NSA committed no abuse and certainly no crime in going after those intercepts. So why'd he leak it?"
When I said I didn't know the answer to questions like this, and that I frankly didn't care, either... it was a legitimate response and not simply a lazy answer or an attempt to piss off F Ryan (which it did...).
The long version is that the details of "why" don't matter to me because I am more and more convinced that far too much has been sacrificed in this country to the altar of "security". If something has to be lost in our continuing national quest for a world without fear, violence or hatred... I'll keep the personal freedoms and liberties that made us what we are today and risk losing the "edge" in our trade war with China, or Germany, or Israel, or (even) a perceived threat from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Africa, et al. If the fundamental principals that made this nation great don't matter anymore, then what do I care about possible threats from Islamabad or Tehran? Our own government says that I am 7 times more likely to be killed by a local policeman than I am a terrorist, and tens of thousands of times more likely to die in an accidental plane crash than in a terrorist-caused plane crash... but it is an absolute FACT that every text, email, phone call, internet search, video download, et al, is being monitored and stored for future reference to help keep me even safer than I am now.
Even my short answer... the "pat" answer that F Ryan seemed to have wanted... is valid, I think: I am forced to assume that the "whistle-blower" info that should have been leaked was inseparably wrapped up with the "legitimately secret" info that should not have been leaked. That actually being the case, I still think it was the right thing to do. If the left hand is stealing flour so the right hand can make bread for the hungry, is the bread not still ill-gotten? Is the baker not still a thief?
And yes, of course I see the parallel here. Snowden broke the law. He did it with intent and full knowledge that what he was doing was illegal. My point all along is that what he did was illegal, but not wrong. What he did does not fix what was wrong, and it might very well make things worse in the short term... I do not argue that possibility at all.
My question now becomes:
Is this nation, as the bastion of freedom and personal liberty in the world, better today because of what he did, or is it not? I'm not asking if there was another alternative path that could have been followed... there always is, when looking back through hindsight. I'm asking if the country (and, frankly, the world) is better off NOW than it was BEFORE Snowden released what he did.
I contend that it is better off now than it was. He did the right thing.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
The perks of a northern Wisconsin childhood...
So, it's Wednesday. I'm off. I'd like to sleep in, but that simply doesn't happen here at the Chateau de Lieteau, so it was up and at 'em at 6 AM. One of the Wednesday chores is garbage, so I bundle up and drag the near unimaginable amount of trash to the street.
Now, its cold. Damn cold. I mean... damn cold. Snot-freezing cold (clue)... squeeky-snow-cold (clue)... and after about four minutes outside, eyelash-freezing-because-your-eyes-want-to-tear cold. As I walk in and take off my jacket, my son asks "How cold is it outside?"
"I'd guess about seven below." I answer confidently.
Jake, being Jake, runs to go check the digital thermometer to see if my "guess" was close. The result?
-6.7 degrees F
"How did you know how cold it was if you didn't go in the kitchen?" Jake asks.
I then tell him about what it was like waiting for the bus as a child and hearing the snow "squeek" beneath my boots. And about stepping onto the ice to check tip-ups and feeling your snot freeze solid with the first breath as opposed to the twentieth breath. Or about scraping the melt off a windshield and feeling your eyelashes sticking together due to my tears freezing them together. THAT is the almost inherent knowledge gained from an upbringing that included frigid winds of the lake, 40 inch snowfalls in a single night of snow, double-digit wind chill factors that could turn "uncomfortable" into "dangerous" in minutes.
My explanation may not have been as impressive as I had hoped, but it's good to know I can still see a bit of the "hunyock" youth showing in me, even now.
Now, its cold. Damn cold. I mean... damn cold. Snot-freezing cold (clue)... squeeky-snow-cold (clue)... and after about four minutes outside, eyelash-freezing-because-your-eyes-want-to-tear cold. As I walk in and take off my jacket, my son asks "How cold is it outside?"
"I'd guess about seven below." I answer confidently.
Jake, being Jake, runs to go check the digital thermometer to see if my "guess" was close. The result?
-6.7 degrees F
"How did you know how cold it was if you didn't go in the kitchen?" Jake asks.
I then tell him about what it was like waiting for the bus as a child and hearing the snow "squeek" beneath my boots. And about stepping onto the ice to check tip-ups and feeling your snot freeze solid with the first breath as opposed to the twentieth breath. Or about scraping the melt off a windshield and feeling your eyelashes sticking together due to my tears freezing them together. THAT is the almost inherent knowledge gained from an upbringing that included frigid winds of the lake, 40 inch snowfalls in a single night of snow, double-digit wind chill factors that could turn "uncomfortable" into "dangerous" in minutes.
My explanation may not have been as impressive as I had hoped, but it's good to know I can still see a bit of the "hunyock" youth showing in me, even now.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
On bitterness...
I'd add this to my last:
I'm more than disgusted with the direction that the government of these United States has taken since... I'm not even sure when. At least since 1990 when the USSR was no longer the greatest threat to our existence. I'm damn near numb to the news that another piece of the Constitution has been sacrificed to the "greater good" of society. I'm so utterly sick of the idea that government is the solution to all the problems facing this society I could puke.
And I do mean all the problems. I'm not limiting this rant to social security, or unemployment, or social welfare... I'm including foreign affairs in this too. We cannot continue to think we are the sole holders of all that is good and ideal in the realm of politics and ideology and work to force that same mind-set on the rest of the world. Not if we hope to survive ourselves, that is.
We have seen the process by which the powers that be worked to eliminate the threat of a terrorist attack similar to or great than Sept. 11... and the results are all around us. We are no more safe now than we were then... literally. Our threats now might not be the same men (since most are dead and gone now) or the same countries, but the threats are just as real, just as present and just as deadly... as F Ryan pointed out in his last.
F Ryan's arguments against the New Deal mindset keep ringing in my ear: government doesn't fix the problem, it creates it. Why doesn't that apply here? Why is it not the case that our very involvement in every single overseas crisis is feeding the beast that is threatening our society? If the threat of anti-American terrorism exists at all... it is because of American foreign policy in years gone by or the here and now.
Honestly, I'm more and more convinced that the isolationists had it right all along. We do whatever it takes to protect our borders and our civilian population abroad... and leave the rest to themselves. Get our own house in order, then let that house stand as a living breathing example of how a system of government based on the guaranteed rights of the individual citizen over the power of a central authority is the best system of national government that exists. It will be the most prosperous, the most generous, and the most secure nation on the face of the earth... not because of its ability to project power globally, but because of its fundamental makeup.
So yes, I am bitter... but the argument in my eyes is far beyond the "hero-traitor" status of Ed Snowden. He just acted in a manner that sparked a conversation that I think is long, LONG over due.
I'm more than disgusted with the direction that the government of these United States has taken since... I'm not even sure when. At least since 1990 when the USSR was no longer the greatest threat to our existence. I'm damn near numb to the news that another piece of the Constitution has been sacrificed to the "greater good" of society. I'm so utterly sick of the idea that government is the solution to all the problems facing this society I could puke.
And I do mean all the problems. I'm not limiting this rant to social security, or unemployment, or social welfare... I'm including foreign affairs in this too. We cannot continue to think we are the sole holders of all that is good and ideal in the realm of politics and ideology and work to force that same mind-set on the rest of the world. Not if we hope to survive ourselves, that is.
We have seen the process by which the powers that be worked to eliminate the threat of a terrorist attack similar to or great than Sept. 11... and the results are all around us. We are no more safe now than we were then... literally. Our threats now might not be the same men (since most are dead and gone now) or the same countries, but the threats are just as real, just as present and just as deadly... as F Ryan pointed out in his last.
F Ryan's arguments against the New Deal mindset keep ringing in my ear: government doesn't fix the problem, it creates it. Why doesn't that apply here? Why is it not the case that our very involvement in every single overseas crisis is feeding the beast that is threatening our society? If the threat of anti-American terrorism exists at all... it is because of American foreign policy in years gone by or the here and now.
Honestly, I'm more and more convinced that the isolationists had it right all along. We do whatever it takes to protect our borders and our civilian population abroad... and leave the rest to themselves. Get our own house in order, then let that house stand as a living breathing example of how a system of government based on the guaranteed rights of the individual citizen over the power of a central authority is the best system of national government that exists. It will be the most prosperous, the most generous, and the most secure nation on the face of the earth... not because of its ability to project power globally, but because of its fundamental makeup.
So yes, I am bitter... but the argument in my eyes is far beyond the "hero-traitor" status of Ed Snowden. He just acted in a manner that sparked a conversation that I think is long, LONG over due.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
I'll say this...
Bund debates are a finite skill.
I can only assume that I have been away from a good debate long enough to have let my questionable abilities fall to unquestionable depths. You pointed this out in a gentlemanly manner, and both apologize for the lapse and thank you for the consideration.
The Guardian estimated the document count for the Snowden leaks was 200,000... and some recent estimates put it at over a million. No one knows what's on those documents yet, not even Snowden. If the time comes where irrefutable proof can be presented that he did, indeed, KNOW what he was leaking in each and every one of those documents... then I'll believe what he did was "wrong". Treason, well... you'll have to prove to me (and a judge) that he aided and conspired with our enemies mens rea, to go alongside the actus reus that the leak itself represents. As I have said, the leak was illegal. No question there. So was taking up arms against the King in 1775 for all 30,000+ "patriots" that fought for their liberties and freedoms from Britain. I don't know what his "intentions" were in collecting and then releasing these documents. I don't know how the information is formatted or bundled up... perhaps the foreign stuff was mixed in with the domestic... I don't know. Neither does anyone else, that I am aware of... except Snowden perhaps.
I keep trying to imagine what I would have done, if I were in his position. There is no material gain for him in the leak... and nothing about what he knew would happen could equal anything but fear and turmoil as every single agency of law enforcement in the United States was about to start hunting him. He lost his livelihood, nearly all contact with his family, any and all freedoms and liberties left to us as US citizens... so where are the upsides?
Now, I imagine that I know about the domestic info grab, and that I have no legitimate avenue to bring my obvious concerns to higher authorities, since it is the higher authorities that are responsible for the domestic info grab. By releasing the info to the press as a "whistleblower", I am subjecting myself to life "on the lamb". Not fun and exciting like in the movies... just miserable existence with no possibility of parole. Do I release the info? Do I release the info if there is a certainty that some amount of classified foreign intelligence capabilities will also be compromised? Not stopped. Not ended. Just compromised... hindered. Perhaps seriously, but certainly not completely.
I'd like to think I would. I think it is the right thing to do. After all, isn't that the sort of "compromise" that the Patriot Act was all about? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?
Admittedly, I don't KNOW that this is what Snowden did at all. Perhaps he had visions of making millions and millions of dollars by selling the "made-for-TV-movie" rights to his story... even getting someone like Hugh Jackman to portray him in the movie. Chicks dig millions of dollars and Hugh Jackman... so perhaps that was his motivation. I simply don't know.
If our foreign intelligence services can be so completely crippled by the illegal release of information, even on this scale... then perhaps THAT is another facet of "failure" in government that needs to be addressed. However, I really don't think our abilities and capabilities have been as compromised as we are being led to believe. If they were, then the fallout would have been far more immediate and far reaching than it was. I can't quantify that statement any better... call it a "gut reaction" and let it go.
Finally, I am inclined to admit that F Ryan is right... I am bitter. I seem to have reached a point where I don't care who the political figure in question is... Democrat or Republican... they are simply different faces on the same coin: worthless. In fact, to give real light to just where I am in my "political" life, I am studying quite diligently the "pros and cons" of not exercising my franchise rights at all. But that's for a different post.
I can only assume that I have been away from a good debate long enough to have let my questionable abilities fall to unquestionable depths. You pointed this out in a gentlemanly manner, and both apologize for the lapse and thank you for the consideration.
The Guardian estimated the document count for the Snowden leaks was 200,000... and some recent estimates put it at over a million. No one knows what's on those documents yet, not even Snowden. If the time comes where irrefutable proof can be presented that he did, indeed, KNOW what he was leaking in each and every one of those documents... then I'll believe what he did was "wrong". Treason, well... you'll have to prove to me (and a judge) that he aided and conspired with our enemies mens rea, to go alongside the actus reus that the leak itself represents. As I have said, the leak was illegal. No question there. So was taking up arms against the King in 1775 for all 30,000+ "patriots" that fought for their liberties and freedoms from Britain. I don't know what his "intentions" were in collecting and then releasing these documents. I don't know how the information is formatted or bundled up... perhaps the foreign stuff was mixed in with the domestic... I don't know. Neither does anyone else, that I am aware of... except Snowden perhaps.
I keep trying to imagine what I would have done, if I were in his position. There is no material gain for him in the leak... and nothing about what he knew would happen could equal anything but fear and turmoil as every single agency of law enforcement in the United States was about to start hunting him. He lost his livelihood, nearly all contact with his family, any and all freedoms and liberties left to us as US citizens... so where are the upsides?
Now, I imagine that I know about the domestic info grab, and that I have no legitimate avenue to bring my obvious concerns to higher authorities, since it is the higher authorities that are responsible for the domestic info grab. By releasing the info to the press as a "whistleblower", I am subjecting myself to life "on the lamb". Not fun and exciting like in the movies... just miserable existence with no possibility of parole. Do I release the info? Do I release the info if there is a certainty that some amount of classified foreign intelligence capabilities will also be compromised? Not stopped. Not ended. Just compromised... hindered. Perhaps seriously, but certainly not completely.
I'd like to think I would. I think it is the right thing to do. After all, isn't that the sort of "compromise" that the Patriot Act was all about? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?
Admittedly, I don't KNOW that this is what Snowden did at all. Perhaps he had visions of making millions and millions of dollars by selling the "made-for-TV-movie" rights to his story... even getting someone like Hugh Jackman to portray him in the movie. Chicks dig millions of dollars and Hugh Jackman... so perhaps that was his motivation. I simply don't know.
If our foreign intelligence services can be so completely crippled by the illegal release of information, even on this scale... then perhaps THAT is another facet of "failure" in government that needs to be addressed. However, I really don't think our abilities and capabilities have been as compromised as we are being led to believe. If they were, then the fallout would have been far more immediate and far reaching than it was. I can't quantify that statement any better... call it a "gut reaction" and let it go.
Finally, I am inclined to admit that F Ryan is right... I am bitter. I seem to have reached a point where I don't care who the political figure in question is... Democrat or Republican... they are simply different faces on the same coin: worthless. In fact, to give real light to just where I am in my "political" life, I am studying quite diligently the "pros and cons" of not exercising my franchise rights at all. But that's for a different post.
Unit 61398
I've never seen you quite so emotionally blind to obvious points Titus. I say "emotionally" because you are so exercised about the domestic abuses (which are very real and vast) that you have simply chosen to disregard the foreign Intel leaks with phrases like, "I have no friggin idea", or "maybe" this, or "maybe" that, not to mention my personal favorite (regarding why Snowden leaked foreign operational information), "I don't know and I don't care."
Oh. Ok. Good answer. A pleasure doing business with you.
Perhaps if I read on I'll get a more rationale approach:
"Lest we forget... the only people that had an issue with the foreign intel portions of the leak were those directly responsible for the domestic info grab, and I don't care what F Ryan says to the contrary... I don't trust anything those sons of bitches have to say on the matter."
No. No luck there. By the way, the statement, " the only people that had an issue with the foreign intel portions of the leak were those directly responsible for the domestic info grab.." is patently false. For one, I care and I am not at all responsible for the domestic info grab. Two, many a Tea Party Senator, like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, care about the foreign Intel leaks and they are livid about the domestic abuses. Lastly, the confirmation about how bad and vast the foreign Intel leaks are have not exclusively come from the NSA hierarchy, nor even exclusively the NSA. You're just wrong here buddy.
This is not the cold, calculated caliber of argument I am used to from you. I'm the last one to admonish an emotional post, but you don't get to do this - simply say "pass" when it's your turn to discuss the foreign Intel leaks, and still pretend we're having a legitimate discussion on the subject of domestic leaks. He did both. Leaving out half the conversation isn't a conversation at all.
In my opinion you are giving Snowden a complete pass on a grave betrayal regarding the foreign Intel. Your writing smacks of "well they had it coming", or "it was worth it to get the information on domestic abuses." Fine. Be pissed about the domestic stuff, I am as well, that's all good and well, but how do you just "not care" why he leaked the foreign Intel and then chalk any damage up to "oh well, we'll get by"? Do you realize that there are now entire catalogs being printed and passed out within the Red Chinese Army, and Iran, based exclusively on Snowden's leaks? And believe me, the material in those catalogs aren't focused on US domestic abuses. Surely the Iranians and Chinese already knew or suspected portions of what he leaked, but he laid out foreign Intel operations in such stunning detail it takes one's breath away. And your cavalier approach to those leaks makes me think you haven't thoroughly investigated what he let out of the black bag. I don't expect you to peruse all 200,000 documents, but buddy there is more in there than meta-data and back doors into Google.
I'll give you an example (and this is just one of many out there)...
I think we would agree that the NY Times is Snoweden friendly. I mean they did write an editorial insisting the President grant him clemency under whistle blower status. This story: NSA Devises Radio Pathway Into Computers, by the Times, lays out in detail our efforts to combat the ongoing cyber attacks from China (among others), on both civilian and military targets. This is a current story (in fact it's front page on Drudge right now). Every bit of this story is based on the Snowden leaks and the subsequent catalogs printed around the world. The leaked details include code names, specific operational tactics, specific Red Chinese Army units targeted (see my post title), and details on specific hardware all that the Times admits has not been used domestically. Do you see the gravity of that? His defenders, his champions, had to admit that there is no evidence that these programs and/or hardware is being used domestically. None. So why did he leak that? How does leaking that enhance the civil liberties of F. Ryan? You were right on one thing though, it doesn't really matter why he leaked that, it's an academic discussion because no matter his reason those kind of leaks are traitorous. Surely you are aware of the ongoing cyber war between the US and China, right? The attacks they launched at US targets, you know of this, don't you? Snowden has aided our enemies in a material way. You read that article and tell me that's not a true statement.
I've said this from my first post in response to your exaltation of Moscow resident Edward Snowed - people arguing the pros and cons of his leaks are typically talking right past each other, only focusing on either the domestic or foreign document leaks. The problem is you don't get to be a cafeteria Snowden defender (or prosecutor for that matter). You can't choose what you like about his actions and just ignore the rest. The stakes are too high, the subject matter too serious. From the Chinese to the Iranians he released foreign Intel specificity that even included maps - yes maps - of those specific hot spots where we are actively conducting operations - country, city, name of location and outfit being targeted (which includes major drug cartels). And when his leaks are that specific you can't pretend they don't count when determining the man's character or status. Remember, our argument isn't over whether or not the NSA needs to be reigned in domestically (and their supporters of these domestic programs in Washington voted out of office), on that we agree. Where we part ways is in calling Edward Snowden a "patriot", or even worse, a "hero." That's where the third segment (as listed by me) of those leaks comes into play. I sincerely appreciate his waking us up to the doemstic abuses and Orwellian, even thuggish, behaivor towards our Constitution being perpetrated by our own government. But in terms of describing Snowden's place in history, you don't get to give our enemies (and they are enemies for those are real cyber attacks coming from China and real bullets being shipped out of Iran into Iraq) a heads up on our Intelligence gathering capabilities, maps, program code names, hardware specifics (including diagrams for goodness sakes), limitations, and technological stage of development and still get to wear a red cape in my book. Although, given his new digs, maybe "red" is his preferred color... hehe.
Oh. Ok. Good answer. A pleasure doing business with you.
Perhaps if I read on I'll get a more rationale approach:
"Lest we forget... the only people that had an issue with the foreign intel portions of the leak were those directly responsible for the domestic info grab, and I don't care what F Ryan says to the contrary... I don't trust anything those sons of bitches have to say on the matter."
No. No luck there. By the way, the statement, " the only people that had an issue with the foreign intel portions of the leak were those directly responsible for the domestic info grab.." is patently false. For one, I care and I am not at all responsible for the domestic info grab. Two, many a Tea Party Senator, like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, care about the foreign Intel leaks and they are livid about the domestic abuses. Lastly, the confirmation about how bad and vast the foreign Intel leaks are have not exclusively come from the NSA hierarchy, nor even exclusively the NSA. You're just wrong here buddy.
This is not the cold, calculated caliber of argument I am used to from you. I'm the last one to admonish an emotional post, but you don't get to do this - simply say "pass" when it's your turn to discuss the foreign Intel leaks, and still pretend we're having a legitimate discussion on the subject of domestic leaks. He did both. Leaving out half the conversation isn't a conversation at all.
In my opinion you are giving Snowden a complete pass on a grave betrayal regarding the foreign Intel. Your writing smacks of "well they had it coming", or "it was worth it to get the information on domestic abuses." Fine. Be pissed about the domestic stuff, I am as well, that's all good and well, but how do you just "not care" why he leaked the foreign Intel and then chalk any damage up to "oh well, we'll get by"? Do you realize that there are now entire catalogs being printed and passed out within the Red Chinese Army, and Iran, based exclusively on Snowden's leaks? And believe me, the material in those catalogs aren't focused on US domestic abuses. Surely the Iranians and Chinese already knew or suspected portions of what he leaked, but he laid out foreign Intel operations in such stunning detail it takes one's breath away. And your cavalier approach to those leaks makes me think you haven't thoroughly investigated what he let out of the black bag. I don't expect you to peruse all 200,000 documents, but buddy there is more in there than meta-data and back doors into Google.
I'll give you an example (and this is just one of many out there)...
I think we would agree that the NY Times is Snoweden friendly. I mean they did write an editorial insisting the President grant him clemency under whistle blower status. This story: NSA Devises Radio Pathway Into Computers, by the Times, lays out in detail our efforts to combat the ongoing cyber attacks from China (among others), on both civilian and military targets. This is a current story (in fact it's front page on Drudge right now). Every bit of this story is based on the Snowden leaks and the subsequent catalogs printed around the world. The leaked details include code names, specific operational tactics, specific Red Chinese Army units targeted (see my post title), and details on specific hardware all that the Times admits has not been used domestically. Do you see the gravity of that? His defenders, his champions, had to admit that there is no evidence that these programs and/or hardware is being used domestically. None. So why did he leak that? How does leaking that enhance the civil liberties of F. Ryan? You were right on one thing though, it doesn't really matter why he leaked that, it's an academic discussion because no matter his reason those kind of leaks are traitorous. Surely you are aware of the ongoing cyber war between the US and China, right? The attacks they launched at US targets, you know of this, don't you? Snowden has aided our enemies in a material way. You read that article and tell me that's not a true statement.
I've said this from my first post in response to your exaltation of Moscow resident Edward Snowed - people arguing the pros and cons of his leaks are typically talking right past each other, only focusing on either the domestic or foreign document leaks. The problem is you don't get to be a cafeteria Snowden defender (or prosecutor for that matter). You can't choose what you like about his actions and just ignore the rest. The stakes are too high, the subject matter too serious. From the Chinese to the Iranians he released foreign Intel specificity that even included maps - yes maps - of those specific hot spots where we are actively conducting operations - country, city, name of location and outfit being targeted (which includes major drug cartels). And when his leaks are that specific you can't pretend they don't count when determining the man's character or status. Remember, our argument isn't over whether or not the NSA needs to be reigned in domestically (and their supporters of these domestic programs in Washington voted out of office), on that we agree. Where we part ways is in calling Edward Snowden a "patriot", or even worse, a "hero." That's where the third segment (as listed by me) of those leaks comes into play. I sincerely appreciate his waking us up to the doemstic abuses and Orwellian, even thuggish, behaivor towards our Constitution being perpetrated by our own government. But in terms of describing Snowden's place in history, you don't get to give our enemies (and they are enemies for those are real cyber attacks coming from China and real bullets being shipped out of Iran into Iraq) a heads up on our Intelligence gathering capabilities, maps, program code names, hardware specifics (including diagrams for goodness sakes), limitations, and technological stage of development and still get to wear a red cape in my book. Although, given his new digs, maybe "red" is his preferred color... hehe.
Monday, January 13, 2014
I can't be more clear than this...
I don't know, and frankly, I don't care.
As I've said now (numerous times) I am not convinced that the manner in which the NSA is doing its "job" is either legitimate or right. Since my original statement (that caused you to be so floored) was my own, personal opinion on a topic I am so utterly disgusted by and frustrated with, I may have stretched how far up a list I'd put Mr. Snowden... but he is a patriot in my opinion, if nothing else. I'm not going to call him a traitor since I can't see how he waged war on the US, or consciously and purposely aided our enemies. What he did was hamper the government's efforts... that is certainly true... but directly aiding and supporting? No.
The NSA was collecting data on 350 million American citizens without cause and with all but no legitimate oversight. Were they also collecting data on 350 million suspected terrorists at the same time? Did the release of the information hamper the NSA's abilities as a whole, or did it specifically hamper their ability to collect ONLY foreign intel? If it was the former, then it was all good in my eyes. You'll have to prove to me it was only the latter.
Why did he NOT separate the intel release? No friggin' idea. Perhaps he couldn't. Perhaps he didn't want to. Perhaps he had a principled reason to release it all, and you only have a problem with a portion of his leaks. I DON'T see the need to separate the two sides of his leaks... his showing the public what was happening domestically more than makes up for what I feel we "might" have lost in terms of foreign intel-gathering capabilities. Lest we forget... the only people that had an issue with the foreign intel portions of the leak were those directly responsible for the domestic info grab, and I don't care what F Ryan says to the contrary... I don't trust anything those sons of bitches have to say on the matter. Anything else, including F Ryan's concerns about our foreign intelligence gathering efforts being hampered or compromised is pure conjecture. Nothing about the domestic surveillance is conjecture. It has all been proven fact, it has all been corroborated by the highest authorities and it is now undeniably and irrevocably a piece of our national legacy. Every President since Bush Sr. has known about it in one way or another, and all have signed off on it as part and parcel of their respective administrative policies.
We can still spy on Taliban phone calls or emails. We can still listen to the German Chancellor as she orders pizza deliveries for her staff. We can even watch the same porn that the Italian Prime Minister is watching real-time... nothing there has changed, other than the fact that we now know that they were spending 35 thousand times the money, time and effort collecting data on people like F Ryan as they were on cold-blooded killers in Islamabad.
As I've said now (numerous times) I am not convinced that the manner in which the NSA is doing its "job" is either legitimate or right. Since my original statement (that caused you to be so floored) was my own, personal opinion on a topic I am so utterly disgusted by and frustrated with, I may have stretched how far up a list I'd put Mr. Snowden... but he is a patriot in my opinion, if nothing else. I'm not going to call him a traitor since I can't see how he waged war on the US, or consciously and purposely aided our enemies. What he did was hamper the government's efforts... that is certainly true... but directly aiding and supporting? No.
The NSA was collecting data on 350 million American citizens without cause and with all but no legitimate oversight. Were they also collecting data on 350 million suspected terrorists at the same time? Did the release of the information hamper the NSA's abilities as a whole, or did it specifically hamper their ability to collect ONLY foreign intel? If it was the former, then it was all good in my eyes. You'll have to prove to me it was only the latter.
Why did he NOT separate the intel release? No friggin' idea. Perhaps he couldn't. Perhaps he didn't want to. Perhaps he had a principled reason to release it all, and you only have a problem with a portion of his leaks. I DON'T see the need to separate the two sides of his leaks... his showing the public what was happening domestically more than makes up for what I feel we "might" have lost in terms of foreign intel-gathering capabilities. Lest we forget... the only people that had an issue with the foreign intel portions of the leak were those directly responsible for the domestic info grab, and I don't care what F Ryan says to the contrary... I don't trust anything those sons of bitches have to say on the matter. Anything else, including F Ryan's concerns about our foreign intelligence gathering efforts being hampered or compromised is pure conjecture. Nothing about the domestic surveillance is conjecture. It has all been proven fact, it has all been corroborated by the highest authorities and it is now undeniably and irrevocably a piece of our national legacy. Every President since Bush Sr. has known about it in one way or another, and all have signed off on it as part and parcel of their respective administrative policies.
We can still spy on Taliban phone calls or emails. We can still listen to the German Chancellor as she orders pizza deliveries for her staff. We can even watch the same porn that the Italian Prime Minister is watching real-time... nothing there has changed, other than the fact that we now know that they were spending 35 thousand times the money, time and effort collecting data on people like F Ryan as they were on cold-blooded killers in Islamabad.
I'm running out of ways to ask this...
Please, for the love of Pete, address this specifically. If Snowden wanted to expose Constitutional abuses why not expose the domestic grab and nothing else? Foreign nationals, allied or enemy, are not protected by the US Constitution, period. The NSA mandate since Truman established it in 1952 was to intercept foreign "signal intelligence" in the safeguarding of the US and her interests.
Quite frankly I was floored at your "greatest hero of the last 100 years statement." Snowden could have released those documents that adequately revealed the domestic abuses without getting into the legitimate operations. In fact, why did he even go out of his way to collect and abscond with details of our foreign signal collection? Why go after that in the first place, let alone leak it?
Look, we are in lock step about what the 20th Century+ has wrought on our nation in terms of unchecked, raw government expansion on levels clearly unconstitutional if not downright immoral. But among them is not the NSA collection of foreign communications. Domestic, YES. Foreign, NO. You seem to be disusing his leaks as if he couldn't do one without the other? I mean, did he store all 200,000 plus documents on one USB stick? And even if it were somehow impossible to divorce the Intel on domestic abuses with legitimate foreign targeting, why even go after our international efforts at all? I mean, why did he target the legitimate operations along with the domestic abuses in his three months of secret data collection at the NSA facility in Hawaii? I join the chorus of those screaming aout the NSA's civil abuses. I waited on hold for 45 minutes to voice those objections to three million people. But the majority of those in the chorus with me seem to simply ignore what else he leaked - vital, legitimate, foreign operations. This makes Snowden a simultaneous sinner and saint.
The problem we're having at the moment is exactly the problem I addressed in my first post. Whomever is making an argument about Snowden they seem to champion his actions regarding what they value most - be it civil liberties or foreign Intel - and dismiss the other. I happen to be equally passionate about both. I can not separate the man into EITHER a genuine whistle blower OR a traitor. He is absolutely both. The former for revealing domestic abuses, the latter for revealing legitimate foreign operations. So again I ask this point blank - why did he collect and leak the details of the NSA's legitimate foreign operations? The people targeted in Pakistan (or even Merkel for that matter, if you want to be technical), are not protected by the 4th Amendment. The NSA committed no abuse and certainly no crime in going after those intercepts. So why'd he leak it?
In those instances they were doing their job, a job I want them to continue doing. I would argue that the answer here is to swiftly and definitely end the domestic abuses, not close down the NSA in its' entirety. If you do not feel the same then I submit this is a rather extreme example of throwing the baby out with the bath water as you intend to completely do away with the tub.
Quite frankly I was floored at your "greatest hero of the last 100 years statement." Snowden could have released those documents that adequately revealed the domestic abuses without getting into the legitimate operations. In fact, why did he even go out of his way to collect and abscond with details of our foreign signal collection? Why go after that in the first place, let alone leak it?
Look, we are in lock step about what the 20th Century+ has wrought on our nation in terms of unchecked, raw government expansion on levels clearly unconstitutional if not downright immoral. But among them is not the NSA collection of foreign communications. Domestic, YES. Foreign, NO. You seem to be disusing his leaks as if he couldn't do one without the other? I mean, did he store all 200,000 plus documents on one USB stick? And even if it were somehow impossible to divorce the Intel on domestic abuses with legitimate foreign targeting, why even go after our international efforts at all? I mean, why did he target the legitimate operations along with the domestic abuses in his three months of secret data collection at the NSA facility in Hawaii? I join the chorus of those screaming aout the NSA's civil abuses. I waited on hold for 45 minutes to voice those objections to three million people. But the majority of those in the chorus with me seem to simply ignore what else he leaked - vital, legitimate, foreign operations. This makes Snowden a simultaneous sinner and saint.
The problem we're having at the moment is exactly the problem I addressed in my first post. Whomever is making an argument about Snowden they seem to champion his actions regarding what they value most - be it civil liberties or foreign Intel - and dismiss the other. I happen to be equally passionate about both. I can not separate the man into EITHER a genuine whistle blower OR a traitor. He is absolutely both. The former for revealing domestic abuses, the latter for revealing legitimate foreign operations. So again I ask this point blank - why did he collect and leak the details of the NSA's legitimate foreign operations? The people targeted in Pakistan (or even Merkel for that matter, if you want to be technical), are not protected by the 4th Amendment. The NSA committed no abuse and certainly no crime in going after those intercepts. So why'd he leak it?
In those instances they were doing their job, a job I want them to continue doing. I would argue that the answer here is to swiftly and definitely end the domestic abuses, not close down the NSA in its' entirety. If you do not feel the same then I submit this is a rather extreme example of throwing the baby out with the bath water as you intend to completely do away with the tub.
Regarding Lawless...
First off, an explanation...
My last couple of posts were NOT penned in a single moment of inspiration and clarity, but instead were written over rather large tracks of time due to work/family/sleep/household demands that simply would not allow me to take the time I wanted to take.
Looking back, they are rather disjointed and (frankly) bitter-sounding... which I did not intend them to be.
I am rapidly becoming so numb to the constant stream of amoral (or worse, immoral) actions to come out of our government over the last 10 years, that any and all hope that I may have once held in the same government getting their "stuff" together and making good choices is almost dead entirely. It can't just be me, either... did anyone look at our post count for 2013? 55 posts? Barely one a week? 2010 had over 850 posts, but 2013 had 55? Were we so busy? Or were we so apathetic?
This country's "greatness" was built upon the premise that the individual needed government only for those things that they could not do for themselves. Seems simplistic, I know... but it is true. Even at a community level, if that community could do it for themselves, it was expected that they would do so without government input or regulation. The Constitution is a limitation on government, and that is what it was always meant to be.
The people have allowed the government to grow the way it has, and it has never grown more than it has since the turn of the last century. It was the Twentieth Century that saw the growth of government race to out-of-control proportions, and there is no turning back, it seems.
I'm forced by this post to look at 2013 and try to see what is different in my life and how I choose to conduct it. I can say this: this household has NOT recovered from the 2008 recession, and (in point of fact) we are still recovering from Katrina... 8 years ago. I have spent a lot of effort, time and money to make sure that this household is as self-sufficient as it can be. We do not need safety nets, we do not need assistance, we do not need aid, and should that need arise in the future, we will not need it nor will we ask for it from the government. I'm looking for the opportunity to conduct my affairs and live my life without government control or intrusion. Looking, mind you... but not succeeding.
Now, to the main point of responding to F Ryan's post...
Snowden broke the law. No question about it, he broke the law. Prima facia says he is guilty, by his own admissions.
His release of these documents (most evidence says they number more than 200,000) has brought to light what I feel is the single greatest intrusion into the private lives of American citizens by their own government in our history and without a single solitary bit of Constitutionality to back it up with. This intrusion was later explained by the "need" to build ever greater and greater "security" for the nation. In short, the people are safer as long as the government can take, store and use this private information where ever and when ever it likes.
The government has defended the info grab as fair, because everyone is monitored equally (since EVERYONE is monitored) and only the "bad" intel is used to further investigative measures against "terror" or whatever threat label they pick.
If the NSA has a mandate to spy on the Taliban, or any other "foreign" terror group... or even foreign governments... fine. But if that legitimate mandate is threatened or hampered by the release of information that brings to light crimes against the American people, then the only one to blame is the NSA. They made it impossible to "out" problems from within, they gather the domestic intel and private info with no oversight or public mandate, and they should fix the problem now that the problem has been brought to light.
When the government shows me hard, physical evidence that I am 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer in an accidental shooting than I am to be killed by a terrorist, and that police officer might be acting on information gathered in an un-Constitutional or illegal manner... then I am more than willing to risk the blow to anti-terrorist efforts by the release of this info than I am to allow the info grab to continue.
When does the "cure" become worse than the "disease"? THAT is the point I am afraid we are rapidly approaching. I know there are people, organizations and countries out there that want the American way of life erased from the face of the earth... but problems like the ones Snowden showed in his leaks are doing to same damage as anything 9/11 did to the fundamental freedoms this nation was founded on. I'm not exaggerating here... that is how I feel. I know the NSA didn't kill 3,000 people the way the 9/11 attacks did, but the 9/11 attacks didn't undercut the Constitutional freedoms of this country the way that the NSA info grab has, either. Which did more to fundamentally change the way this nation views concepts like "freedom" and "liberty"? I know how I'd answer...
You don't fix injustice with more injustice. Two wrongs still don't make a right.
My last couple of posts were NOT penned in a single moment of inspiration and clarity, but instead were written over rather large tracks of time due to work/family/sleep/household demands that simply would not allow me to take the time I wanted to take.
Looking back, they are rather disjointed and (frankly) bitter-sounding... which I did not intend them to be.
I am rapidly becoming so numb to the constant stream of amoral (or worse, immoral) actions to come out of our government over the last 10 years, that any and all hope that I may have once held in the same government getting their "stuff" together and making good choices is almost dead entirely. It can't just be me, either... did anyone look at our post count for 2013? 55 posts? Barely one a week? 2010 had over 850 posts, but 2013 had 55? Were we so busy? Or were we so apathetic?
This country's "greatness" was built upon the premise that the individual needed government only for those things that they could not do for themselves. Seems simplistic, I know... but it is true. Even at a community level, if that community could do it for themselves, it was expected that they would do so without government input or regulation. The Constitution is a limitation on government, and that is what it was always meant to be.
The people have allowed the government to grow the way it has, and it has never grown more than it has since the turn of the last century. It was the Twentieth Century that saw the growth of government race to out-of-control proportions, and there is no turning back, it seems.
I'm forced by this post to look at 2013 and try to see what is different in my life and how I choose to conduct it. I can say this: this household has NOT recovered from the 2008 recession, and (in point of fact) we are still recovering from Katrina... 8 years ago. I have spent a lot of effort, time and money to make sure that this household is as self-sufficient as it can be. We do not need safety nets, we do not need assistance, we do not need aid, and should that need arise in the future, we will not need it nor will we ask for it from the government. I'm looking for the opportunity to conduct my affairs and live my life without government control or intrusion. Looking, mind you... but not succeeding.
Now, to the main point of responding to F Ryan's post...
Snowden broke the law. No question about it, he broke the law. Prima facia says he is guilty, by his own admissions.
His release of these documents (most evidence says they number more than 200,000) has brought to light what I feel is the single greatest intrusion into the private lives of American citizens by their own government in our history and without a single solitary bit of Constitutionality to back it up with. This intrusion was later explained by the "need" to build ever greater and greater "security" for the nation. In short, the people are safer as long as the government can take, store and use this private information where ever and when ever it likes.
The government has defended the info grab as fair, because everyone is monitored equally (since EVERYONE is monitored) and only the "bad" intel is used to further investigative measures against "terror" or whatever threat label they pick.
If the NSA has a mandate to spy on the Taliban, or any other "foreign" terror group... or even foreign governments... fine. But if that legitimate mandate is threatened or hampered by the release of information that brings to light crimes against the American people, then the only one to blame is the NSA. They made it impossible to "out" problems from within, they gather the domestic intel and private info with no oversight or public mandate, and they should fix the problem now that the problem has been brought to light.
When the government shows me hard, physical evidence that I am 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer in an accidental shooting than I am to be killed by a terrorist, and that police officer might be acting on information gathered in an un-Constitutional or illegal manner... then I am more than willing to risk the blow to anti-terrorist efforts by the release of this info than I am to allow the info grab to continue.
When does the "cure" become worse than the "disease"? THAT is the point I am afraid we are rapidly approaching. I know there are people, organizations and countries out there that want the American way of life erased from the face of the earth... but problems like the ones Snowden showed in his leaks are doing to same damage as anything 9/11 did to the fundamental freedoms this nation was founded on. I'm not exaggerating here... that is how I feel. I know the NSA didn't kill 3,000 people the way the 9/11 attacks did, but the 9/11 attacks didn't undercut the Constitutional freedoms of this country the way that the NSA info grab has, either. Which did more to fundamentally change the way this nation views concepts like "freedom" and "liberty"? I know how I'd answer...
You don't fix injustice with more injustice. Two wrongs still don't make a right.
Lawless
I do not wish for this debate to turn into the simple black and white of your defending Snowden and my prosecuting him. This is not the case. I am on this same road as you, finding myself so distrusting of the government, so utterly floored at their ineptitude and suspension of reality that I choose to judge nearly each and every one of them as irresponsible (guilty), until proven innocent. The funny thing here is that I have always had such sentiments, I've been on this road for a while; however once you got on Titus you blasted right past me at Ferrari like speeds.
Allow me to take a moment and echo Titus' sentiments regarding his current "trust levels" of our federal government. We would all do good to remember that it is the same person whom said "if you like your doctor you can keep it" that wears the hat of Commander-in-Chief and makes decisions within the national security council. And it is the same Republicans that claim a budget that saves $23 Billion over 10 years is the epitome of frugality in the face of a 17 Trillion dollar deficit that sit on these select Intel committees. Their collective refusal to adhere to anything resembling Constitutionality could test the fictional boundaries of a shroom fueled Orwellian imagination. I certainly don't think our leaders at the federal level suddenly become wise statesmen simply because the afternoon briefing subject changes from economics to national security. In other words, they're just as capable of acting extra-constitutionally on matters of national security as they clearly and openly do on matters of say, health care. And this further realization, that these people simply cannot be trusted, has been bothering me for some time. I googled "Patriot Act" in our site's search engine and came up with no less than four posts which I authored, all clamoring about the illegality of this domestic meta-data collection. In fact, I specifically questioned the government's use of the Patriot Act as early as 2010, in a post found here (be forewarned, it's primarily about New Deal until the last paragraph).
I'm not sure if you're familiar with a nationally syndicated radio program titled "America Now With Andy Dean." It's got about 2-3 million listeners and airs here after Sean Hannitty. The guy is a talented radio host, but he drove me so insane the other night that I actually called in, and got on the air. The beef? He believed that the collection of meta-data was well worth the civil liberty infringement. His argument (and we had a solid six minute converstaion on air, a lifetime for a single caller), was that when they get a risk "hit" they need that stored meta-data to call upon so they can then go back, take Jihad Johnny's cell number, and reconstruct every call dialed and received in the last X amount of days or weeks. And he's right about one thing, that would make it easier for NSA operators to do their job. But as I argued, so would a general warrant. So would sending a duplicate copy of every email and snail mail parcel straight to Maryland. In fact, installing cameras in every home, car and workplace wold make their job easier too. But what really got my goat was his argument that "well, your cell call history is already tracked by your cell company, it's all in your cell bill every month, so it's already out there." Wtf? I stopped and said, "Andy, you do realize that I voluntarily entered into that tracking as part of my cell phone contract, don't you? Not to mention, T-Mobile doesn't prosecute and execute those charged with a crime." He acknowledged the difference and then moved on to the next caller. Now I had both my sons listen to the radio, live, in the next room and afterwards I told them I want them to remember things like this. That your family voiced opposition to such overreaches, and I told them when your my age, and things have gotten much worse, I want you to tell your peers that it wasn't always like this. I want you to be able to remember a time when this wasn't the norm and understand that we as a free People allowed this to happen (just another fun filled night for the kids at the F.Ryan household).
And if you want really scary, google government "kill list" online. This isn't some whacked out conspiracy theory, this is hard news from Reuters, the NY Times, and CNN. One article, found here, will make the hairs on your arm stand up. Here's how it opens...
American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.
There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.
The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.
The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a
citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss
anything about the process
A secret kill list, governed by no law - not even a subset of a paragraph from the appendix - which can include American citizens? No, nothing creepy there. Killing terrorists with a drone strike I have no problem with. But as a military operation. There is something down right bone chilling about a group with no names, no records, and no official rules which has the authority to name Americans to a death list. Talk about a star chamber! And that article is from 2011. Oh, I should add, the drone strike which killed that scumbag Al ala-whatever, also killed his 16 year old son. And they weren't on the battlefield, they were at breakfast, in Yemen. I feel compelled to stress, targeting foreign nationals engaged in terror plotting against the US, I'm fine with. But an "officially unofficial" panel with no oversight, no governing rules, no law that it's built upon meeting in secret with just a number 2 pencil and a sheet of paper that can include American names (even dirt bag Americans), that's third world banana republic stuff. Where's the uproar America? Too busy watching Dancing With the Stars? Oh well, maybe next week when the reruns start. That'll be our collective epitaph: "America, forged on the battlefield, lost on the couch."
And before I forget, my previous post might lead one to believe that I was in fact ambivalent about allied spying, specifically on foreign leaders, but I fully understand revelations of such activity has real world negative geopolitical fallout. In other words it's not just embarrassing, it also means (for example) that our next NATO action could perhaps not include German forces, which equals more US troops in harms way all because the German Chancellor doesn't have the political cover to aide an American lead effort because here people are still pissed at us. So I am willing to put that revelation in the plus column for Mr. Snowden. Furthermore, I agree that President Obama insisting Snowden should have brought his concerns "through the proper channels" is laughable at best, and stark raving lunacy at worst.
The bottom line is this - our political leaders made the calculated decision that another attack was more risky for their careers (and I'm sure some of them weren't this callous in their determinations)than was the potential of being caught sanctioning these domestiuc gathering programs.
Ok, so that was my very long winded way of trying to establish my Tea Party, damned near Libertarian, bonifides not just on economic policy, but national security as well. But (and it's a BIG but) I don't understand, and I didn't feel you addressed it directly, why Snowden included in his leaks our efforts to capture Taliban radio transmissions. Why do that? I want the NSA to be actively collecting and disrupting every Taliban communication in the world. I want them attempting to penetrate Iranian emails. And I want them hacking North Korean military cyber depots. I don't have to "choose" all or nothing here. I can condemn the domestic abuses and still fully support the foreign targeting and remain completely consistent. Furthermore, if his leaks were to expose abuses by the powerful (his words), why omit evidence of Chinese, Russian, and Iranian efforts to penetrate our communications? Perhaps such revelations would have given the NSA a little too much public cover for Snowden's liking, I don't know. What I do know is that exposing numbers one and two on my list would have had the exact same impact, spawned the exact same debate, and sent the exact same politicians running for cover, so why include number three? They are supposed to do number three. I want them doing number three (boy am I glad I didn't list foreign signal collection second, or this paragraph would have seemed rather juvenile).
Just please explain to me the justification of his leaking those programs. From what I understand they were separate programs, in separate departments, ran by separate operators, functioning under clearly established precedent well within their original charter, which included oversight. I can connect the dots on omitting Russian and Chinese privacy sins - he wanted somewhere to run and if he outs "everyone" he's got no where to seek asylum - but why leak our foreign signal Intel operations? Why "out" those programs, their capability, their specificity, and the after-action reports on their effectiveness? In terms of the Taliban and Iranian insurgent funding we're not talking about some Soviet era chess match within a Cold War setting. It's a hot, shooting war and our guys are getting blown to bits in a very real, very nasty, very lethal combat role. Leaking information that makes their job even a little harder, just to put a third and unnecessary thumb in the eye of the US, is inexcusable. He could have dropped the first two bombshells with never getting into the targeting of foreign, hostile regimes. And I think it a wholly Constitutional argument to praise his actions on the first two and condemn his action on the third. Likewise, I find it wholly reasonable to condemn the NSA (and their overseers in congress and the White House) on those first two points without chastising them on the third. The problem isn't the signal collection apparatus. The problem is they turned the barrel of that gun inward, on us. Surely you don't want to strip them of the lawful ability and current technology to target foreign hostiles so as to make certain they can never again use it domestically... do you? And if not, how does any American defend Snowden on that third, and crucial, aspect of his leaks?
On a somewhat related note... my brothers, sons and I saw Lone Survivor - AWESOME! A full fledged Bund must see, must own.
Allow me to take a moment and echo Titus' sentiments regarding his current "trust levels" of our federal government. We would all do good to remember that it is the same person whom said "if you like your doctor you can keep it" that wears the hat of Commander-in-Chief and makes decisions within the national security council. And it is the same Republicans that claim a budget that saves $23 Billion over 10 years is the epitome of frugality in the face of a 17 Trillion dollar deficit that sit on these select Intel committees. Their collective refusal to adhere to anything resembling Constitutionality could test the fictional boundaries of a shroom fueled Orwellian imagination. I certainly don't think our leaders at the federal level suddenly become wise statesmen simply because the afternoon briefing subject changes from economics to national security. In other words, they're just as capable of acting extra-constitutionally on matters of national security as they clearly and openly do on matters of say, health care. And this further realization, that these people simply cannot be trusted, has been bothering me for some time. I googled "Patriot Act" in our site's search engine and came up with no less than four posts which I authored, all clamoring about the illegality of this domestic meta-data collection. In fact, I specifically questioned the government's use of the Patriot Act as early as 2010, in a post found here (be forewarned, it's primarily about New Deal until the last paragraph).
I'm not sure if you're familiar with a nationally syndicated radio program titled "America Now With Andy Dean." It's got about 2-3 million listeners and airs here after Sean Hannitty. The guy is a talented radio host, but he drove me so insane the other night that I actually called in, and got on the air. The beef? He believed that the collection of meta-data was well worth the civil liberty infringement. His argument (and we had a solid six minute converstaion on air, a lifetime for a single caller), was that when they get a risk "hit" they need that stored meta-data to call upon so they can then go back, take Jihad Johnny's cell number, and reconstruct every call dialed and received in the last X amount of days or weeks. And he's right about one thing, that would make it easier for NSA operators to do their job. But as I argued, so would a general warrant. So would sending a duplicate copy of every email and snail mail parcel straight to Maryland. In fact, installing cameras in every home, car and workplace wold make their job easier too. But what really got my goat was his argument that "well, your cell call history is already tracked by your cell company, it's all in your cell bill every month, so it's already out there." Wtf? I stopped and said, "Andy, you do realize that I voluntarily entered into that tracking as part of my cell phone contract, don't you? Not to mention, T-Mobile doesn't prosecute and execute those charged with a crime." He acknowledged the difference and then moved on to the next caller. Now I had both my sons listen to the radio, live, in the next room and afterwards I told them I want them to remember things like this. That your family voiced opposition to such overreaches, and I told them when your my age, and things have gotten much worse, I want you to tell your peers that it wasn't always like this. I want you to be able to remember a time when this wasn't the norm and understand that we as a free People allowed this to happen (just another fun filled night for the kids at the F.Ryan household).
And if you want really scary, google government "kill list" online. This isn't some whacked out conspiracy theory, this is hard news from Reuters, the NY Times, and CNN. One article, found here, will make the hairs on your arm stand up. Here's how it opens...
American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.
There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.
The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.
A secret kill list, governed by no law - not even a subset of a paragraph from the appendix - which can include American citizens? No, nothing creepy there. Killing terrorists with a drone strike I have no problem with. But as a military operation. There is something down right bone chilling about a group with no names, no records, and no official rules which has the authority to name Americans to a death list. Talk about a star chamber! And that article is from 2011. Oh, I should add, the drone strike which killed that scumbag Al ala-whatever, also killed his 16 year old son. And they weren't on the battlefield, they were at breakfast, in Yemen. I feel compelled to stress, targeting foreign nationals engaged in terror plotting against the US, I'm fine with. But an "officially unofficial" panel with no oversight, no governing rules, no law that it's built upon meeting in secret with just a number 2 pencil and a sheet of paper that can include American names (even dirt bag Americans), that's third world banana republic stuff. Where's the uproar America? Too busy watching Dancing With the Stars? Oh well, maybe next week when the reruns start. That'll be our collective epitaph: "America, forged on the battlefield, lost on the couch."
And before I forget, my previous post might lead one to believe that I was in fact ambivalent about allied spying, specifically on foreign leaders, but I fully understand revelations of such activity has real world negative geopolitical fallout. In other words it's not just embarrassing, it also means (for example) that our next NATO action could perhaps not include German forces, which equals more US troops in harms way all because the German Chancellor doesn't have the political cover to aide an American lead effort because here people are still pissed at us. So I am willing to put that revelation in the plus column for Mr. Snowden. Furthermore, I agree that President Obama insisting Snowden should have brought his concerns "through the proper channels" is laughable at best, and stark raving lunacy at worst.
The bottom line is this - our political leaders made the calculated decision that another attack was more risky for their careers (and I'm sure some of them weren't this callous in their determinations)than was the potential of being caught sanctioning these domestiuc gathering programs.
Ok, so that was my very long winded way of trying to establish my Tea Party, damned near Libertarian, bonifides not just on economic policy, but national security as well. But (and it's a BIG but) I don't understand, and I didn't feel you addressed it directly, why Snowden included in his leaks our efforts to capture Taliban radio transmissions. Why do that? I want the NSA to be actively collecting and disrupting every Taliban communication in the world. I want them attempting to penetrate Iranian emails. And I want them hacking North Korean military cyber depots. I don't have to "choose" all or nothing here. I can condemn the domestic abuses and still fully support the foreign targeting and remain completely consistent. Furthermore, if his leaks were to expose abuses by the powerful (his words), why omit evidence of Chinese, Russian, and Iranian efforts to penetrate our communications? Perhaps such revelations would have given the NSA a little too much public cover for Snowden's liking, I don't know. What I do know is that exposing numbers one and two on my list would have had the exact same impact, spawned the exact same debate, and sent the exact same politicians running for cover, so why include number three? They are supposed to do number three. I want them doing number three (boy am I glad I didn't list foreign signal collection second, or this paragraph would have seemed rather juvenile).
Just please explain to me the justification of his leaking those programs. From what I understand they were separate programs, in separate departments, ran by separate operators, functioning under clearly established precedent well within their original charter, which included oversight. I can connect the dots on omitting Russian and Chinese privacy sins - he wanted somewhere to run and if he outs "everyone" he's got no where to seek asylum - but why leak our foreign signal Intel operations? Why "out" those programs, their capability, their specificity, and the after-action reports on their effectiveness? In terms of the Taliban and Iranian insurgent funding we're not talking about some Soviet era chess match within a Cold War setting. It's a hot, shooting war and our guys are getting blown to bits in a very real, very nasty, very lethal combat role. Leaking information that makes their job even a little harder, just to put a third and unnecessary thumb in the eye of the US, is inexcusable. He could have dropped the first two bombshells with never getting into the targeting of foreign, hostile regimes. And I think it a wholly Constitutional argument to praise his actions on the first two and condemn his action on the third. Likewise, I find it wholly reasonable to condemn the NSA (and their overseers in congress and the White House) on those first two points without chastising them on the third. The problem isn't the signal collection apparatus. The problem is they turned the barrel of that gun inward, on us. Surely you don't want to strip them of the lawful ability and current technology to target foreign hostiles so as to make certain they can never again use it domestically... do you? And if not, how does any American defend Snowden on that third, and crucial, aspect of his leaks?
On a somewhat related note... my brothers, sons and I saw Lone Survivor - AWESOME! A full fledged Bund must see, must own.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Holding...
To answer your first concern...
Yes, tons of oversight by officials (elected and appointed) who had no obligation to hear concerns of those involved in the data collection process about the legality of the process, and who never would have allowed those concerns to go public. That is not "oversight" in my eyes... that is simply more people in on the secret.
As I have stated in the past, I am becoming more and more concerned that the Patriot Act is the worst piece of legislation ever to have altered the face of our government. It literally makes New Deal look like child's play when seen as a government-growing effort. Furthermore, I question where in the Constitution it says people like Obama, Bush, Cheney, Feinstein and Biden get to "interpret" the scope of their authority. It is clearly defined, and limited, and it isn't up to them to define its limits.
To answer your second...
No, I'm not justifying the means of his releasing the info. I'm saying there was no other alternative means by which he could have gotten his concerns into the public forum, which mitigates the offense because those that set up the rules did so in a manner that kept us (the People) entirely out of the loop.
You broke Snowden's leaks into three categories. One you were okay with, one you were ambivalent towards, and one was treason in your eyes. I feel all three are symptoms of the same disease... as, I'm sure, do you. We simply feel those symptoms differently as individuals.
If you want to discuss the specific nature of the material concerning foreign intelligence, we can discuss that. As I said, his release was done in the manner that it was because he had no legitimate recourse to take internally. It had been tried no fewer than three times, and all three whistle-blowers were fired, harassed and even imprisoned for following "proper channels" to get their concerns reviewed by higher authority.
In fact, I want to discuss it more...
I have stated that I agree with Obama's determination that the War on Terror is unachievable, unsustainable and completely unwinable (is that a word? am I simply spelling it wrong?). That being said, I (as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen of these United States) have a problem with my tax dollars being spent on the government efforts to spy on signatory allies and their elected leaders. I have a problem with the means by which we conduct intelligence gathering operations across the globe being utterly without any sort of rational public oversight or accountability. And if it takes a man like Snowden to shake the monkeys out of the trees by breaking some rules... well, we have a long and respected tradition in this country of good people doing just that. Seeing rules and laws that are unjust, unethical or illegal and ignoring them or fighting them outright. That is what Dr. King did. That is what Rosa Parks did. That is what Harriet Tubmen did. That's what the Sons of Liberty did. That is what Henry Thoreau did.
The crime here is that we, the People, are responsible for the actions of our government because we, the People, put that government there. We cannot do that responsibly when we do not know what that government is doing in our name. The crime is that we have elected a President that ran on the promise of transparency in government... and it takes a young man's breaking of law to show us what is really happening. And if our ability to collect info or data in places like Afghanistan or South Africa suffer as a result of that, then perhaps we need to re-examine why we are there at all. Tough for us to try to police the world when we can't even keep our own affairs in order, isn't it?
Yes, tons of oversight by officials (elected and appointed) who had no obligation to hear concerns of those involved in the data collection process about the legality of the process, and who never would have allowed those concerns to go public. That is not "oversight" in my eyes... that is simply more people in on the secret.
As I have stated in the past, I am becoming more and more concerned that the Patriot Act is the worst piece of legislation ever to have altered the face of our government. It literally makes New Deal look like child's play when seen as a government-growing effort. Furthermore, I question where in the Constitution it says people like Obama, Bush, Cheney, Feinstein and Biden get to "interpret" the scope of their authority. It is clearly defined, and limited, and it isn't up to them to define its limits.
To answer your second...
No, I'm not justifying the means of his releasing the info. I'm saying there was no other alternative means by which he could have gotten his concerns into the public forum, which mitigates the offense because those that set up the rules did so in a manner that kept us (the People) entirely out of the loop.
You broke Snowden's leaks into three categories. One you were okay with, one you were ambivalent towards, and one was treason in your eyes. I feel all three are symptoms of the same disease... as, I'm sure, do you. We simply feel those symptoms differently as individuals.
If you want to discuss the specific nature of the material concerning foreign intelligence, we can discuss that. As I said, his release was done in the manner that it was because he had no legitimate recourse to take internally. It had been tried no fewer than three times, and all three whistle-blowers were fired, harassed and even imprisoned for following "proper channels" to get their concerns reviewed by higher authority.
In fact, I want to discuss it more...
I have stated that I agree with Obama's determination that the War on Terror is unachievable, unsustainable and completely unwinable (is that a word? am I simply spelling it wrong?). That being said, I (as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen of these United States) have a problem with my tax dollars being spent on the government efforts to spy on signatory allies and their elected leaders. I have a problem with the means by which we conduct intelligence gathering operations across the globe being utterly without any sort of rational public oversight or accountability. And if it takes a man like Snowden to shake the monkeys out of the trees by breaking some rules... well, we have a long and respected tradition in this country of good people doing just that. Seeing rules and laws that are unjust, unethical or illegal and ignoring them or fighting them outright. That is what Dr. King did. That is what Rosa Parks did. That is what Harriet Tubmen did. That's what the Sons of Liberty did. That is what Henry Thoreau did.
The crime here is that we, the People, are responsible for the actions of our government because we, the People, put that government there. We cannot do that responsibly when we do not know what that government is doing in our name. The crime is that we have elected a President that ran on the promise of transparency in government... and it takes a young man's breaking of law to show us what is really happening. And if our ability to collect info or data in places like Afghanistan or South Africa suffer as a result of that, then perhaps we need to re-examine why we are there at all. Tough for us to try to police the world when we can't even keep our own affairs in order, isn't it?
Hold on a second...
With the domestic data collection, we are in agreeance. But two things... One, there was tons of oversight. The POTUS and the the leaders of congress all knew this was occurring and the NSA director. This was their interpretation of the Patriot Act. What's frightening here isn't that they went outside the scope of their mandate domestically, it's that everyone in charge agreed this was in fact part of their mandate. Secondly, are you justifying his release of foreign Intelligence gathering methods and programs? That IS a legitimate part of the NSA mandate.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Treason
F Ryan asks: "I wonder Titus, in light of this, are you still willing to award him the greatest hero since 1913 award?"
In all honesty, perhaps not "greatest" hero status... but "patriot" status at least. It is tough to place him in the same list as the names you gave... but I'll get back to that in a second.
First of all, I want to address this:
F Ryan says: "I think he did us a great favor in alerting us to the gross overreach of our own government. He could have stopped there. And had he, I would defend him as a brave civil liberties warrior, worthy of praise. But he didn't. He went further. And at that moment he became guilty of treason, in my eyes."
Treason. Really? This is worth looking into.
As I understand the definition of "treason", it is "The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies". The word "traitor" (one who commits treason) comes from the Latin traditor, or "one whom delivers"... and it is long considered the highest crime one could commit. Our western society holds traitors amongst its most hated members... Brutus, John Wilkes Booth and the four others convicted of killing Lincoln, Benedict Arnold. My God, the very deepest level of Hell is reserved for (and named after) the greatest traitor of them all: Judas Iscariot.
No, I don't think what he did qualifies him as a "traitor". He blew a whistle that alerted the public to gross over-reach by the government, in all three areas that you defined... and in all three areas there has proven to be no adequate oversight by any governmental or non-governmental element... thus making the entire business illegal and beyond the scope of legitimate authority.
Had he circumvented or avoided some sort of legitimate means of bringing the questionable conduct and activity to light, then I'd sing a different tune... but there were no alternative means for him to follow that would have availed him at all. One cannot say its okay to hide some illegal activity, but not all of it. It was all illegal, it is all unconstitutional, and it is all indefensible in my eyes because it never, at any point, had any legitimate oversight or stop-gaps that would or could be employed... EVER.
And as long as we are throwing the label of traitor around... do you know who else was called "traitor" to their country?
George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and everyone else that signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4th 1776, officially separating Great Britain with the new "United States of America". All those men did was place their individual principals and ethics above their personal safety and material well-being. Can you say with honest belief that Snowden did less?
In all honesty, perhaps not "greatest" hero status... but "patriot" status at least. It is tough to place him in the same list as the names you gave... but I'll get back to that in a second.
First of all, I want to address this:
F Ryan says: "I think he did us a great favor in alerting us to the gross overreach of our own government. He could have stopped there. And had he, I would defend him as a brave civil liberties warrior, worthy of praise. But he didn't. He went further. And at that moment he became guilty of treason, in my eyes."
Treason. Really? This is worth looking into.
As I understand the definition of "treason", it is "The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies". The word "traitor" (one who commits treason) comes from the Latin traditor, or "one whom delivers"... and it is long considered the highest crime one could commit. Our western society holds traitors amongst its most hated members... Brutus, John Wilkes Booth and the four others convicted of killing Lincoln, Benedict Arnold. My God, the very deepest level of Hell is reserved for (and named after) the greatest traitor of them all: Judas Iscariot.
No, I don't think what he did qualifies him as a "traitor". He blew a whistle that alerted the public to gross over-reach by the government, in all three areas that you defined... and in all three areas there has proven to be no adequate oversight by any governmental or non-governmental element... thus making the entire business illegal and beyond the scope of legitimate authority.
Had he circumvented or avoided some sort of legitimate means of bringing the questionable conduct and activity to light, then I'd sing a different tune... but there were no alternative means for him to follow that would have availed him at all. One cannot say its okay to hide some illegal activity, but not all of it. It was all illegal, it is all unconstitutional, and it is all indefensible in my eyes because it never, at any point, had any legitimate oversight or stop-gaps that would or could be employed... EVER.
And as long as we are throwing the label of traitor around... do you know who else was called "traitor" to their country?
George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and everyone else that signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4th 1776, officially separating Great Britain with the new "United States of America". All those men did was place their individual principals and ethics above their personal safety and material well-being. Can you say with honest belief that Snowden did less?
Friday, January 10, 2014
"snowed-in"
I couldn't resist...
You don't need much coffee after this statement: "He [Edward Snowden] should be hanged by his neck until dead!" While that may sound more like a sentencing judge in a Clint Eastwood movie, those are in fact the words of former CIA director James Woolsey, on FOX News. Now before I get into this I just want to make two quick observations. First, Anytime Diane Feinstein and Republican leaders in both the Senate and House are on television agreeing, you can be sure we are getting screwed. Secondly, had Snowden blew the lid off of a "scandal" within Baine Capital or other private firm the president would be enjoying another beer summit with him right now. The man would have been royalty for time and all eternity within this same crowd and by the same CIC that now chastises him.
So... what do I think? Snowden is a complicated case to discuss with people, even with those informed on the subject, because they are often talking past each other about what he did. What did he do? Essentially he leaked three key elements of the our national security's signal intelligence operations. They are as follows:
1.) Domestic spying. The "meta-data" collection of every cell call and email on every man, woman and child within the United States. What they claim is they only record the phone numbers (both to and from), the duration of the call, and time/date. They have repeatedly claimed they do not store the content. Email is a little different. Their "code" allows them to store all the pedigree information as with the phone intercepts and the content, but only as unintelligible code. It doesn't get translated, let alone read, into the real words of the communication unless a technician proactively goes and retrieves it. This is blatantly unconstitutional. In fact it is reminiscent of the British "General Warrants." As the Rebel cause grew in sentiment the Red Coats would get a warrant issued for say, all of South Boston, and just go on a scavenger hunt for anything incriminating. I am diametrically opposed to this collection, and National Intelligence Director James Clapper committed perjury when he testified before congress that this was in fact not happening. Had this whole scenario played out under Bush, the Left would be apoplectic.
2.) Eavesdropping on foreign leaders. The Angela Merkel incident(s) are the most dramatic of these. This is the least controversial aspect of the Snowden leaks among the American public (at least so far as I can read my fellow Americans). I think we all kind of assume that everybody is snooping on everyone else (in terms of world leaders). I mean there's a reason that when PM Cameron comes to New York that MI6 sweeps his quarters and car, diligently. And that's one of our two closest allies (although Israel may not "count" to this president).
3.) Foreign Intelligence gathering. The documents he gave the Washington Post and UK's The Guardian (and they were his first and primary dump source) didn't just include domestic operations. They included information on email interception, mobile calls, and radio transmissions of Taliban fighters in Pakistan's Northwest territories. Other documents revealed programs meant to test the loyalties of CIA operatives, in Pakistan; and a program meant to intercept emails in and out of Iran. And what's worse, he almost certainly had access to after action reports on Chinese, Russian, and Iranian attempts to nefariously collect signal intelligence on the US, in particular our foreign assets, yet he hasn't brought anything to light except those documents and programs that cast the US and her allies (most notably the British Intel collaboration) as villains. Then on top of that he seeks refuge first with China, then Russia. When Daniel Ellisberg (whom compared Snowden to himself in a favorable light) released the Pentagon papers, he didn't then flee to our "frenemies." In a Snowden address to presumably cyber security specialists in Moscow (the audience wasn't exactly wearing name tags) that made its' way on to the web just last week, Snowden said quote, "These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador, have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful." I wonder Titus, in light of this, are you still willing to award him the greatest hero since 1913 award? I'm not. I mean, is he more patriotic and heroic than Sgt York? Audie Murphy? Dick Winters? Chris Kyle? Marcus Latrell? No chance. However, Times Man of the Year (I'll never call it "Person" of the year) is certainly appropriate. But based solely on "impact" in 2013, not virtuous merit.
So what it comes down to is which Snowden are you exalting? Which one are you condemning? The guy who woke America up to clear Constitutional violations, or the guy who revealed sources and methods (or at least methods) to our enemies and praised such bastions of human rights as Venezuela? The NY Times editorial board issued a case for clemency in this week's paper. There have been a slew of dueling editorials for and against this. Very few include all three of what I have described above. They are all talking about their version of Snowden, based on what is most important to them
My solution is simple. For domestic surveillance abuses (and they are wide and vast) issue him official whistle blower status, and thank him. And after the ceremony the FBI can take him into custody for my number three above. I think he did us a great favor in alerting us to the gross overreach of our own government. He could have stopped there. And had he, I would defend him as a brave civil liberties warrior, worthy of praise. But he didn't. He went further. And at that moment he became guilty of treason, in my eyes.
By the way, this may all be a moot point soon anyway. The deputy director of the NSA, and the man charged with containing the Snowden leak, said on 60 Minutes that he is willing to offer clemency (after first qualifying it with the fact that this isn't up to him) in exchange for Snowden not leaking another word and handing over all of his documentation. I think that's Obama's easiest out. He can pacify the civil liberty advocates within his own party (and the Tea Party to a certain extent), and can still maintain National Security street cred with the GOP leadership. Whom, to quickly address your last post, I have one word for if they don't immediately shape up - Whigs. The original Republican Party went from six congressman to owning the White House (in Abe Lincoln) in a quick eight years... so just watch it Boehner, we've had about enough of this joke of a budget deal and not-so-grand compromise tact, both of which amount to little more than "socialism light."
You don't need much coffee after this statement: "He [Edward Snowden] should be hanged by his neck until dead!" While that may sound more like a sentencing judge in a Clint Eastwood movie, those are in fact the words of former CIA director James Woolsey, on FOX News. Now before I get into this I just want to make two quick observations. First, Anytime Diane Feinstein and Republican leaders in both the Senate and House are on television agreeing, you can be sure we are getting screwed. Secondly, had Snowden blew the lid off of a "scandal" within Baine Capital or other private firm the president would be enjoying another beer summit with him right now. The man would have been royalty for time and all eternity within this same crowd and by the same CIC that now chastises him.
So... what do I think? Snowden is a complicated case to discuss with people, even with those informed on the subject, because they are often talking past each other about what he did. What did he do? Essentially he leaked three key elements of the our national security's signal intelligence operations. They are as follows:
1.) Domestic spying. The "meta-data" collection of every cell call and email on every man, woman and child within the United States. What they claim is they only record the phone numbers (both to and from), the duration of the call, and time/date. They have repeatedly claimed they do not store the content. Email is a little different. Their "code" allows them to store all the pedigree information as with the phone intercepts and the content, but only as unintelligible code. It doesn't get translated, let alone read, into the real words of the communication unless a technician proactively goes and retrieves it. This is blatantly unconstitutional. In fact it is reminiscent of the British "General Warrants." As the Rebel cause grew in sentiment the Red Coats would get a warrant issued for say, all of South Boston, and just go on a scavenger hunt for anything incriminating. I am diametrically opposed to this collection, and National Intelligence Director James Clapper committed perjury when he testified before congress that this was in fact not happening. Had this whole scenario played out under Bush, the Left would be apoplectic.
2.) Eavesdropping on foreign leaders. The Angela Merkel incident(s) are the most dramatic of these. This is the least controversial aspect of the Snowden leaks among the American public (at least so far as I can read my fellow Americans). I think we all kind of assume that everybody is snooping on everyone else (in terms of world leaders). I mean there's a reason that when PM Cameron comes to New York that MI6 sweeps his quarters and car, diligently. And that's one of our two closest allies (although Israel may not "count" to this president).
3.) Foreign Intelligence gathering. The documents he gave the Washington Post and UK's The Guardian (and they were his first and primary dump source) didn't just include domestic operations. They included information on email interception, mobile calls, and radio transmissions of Taliban fighters in Pakistan's Northwest territories. Other documents revealed programs meant to test the loyalties of CIA operatives, in Pakistan; and a program meant to intercept emails in and out of Iran. And what's worse, he almost certainly had access to after action reports on Chinese, Russian, and Iranian attempts to nefariously collect signal intelligence on the US, in particular our foreign assets, yet he hasn't brought anything to light except those documents and programs that cast the US and her allies (most notably the British Intel collaboration) as villains. Then on top of that he seeks refuge first with China, then Russia. When Daniel Ellisberg (whom compared Snowden to himself in a favorable light) released the Pentagon papers, he didn't then flee to our "frenemies." In a Snowden address to presumably cyber security specialists in Moscow (the audience wasn't exactly wearing name tags) that made its' way on to the web just last week, Snowden said quote, "These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador, have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful." I wonder Titus, in light of this, are you still willing to award him the greatest hero since 1913 award? I'm not. I mean, is he more patriotic and heroic than Sgt York? Audie Murphy? Dick Winters? Chris Kyle? Marcus Latrell? No chance. However, Times Man of the Year (I'll never call it "Person" of the year) is certainly appropriate. But based solely on "impact" in 2013, not virtuous merit.
So what it comes down to is which Snowden are you exalting? Which one are you condemning? The guy who woke America up to clear Constitutional violations, or the guy who revealed sources and methods (or at least methods) to our enemies and praised such bastions of human rights as Venezuela? The NY Times editorial board issued a case for clemency in this week's paper. There have been a slew of dueling editorials for and against this. Very few include all three of what I have described above. They are all talking about their version of Snowden, based on what is most important to them
My solution is simple. For domestic surveillance abuses (and they are wide and vast) issue him official whistle blower status, and thank him. And after the ceremony the FBI can take him into custody for my number three above. I think he did us a great favor in alerting us to the gross overreach of our own government. He could have stopped there. And had he, I would defend him as a brave civil liberties warrior, worthy of praise. But he didn't. He went further. And at that moment he became guilty of treason, in my eyes.
By the way, this may all be a moot point soon anyway. The deputy director of the NSA, and the man charged with containing the Snowden leak, said on 60 Minutes that he is willing to offer clemency (after first qualifying it with the fact that this isn't up to him) in exchange for Snowden not leaking another word and handing over all of his documentation. I think that's Obama's easiest out. He can pacify the civil liberty advocates within his own party (and the Tea Party to a certain extent), and can still maintain National Security street cred with the GOP leadership. Whom, to quickly address your last post, I have one word for if they don't immediately shape up - Whigs. The original Republican Party went from six congressman to owning the White House (in Abe Lincoln) in a quick eight years... so just watch it Boehner, we've had about enough of this joke of a budget deal and not-so-grand compromise tact, both of which amount to little more than "socialism light."
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Furthermore...
So, I recently read that a prominent member of Senator and Chairperson of the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence (the Legislative Branch's highest and most secretive committee) Diane Feinstein's staff stated that the ban on extended magazines for assault-style weapons is "do-able" because once the old, pre-ban magazines are used up, they won't be able to be replaced and will be thrown away. I can't cite the article, and I can't name the staffer, but if this is true, then Sen. Feinstein is surrounding herself with even dumber people than I would have imagined.
Now, this is the woman that has stood up and said that the NSA's illegal spying on ALL US citizens is just and needed to combat the threat of future terrorist violence against America. This is the woman that fought tooth-and-nail to keep past weapons bans in place during the Bush administrations. More distressing, this is the woman (and the sort of people that will replace her when she is gone) that we are trusting our future to, our personal and private information with now, and whom we voted for to protect our rights and freedoms in the past.
As I said earlier, I'm rapidly becoming convinced that the propaganda that is pouring forth from D.C. is so replete with lies and falsehoods that nothing we have been told over the last twenty-odd years can be trusted at all.
Every fact, figure and tiniest bit of evidence that has been delivered up to convince us that the actions of the government are justified are now 100% in doubt... even by their own admissions. Take this list for example...
From the National Safety Council:
– You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack
– You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack
– You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane
– You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack
–You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack
– You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack
– You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack
–You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack
–You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack
–You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist
–You are 8 times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack
– You are 6 times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack
Now, this is the woman that has stood up and said that the NSA's illegal spying on ALL US citizens is just and needed to combat the threat of future terrorist violence against America. This is the woman that fought tooth-and-nail to keep past weapons bans in place during the Bush administrations. More distressing, this is the woman (and the sort of people that will replace her when she is gone) that we are trusting our future to, our personal and private information with now, and whom we voted for to protect our rights and freedoms in the past.
As I said earlier, I'm rapidly becoming convinced that the propaganda that is pouring forth from D.C. is so replete with lies and falsehoods that nothing we have been told over the last twenty-odd years can be trusted at all.
Every fact, figure and tiniest bit of evidence that has been delivered up to convince us that the actions of the government are justified are now 100% in doubt... even by their own admissions. Take this list for example...
From the National Safety Council:
– You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack
– You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack
– You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane
– You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack
–You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack
– You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack
– You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack
–You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack
–You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack
–You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist
–You are 8 times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack
– You are 6 times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack
Does this bring it home, or what? I've been thinking about this list for the better part of a year... and I am still amazed that it hasn't made a bigger splash than it has. We all know that flying is the safest means of travel there is... which is 11,000 times more dangerous to me than a terrorist attack... yet my personal freedoms and privacy are thrown away more and more every day to protect me from a terrorist attack? Even my ability to travel in a timely and convenient manner have been sacrificed to "security" at the airport, the bus depot and the train station. Even the very police that are employed to protect me are a greater threat to me than a terrorist! Eight times greater!!! How can this be, and the country is still silent to the lies that we are still being told on a daily basis?
What is it going to take to fix this? I am struggling to see a way out of this mess... and I see nothing but more of the same.
A comment, long over due...
Since the President gave his speech stating that the War on Terror can never be won, and in which he defended his foreign policy to date, I have struggled with how best to articulate my disappointment in my government.
On that day in May (the day before my birthday, in fact), the President made perfectly clear that our current system of government no longer works at all.
Obama won the election based on arguments that previous administrations had failed to follow just, ethical or moral choices in determining the course of US foreign policy since 1999, but in that speech at the National Defense University he defended very nearly all that had been done prior to his coming to office in an attempt to defend what he had done in office since 2008. To put it very plainly... what was good for the goose is just fine for this gander.
Since the Snowden leaks have come to light, the depth of the government's disregard for the sovereignty of the citizens of this nation has never been more clear. I am more and more convinced... every day, in fact... that Edward Snowden may very well be the greatest individual hero this country has had in the last 100 years. As much as I love Pope Francis... nothing Pope Francis has done to date comes even close to the impact Snowden has had on the question of individual rights and freedoms for 350 million people across this country, and because of this I think he should have been Time's Person of the Year 2013.
Snowden's gift to America was the debate that he spawned. Obama ran on the promise of transparency in government... but nothing (and I mean NOTHING) any President has done since Johnson has shown just how invasive our government has become, and how callous it is towards our most fundamental freedoms and rights as Snowden did with those leaks. Watergate is peanuts in comparison.
I'm curious about what F Ryan thinks on this. The leaks were particularly damning (in my opinion) to both the last GOP Presidents, and showed (or started) some serious questions about St. Ron Reagan's choices in the realm of domestic surveillance. We now have two Federal judges that have weighed in on this: one saying he was a hero and the government has acted (and is acting) illegally, while another defends the government's actions as legal and necessary.
What say you, my friend?
On that day in May (the day before my birthday, in fact), the President made perfectly clear that our current system of government no longer works at all.
Obama won the election based on arguments that previous administrations had failed to follow just, ethical or moral choices in determining the course of US foreign policy since 1999, but in that speech at the National Defense University he defended very nearly all that had been done prior to his coming to office in an attempt to defend what he had done in office since 2008. To put it very plainly... what was good for the goose is just fine for this gander.
Since the Snowden leaks have come to light, the depth of the government's disregard for the sovereignty of the citizens of this nation has never been more clear. I am more and more convinced... every day, in fact... that Edward Snowden may very well be the greatest individual hero this country has had in the last 100 years. As much as I love Pope Francis... nothing Pope Francis has done to date comes even close to the impact Snowden has had on the question of individual rights and freedoms for 350 million people across this country, and because of this I think he should have been Time's Person of the Year 2013.
Snowden's gift to America was the debate that he spawned. Obama ran on the promise of transparency in government... but nothing (and I mean NOTHING) any President has done since Johnson has shown just how invasive our government has become, and how callous it is towards our most fundamental freedoms and rights as Snowden did with those leaks. Watergate is peanuts in comparison.
I'm curious about what F Ryan thinks on this. The leaks were particularly damning (in my opinion) to both the last GOP Presidents, and showed (or started) some serious questions about St. Ron Reagan's choices in the realm of domestic surveillance. We now have two Federal judges that have weighed in on this: one saying he was a hero and the government has acted (and is acting) illegally, while another defends the government's actions as legal and necessary.
What say you, my friend?
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Al Gore lied...
10 inches of snow, wind chills down to -20 degrees... until Monday!?!?! Seriously?
They are naming winter storms now... and this one seems aptly named: Hercules.
Or is it "Jerk-ules"? Hehe
Somebody call IXII!
They are naming winter storms now... and this one seems aptly named: Hercules.
Or is it "Jerk-ules"? Hehe
Somebody call IXII!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
