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.
Monday, January 13, 2014
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
