During the cold war the NSA was focused on the Soviet Union, which was an actual real threat to our national security. There is little evidence that the NSA was engaged in domestic spying during that time. Today the NSA, and all this surveillance, is focused on stopping some hermits in Afghanistan from talking to a few guys with a pressure cooker full of gunpowder.
So you acknowledge that the Soviet Union was a threat to national security? Well, good, that's a first step. Now things get a bit more interesting. I recall that the Soviet Union shot down a number of surveillance planes during the Cold War, such as the famous U2 incident. I don't recall that they ever bombed or torpedoed any American warships. I also don't recall that they bombed any, let alone two, American embassies, killing large numbers of people. Nor do I recall that they ever attacked any American skyscrapers or military headquarters, killing thousands of people on American soil (2,973 ) - approximately as many as died in the war igniting attack on Pearl Harbor. Nor did they recruit any attackers to shoot dead American soldiers engaging in administrative processing at an American military base. And yet Al Qaida and company has done all these things, and they continue to attempt to recruit extremists to commit further attacks.
1996 Bin Laden's Fatwa - Text of the fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi
You dismiss intelligence efforts to halt attacks like this as "stopping some hermits in Afghanistan from talking to a few guys with a pressure cooker". You don't think those sorts of attacks need to be stopped? I'm curious, what sort of body count or damage will it take for you to realize you're wrong?
Prior to the US invasion in 2001, Al Qaida was turning out thousands of trained terrorists per year in Afghanistan. That pretty much stopped after the invasion.
Meanwhile, our diplomatic relations with China and Russia have deteriorated, and we have very little idea what is going on in Iran or North Korea.
Remember last month, when the Chinese Red Army was identified as actively behind cyber-spying? It was some gumshoes working for a private company that tracked it to a specific building in Shanghai.
You aren't suggesting either that the NSA had no idea, or that they make regular press announcements
Knowing something is happening, in general, is often a very different question from the details. The details can matter a lot. People have been writing big software for a long time now. Some organizations and projects are much more successful than others. Why? Details and management matter.
Bin Laden had couriers delivering his mail as a high value target, but not everyone in Al Qaida gets the same service.
Even if there was a general appreciation of it before, it is still a bad thing. In 2001, knowing that Al Qaida had a goal of attacking the United States is a very different thing from knowing the people, the method, and the flights they were planning to use.
They almost certainly started the program with the idea of preventing terrorists setting off truck bombs at shopping malls, and other sorts of terrorist attacks. Could you spell out why that is a misguided policy goal?
If you want to portray it as a form of oppression, then I think you also need to account for the IRS scandal. The IRS has been caught in actually political oppression of groups in opposition to the current administration. It looks like at least 500 groups. It was known prior to the election by the higher ups, but was covered up. It might have been enough to tip the election in a 50-50 country. This has been greeted on Slashdot with a reception that is at most lukewarm, and little outrage.
So, why no outrage at the IRS for demonstrated oppression, and mass outrage at the NSA for what is only demonstrated as at most overreach for data without any actual allegations of oppression other than of terrorists, and no known illegal wrong doing in the matter?
It makes me wonder how much control the government really has over its agencies. . . . If Congress was to order the NSA to stop, would they really do so? Would they even pretend to stop? And what would we do if they didn't?
You're joking, right? The congress controls funding. If the agency is out of line and won't correct its behavior, the congress cuts it out of the budget, removes statutory authorization for it, and its gone.
Increasingly we are learning that these organizations are powers unto themselves and have little loyalty to the government (much less the people) they supposedly serve.
Which agencies are those? The IRS is a big problem, but that is being dealt with, although it will probably take a year or two. Other agencies are engaged in excesses, but not to the level that I would describe them as "powers unto themselves." If congress cuts their budget, they're done. If you have any other information, I'd love to hear it.
No, I mean the United States. A major intelligence program has been compromised. It is likely to become much less effective in dealing with both foreign espionage and terrorism. The truck bombs that might slip through will most likely be killing voters.
The public servants in the bureaucracy are answerable to congress, not the electorate. The congress is answerable to the electorate. Frankly, you personally don't know enough to judge the countless government programs, and lack the power to do anything about them.
Snowden is in essence a vigilante, at best, that took the law into his own hands to damage the security of the United States. You have this wrong. Part of the hint for that can be found in where he fled to: The People's Republic of China, also known as Communist China.
So as you pretty much concede, if at least part of Congress knew about, and the NSA Inspector General, other major parts of the government, and apparently the FISA court, it was apparently both legal and constitutional as things stand. That would seem to imply that they were doing things in a responsible manner, wouldn't it?
So, this man decided to take the law into his own hands and disclose an important Top Secret intelligence program on the basis of vigilante justice. So much for the rule of law.
What difference does it make going to the Guardian? The Guardian is ideologically unfriendly to the United States. It can be expected to show little restraint in publishing material that is damaging but sheds little light. I think the more important question is, why didn't he do to one of the major American papers like the New York times? They have been part of other major leaks. It would seem his choice of publishers provides insight into his motives.
That said, if the PRC government gets a hold of him, they will indeed pump him for all he's worth and then publicly shame him as a defector.
You're joking, right? Shame him? They will praise him to the heavens. After all, they wouldn't want to discourage any similarly "civic minded" people from fleeing into the arms of Chinese intelligence while carrying laptops full of Top Secret data now, would they?
But I agree with you that the Chinese government is likely to pump him for secrets. That will just add to the damage.
Obama's no centrist, he's thoroughly right-wing. Unfortunately, the Republicans are extreme right-wing, so your choices are 1) right-wing, and 2) even more right-wing.
Because left-wing countries don't engage in government surveillance? If you believe that, you might be missing out on some history. Or do you think that left-wing countries wouldn't do something about terrorist attacks against their people? Communist China does. Or is it that your politics are so fringe left that you can't see the real right in the US and assume Obama is therefore "right wing"?
Obama is a man of the left, but he is constrained to work within the American system since he won office by election, not revolution. There is also the problem that many on the left are confused as to what policies are pursued once the left is in power.
You are confused about his oath to support and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.
He was a contractor, I doubt he had an oath of office. You don't defend the Constitution by freeing to a county that has nuclear weapons pointed at the US, whose governing system is fundamentally opposed to it, and turning over massive amounts of Top Secret data, and who knows what to the Chinese.
Even if you want to play games, he could have still fled and sent the information to Feinstein and Paul instead of to a foreign newspaper ideologically unfriendly to the United States, that would see to the publishing of the most damaging information.
Enemies that have infiltrated the government? Yes, he is one of them. He is a spy, not a patriot. He has harmed the United States. I'm afraid you're the one that is confused. Exactly what does one have to do for you to concede that it damages the security of the United States?
Actually, failure to vote for third parties is the primary reason they're able to get away with stuff like this.
That is an interesting idea. Lets take a look at that. Over the last twelve years there have been hundreds of arrests and convictions for plots or attempts to use vehicle bombs to kill people in the United States, and other terrorism related offenses. It has been reported that this program has helped to stop some of those attempts. Presumably if you stop it, successful attacks will become more common. So the question to you is, what political party do you think of will let suicide bombings and truck bombings by terrorists become a more frequent part of American life? A lot of what you raise boils down to that. No major American political party is going to take a step that allows terrorists with a car bomb easy access to crowds of Americans, whether they be in a plaza, a shopping mall, or a stadium. If they do that, the voters will punish them by voting for the other party.
Much of the alleged similarity between the two parties comes down to a few basic issues. The physical safety of Americans from terrorist attacks, the desire to stay in power, the necessity of courting those who will fund them, the requirement of working within the American system, and the hope that they don't screw up so badly that they get tossed out of office. But policy difference on things outside of that? Plenty. I think your position is largely nonsense.
look, the last thing we need is yet another whistleblower rotting in prison or blackballed from their profession.
Whistleblowers go to the Inspector General or Congress. Maybe you could even justify going to the American media in some circumstances. He didn't do that.
He flew to the People's Republic of China city of Hong Kong and then provided some of his information to the foreign leftist Guardian newspaper. I expect the intelligence services of the People's Republic of China will get the rest. He isn't a whistleblower, he is a spy.
I have a fantasy in which 1 million well-armed patriots surround this guy and tell the NSA / CIA / FBI / federal marshals that they're on the wrong side of the Constitution and can't have him.
The man has taken refuge inside the Communist Chinese city of Hong Kong. He has brought them a laptop full of Top Secret* data from deep inside of the NSA, no doubt only part of which he has revealed. I expect that the intelligence services of the People's Republic of China will get the rest.
I think your fantasy is coming true. As of now he is protected by millions of Chinese Communist patriots in the People's Liberation Army. Hurray?
I think the question at this point is, will the damage that Snowden did to the national security of the United States be as bad as the Walker spy ring, or worse?
US naval intelligence has reached a similar conclusion about the consequences of the Walker-Whitworth spy operation. ``Naval intelligence analysis has led us to conclude that the Walker-Whitworth espionage activity was of the highest value to the intelligence services of the Soviet Union, with the potential -- had conflict erupted between the two superpowers -- to have powerful war-winning implications for the Soviet side,'' says William O. Studeman, director of naval intelligence, in an affidavit submitted in the Whitworth case and included in the appendix of the Senate report.
Mr. Studeman noted, ``Recovery from the Walker-Whitworth espionage will take years and millions of taxpayers' dollars. Even given these expenditures, we will likely never know the true extent to which our capabilities have been impaired....''
* CLASSIFICATION LEVELS "Top Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.
It's too late to stop this or even do anything about it. The only actions that can be taken would be to physically destroy the facilities that handle this data gathering and store the harvest.
I assume you must be either a failing agent provocateur or a nitwit. Congress still controls the purse strings for the government, including NSA, and the other agencies that have become embroiled in scandals, such as the IRS. Congress can cut their funding if it comes down to it. Attempts at violence would only inflame things at this point, not help. I also have little doubt that those facilities might have at least a little protection, don't you think?
It seems clear that the whole story isn't coming out. Selective leaking that doesn't include the context, full details, FISA court findings, results of the program, and other information, can inflame rather than inform, and could constitute just as much of a lie as people assume of the government leadership. The only ones likely to get something even remotely close to resembling the whole story are the people in Congress. It could be that this is highly valuable, and complies with the constitutional protections overseen by the FISA court. Or maybe something bad is going on, but Congress needs to look at it and perform oversight. It was the Church committee that reigned in the CIA - some would say neutered to the point that it helped set the stage for 9/11. And it was 9/11 that helped drive this, isn't it? Oversight must be done by Congress, carefully, and deliberately. You should probably make sure that you cripple or destroy America's enemies before thoughtlessly crippling NSA and destroying its datacenters.
Benjamin Franklin said Americans had a republic, if they could keep it.
This is the time work on keeping it by: - Letters to congress put in the post box - Voting for a change of representation at the ballot box - Some time on the soap box. - Some government employees sitting in front of the jury box.
Suggested topics: - IRS suppression of legitimate peaceful political opposition groups - IRS suppression of legitimate peaceful religious groups - Possible involvement by the FBI, EPA, and OSHA in the above - IRS seizure of 60,000,000 medical records they are not entitled to in breach of the 4th Amendment - Unprecedented Justice Department investigation of reporters - Stonewalling by government officials before congress and refusing to turn over documents - Attempts by the administration to disarm the public by outlawing weapons seldom used to commit crimes - semiautomatic rifles - The very wide dragnet by the NSA when considered with the above
Slashdot has had stories on much of that recently. Search for IRS, or AP, etc.
It is legitimate for the NSA to monitor people in direct communication with terrorist groups, and other terrorists*. And make no mistake, there are terrorists out there. But this, considered in light of the above is cause for concern. Congress better be doing some good oversight.
* Genuine terrorists trying to bomb, shoot, poison or otherwise kill innocent people, typically in large numbers, with a very broad understanding of innocent.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES
That pretty well spells out the war against Al Qaida and the Taliban.
AS to the rest of it....
Imagine going to a restaurant and ordering your favorite meal that has the following courses: soup, salad, entree with side dishes, desert, cheese, wine. And don't forget some good bread, rolls, and crackers. Sitting at the table we could discuss the merits of each dish as it is served. I like this soup, the broth is just right, the vegetables are the ones I like done just so, and they always server it at the proper temperature. Continue likewise for the rest of the meal. It could be an enjoyable meal and the merits of each dish would be easy to discuss. Now, instead of serving each dish separately, image putting all of the food for your meal, after it is prepared, all together in a blender and mixing it at high speed until it all becomes a fine sludge. No meat, just sludge. No salad, just sludge. No bread, just sludge. No cheese, just sludge. No ice cream, just sludge. You would not be happy because you can no longer enjoy the meal as it was intended. All of the unique attributes, textures, temperatures and other characteristics of the dishes are destroyed. That is what you are doing with the policy questions. Although they might all involve the armed forces just as food involves a cook, they are separate questions just as meat and salad are separate. The war against Al Qaida is a separate question from the enforcement of disarmament against Iraq which is separate from the non-proliferation issue with Iran and they are all separate from surveillance policy in the United States. Maybe from where you sit you can't see that, but it is true. You've reduced it all to sludge which is hard to discuss. Keep the separate issues and it might be possible to say something about it.
Looking into the sludge there is one chunk I will address: there is very little chance that the United States will invade Finland, so rest easy.
The post I responded to is completely wrong in any meaningful sense and yet it was highly rated when I responded to it. I often see the same thing in your posts. It isn't all that rare for you to make posts that are factually wrong, but they express a popular sentiment or have an agreeable political orientation for many on Slashdot, so you get rated to the roof. Everyone is entitled to their own preferences, but questions of fact are another thing entirely. Some facts can be unpalatable from various political perspectives. When I present those facts that in my experience are less tasty to many on Slashdot I am happy to provide documentation. That allows people to investigate and use their own judgment. I'm happy to post for the people that are interested in becoming better informed instead of "tl;dr". We all have our part to play. (If were getting to the edge of your attention span, I suggest jumping down to read the last paragraph now. Boring but useful and important facts for those that want to be better informed are ahead.)
Now lets take a quick look at a couple of things in your second paragraph. First, "unlawful combatant" actually isn't all that squishy. The context of the term is the Law of War, which is a separate body of law from civil law, criminal law, administrative law, and admiralty law. Unlawful combatants are those who wage war in a manner that violates the law of war. Al Qaida is a good example. It is typical for them to target peaceful civilians for attacks with bombs, mines, and other means. That is a violation of the law of war when done deliberately. They also typically violate numerous other provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Therefore Al Qaida are unlawful combatants. That is pretty straight forward. What many people get excited about is the consequences of being an unlawful combatant. There is also rampant confusion about the Law of War with many people wanting to push all of the legal action against Al Qaida into the realm of criminal law which isn't necessarily well suited to deal with the circumstances of the battlefield as the Law of War is.
As far as killing American citizens that are members of Al Qaida without a trial - completely legitimate. You don't really have any special rights when you are fighting with an enemy engaged in armed conflict against the United States if you are an American citizen, at least until you are captured if that is an option. American citizens fighting with the enemy can be extremely dangerous due to their cultural knowledge, knowledge of potential weakness and vulnerabilities, and experience with the security services and police. That knowledge can be used in training terrorists and in planning operations. There is no requirement for an American to personally engage in attack to be dangerous. That sort of knowledge is so useful that North Korea kidnapped a number of Japanese citizens to force them to train North Korean spies in Japanese customs so that they would be less likely to be caught. There is considerable precedent for the US federal government to lawfully kill Americans without trial. Here is a representation of Americans being shot down en mass lawfully by the US federal government without arrest, charges, trial, or conviction. American citizens allied with or fighting with Al Qaida are in the same position as the people in that representation. It is a serious thing to take up arms against your country, and the consequences may be fatal.
If you want to see a plinth erected to my "walls of text," I'm fine with that as long as the temple can include an obelisk of errors dedicated to you.;) If you write better posts, I'll probably be writing shorter posts.
(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
By their deeds you shall know them.
1996 Bin Laden's Fatwa - The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi
Note that this is only a snapshot of attacks, and doesn't include the many attacks that occurred in the Middle East (except the Cole). It also doesn't include the many plots disrupted by the security services, or cancelled by the terrorists planning them. It doesn't include the many arrests for terrorism related activity, but snapshot of that over a short period of time is below:
Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization
Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization.
Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center
U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland.
Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings
Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia betwe
One of the key fallacies of the "false flag" is that you can keep a big operation that kills lots of people secret in a free society. The 9/11 "Truthers" never really address that. Simply consider the fact that the CIA only waterboarded three (3) terrorists, the most recent of which was more than 10 years ago. Nobody died, nobody was injured. The hue and cry over it would make you believe it was still going on and the total was 30,000, not 3. There are plenty of other leaks that damaged national security of a similar nature.
Beside, there is no need to run a false flag terrorist operation. There are plenty of local volunteers, and foreigners willing to try. The real challenge isn't running a false flag, the real challenge is stopping all of the real attempts at a terrorist attack. Of course you know about Boston, but there is the following which will soon mean that the Boston bombing wasn't the first terrorist attack since 9/11, and the short sample after that.
Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization
Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization.
Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center
U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland.
Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings
Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia between October and November 2010, and to attempting to damage veterans’ memorials at Arlington National Cemetery.
1.Tampa: Florida Resident Charged with Plotting to Bomb Locations in Tampa
A 25-year-old resident of Pinellas Park, Florida was charged in connection with an alleged plot to attack locations in Tampa with a vehicle bomb, assault rifle, and other explosives.
2.Baltimore: Former Army Solider Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab
A man who secretly converted to Islam days before he separated from the Army was charged with attempting to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization, and was arrested upon his return to Maryland after traveling to Africa.
I mean why do you think Obama kept ALL the crap about Bush that the left hated
So do you think it would be Democrats, Republicans, or neither that is going to let suicide bombings and truck bombings by terrorists become a regular part of American life? A lot of what you raise boils down to that. No American political party is going to take a step that allows terrorists with a car bomb easy access to crowds of Americans, whether they be in a plaza, a shopping mall, or a stadium. If they do that, the voters will punish them not not electing them. That simple issue explains more than you or Bill Hicks. And it isn't like there hasn't been hundreds of arrests and convictions for terrorism related offenses either. There have been plenty of arrests for plans or attempts to use vehicle bombs to kill people in the United States by terrorists in the last ten years.
Once you get past that, past the physical safety of Americans from terrorist attacks, which covers a fair amount of ground, things open up a bit. Both parties want to stay in power, and of necessity court those who will fund them, so that will result in some similar behavior. But to pretend that there is no difference between the two parties in terms of the policy goals and philosophy is ridiculous. The Democratic Party passes the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, without votes from Republicans. They own it, whether it is a sweet success, or the trainwreck it looks like it may be.
There are plenty more like that in which the two parties would pursue different paths. Fiscal policy doest matter? Tax rates (cuts for the rich?)(pay your fair share?)? Gay rights doesn't matter? "Climate change" doesn't matter? Carbon taxes don't matter? Voter's rights and fair elections don't matter? Gun control doesn't matter? Approach to business and labor regulation doesn't matter? You didn't get this right, there are distinct differences between the parties. That is especially the case as the two parties have become more polarized. That parts where they are the same are obvious and trivial. Neither party is going to pursue a path that it believes will result in large numbers of Americans being killed if it can be avoided, and both parties want to stay in office.
Between Alex Jones and Ron Paul, your political interests tend to run to the fringe, and anyone else is a shill. If you want to keep banging the drum for Ron Paul, more power too you. But James Trafficant probably needs some love too. If you were interested I'd be happy, to use Trafficant's words, to beam you up, if I could.
Slashdot Mirror
During the cold war the NSA was focused on the Soviet Union, which was an actual real threat to our national security. There is little evidence that the NSA was engaged in domestic spying during that time. Today the NSA, and all this surveillance, is focused on stopping some hermits in Afghanistan from talking to a few guys with a pressure cooker full of gunpowder.
So you acknowledge that the Soviet Union was a threat to national security? Well, good, that's a first step. Now things get a bit more interesting. I recall that the Soviet Union shot down a number of surveillance planes during the Cold War, such as the famous U2 incident. I don't recall that they ever bombed or torpedoed any American warships. I also don't recall that they bombed any, let alone two, American embassies, killing large numbers of people. Nor do I recall that they ever attacked any American skyscrapers or military headquarters, killing thousands of people on American soil (2,973 ) - approximately as many as died in the war igniting attack on Pearl Harbor. Nor did they recruit any attackers to shoot dead American soldiers engaging in administrative processing at an American military base. And yet Al Qaida and company has done all these things, and they continue to attempt to recruit extremists to commit further attacks.
1996 Bin Laden's Fatwa - Text of the fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi
1998 Bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya - 224 dead, est. 4,000 injured, both embassies heavily damaged
2000 Photo: USS Cole - Video USS Cole - 17 dead, 39 injured, major damage to destroyer
2001 9/11 attacks - 2,973 dead. Two skyscraper towers destroyed, heavy damage to Pentagon.
Estimated damage to US economy: ~ $100,000,000.
2009 Fort Hood massacre - 13 dead, 30 injured
2010 Attempted bombing of Times Square in New York City by the Taliban - Attack failed
You dismiss intelligence efforts to halt attacks like this as "stopping some hermits in Afghanistan from talking to a few guys with a pressure cooker". You don't think those sorts of attacks need to be stopped? I'm curious, what sort of body count or damage will it take for you to realize you're wrong?
Prior to the US invasion in 2001, Al Qaida was turning out thousands of trained terrorists per year in Afghanistan. That pretty much stopped after the invasion.
Meanwhile, our diplomatic relations with China and Russia have deteriorated, and we have very little idea what is going on in Iran or North Korea.
There should be no surprises there.
From Warren Christopher to John Kerry — Slow learners about weak horses in the Middle East
Remember last month, when the Chinese Red Army was identified as actively behind cyber-spying? It was some gumshoes working for a private company that tracked it to a specific building in Shanghai.
You aren't suggesting either that the NSA had no idea, or that they make regular press announcements
Oh, right. The topic is disparaging the United States, as usual. No other views need be posted, or tolerated.
You're being ironic, right? Or is the irony unintentional?
Trying to blackmail a congressman in a conventional sense would seem to be a sure ticket to prison for all involved.
Knowing something is happening, in general, is often a very different question from the details. The details can matter a lot. People have been writing big software for a long time now. Some organizations and projects are much more successful than others. Why? Details and management matter.
Bin Laden had couriers delivering his mail as a high value target, but not everyone in Al Qaida gets the same service.
Even if there was a general appreciation of it before, it is still a bad thing. In 2001, knowing that Al Qaida had a goal of attacking the United States is a very different thing from knowing the people, the method, and the flights they were planning to use.
Could you remind me again, won't this be the 15th year since global warming stopped?
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
They almost certainly started the program with the idea of preventing terrorists setting off truck bombs at shopping malls, and other sorts of terrorist attacks. Could you spell out why that is a misguided policy goal?
If you want to portray it as a form of oppression, then I think you also need to account for the IRS scandal. The IRS has been caught in actually political oppression of groups in opposition to the current administration. It looks like at least 500 groups. It was known prior to the election by the higher ups, but was covered up. It might have been enough to tip the election in a 50-50 country. This has been greeted on Slashdot with a reception that is at most lukewarm, and little outrage.
So, why no outrage at the IRS for demonstrated oppression, and mass outrage at the NSA for what is only demonstrated as at most overreach for data without any actual allegations of oppression other than of terrorists, and no known illegal wrong doing in the matter?
I think many people are very misguided on this.
It makes me wonder how much control the government really has over its agencies. . . . If Congress was to order the NSA to stop, would they really do so? Would they even pretend to stop? And what would we do if they didn't?
You're joking, right? The congress controls funding. If the agency is out of line and won't correct its behavior, the congress cuts it out of the budget, removes statutory authorization for it, and its gone.
Increasingly we are learning that these organizations are powers unto themselves and have little loyalty to the government (much less the people) they supposedly serve.
Which agencies are those? The IRS is a big problem, but that is being dealt with, although it will probably take a year or two. Other agencies are engaged in excesses, but not to the level that I would describe them as "powers unto themselves." If congress cuts their budget, they're done. If you have any other information, I'd love to hear it.
No, I mean the United States. A major intelligence program has been compromised. It is likely to become much less effective in dealing with both foreign espionage and terrorism. The truck bombs that might slip through will most likely be killing voters.
The public servants in the bureaucracy are answerable to congress, not the electorate. The congress is answerable to the electorate. Frankly, you personally don't know enough to judge the countless government programs, and lack the power to do anything about them.
Snowden is in essence a vigilante, at best, that took the law into his own hands to damage the security of the United States. You have this wrong. Part of the hint for that can be found in where he fled to: The People's Republic of China, also known as Communist China.
So as you pretty much concede, if at least part of Congress knew about, and the NSA Inspector General, other major parts of the government, and apparently the FISA court, it was apparently both legal and constitutional as things stand. That would seem to imply that they were doing things in a responsible manner, wouldn't it?
So, this man decided to take the law into his own hands and disclose an important Top Secret intelligence program on the basis of vigilante justice. So much for the rule of law.
What difference does it make going to the Guardian? The Guardian is ideologically unfriendly to the United States. It can be expected to show little restraint in publishing material that is damaging but sheds little light. I think the more important question is, why didn't he do to one of the major American papers like the New York times? They have been part of other major leaks. It would seem his choice of publishers provides insight into his motives.
That said, if the PRC government gets a hold of him, they will indeed pump him for all he's worth and then publicly shame him as a defector.
You're joking, right? Shame him? They will praise him to the heavens. After all, they wouldn't want to discourage any similarly "civic minded" people from fleeing into the arms of Chinese intelligence while carrying laptops full of Top Secret data now, would they?
But I agree with you that the Chinese government is likely to pump him for secrets. That will just add to the damage.
Obama's no centrist, he's thoroughly right-wing. Unfortunately, the Republicans are extreme right-wing, so your choices are 1) right-wing, and 2) even more right-wing.
Because left-wing countries don't engage in government surveillance? If you believe that, you might be missing out on some history. Or do you think that left-wing countries wouldn't do something about terrorist attacks against their people? Communist China does. Or is it that your politics are so fringe left that you can't see the real right in the US and assume Obama is therefore "right wing"?
Obama is a man of the left, but he is constrained to work within the American system since he won office by election, not revolution. There is also the problem that many on the left are confused as to what policies are pursued once the left is in power.
You are confused about his oath to support and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.
He was a contractor, I doubt he had an oath of office. You don't defend the Constitution by freeing to a county that has nuclear weapons pointed at the US, whose governing system is fundamentally opposed to it, and turning over massive amounts of Top Secret data, and who knows what to the Chinese.
Even if you want to play games, he could have still fled and sent the information to Feinstein and Paul instead of to a foreign newspaper ideologically unfriendly to the United States, that would see to the publishing of the most damaging information.
Enemies that have infiltrated the government? Yes, he is one of them. He is a spy, not a patriot. He has harmed the United States. I'm afraid you're the one that is confused. Exactly what does one have to do for you to concede that it damages the security of the United States?
Actually, failure to vote for third parties is the primary reason they're able to get away with stuff like this.
That is an interesting idea. Lets take a look at that. Over the last twelve years there have been hundreds of arrests and convictions for plots or attempts to use vehicle bombs to kill people in the United States, and other terrorism related offenses. It has been reported that this program has helped to stop some of those attempts. Presumably if you stop it, successful attacks will become more common. So the question to you is, what political party do you think of will let suicide bombings and truck bombings by terrorists become a more frequent part of American life? A lot of what you raise boils down to that. No major American political party is going to take a step that allows terrorists with a car bomb easy access to crowds of Americans, whether they be in a plaza, a shopping mall, or a stadium. If they do that, the voters will punish them by voting for the other party.
Much of the alleged similarity between the two parties comes down to a few basic issues. The physical safety of Americans from terrorist attacks, the desire to stay in power, the necessity of courting those who will fund them, the requirement of working within the American system, and the hope that they don't screw up so badly that they get tossed out of office. But policy difference on things outside of that? Plenty. I think your position is largely nonsense.
He has fled to the People's Republic of China after committing espionage. You are confused about integrity.
look, the last thing we need is yet another whistleblower rotting in prison or blackballed from their profession.
Whistleblowers go to the Inspector General or Congress. Maybe you could even justify going to the American media in some circumstances. He didn't do that.
He flew to the People's Republic of China city of Hong Kong and then provided some of his information to the foreign leftist Guardian newspaper. I expect the intelligence services of the People's Republic of China will get the rest. He isn't a whistleblower, he is a spy.
I have a fantasy in which 1 million well-armed patriots surround this guy and tell the NSA / CIA / FBI / federal marshals that they're on the wrong side of the Constitution and can't have him.
The man has taken refuge inside the Communist Chinese city of Hong Kong. He has brought them a laptop full of Top Secret* data from deep inside of the NSA, no doubt only part of which he has revealed. I expect that the intelligence services of the People's Republic of China will get the rest.
I think your fantasy is coming true. As of now he is protected by millions of Chinese Communist patriots in the People's Liberation Army. Hurray?
I think the question at this point is, will the damage that Snowden did to the national security of the United States be as bad as the Walker spy ring, or worse?
Spies cost US security dearly. Senate panel says harm greater than previously disclosed
US naval intelligence has reached a similar conclusion about the consequences of the Walker-Whitworth spy operation. ``Naval intelligence analysis has led us to conclude that the Walker-Whitworth espionage activity was of the highest value to the intelligence services of the Soviet Union, with the potential -- had conflict erupted between the two superpowers -- to have powerful war-winning implications for the Soviet side,'' says William O. Studeman, director of naval intelligence, in an affidavit submitted in the Whitworth case and included in the appendix of the Senate report.
Mr. Studeman noted, ``Recovery from the Walker-Whitworth espionage will take years and millions of taxpayers' dollars. Even given these expenditures, we will likely never know the true extent to which our capabilities have been impaired....''
* CLASSIFICATION LEVELS "Top Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.
It's too late to stop this or even do anything about it. The only actions that can be taken would be to physically destroy the facilities that handle this data gathering and store the harvest.
I assume you must be either a failing agent provocateur or a nitwit. Congress still controls the purse strings for the government, including NSA, and the other agencies that have become embroiled in scandals, such as the IRS. Congress can cut their funding if it comes down to it. Attempts at violence would only inflame things at this point, not help. I also have little doubt that those facilities might have at least a little protection, don't you think?
It seems clear that the whole story isn't coming out. Selective leaking that doesn't include the context, full details, FISA court findings, results of the program, and other information, can inflame rather than inform, and could constitute just as much of a lie as people assume of the government leadership. The only ones likely to get something even remotely close to resembling the whole story are the people in Congress. It could be that this is highly valuable, and complies with the constitutional protections overseen by the FISA court. Or maybe something bad is going on, but Congress needs to look at it and perform oversight. It was the Church committee that reigned in the CIA - some would say neutered to the point that it helped set the stage for 9/11. And it was 9/11 that helped drive this, isn't it? Oversight must be done by Congress, carefully, and deliberately. You should probably make sure that you cripple or destroy America's enemies before thoughtlessly crippling NSA and destroying its datacenters.
Benjamin Franklin said Americans had a republic, if they could keep it.
This is the time work on keeping it by:
- Letters to congress put in the post box
- Voting for a change of representation at the ballot box
- Some time on the soap box.
- Some government employees sitting in front of the jury box.
Suggested topics:
- IRS suppression of legitimate peaceful political opposition groups
- IRS suppression of legitimate peaceful religious groups
- Possible involvement by the FBI, EPA, and OSHA in the above
- IRS seizure of 60,000,000 medical records they are not entitled to in breach of the 4th Amendment
- Unprecedented Justice Department investigation of reporters
- Stonewalling by government officials before congress and refusing to turn over documents
- Attempts by the administration to disarm the public by outlawing weapons seldom used to commit crimes - semiautomatic rifles
- The very wide dragnet by the NSA when considered with the above
Slashdot has had stories on much of that recently. Search for IRS, or AP, etc.
It is legitimate for the NSA to monitor people in direct communication with terrorist groups, and other terrorists*. And make no mistake, there are terrorists out there. But this, considered in light of the above is cause for concern. Congress better be doing some good oversight.
* Genuine terrorists trying to bomb, shoot, poison or otherwise kill innocent people, typically in large numbers, with a very broad understanding of innocent.
Did you read the section with this label?
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES
That pretty well spells out the war against Al Qaida and the Taliban.
AS to the rest of it ....
Imagine going to a restaurant and ordering your favorite meal that has the following courses: soup, salad, entree with side dishes, desert, cheese, wine. And don't forget some good bread, rolls, and crackers. Sitting at the table we could discuss the merits of each dish as it is served. I like this soup, the broth is just right, the vegetables are the ones I like done just so, and they always server it at the proper temperature. Continue likewise for the rest of the meal. It could be an enjoyable meal and the merits of each dish would be easy to discuss. Now, instead of serving each dish separately, image putting all of the food for your meal, after it is prepared, all together in a blender and mixing it at high speed until it all becomes a fine sludge. No meat, just sludge. No salad, just sludge. No bread, just sludge. No cheese, just sludge. No ice cream, just sludge. You would not be happy because you can no longer enjoy the meal as it was intended. All of the unique attributes, textures, temperatures and other characteristics of the dishes are destroyed. That is what you are doing with the policy questions. Although they might all involve the armed forces just as food involves a cook, they are separate questions just as meat and salad are separate. The war against Al Qaida is a separate question from the enforcement of disarmament against Iraq which is separate from the non-proliferation issue with Iran and they are all separate from surveillance policy in the United States. Maybe from where you sit you can't see that, but it is true. You've reduced it all to sludge which is hard to discuss. Keep the separate issues and it might be possible to say something about it.
Looking into the sludge there is one chunk I will address: there is very little chance that the United States will invade Finland, so rest easy.
The post I responded to is completely wrong in any meaningful sense and yet it was highly rated when I responded to it. I often see the same thing in your posts. It isn't all that rare for you to make posts that are factually wrong, but they express a popular sentiment or have an agreeable political orientation for many on Slashdot, so you get rated to the roof. Everyone is entitled to their own preferences, but questions of fact are another thing entirely. Some facts can be unpalatable from various political perspectives. When I present those facts that in my experience are less tasty to many on Slashdot I am happy to provide documentation. That allows people to investigate and use their own judgment. I'm happy to post for the people that are interested in becoming better informed instead of "tl;dr". We all have our part to play. (If were getting to the edge of your attention span, I suggest jumping down to read the last paragraph now. Boring but useful and important facts for those that want to be better informed are ahead.)
Now lets take a quick look at a couple of things in your second paragraph. First, "unlawful combatant" actually isn't all that squishy. The context of the term is the Law of War, which is a separate body of law from civil law, criminal law, administrative law, and admiralty law. Unlawful combatants are those who wage war in a manner that violates the law of war. Al Qaida is a good example. It is typical for them to target peaceful civilians for attacks with bombs, mines, and other means. That is a violation of the law of war when done deliberately. They also typically violate numerous other provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Therefore Al Qaida are unlawful combatants. That is pretty straight forward. What many people get excited about is the consequences of being an unlawful combatant. There is also rampant confusion about the Law of War with many people wanting to push all of the legal action against Al Qaida into the realm of criminal law which isn't necessarily well suited to deal with the circumstances of the battlefield as the Law of War is.
As far as killing American citizens that are members of Al Qaida without a trial - completely legitimate. You don't really have any special rights when you are fighting with an enemy engaged in armed conflict against the United States if you are an American citizen, at least until you are captured if that is an option. American citizens fighting with the enemy can be extremely dangerous due to their cultural knowledge, knowledge of potential weakness and vulnerabilities, and experience with the security services and police. That knowledge can be used in training terrorists and in planning operations. There is no requirement for an American to personally engage in attack to be dangerous. That sort of knowledge is so useful that North Korea kidnapped a number of Japanese citizens to force them to train North Korean spies in Japanese customs so that they would be less likely to be caught. There is considerable precedent for the US federal government to lawfully kill Americans without trial. Here is a representation of Americans being shot down en mass lawfully by the US federal government without arrest, charges, trial, or conviction. American citizens allied with or fighting with Al Qaida are in the same position as the people in that representation. It is a serious thing to take up arms against your country, and the consequences may be fatal.
If you want to see a plinth erected to my "walls of text," I'm fine with that as long as the temple can include an obelisk of errors dedicated to you. ;) If you write better posts, I'll probably be writing shorter posts.
For some people nothing says "appeal to emotion" like FBI arrest reports I guess.
Here are some great resources for anyone confused by information at "911truth.org" and would like more information.
'Debunking 9/11 Myths': Nano-thermite dust found near Ground Zero (Photos)
Debunking 9/11 Myths: conspiracy plots are sheer fantasy
NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
World Trade Center Disaster Study
Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
Resources for debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Debunking 9/11 Bomb Theories
The Truthers Are Out There
9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective
Debunking Conspiracy Theories In 'Voodoo Histories'
that's quite possibly the honest truth since neither that "war" nor "terrorism" has been defined to any degree.
For it is the doom of men that they forget. -- Merlin, Excalibur
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
By their deeds you shall know them.
1996 Bin Laden's Fatwa - The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi
1998 Bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya
2000 Photo: USS Cole - Video: 2000: USS Cole Attack in Yemen
2001 9-11
2002 Bali terror attack
2004 Madrid train attacks
2005 London 7/7 Terrorist Attacks
2009 Now classified as "workplace violence" - Nidal Hasan Admitted Jihadist Motive, Ft. Hood Victims’ Attorneys Say
2013 Boston Marathon Bombing
Note that this is only a snapshot of attacks, and doesn't include the many attacks that occurred in the Middle East (except the Cole). It also doesn't include the many plots disrupted by the security services, or cancelled by the terrorists planning them. It doesn't include the many arrests for terrorism related activity, but snapshot of that over a short period of time is below:
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012
Here you go:
NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
One of the key fallacies of the "false flag" is that you can keep a big operation that kills lots of people secret in a free society. The 9/11 "Truthers" never really address that. Simply consider the fact that the CIA only waterboarded three (3) terrorists, the most recent of which was more than 10 years ago. Nobody died, nobody was injured. The hue and cry over it would make you believe it was still going on and the total was 30,000, not 3. There are plenty of other leaks that damaged national security of a similar nature.
Beside, there is no need to run a false flag terrorist operation. There are plenty of local volunteers, and foreigners willing to try. The real challenge isn't running a false flag, the real challenge is stopping all of the real attempts at a terrorist attack. Of course you know about Boston, but there is the following which will soon mean that the Boston bombing wasn't the first terrorist attack since 9/11, and the short sample after that.
With Nidal Hasan bombshell, time to call Fort Hood shooting a terror attack?
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 9, 2011
FBI’s Top
I mean why do you think Obama kept ALL the crap about Bush that the left hated
So do you think it would be Democrats, Republicans, or neither that is going to let suicide bombings and truck bombings by terrorists become a regular part of American life? A lot of what you raise boils down to that. No American political party is going to take a step that allows terrorists with a car bomb easy access to crowds of Americans, whether they be in a plaza, a shopping mall, or a stadium. If they do that, the voters will punish them not not electing them. That simple issue explains more than you or Bill Hicks. And it isn't like there hasn't been hundreds of arrests and convictions for terrorism related offenses either. There have been plenty of arrests for plans or attempts to use vehicle bombs to kill people in the United States by terrorists in the last ten years.
Once you get past that, past the physical safety of Americans from terrorist attacks, which covers a fair amount of ground, things open up a bit. Both parties want to stay in power, and of necessity court those who will fund them, so that will result in some similar behavior. But to pretend that there is no difference between the two parties in terms of the policy goals and philosophy is ridiculous. The Democratic Party passes the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, without votes from Republicans. They own it, whether it is a sweet success, or the trainwreck it looks like it may be.
There are plenty more like that in which the two parties would pursue different paths. Fiscal policy doest matter? Tax rates (cuts for the rich?)(pay your fair share?)? Gay rights doesn't matter? "Climate change" doesn't matter? Carbon taxes don't matter? Voter's rights and fair elections don't matter? Gun control doesn't matter? Approach to business and labor regulation doesn't matter? You didn't get this right, there are distinct differences between the parties. That is especially the case as the two parties have become more polarized. That parts where they are the same are obvious and trivial. Neither party is going to pursue a path that it believes will result in large numbers of Americans being killed if it can be avoided, and both parties want to stay in office.
Between Alex Jones and Ron Paul, your political interests tend to run to the fringe, and anyone else is a shill. If you want to keep banging the drum for Ron Paul, more power too you. But James Trafficant probably needs some love too. If you were interested I'd be happy, to use Trafficant's words, to beam you up, if I could.
Hell, some companies may just be fronts for surveillance activities.
Oh, that is a given.
China also has more than 3,000 front companies in the U.S. “for the sole purpose of acquiring ... technology
It is probably not fair for the Chinese to get all the action.