Slashdot Mirror
Jimmy Carter: Snowden Disclosures Are 'Good For Americans To Know'
McGruber writes: "Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter defended the disclosures by fugitive NSA contractor Edward Snowden on Monday, saying revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies were collecting meta-data of Americans' phone calls and e-mails have been 'probably constructive in the long run.' 'I think it's wrong,' President Carter said of the NSA program. 'I think it's an intrusion on one of the basic human rights of Americans, is to have some degree of privacy if we don't want other people to read what we communicate.'"
It's important to note that Carter doesn't believe Snowden should necessarily get a pass for his actions. Carter said, "I think it's inevitable that he should be prosecuted and I think he would be prosecuted, [if he comes back to the U.S.] But I don't think he ought to be executed as a traitor or any kind of extreme punishment like that." Nevertheless, Carter thinks NSA surveillance has gotten out of control. "We've gone a long way down the road of violating Americans' basic civil rights, as far as privacy is concerned." He added, "For the last two or three years, when I want to write a highly personal letter to a foreign leader, or even some American leaders, I hand-write it and mail it, because I feel that my telephone calls and my email are being monitored, and there are some things I just don’t want anybody to know except me and my wife."
What does President Carter have to hide? Must be some sort of terrorist if he wants to communicate privately. We should get a government security detail to monitor this dissident ASAP.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Lets have a discussion about how smart we are because of how we vote.
They'd done a sloppy job of resealing the envelope after steaming it open. Back to wax seals I guess.
Unfortunately, then, it's most likely bad.
Thanks a lot, Jimmy. Now I have to label Snowden a traitor like the rest of uninformed society because you support his actions. Way to go...
http://weaselzippers.us/180562-global-warming-alarmist-president-travels-to-belgium-with-900-strong-entourage-45-vehicles-3-cargo-planes/
Because environment.
Fuck these socialist assholes.
Sigh.
I don't think Carter was implying that he SHOULD be prosecuted, but rather just stating that it is inevitable that he WILL be if he returns to the US. Meaning, there is nothing he or anyone else could do about it.
This has nothing to do with socialism, but everything to do with assholes.
Ah yes, Obama, our weak totalitarian king community organizer who is controlled by nazi tree-hugging muslim pastors.
Did I get everything that's wrong with Obama? Or am I missing the fear du jour?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I'm glad that Mr. Carter is so concerned about the basic human rights of Americans. I would, however, urge him to explain to me how the basic human rights of Americans differ from the basic human rights of other humans...
Seriously, all of the recent news about the NSA basically read "oh, we will take better care of US citizens", but the fact that they explicitly mention the "basic human rights of Americans" or "US citizens" probably implies "we'll continue as before spying on our friends over in Europe and elsewhere"...
I'm glad to hear Carter's stance on NSA and spying but I'm deeply disappointed that he stopped short of exoneration for Snowden. In my mind, Snowden is a patriot. No country should sacrifice liberty for security. When this happens, the terrorists win. Yes, they win and win big.
Ah yes, Obama, our weak totalitarian king community organizer who is controlled by nazi tree-hugging muslim pastors.
Did I get everything that's wrong with Obama? Or am I missing the fear du jour?
I think you forgot to play the race card.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Hmmmm. Sounds suspicious!
What do you have to hide President Carter?? Why would you want to keep something secret if you haven't done anything wrong?
Exactly. I see this kind of reasoning all the time, that somehow it is a moral obligation to report crimes but that one should be punished for doing what is morally right just because one broke the law in the process.
That is hypocritical. Punishing someone is the same thing as saying that it was the wrong thing to do.
If the law dictates that we can't do what is morally right or even says that we have to commit immoral acts, then the law is clearly wrong and no-one should be punished by it. Also, it should be changed.
No execution as a traitor ... unless that's sworn testimony at trial establishes that he was one, of course.
A long, dark time in a SuperMax hole should be sufficient for his crimes he already admitted to.
I hate it when Jimmy Carter and I agree on anything.
The opinion of every republican seeking to shame obama switches because Carter.
Jimmy Carter is the best ex-president we've ever had.
he used the word "should"
but first we need to prosecute the criminals he revealed. Unless that happens, nothing will change.
Ah yes, Obama, our weak totalitarian king community organizer who is controlled by nazi tree-hugging muslim pastors.
Did I get everything that's wrong with Obama? Or am I missing the fear du jour?
I think you forgot to play the race card.
And he forgot to call Obama a "socialist". Also some kind of shot at "Obamacare" is always called for in such matters.
Oh for fuck's sake don't be such a jerk about this. Carter may not be anywhere near the best President we've had in this country, but he was President, and as such his making statements like these publicly actually does mean something, and I for one am glad he's come out and said what he had to say. Furthermore I suspect there are other notable people who'd like to follow suit but didn't want to be the first one to do so. 'Bout damned time, I say.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I like the fact Obama did exactly what anyone else has done while sitting in the chair. Black or not. Obama is extremely intelligent, along with the women, his wife. It's not ethnicity or gender - it is culture we should have prejudice for. And culture has much to do with mobility.
Politicians are quick to say the NSA has gone too far, but none of them have the balls to say Snowden should be pardoned. Grow some balls. He apparently tried several times to bring his concerns to his superiors, only to be shut down. If he didn't do what he did, we would not know what we know, or even be having this discussion. There's no need to make him a martyr. He did what was right.
Yeah, the Post Office has been collecting metadata from mail far longer than the NSA has been monitoring e-mails NY Times
he used the word "should"
Yes, but like all politicians; It's not what he said that matters. It's how they later back peddle and redefine the meaning of a word to appease the outraged masses.
"We've gone a long way down the road of violating Americans' basic civil rights, as far as privacy is concerned."
I wonder what he thinks should happen to the people that have secretly taken us down this road.
'I think it's an intrusion on one of the basic human rights of Americans..."
I would add every innocent person on the planet. Somehow, that's not a common belief.
Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
It is one thing to invade the privacy of your citizens.
It is quite another thing to do this without them knowing that this is happening at this scale (!)
Snowden deserves to be exempt from further prosecution.
In fact, I believe NSA officers should be trialed for not announcing the nature of their actions.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Scooby Doo can doo doo but Jimmy Carter is smarter.
It was good for snowden to speak about about NSA's spying on Americans. That is whistle blowing. Sadly, it is less than 5% of what he has spoken about.
95% of what he has outed is pure treason.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"For the last two or three years, when I want to write a highly personal letter to a foreign leader, or even some American leaders, I hand-write it and mail it, because I feel that my telephone calls and my email are being monitored, and there are some things I just don’t want anybody to know except me and my wife."
Image detecting apparatus and method for reading and or verifying the contents of sealed envelopes
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
Carter was a good president, probably the one of the best, that just happened to be not as good at politics.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
Right, Whatever you think of Carter one of the common defenses jerks like Obama hide behind and lots of other people is, "the realities of the office."
And typically is pretty hard to counter argument because very few of us have any where near the information privilege the President does, and probably none can really understand the responsibility. However someone who has been President can; so that it cuts that argument off at the knees.
Carter condemning the surveillance, and calling the Snowden disclosures good for Americans, helps expose the "national security" lie.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I agree, this is a serious cop-out on Carter's part. Either you think the info shouldn't have been released and Snowden should be prosecuted, or you think it's good that it was and therefore he shouldn't be. It's inconsistent and pathetic to take the benefit of the data leak and yet support the punishment of the person(s) who gave you that benefit anyway.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
"And I'm proud to be an American, were I know that I am free..."
He should go to trial. So we can really filter out the information about his status. You can do the a good thing, however the way that you did it was wrong.
He did leak classified documents. That was bad.
However did he only leak information about illegal activity or did he leak valid legal methods too?
Did he follow the correct procedure on reporting illegal activity?
How/if was he stopped in following this procedure?
To me it seemed that he was faced with three options.
1. Shut-up and just let it go. He keeps his job.
2. Force it up the authorities. He would loose his job.
3. Blast out the information to the world wide public. He could get arrested.
He choose option 3. Assuming his morals prevented option 1, a good and noble thing. However option 2 may have fixed the problems without all the internet (in)fame(y) and running from the US. He may have lost his job, it isn't as heroic, but he probably could sue on whistle blowing protection.
Working in the system against the system is slow and boring. But it can get results.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Consequences carry. It doesn't matter what is right, just what is legal; the legal system doesn't concern itself with what is right and wrong. To an extent, what is right and wrong doesn't even cover all of what society needs--although my current theory is that operating in contrary to the three laws is always harmful to society, while fully following the three laws doesn't create an optimal society on its own.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
All things point to the fact that organized money making bodies, be it governments, corporations, non-profits, crime cartels, whatnot, they would manage to get away with all sorts of shit that a common citizen will get life for. Look at all the spinning about the missing airliner, the f***ing of global communications, the waste of tax dollars for ideological gain, the crazily stupid mayors and governors all over the places, the senators, prime ministers and the presidents that lie on just about everything -- they get away from all those by throwing up another one of the same thing! What a common citizen would be looking at in the same situation? The system is sh*t
Democracy is a game that goes Damned if you play and Damned if you don't. Because it's no longer about people understanding issues, it's about pushing issues down the throats of mind-f***ed populace force-fed with crazy entertainment -- in between the mind-f***ing dimwit shifts of the "thousands of jobs created" by those who take the whole planet for a f***.
For every one of the fantastically success stories of those wonderfully endowed kids, there are hundreds more that got the shorter sticks in this rush to the technology. The whole thing is a Ponzi scheme that siphons resources from all over to fed the riches of the few "successful" ones -- whose successes were no less by luck than by anything. Some governments used to dampen down such scheme a bit by taxation and so on, while now more and more those guys start to worry about job-creation ... what the f***, except for short change the bigger good for short term employment gain, there is no point for any public policy to benefit corporations! Most of the so called progress that gave rise to such fantastic economy now a days were not done by corporations with only profits in their minds -- they were more carried out by people that loved exploring in their own volition. But now monetization was so entrenched in everything, research is not even interesting anymore -- because researchers are paid not as intelligent people they are supposed to be, but as cows that will need to be milked regularly to produce monetary gain. F*** science, it going down the road of a painful death. There will still be scientific work, but mostly they will be for show. The inherent structure of scientific debate will be put up as a debate of opinions, not to reach a common ground, but for show, for entertainment -- of course, disguised as "edutainment". Really, with different point of views every once in a while, with a system encouraging poking fun at any serious thinking, who should expect the guys busy living the hard life as it is should really pay any attention to all of these? As long as more than half of the voting populace will take the words for it, nothing will improve.
Things will not change, and nothing is going to work out. Power is with the people -- but only those with a corporation behind them. F***!
"Obama is extremely intelligent"
And what do you base this on? What evidence is there that tells you with such certainty that he is intelligent?
Real question.
If we'd left it up to Jimmy "Gentleman Red" Carter, the USSR would still be holding on to huge parts of Eastern Europe and murdering dissidents.
In leadership, a softy hand is often more destructive than a strong hand, which affirms which behaviors are good and which are bad. Reagan was able to implement a clear moral boundary and drive totalitarianism away.
Futurist Traditionalism
Yeah well, we're always hearing former presidents and staff members speaking up, and it's bullshit. They should DO something about it while they have the power. "Deathbed" confessions are bogus. I can hardly wait to hear Obama's "apologies" thirty or forty years from now, or sooner if he has a book coming out. Screw these people.
On the other hand, Carter was probably the "least bad" president in the last fifty years. But basically he served only as a placeholder until the Nixon thing blew over and Reagan could step in.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"And he forgot to call Obama a "socialist"."
But he is a socialist. Redistribution of wealth is pretty much the textbook definition of socialism, and he haz it.
"I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody." Barack Obama
Why do you guys always try and deny this? I though you were all proud of being socialist, no?
"For the last two or three years, when I want to write a highly personal letter to a foreign leader, or even some American leaders, I hand-write it and mail it, because I feel that my telephone calls and my email are being monitored..."
This is a man who is still afforded Secret Service protection to this day, and he actually thinks his communications to foreign or American leaders are private because he licked a stamp.
Seriously, how ignorant can one really be.
Carter was (is) a nice guy, probably one of the nicest, that just happened to be not good at politics, economics, or rescuing hostages.
FTFY
Just another day in Paradise
Now if Carter would only admit that, in 1978, instead of signing the FISA bill into law he should have listened to various rights groups like the ACLU warning about how the creation of a rubber-stamp secret court like FISA would only erode civil liberties and allow for a greater expansion of the surveillance state instead of limiting it, and vetoed it.
^^^++++++1
Wow, You, bloody Patriot!
So, if you don't have the information, and can't make a valid counter argument, how did you come to the determination that the people making those common defenses are jerks? I'm not saying Carter is out of touch, but he doesn't have access to information anymore. It's been just a few years since he'd qualify for that. You'd need information from someone who's current...it might be a lie, but we can't prove it w/o access...anyone with access can't tell us w/o getting into deep shit either. We all just "know" what they're doing is dirty and wrong because it walks like a duck and quacks like one.
Just another day in Paradise
Well I hardly think pointing out the problems to authorities would have worked. I mean Clapper can't even tell Congress anything truthful, its not like he or anyone else at NSA was going to act on some low level sys admin questioning the legality of the program, no I pretty much think Snowden's only real options were either (1) or (3) because (2) might as well be (1) for all it would matter.
That said yea, he probably should be prosecuted. He is suspected of having committed serious criminal acts, its the prosecutors job to prosecute people who have apparently violated the law. Its a juries job to recognize he did society a favor and acquit him either through some legal fact finding like he qualifies as a whistle blower, or simply via nullification.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
partly the fact that despite being an ex-stoner from Hawaii (Yeah brah!), half-African, with a last name of Obama (rhymes with Osama), he became POTUS. Oh and he graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law school. That's not enough for you? What's he got to do to win you over, win a Nobel Prize?
Only I can judge you.
He committed to Snowden and the freedom of privacy in the same way he committed to America's energy independence by wearing a sweater on TV.
Well, at least he didn't keep the White House thermostat at 78 degrees F like the current resident.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
To be fair to Carter, most of the problems with the hostage rescue were actually military service interoperability problems. JSOC was founded AFTER the disaster because the military realized their own processes were not up to par. That said, his politics and economics were not so great. He's been an awesome ex-president though!
You forgot that he's an alien.
Just another day in Paradise
Carter knows how the system works (or more like how it doesn't work) he isn't going to go too far out on a limb when he doesn't know the details of the situation. Plus despite his age and lower activity he knows he can't afford to cause himself too much trouble - he has said for decades that he had to avoid stepping on toes because of the repercussions.
In addition, his philosophy is you change things within a system; which means dealing with the broken process and trying to fix it along the way. He does not have an insurgent mindset where one goes around the system on the assumption that it is useless and unrepairable. So it is a rather big deal that he backs Snowden's circumvention as much as he does. His thinking would be along the lines of a whistle blower protection process so one wouldn't need to circumvent the system. You simply don't succeed in the Military and then become US President without at least a little authoritarian bias.
Carter was the last actual president on the USA. Afterwards they were all vetted so they will not mess with the establishment. It just goes to show, the president doesn't have much power; just like a puppet dictator, the only power is that which is sanctioned by those who are actually in control.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
"partly the fact that despite being an ex-stoner from Hawaii (Yeah brah!), half-African, with a last name of Obama (rhymes with Osama), he became POTUS."
This means nothing. I am asking this as a serious question, honestly, and this is really a very non-serious answer.
"and he graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law school"
Uh huh, well OK then, this is more along the serious line, granted.
So what were his grades? What did he produce or write while in school? I'm just looking for something concrete here. Anything really.
Got anything?
So, if you don't have the information, and can't make a valid counter argument, how did you come to the determination that the people making those common defenses are jerks? I'm not saying Carter is out of touch, but he doesn't have access to information anymore. It's been just a few years since he'd qualify for that.
This guy has been a US president. Full stop. You and I have not. But do you NEED to be, for the NSA revelations to affect you, knowing or not? Do you need security clearance to have a simple opinion that based on your prior experience, and information coming out now, there's educated conclusions that can be made?
As an analogy, just because you don't use Office 2013, or 2007 (and there are many reasons not to, such as the Ribbon) does it mean your MS office skills are useless? Even with Office 95 knowledge from 20 years ago, someone "savvy" can come in and get trained to the newest standard. If not savvy, it does not mean that effort is meaningless.
Who needs to take a shot at Obamacare? He's doing that himself with his own executive orders. He's tacitly admitted that both the employer and citizen mandates are untenable.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Wow, ex-president Carter was a navy seal? I had no fucking clue.
You seem to be taking a pretty hardline populist argument for someone with a "repeal the 17th amendment" sig. Just saying.
I always wondered why that mission failed so badly and then I read up on our special forces. They had only been formed fairly recently before that mission (a few years?) and that mission was one of the first. I was surprised, I had assumed we had those types of special forces groups in the military for a long time.
"Unless you make more than about $140,000 per year, I'm sorry to inform you that you're sucking on Big Brother's teat."
Apparently when they pass around paychecks they don't pass around brains huh?
You are describing the progressive income tax, another central socialist tenet. Do I need to explain this to you like a child? Your example serves only to further prove my point that Obama is a socialist.
You're welcome, asshole. And no, I don't believe you make much over minimum wage, truth be told. People who earn over 6 figures like that typically know how to speak English, I'm wondering why you do not.
He was good at bringing home the pork such as the nuke sub base in GA; one of the worst places on the coast for such a base because of the shallow water around it.
Eish... where did yous go to skool?
Peddle = to sell craft in a flea market
Pedal = to pedal a bicycle
Back Pedal = to engage the reverse pedal brakes of a bike to slow down, or reverse on a bike with a fixed cog.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Yeah mail is distributed today by scanning it and OCRing the text of the addresses. Only when OCR fails does a human operator get called to recognize the text. I have heard reports from a long time back that governments often checked the contents of mail of certain people. Fact is you can read the contents of a lot of letters without opening them at all.
Its not like there were no terrorists when Carter was president. Has the technology changed yes, have the threats evolved I am sure they have to some degree. Cater has remained active and involved in these issues, he has lots of contacts and as I said he has been President! He has and therefor can speak with lots of authority compared to most. Would Bush or Clinton's opinions also be strong perhaps stronger, probably.
We the voters are not going to get perfect information on this. We know some facts thanks to Snowden, we know some voices in this debate have exposed themselves as liars, but not ultimately faced with incomplete information and a sea of disinformation we are going to have to settle for some appeals to authority and rely somewhat on opinions of people we know are qualified to have them.
Frankly based on all the revelations, Were I locked in cave I'd be more inclined to entertain the truthfulness of Carter telling me the sky is now red, than to GWB or Obummer trying to sell me on the idea it remains blue.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
No, Snowden is a government plant. His mission is to ocnvince the world that the NSA has far more capability than it actually does, in effect to terrorize the public. Trust the math.
Hitler used propaganda to fighten the people into believing they are all being monitored as well.
I agree that would be nice.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Furthermore I suspect there are other notable people who'd like to follow suit but didn't want to be the first one to do so. 'Bout damned time, I say.
Like Rand and Ron Paul have been doing? or more like Ex Presidents? A few in politics really have been yelling about this for a while, you just need to go find information because our media in the US works for the few running our government and not the people.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Carter would have been re-elected if he'd ordered a rescue/strike that had ended up rescuing 2/3 of the hostages and got the rest killed. I am certain of it.
SF groups in the military as we know them really got their start with the Strategic Operations Executive in WW2, and their missions basically consisted of going behind enemy lines and wrecking shit.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Snowden has said that he tried option 2 and was told to keep quiet. Add in that others who tried Option 2 a bit louder found themselves not only fired but with trumped up charges brought against them. This left Snowden's only real options as 1 (Keep quiet) and 3 (release the information). He chose 3 and, rightfully so, decided that doing this meant he'd need to go on the run.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
ZERO, but not because of Carter. And, the failed rescue mission, which arguably was his responsibility resulted in the loss of eight servicemen. It could be argued that this was the military's fault. But considering it was one of Delta Force's first missions, whoever decided that it was a good idea, or that they were prepared for the mission, should have been hung out to dry, and in the long run it's still Carter's responsibility.
Just another day in Paradise
Carter was a good president, probably the one of the best, that just happened to be not as good at politics.
Citation needed.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
The fact that he was willing to speak out against the NSA proves that he has nothing to hide.
To be fair to Carter, most of the problems with the hostage rescue were actually a result of the USA covertly installing a puppet government in a sovereign nation and continued use of the US embassy in Tehran as a forward operating base by American intelligency agents.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
intelligence agents too.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In some ways his best accomplishments were done after his term:
http://www.cartercenter.org/he...
it's not just the phone meta-data program! this guy has leaked out all kind of state secrets.
The NSA gets funded to gather data about America's adversaries and potential advesaries, such that America is prepared for all kind of threats, not just terrorism. Every country does that, or would do that, if they had the means.
Snowden flushed much of that work, for which people have devoted their whole careers, down the toilet and alerted America's adversaries, for free. Those guys can now happily circumvent intelligence gathering and can more easily prepare, say, invasions of other countries.
I am sickened by this selfish "but..but.. they read my e-mails" argument, look what's going on in the world, it aint no freakin picknick!
get a break snowden fans, who gives a damn about your mails
there's more important things outside than your freaking uninteresting emails, ever checked the news in the last 2 weeks?
Or as with most bikes these days...
Back Pedal = flail about pointlessly.
Kinda apt I think.
He's wrong about a lot of things, and he was a terrible President, but I've always thought he was a fairly decent guy. Good for him.
Even if all that were true he still wouldn't be as bad as Carter
http://www.commentarymagazine....
The foreign policy of the Carter administration fails not for lack of good intentions but for lack of realism about the nature of traditional versus revolutionary autocracies and the relation of each to the American national interest. Only intellectual fashion and the tyranny of Right/Left thinking prevent intelligent men of good will from perceiving the facts that traditional authoritarian governments are less repressive than revolutionary autocracies, that they are more susceptible of liberalization, and that they are more compatible with U.S. interests. The evidence on all these points is clear enough.
Surely it is now beyond reasonable doubt that the present governments of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos are much more repressive than those of the despised previous rulers; that the government of the People's Republic of China is more repressive than that of Taiwan, that North Korea is more repressive than South Korea, and so forth. This is the most important lesson of Vietnam and Cambodia. It is not new but it is a gruesome reminder of harsh facts.
Carter took a hard line with traditional US allies but a very soft one with traditional US enemies. The end result was predictably that US enemies gained and US allies lost. The problem was that those US enemies were actually even more repressive than the most dubious of the US's allies. Khomeini was worse than the Shah. The PRC was worse than the ROC.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
You would make a much better case if you weren't posting content from a right-wing opinion magazine, written by a Reagan administration functionary.
Short version: the right-wing hates Democrats and all their works, no matter what the reality of the situation.
partly the fact that despite being an ex-stoner from Hawaii (Yeah brah!), half-African, with a last name of Obama (rhymes with Osama), he became POTUS. Oh and he graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law school. That's not enough for you? What's he got to do to win you over, win a Nobel Prize?
Oh who doesn't have a Nobel Peace Prize these days with the way they've simply been handing them out? Didn't you get yours already?
Was the last President to accomplish anything significant in the Middle East Peace Process.
Was the last President to be concerned about Energy Policy on a level other than "Do what the Energy Companies pay you to do"... (He created the Energy Dept)
Took responsibility for his failures unlike his successor who claimed to be unaware of what his underlings did in his name. (Iran Contra)
Was the last honest President and never said things like "If you like your insurance you can keep it", "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction", "I did not have sex with that woman", "Read my lips: No new taxes", or talked about the virtues of smaller government while increasing the size of the military industrial complex, or waging a war on drugs as if American adults needed the government to tell them which intoxications they could indulge in...
He created less national debt than his successors
He didn't get the United States involved in any war. Between wars and attacks from Beirut, to the Stark, to the Cole, to Iraq War I, to Iraq War II, to Afghanistan, more military personnel died serving his succesors
His administration was far from perfect, but 100 years from now when OBJECTIVE historians research his time in office, he's going to come out looking a lot better than a lot of revisionist republican HACK historians would lead you to believe.
Carter only committed terrorism in his heart and the NSA is only spying on him in their hearts,
But seriously, what's someone going to say? "I think it's bad for Americans to have found out what their government is doing, because that only leads to a government that governs with the informed consent of the governed."
Anyone who thinks America ought to be the in dark on this, is pretty much by definition anti-American. I thought all the controversy was about whether or the benefits to America were overbalanced by the benefits to America's adversaries. A person might take the position that secrecy hurts them more than it hurts us, so they'd think the secrecy could be a net gain in our zero-sum conflict with enemies. But that the disclosure is "good for Americans to know" is kind of "duh."
stop voting, stop sending them there, stop allowing them to be elected, stop allowing them to rule you, stop paying all taxes of-course
You anarchist types fail to recognize one very important thing: Your 'anarchy' will last a few weeks at best, until the local wanna-be warlord takes the opportunity to fill the power vacuum left by your taking a chainsaw to the government. Then everyone is worse off than they were.
What I think is irrelevant
Yes, it very much is.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Kirkpatrick was originally - in her words 'an AFL-CIO Democrat'. She switched sides over this issue.
Also let's look at her prediction
Moreover, the history of this century provides no grounds for expecting that radical totalitarian regimes will transform themselves. At the moment there is a far greater likelihood of progressive liberalization and democratization in the governments of Brazil, Argentina, and Chile than in the government of Cuba; in Taiwan than in the Peopleâ(TM)s Republic of China; in South Korea than in North Korea; in Zaire than in Angola; and so forth.
That turned out pretty much spot on didn't it? All the pro US authoritarian states apart from Zaire liberalised. And anti US totalitarian ones did not - not even after USSR collpased
So right now Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Taiwan and South Korea are all democracies. I've worked in Taiwan, South Korea and China and Taiwan - which Carter sold out completely - is a lot more civilised than China.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
What? no. The mission had been aborted. Is was refueling after the abort when a helicopter crashed into a refueling aircraft.
While it was Carter responsibility, it was Kissinger the convinced Carter to allow the shah into the US for medical treatment.
The release was staged by the CIA to happen just after Reagan was sworn in.
hen the pubs take responsibility for hem being release while ignoring the 444 days that happened prior. It was pretty well known this was going to happen, and the CIA refused to do any more rescue missions.
The holloween massacre created a rift between the white house the CIA.
Yes, I know it all sound tin foil hatish, but you can easily verify all of it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Carter may be one of the best ex-presidents we've had in a long time.
This is exactly the kind of comment you would expect to hear coming from the new world order side of the tracks.. I have felt all along that this sNOwden had ties to them. Is there nothing they won't do to see America fall?
They had to have a first mission sooner or later. They were as prepared as the could have been for the times.
Just so you know, carter approved aborting the mission and they where on there way back when the accident happened. Along with a general, but I don't remember his name.
The pubs loved to go on like Carter personally killed each one of those men. It was the CIA that refused to do any more missions because they had already negotiated for the release of the hostages without white house knowledge to correspond with Reagan swearing in. There were released 20 minutes after he was sworn in. I remember Cronkite talking about this that summer.
I am not saying Carer wasn't responsible, just that you should no the facts.
*There are indicators it was an exchange for weapons. No proof.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Caret hasn't been president for quite some time.
He also believe aliens are visiting the planet. SO.... grain of salt.
Most sigs are like bible quotes. No one really thinks about them., but they make them feel good and they don'y have to think much
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You really know nothing about what happened, do you?
commentary magazine? please.
For one example of how bad that article is, just look at the fact that the blame carter for the Russian military build up even though it started well before he was president, it just happened to peak during his presidency.
That pieces is a horrid piece of trash.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
yes. He broke the law, and a pretty serious one.
Is he a traitor? no.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
so there's that.
Jimmy Carter lowered the Federal deficit (look it up!), and through his Fed chair appointee Paul Volcker squelched an incipient hyperinflation crisis by choking off the money supply. This was necessary because Nixon's appointee, Arthur F. Burns, had put the economy on a disastrous inflationary path. Volcker began relentlessly raising interest rates month after quarter to no avail, until finally the prime rate hit 20.00% (!!!). For comparison the current prime rate is 3.25%.
The result of fiscal austerity with a reduced money supply is high unemployment and stagnant growth, and since the medicine doesn't act instantly Carter got stagnation and near hyperinflation together. That was the right thing to do economically but very bad politics. But by July of the 1980 election year inflation had begun to decline, but this was too late to affect the elections.
Economic growth rebounded strongly in the first quarter of 1981. This was after Reagan took office, but months before any of his economic and budgeting policies took effect. Essentially, the "Reagan Boom" started under Carter's economic policies. Some will say it was Reagan's personality that infused the economy with confidence, and there may be a little truth in that; but I think that inflation dropping to single digits for the first time had something to do with the renewed confidence.
Reagan's economic policy amounted to this; massive increases deficit spending on a scale unseen since WW2. Federal outlays in 1981 were 678 billion; in 1989 it had balloned to 1,144 billion, an astonishing 69% increase in spending. Federal deficits rose from 2.75% of GDP under Carter's last budget to an average of 4.2% of GDP under Reagan. Which was not necessarily a bad thing, although I think it was a little excessive. But imagine raising deficits to 5.2% of GDP (as Reagan once did) if inflation were 15% or even 20%. There would have been no Keynsian "Reagan Boom" without the Carter era austerity. But Reagan gets 100% of the political credit for ending stagflation, even though he deserves no credit whatsoever in ending the inflationary part.
The right thing to do economically is a matter of context. Sometimes it's better to spend, other times it's better to tighten your belt. But tightening your belt is never politically popular, and it doesn't produce instant results.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Like every embassy ever operated by any country ever too ;)
Don't you know that the Nazis were socialists? It's clearly right there in their name, National Socialism. No doubt they were a bunch of left-wing sympathizers imposing their gay, Jewish elite agenda on the rest of the world, just like Obama.
</sarcasm>
when it comes to having to pay for things like contraceptives or abortions.
How about this? You can withhold the percentage of your income taxes that provide abortions and contraceptives when you allow people who oppose war to withhold the percentage that gets pissed away on the military budget. Deal?
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
You forgot that he's an alien.
Dang. I missed that, too. Forgot the Birther angle.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
If he would have limited his releases to just the domestic spying and the illegal/unconstitution stuff, few people would be calling him a traitor or saying he should be prosecuted. However, he didn't so here we are with even an ex pres saying it was good but he should be arrested and prosecuted.
Considering the logistical nightmare it is to intercept, duplicate, re-seal, and store dead-tree comms? Pretty damned good.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
I'm aware that it takes a long time to move the economy, but I also recall very high level (yes, it's a lagging indicator of the economy, but it didn't actually start to decline until '83 according to http://www.ledgerdata.com/unem...) of unemployment through the end of that year. And, I remember it well, as I was just out of the military (Oct 81), and searching for my first civilian job. Fortunately for me, computer technicians were in demand, but even with several years experience, and a 2 yr degree, But it still took until Jan '82 to get a couple offers.
Just another day in Paradise
and remain morally, legally or ethically consistent.
The law-and-order types have to respect the privacy of mailed communications. To do otherwise is a federal crime punishable by hard time. Further, as a former president, intercepting Carter's communications would be considered particularly heinous. It is very likely that he is still privy to information classified as Top Secret.
In fact this is starting to get the heart of the matter. Electronic communications have been given different legal status than the mails, and for no other reason I can see than interception of electronic comm. is easier. Well, most e-mail is plaintext and thus trivially easy to intercept. But that's a technical distinction, not a legal one.
If people didn't make the problem about the efficacy of the programs, these terrible excuses would vanish. What matters is that they're violating the constitution and people's freedoms, and that would be unacceptable even if the programs were effective.
[End Of Line]
He did leak classified documents. That was bad.
Nope. Leaking classified documents is not in and of itself wrong.
[End Of Line]
As for option 2, then the American people wouldn't know about it. If the government is violating people's rights and doing something unconstitutional, or even doing something immoral, the first people you should go to *are* the American people. Leaking all this information was a good thing.
[End Of Line]
Yes, it was far more politically expedient to deal with terrorists and pay them off instead of rescuing the hostages. Carter tried to do the right thing and was hated for it. Reagan paid off terrorists on his first day and is for some reason revered like a saint.
And what would you do as president when this has been on every TV for the last 400+ days?
Just another day in Paradise
I assume oh well paid one, that you meant wandering
In hindsight just about anything else. Sending the message to the world that you can be pushed around by terrorists is a very stupid thing.
why, how many nine elevens did he have on his watch?
Carter was (is) a nice guy, probably one of the nicest, that just happened to be not good at politics, economics, or rescuing hostages.
FTFY
Despite not being well respected, he was able to keep the NSA under control during his tenure!
@iserlohn: "Carter was a good president, probably the one of the best, that just happened to be not as good at politics".
It doesn't help if the future president Regan does a deal with Iran to sell them arms and to withhold releasing the hostages until after Regan is sworn in as President. The moneys so gained being passed onto the Nicaraguan Contras. Such moneys being used to fund the importation of cocaine into the US under the protection of the CIA. "Honduran DC-6 which is being used for runs out of New Orleans is probably being used for drug runs into U.S."
I think that the GP is upset because Carter wasn't making such claims while he was the president. What if Obama says in 20 years how it was wrong to imprison Manning? Would it suprise you? Or it's just the type of hypocritical behaviour you would expect from a politician?
If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
yes. He broke the law, and a pretty serious one.
Wouldn't have been necessary if the NSA did not conspire to abolish the constitution. Which is not just "a pretty serious" law but the basis for all laws which he was sworn in to protect.
Is he a traitor? no.
What does it matter? Traitors like Alexander and Clapper which lend comfort and support to the enemies of the U.S.A. and work on abolishing the rightful constitution of the U.S.A. are given a free pass, job security, lots of money, and freedom from prosecution even when their treason involves straight perjury and fraud on congress.
If we answered the question "is he a traitor?" with a resounding "yes", then he'd be qualified for high-ranking government jobs. That would appear to be more or less a prerequisite.
Unless you worked there, or somewhere else in the IC, you wouldn't know.
Just another day in Paradise
If he would have limited his releases to just the domestic spying and the illegal/unconstitution stuff, few people would be calling him a traitor or saying he should be prosecuted.
You're so naive it's almost cute.
You can't possibly believe what you just wrote to be true...
This is apparently news to you, but there are national security incidents and problems besides the events of 9/11/2001.
But if you want to play that game, both Nixon and Reagan were in office twice as long as Carter and had the same number of "9/11"s. And the whole Afghanistan thing got its start under Carter, not to mention problems with Iran. So actually Carter does have a meaningful role in our current issues.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Unfortunately, option 2 had been tried by a couple of other people in positions like his. They did not get the message out nor were the problems fixed, as they were still around for Snowden to show. http://gawker.com/previous-nsa... So yes, I believe that Snowden felt this was the only way to get the information out to the public, where he felt the public discussion would help bring change.
In which case we have to ask why Nixon went to China to open up relations. The relevant opera is called "Nixon in China" (and I didn't like it much). The Vulcan proverb is "Only Nixon can go to China". The name "Carter" does not feature in either of those.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
We should imprison the prison guards, too. It's the only way to be sure.
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
SF units have existed for quite some time. However, integrated aviation was quite new. They were using essentially off the shelf hardware. It was not designed for the task, the personnel were not trained for the task, there was no institutional experience at the task, etc. Long range rotary wing operations are not something you can successfully pull off A-Team style out of a pile of junk.
Now, most of kinks have been worked out. Purpose built aircraft, better training, more experience, etc.
Carter has always been a bumbling idiot!
I see you believe what you say so much you had yo post it AC.
I said few not none. I'm sure there would be die hard idiots out there. The difference would be that people like me who are paying attention would be on your side. Right now its like the concerned citizen who tries to stop a hostage situation by shooting the hostages as well as their captors. Definatrly not someone you would call a hero
No, just a nuclear submariner and later on-site nuclear accident commander.
Actually the CIA went rogue behind his back causing most of the problems, sounds familiar to todays NSA.
I dont recall anyone invading the homeland and killing thousands of people though.
It's all irrelevant anyway, your presidents are like the queen, not much real power. Just a figurehead for photo ops and state dinners. Other people set the agendas and pull the strings.
Apparently he realized the negative effects of this law only, well, several decades later. Still I laud him for standing up.
And because of the "War on Terrorism, Life, Liberty, and every other Right in particular", and the ol' national security excuse, I would hope for him to at least get a speedy trial, given the different laws that apply to military courts, if the NSA counts as part of the military. Snowden was a contractor though, probably, so that depends.
"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs." - Madeleine Albright
In the long run, it's still Eisenhower's (and Allae Dulles') responsibility, as it was under his watch that we supported the overthrow of Iran's democratically-elected government, which was the ultimate cause for the Iran hostage crisis. Blaming Carter for the crisis makes less sense than blaming Obama for Iraq.
Citation.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
I'm well aware of the history. Try reading what I wrote instead of making shit up like "Blaming Carter for the crisis makes less sense than blaming Obama for Iraq."
Just another day in Paradise
"the failed rescue mission, which arguably was his responsibility resulted in the loss of eight servicemen" -- You
"in the long run it's still Carter's responsibility." -- You again
If you meant to absolve Carter of any blame, you weren't communicating that clearly.
If you meant to blame Carter, I sought to counter your claim.
Perhaps you can point out the part of your post that you feel I didn't read?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
I clearly stated the "failed rescue mission", which has absolutely nothing to do with the historical fact that presented. While Carter had nothing to do with the reason for Iran taking the hostages, he absolutely held responsibility for the attempted rescue.
Just another day in Paradise