The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[JB Lions]

I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth. But just because they're our government doesn't mean they're above reproach and shouldnt be subject to scrutiny.

The kind of data they have and the language regarding how long it can be retained and how it can be used leave the door open for abuse of that same data.

I didn't say you said that, sdsinc said that. Earlier, I asked if you felt that way:

I am a US citizen.

to which I replied

So you think our government are traitors? We should fear them more than terrorists? That we're enemies of the state?

I think it makes a better story for some people, our government is the enemy, out to get us nonsense. But no, it's for terrorists. But it's interesting to see how easy people can be manipulated into believing stuff like that. We've done that in other countries, other countries do it too. And there's a possibility of that in this case as well.

 

[RaiderGirl]

I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.

JB wouldn't be himself if he didn't.

I didn't say you said that, sdsinc said that. Earlier, I asked if you felt that way:

What was DU saying about quotes again?

 

[JB Lions]

JB wouldn't be himself if he didn't. "What was DU saying about quotes again?"

I usually use quotes. You, not so much. That would be more your kind of deal. I'm just lazy with hitting the quote button below, it's quicker for me using " ". Those are quotes. Quotes, links, charts, backing what I post up, stuff you hate.

http://www.namepros.com/4510612-post1588.html

Do you not see quotes in that post? I do.

 

[enlytend]

This link is interesting reading.

www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/20/194513/obamas-crackdown-views-leaks-as.html

If you don't see potential issues with that and if it doesn't bother you at least a little bit on some level, well ..what can I say? Those are lovely rose colored glasses you're wearing.

 

[JB Lions]

There's potential issues with lots of things. But, you're not supposed to leak classified information. Also: "some agencies are using that latitude to pursue unauthorized disclosures of any information, not just classified material."

Not supposed to do that either. Don't break the law. Do you job as required.

From elsewhere:
"As Tara Lee, a lawyer at the law firm DLA Piper, with expertise in defense industry and national security litigation said to me there is an important distinction between leakers and whistleblowers, "One reports a crime; and one commits a crime."

 

[enlytend]

It sounds all well and good on paper. Problem is, in real life things rarely play out as they do on paper.

Very easy to ABUSE and APPLY this to whistleblowers, as in Ms. Greenstein's case. So everyone becomes afraid to say anything, even when they see something that should be questioned. Everyone shuts their mouth and goes about their business, like good little gov-bots.

That's a bad way to run a business and a worse way to run a country.

“The real danger is that you get a bland common denominator working in the government,” warned Ilana Greenstein, a former CIA case officer who says she quit the agency after being falsely accused of being a security risk. “You don’t get people speaking up when there’s wrongdoing. You don’t get people who look at things in a different way and who are willing to stand up for things. What you get are people who toe the party line, and that’s really dangerous for national security.”

 

[JB Lions]

"leakers and whistleblowers, "One reports a crime; and one commits a crime."

Ok, so do you have a list of crimes that she reported? Because, I couldn't find any. I read she didn't even file a report. She might be right, she might be wrong. There's two sides to every story. Seems like you automatically assume she's right. As if disgruntled employees are only supposed to happen in the private sector. Maybe we can buy her book and got more info. She didn't get thrown in jail, fired or anything like that. She quit on her own. Lots of people quit jobs for various reasons.

Let me ask you this:

Are you ok with the leaking of classified information?

Are you ok with "unauthorized disclosures of any information" ?

 

[enlytend]

Those questions are too vague to make an answer meaningful. There is no "one size fits all" answer.

There's a big difference between being "disgruntled" and questioning a process. She didn't commit any crimes. She questioned something.

Seems like you automatically assume that anyone who gets punished/interrogated/etc. deserves it. All people in jail are guilty. Everyone fired from a job was doing something wrong.

Sorry, but that is sooooooooo naive.

I've wasted enough time on this - I'm outta here. (Until my next rant )

 

[JB Lions]

No, I don't think that at all. This is somebody who made some claims, but never filed any reports on them for some reason. Quit on her own, wrote a book. You're holding her up as some whistleblower who was abused, just based on hearing one side of the story. Now, that's naive. In this case, I would want to hear the other side before coming to any conclusions. Again, like I said, she might be right, might be wrong. I don't have enough information to make that determination.

 

[DU]

Top Secret Govt program.
Uses private agency Booz Hamilton.
Booz Hamilton owned by Carlyle Group.

Yup.. it's all good.

 

[JB Lions]

Top Secret Govt program.
Uses private agency Booz Hamilton.
Booz Hamilton owned by Carlyle Group.

Yup.. it's all good.

You can thank the Republicans on that. Talking about smaller government, so what used to be government jobs is now farmed out to private companies, which charge more on top of that. I wonder who gets the benefit of that, hmm. But hey, we have smaller government.

The only surprising things for me, is that they would hire people with GED's, I guess I thought the bar should be a little higher. Or that people didn't actually read the Patriot Act as they should, now they act all outraged about it.

As far as that Obama program. Good, things should be tightened up.

Snowden, they'll eventually get him. We got Bin Laden, got Hussein hiding in some hole.

 

[DU]

Snowden, they'll eventually get him. We got Bin Laden, got Hussein hiding in some hole.

You're equating them? I guess the only difference is that the government didn't at any point offer support to Snowden..

 

[JB Lions]

You're equating them? I guess the only difference is that the government didn't at any point offer support to Snowden..

No, the first part gave away what I was getting at. We can get most people. And they did offer him support, he had a nice paying job and everything that came with it. Maybe he got a better deal elsewhere.

 

[DU]

Aint it great to be alive?

 

[Theo Goodman]

"You can thank the Republicans on that."

This implys that democrats have no part in the growing privatisation of military industrial complex including inteligence. That is incorrect.
Even if it were so, there is zero evidence to even slightly suggest that if there was more goverment control of those sections of the inteligence sector that the result would be any different.

"Are you ok with the leaking of classified information?

Are you ok with "unauthorized disclosures of any information" ? "

It all depends on what it is. That would sway almost anyones opinon to if they are "ok" with it or not.

Are you ok with someone breaking the law to save someones life?

They broke the law, perhaps they were not "doing their job".

 

[enlytend]

In 2011, FISC, the court which oversees the NSA et al found that NSA surveillance under FISA section 702 was unconstitutional.

Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall revealed the existence of the opinion, which found that collection activities under FISA Section 702 "circumvented the spirit of the law” and violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. But, at the time, the Senators were not permitted to discuss the details publicly. Section 702 has taken on new importance this week, as it appears to form the basis for the extensive PRISM surveillance program reported recently in the Guardian and the Washington Post.

Details of the ruling have been kept under wraps. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/...inion-law-underlying-prism-program-needs-stay

Background: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/surveillance-spirit-law/

So the Federal Information Security Court issued at least one ruling that NSA was acting in violation of the 4th ammendment. But I'm sure it was a one-time occurrence which was rectified and everything's all rainbows and unicorns and smiley faces again ...

Just throwing this out for discussion - I have work to do. Have at it!

 

[eyedomainous]

What was an "unreasonable search" before 9/11, say to get on a plane, quickly became "reasonable" after.

9/11 to the Boston Bombings, the enemy struck from within -using the commons as a shield, and infra-structure as a weapon, precisely because it is a blind-spot in a 'free country of individual rights' focused on spying, and defending against, a 'foreign enemy'.

Nobody likes to be spied-on, but most folks go along with it because, academic Constitutional arguments aside, it saves lives and catches bad guys.

Yes, surveillance over-reach is an inherent problem... but, for the record, it was the Obama Administration that first pointed that out shortly after it took office, in 2009:

Officials Say U.S. Wiretaps Exceeded Law

Tell me again about it being a "Secret Operation".

 

[JB Lions]

In 2011, FISC, the court which oversees the NSA et al found that NSA surveillance under FISA section 702 was unconstitutional.



Details of the ruling have been kept under wraps. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/...inion-law-underlying-prism-program-needs-stay

Background: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/surveillance-spirit-law/

So the Federal Information Security Court issued at least one ruling that NSA was acting in violation of the 4th ammendment. But I'm sure it was a one-time occurrence which was rectified and everything's all rainbows and unicorns and smiley faces again ...

Just throwing this out for discussion - I have work to do. Have at it!

Ok, but as I said earlier:

It's something that needs to be talked about and I'm sure more information will be coming out, but I do expect the NSA to do NSA stuff.

 

[Domainace]

Nobody likes to be spied-on, but most folks go along with it because, academic Constitutional arguments aside, it saves lives and catches bad guys.

The first problem is that you think that the rights established in the US constitution are "academic." In other words, you don't take them seriously. That means that there's not much left to discuss.

But just for fun...

The second is that there is little to no evidence that this increased surveillance does in fact save lives and catch bad guys. As I've said before, they can't even coordinate the intelligence they've got - adding more data will make the problem worse. It will be useful, though, when they decide on a particular political enemy to target.

 

[JB Lions]

"The second is that there is little to no evidence that this increased surveillance does in fact save lives and catch bad guys."

Of course it does, that was gone thru already.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/52245948#52245948