<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cAWmKpBeEz0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This man cannot be quoted enough. Personally, I am not as bothered by these things anymore. Are they horrible? Yes. But that is the very nature of a democracy, so why stress about it? Just sit back and have a good laugh while everything goes to hell. Reporter: If you find so much that is unworthy of reverence in the United States, then why do you live here? Mencken: Why do men go to zoos?
questions from The Transom this morning: [rquoter]And that brings us to the problem of trust, a problem exacerbated by how President Obama has referred to the threats America faces. He is defending this phone and Internet snooping as a “modest encroachment of privacy.” http://vlt.tc/wel But who decides what’s modest or not? Hayek wrote that “Emergencies have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded” – but Obama has been effectively arguing there is less and less to fear. Thus, if the encroachment on liberty is not modest, it seems out of balance with the threat we face. http://vlt.tc/wf1 “For the last several years the President has been telling the American public not to worry. Terror incidents like the Ft. Hood shooting have been classified as work place violence. The War of Terror is over. Terrorism is now man made disaster. The rhetoric of this Administration for the last several years has routinely downplayed threats, trumpeted the lack of attacks, and suggested that the dark clouds of devastation have blown by — Boston bombing aside (and this program does not seem to have helped prevent that). Is the PRISM program working as intended and, if so, how does it really work? Or is it security theater like the TSA screenings at airports? … If we have compromised our privacy, to what end and result have we done so that makes such a compromise necessary and worthwhile? ... Why should we trust the National Security Agency? How can we be sure that this one department, unlike the largely nonpartisan IRS, is not engaging in an abuse of data? How can we be sure the NSA will not leak the private details of American citizens to political groups as the IRS did?” It’s hard to remember the time when so many Americans had their hopes wrapped up in President Obama’s ability to restore their confidence in government. http://vlt.tc/wfq [/rquoter] http://thetransom.org/
I just caught up on this scandal of the week. 1) How is any of this considered new? 2) How are any of you surprised by this? 3) Where have you been in the last decade?
This has Congressional oversight, it is classified information and, it is legal (Thanks, Patriot Act). Just because YOU don't like something, doesn't give you the RIGHT to divulge classified information after you sign up to do Classified work. This guy is an high school DROPOUT working for a Government contractor. So, what if this so-called Whistleblower leaks information that gets US Soldiers or Agents killed? Still a Patriot? Signing up for classified work has it drawbacks. One is that you keep your mouth shut.
Sure, you don't have the "right". What's your point? Irrelevant. Strawman. Doing illegal things has drawbacks too.
It seems that he only tried to release information that was not specific so people would not be harmed. In my eyes, it would seem to be a major stretch to believe anyone would be harmed by him shining light on these spy networks. Their effectiveness wasn't compromised by anything he released. What does him being a dropout with a GED have to do with anything? He was clearly talented and motivated enough to work himself into a well paying job in a high security sector. How far do the boundaries of secrecy go in your eyes? Can the govt get away with anything as long is it is determined to be classified for national security?
2001: Obama Predicts “Majoritarian Check” On Mass Surveillance As Result Of Patriot Act, “Everybody Starts Griping And Complaining”… Fast forward to 2013 and Obama dismisses “majoritarian check” as just a bunch of “hype.” Via BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski: Keep reading… http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/in-2001-obama-predicted-majoritarian-check-on-mass-surveilla (Video)
No, but there are checks and balances in the system. Congressional oversight was in place and knew about the programs (Select members) and there was a judicial court involved.
It is illegal? "Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists. Existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet and cell phones." - GWB
Laugh all you want, but the law is the law. Fact is that Congressmen knew about this. Congressmen know lots of stuff we don't, it's part of their job. It's one thing if the IT guy stood up like Ellsberg and said what he did, but the fact that he skipped town to freaking CHINA to me belies his true motivations. I'm not calling him a traitor, but I sure as heck am not calling him a patriot just like everyone likes to do for these guys because fight the power and all that.
It doesn't seem like this was being checked very well since it was only rapidly expanding without the public knowing and without many of our representatives knowing the depth of these spy programs. from a link posted earlier in the thread http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/obama-nsa-response/66015/ Can you provide any examples of how this program was "checked" and reigned in at any point since it began? It seems as if it was almost impossible to actually check anything that was going on.
The Obama Admin. has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than ALL previous administrations combined. look at what happened to Thomas Andrews Drake, for Christ's sake, just as an example. Anyone sane would skip town. That doesn't make them any less or more of a traitor or patriot, that just makes them intelligent given the circumstances, and expected outcomes.
You'd be insane to not do that after watching what the admin has done to Manning or Drake. Edit: I see Northside beat me to it.
So the dude is such a noble, proud patriot...that he's unwilling to face the charges in a proper court like Mr. Ellsberg (and, it should be noted, like Drake and Manning) and instead flees to a country that whatever you think of Obama, is a thousand times worse with human rights. What a fine specimen of humanity right there.
I think it's a condemnation of the Obama Admin. more than anything that the guy would rather take his chances with Hong Kong (an important distinction from mainland PRC) then an American court. It speaks volumes as to how whistleblowers are treated in America, or at least, how they have been treated recently. given how the Obama Admin. doesn't seem to be listening to its' own FISC court, or a plurality of constitutional scholars on the Eighth Amendment violations of Manning's treatment, I don't particularily see why anyone would think the court would be "proper".
