That is faulty reasoning. There is a difference between random accidents and deliberate attacks. But if you want to pursue that line of reasoning, let me know when you're willing to give up law enforcement as well.
The cost of the fight against al Qaida is a relatively small percentage of the federal budget. The fundamental tenets of the US aren't being trampled. Still have free speech? Yes. Still have freedom of religion? Yes. Still have the vote? Yes. Still have 2nd Amendment rights? Yes. There are plenty more.
Alexander, speaking before the House intelligence committee, said the programs "have protected the U.S. and our allies from terrorist threats across the globe," pointing to the intelligence community's ability to better connect the dots as a reason why there hasn't been another 9/11-style attack.
Specifically, he said they helped prevent terror "events" more than 50 times in more than 20 countries since 2001. Alexander said he plans to provide details on all the cases to lawmakers in a classified setting on Wednesday.
There NO place for... secret Congressional hearings in a free society.
That is a popular if completely unserious view. Do you really believe that in the modern world today that a republic of 300,000,000 people will have no secrets that have to be maintained, and that you personally should have access to everything at your whim? If you do, then you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of representative government.
There NO place for secret courts... in a free society.
The US FISA court isn't a secret trial court that tries suspects for guilt or innocence. It is a court that handles classified information and requests for warrants. The judges on it are ordinary judges. If the FISA court didn't exist, little would change. The matters before it would still be confidential.
How about instead of creating new legislation, they repeal some old bills. Like the National Security Act of 1947.
Great idea. What are you going to replace it with? Or do you think the US should just do away with the US Department of Defense, NSA, Army, Navy, Air Force, etc.? Shouldn't there be at least some sort of mutual disarmament treaty between the major powers before the US disarms? Maybe try building on the success of the Kellogg–Briand Pact which outlawed war?
... the real issue is how to prevent this from happening in the future. The first thing that comes to mind is the word "Legislation". But then again, it is exactly that what gave rise to this situation in the first place.
Well, that is part of having the rule of law. You have to spell out what is to be done, and what the rules are. Some things don't work out the way they were intended, and the law get changed. You still have to come up with a plan which translates into law.
Things can get tricky when you have to develop laws that cover a wide range of situations as is the case with national security. You never know may crop up. For example, the US military has had to rely upon an 1861 law to continue operations on more than one occasion.
Dear NSA, I think you're confused. The current topic of discussion is your ongoing violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. constitution.
I think the confusion here is entirely yours. There was another topic adjacent to this one where the subject you want to discuss would not have been out of place. Why aren't you posting there?
There is no "violation of the 4th Amendment" if the activities of the NSA are consistent with the Article II powers of the Constitution, and otherwise consistent with the law. So far they appear to be. I see many bold claims about violations of the Constitution, but little understanding, and less evidence.
It appears that the Chinese public has taken quite an interest in this matter. A million tweets / posts is quite a few, and there seems to be a lot of support for him other than concerns about the diplomatic aspects. I can see this matter would pose quite a dilemma for the Chinese government. On one hand allowing him to stay would be a great public relations coup, but on the other hand they probably don't want to give their citizens any ideas or inspiration to follow.
Hanssen and Ames were handing over things like troop strength, locations of CIA operatives, etc. to the Soviets for cash. They weren't blowing the whistle to the press on an illegal internal spying program. Pretty big difference there.
So, let me ask you something....
As he pulled a small black suitcase and carried a selection of laptop bags over his shoulders, no one would have paid much attention to Ed Snowden as he arrived at Hong Kong International Airport. But Snowden was not your average tourist or businessman. In all, he was carrying four computers that enabled him to gain access to some of the US government's most highly-classified secrets. -- more
What exactly does he have on those four laptops? So far he has pretty much only released a few PowerPoint slides, a few documents. That doesn't take much space. What does he have that he hasn't released? What does he intend to do with it? A little bargaining maybe? What will his source of income be, and from whom?
You claim that the surveillance being conducted by the NSA was illegal - what is your source for that? Can you point to a court decision against it? Could you be overlooking the Article II powers that the courts have previously recognized?
All western European countries have hate-speech laws. In 2008, the eu adopted a framework decision on “Combating Racism and Xenophobia” that obliged all member states to criminalize certain forms of hate speech. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Supreme Court of the United States has gradually increased and consolidated the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.
Yet the origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. The divergence between the United States and European countries is of comparatively recent origin. In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression.
Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.
As Americans, Europeans and others contemplate the dividing line emerging on the extent to which free speech should be limited to criminalize the “defamation of religions” and “Islamophobia,” launched by the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (oic) since 1999, they should bear this forgotten history in mind. However well-intended—and its initial proponents were anything but well-intended—the Western acceptance of hate-speech laws severely limits the ability of liberal democracies to counter attempts to broaden the scope of hate-speech laws under international human rights law, with potentially devastating consequences for the preservation of free speech.
We can save the discussion about the US 2nd Amendment rights for another time. There may be more.
The Stasi would jail you if you wanted to leave the country, form a new political party, make jokes about the communist party bosses.
The American government surveillance is aimed at preventing innocent Americans and people in other countries from being killed by al Qaida and its associates.
It is quite odd that you can't see a meaningful difference there.
No, this is not about good guy versus bad guy. It's about two people fighting to see who gets to be your master.
If that is the case, wouldn't you prefer to bias the outcome towards the "gentler master?"
If you think the "gentler master" is China, you don't know nearly enough about China, its one-party government rule by the Chinese communist party, its long history of harsh repression, the fact that it has killed approximately 70,000,000 of its citizens in the last 70 years, and plenty more.
This is like being offered the choice of, "being kept in from playing at recess" and taking a serious beating. People here seem to be going for the beating. And make no mistake, beatings at the hands of the Chinese government stop when they get tired, not when you are sore, and recur as they wish.
Choose wisely, you tend to only get one choice in these sorts of matters. Then you are stuck.
Slashdot Mirror
You're entitled to your opinion, even if it is unserious. As a safety tip I'll advise you to not hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
Tea Partiers...tricked by Koch brothers
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken
That is faulty reasoning. There is a difference between random accidents and deliberate attacks. But if you want to pursue that line of reasoning, let me know when you're willing to give up law enforcement as well.
The cost of the fight against al Qaida is a relatively small percentage of the federal budget. The fundamental tenets of the US aren't being trampled. Still have free speech? Yes. Still have freedom of religion? Yes. Still have the vote? Yes. Still have 2nd Amendment rights? Yes. There are plenty more.
You aren't up to date with the news.
NSA chief defends surveillance, says helped prevent terror plots more than 50 times since 9/11
Alexander, speaking before the House intelligence committee, said the programs "have protected the U.S. and our allies from terrorist threats across the globe," pointing to the intelligence community's ability to better connect the dots as a reason why there hasn't been another 9/11-style attack.
Specifically, he said they helped prevent terror "events" more than 50 times in more than 20 countries since 2001. Alexander said he plans to provide details on all the cases to lawmakers in a classified setting on Wednesday.
The truth hurts less than shrapnel.
One sided debates tend to be pointless.
From the perspective of the Crown, the Americans were rebels, not terrorists. Big difference.
There NO place for ... secret Congressional hearings in a free society.
That is a popular if completely unserious view. Do you really believe that in the modern world today that a republic of 300,000,000 people will have no secrets that have to be maintained, and that you personally should have access to everything at your whim? If you do, then you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of representative government.
There NO place for secret courts ... in a free society.
The US FISA court isn't a secret trial court that tries suspects for guilt or innocence. It is a court that handles classified information and requests for warrants. The judges on it are ordinary judges. If the FISA court didn't exist, little would change. The matters before it would still be confidential.
Why does the NSA see tigers everywhere?
Because there are tigers to be seen if you are willing and able to look.
National Counterterrorism Center: Annex of Statistical Information
Attacks worldwide : People killed, injured or kidnapped
2007: 14,415 71,803
2008: 11,663 54,290
2009: 10,968 58,720
2010: 11,641 49,928
2011: 10,283 43,990
How about instead of creating new legislation, they repeal some old bills. Like the National Security Act of 1947.
Great idea. What are you going to replace it with? Or do you think the US should just do away with the US Department of Defense, NSA, Army, Navy, Air Force, etc.? Shouldn't there be at least some sort of mutual disarmament treaty between the major powers before the US disarms? Maybe try building on the success of the Kellogg–Briand Pact which outlawed war?
... the real issue is how to prevent this from happening in the future. The first thing that comes to mind is the word "Legislation". But then again, it is exactly that what gave rise to this situation in the first place.
Well, that is part of having the rule of law. You have to spell out what is to be done, and what the rules are. Some things don't work out the way they were intended, and the law get changed. You still have to come up with a plan which translates into law.
Things can get tricky when you have to develop laws that cover a wide range of situations as is the case with national security. You never know may crop up. For example, the US military has had to rely upon an 1861 law to continue operations on more than one occasion.
1861 law may help Army operate under shutdown
For Pentagon, A Legal Leg To Forage On
As long as Congress controls the budget, Congress is in charge. That won't change any time soon.
The question is, do enough of their colleagues agree with them to take action? Their view may be poorly justified.
Dear NSA, I think you're confused. The current topic of discussion is your ongoing violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. constitution.
I think the confusion here is entirely yours. There was another topic adjacent to this one where the subject you want to discuss would not have been out of place. Why aren't you posting there?
Wikileaks Aiding Snowden - Chinese Social Media Divided - Relations Strained
There is no "violation of the 4th Amendment" if the activities of the NSA are consistent with the Article II powers of the Constitution, and otherwise consistent with the law. So far they appear to be. I see many bold claims about violations of the Constitution, but little understanding, and less evidence.
So how do the US government or NSA have any effect on your personal liberties? Will they be stopping you from voting, or what?
To the extent that it is a real problem, it isn't a unique problem.
"What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea." - Mahatma Gandhi*
*Possibly apocryphal
I'm often struck by the sort of parallelism that arises between the screen names that people have and the posts they make.
It appears that the Chinese public has taken quite an interest in this matter. A million tweets / posts is quite a few, and there seems to be a lot of support for him other than concerns about the diplomatic aspects. I can see this matter would pose quite a dilemma for the Chinese government. On one hand allowing him to stay would be a great public relations coup, but on the other hand they probably don't want to give their citizens any ideas or inspiration to follow.
When I saw that line I had to leave it in. :)
For the benefit of those unfamiliar with Hogan's Heroes :: I See Nothing - Sgt Schultz
Hanssen and Ames were handing over things like troop strength, locations of CIA operatives, etc. to the Soviets for cash. They weren't blowing the whistle to the press on an illegal internal spying program. Pretty big difference there.
So, let me ask you something....
As he pulled a small black suitcase and carried a selection of laptop bags over his shoulders, no one would have paid much attention to Ed Snowden as he arrived at Hong Kong International Airport. But Snowden was not your average tourist or businessman. In all, he was carrying four computers that enabled him to gain access to some of the US government's most highly-classified secrets. -- more
What exactly does he have on those four laptops? So far he has pretty much only released a few PowerPoint slides, a few documents. That doesn't take much space. What does he have that he hasn't released? What does he intend to do with it? A little bargaining maybe? What will his source of income be, and from whom?
You claim that the surveillance being conducted by the NSA was illegal - what is your source for that? Can you point to a court decision against it? Could you be overlooking the Article II powers that the courts have previously recognized?
Just curious.
Europe and the Anglosphere can be a bit uneven about some things.
The Sordid Origin of Hate-Speech Laws
All western European countries have hate-speech laws. In 2008, the eu adopted a framework decision on “Combating Racism and Xenophobia” that obliged all member states to criminalize certain forms of hate speech. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Supreme Court of the United States has gradually increased and consolidated the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.
Yet the origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. The divergence between the United States and European countries is of comparatively recent origin. In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression.
Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.
As Americans, Europeans and others contemplate the dividing line emerging on the extent to which free speech should be limited to criminalize the “defamation of religions” and “Islamophobia,” launched by the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (oic) since 1999, they should bear this forgotten history in mind. However well-intended—and its initial proponents were anything but well-intended—the Western acceptance of hate-speech laws severely limits the ability of liberal democracies to counter attempts to broaden the scope of hate-speech laws under international human rights law, with potentially devastating consequences for the preservation of free speech.
We can save the discussion about the US 2nd Amendment rights for another time. There may be more.
Snowden whereabouts 'unclear' as Cuba flight leaves without him
As Bitcoin grows more successful, there will be increasing interest in subjecting it to regulation, just like any other financial instrument.
Voluntary is fine, no need to change licenses.
Even if they don't send in any patches, FreeBSD probably comes out ahead just from the exposure.
I'm not biting. ;D
The Stasi would jail you if you wanted to leave the country, form a new political party, make jokes about the communist party bosses.
The American government surveillance is aimed at preventing innocent Americans and people in other countries from being killed by al Qaida and its associates.
It is quite odd that you can't see a meaningful difference there.
No, this is not about good guy versus bad guy. It's about two people fighting to see who gets to be your master.
If that is the case, wouldn't you prefer to bias the outcome towards the "gentler master?"
If you think the "gentler master" is China, you don't know nearly enough about China, its one-party government rule by the Chinese communist party, its long history of harsh repression, the fact that it has killed approximately 70,000,000 of its citizens in the last 70 years, and plenty more.
This is like being offered the choice of, "being kept in from playing at recess" and taking a serious beating. People here seem to be going for the beating. And make no mistake, beatings at the hands of the Chinese government stop when they get tired, not when you are sore, and recur as they wish.
Choose wisely, you tend to only get one choice in these sorts of matters. Then you are stuck.