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.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
