Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

It's more of the fact that something like this could be used against you. It means the bosses get caught off guard because you weren't honest. If you had some drugs in your past, they can plan for that, let you know it won't bother them (if it did he simply wouldn't be in that position). A lot of people would rather betray their organization then let some of their secrets out in public.

There are some calls already for Clapper to be dismissed, or even prosecuted for perjury. I'm a bit sympathetic to the guy, because it was one of those moments where he's thinking "FUCK. I can't tell them about it....quick, what do I do?" I think he basically fell on his sword, knowing his ass was toast if it ever came out.

That said, when people fall on their swords there kind of needs to be some blood. It's like Petraeus -- I feel bad for the guy, but that doesn't change the fact that he's gotta go.

He committed a crime, he should see justice. Admittedly, justice in this case would probably be a not-terribly-long stint in jail and ruining of his professional career, but when you break the law, that's the sort of thing one expects to happen - and I doubt perjury is a crime many people believe shouldn't be a crime.

Counter argument: Snowsden committed crimes. Therefore he should see justice. He broke the law, it's what's expected.

[GlyphGryph]

Well ignore your amazing ability to miss the point and ill respond as if you said something relevant. If he committed crimes AND those crimes were just, yes, he should. I do not believe revealing such things actually are orshould be a crime, but if they are then they are - I dont think anyone needs to worry about him going unprosecuted. Sometimes a person has to break the law to do the right thing but they still broke the law and there should still be a price. But if manning is any standard he will not be prosecuted for breaking the law so much as persecuted for making the people in charge look bad. And that is not something I'm ok with - if he is charged and brought to the US there is little hope for anything approaching actual justice. .

I do think laws against revealing the wrongdoing of others are bad laws on a practical. It is a law that paradoxically needs to be broken for their to be any chance of the law being upheld. But he did break the law and I would be okay with him being prosecuted if all the other criminals were as well - of course he's the only one who will be.

[misko27]

But if manning is any standard he will not be prosecuted for breaking the law so much as persecuted for making the people in charge look bad.

As someone pointed out Snowsden is a Civilian, not a military personnel, so it doesn't hold. It remains uncertain exactly how or in what matter he will be prosecuted.


I don't post against points, I post against arguments. I won't respond to most of your post, for example. It prevents a emotional response from people, as it forces them to defend what they use to justify themselves, and not the thing itself. I don't disagree (out loud) when someone says "Abortion is bad", I disagree when they say something like "Most Abortions are late-term", or unsafe, or anything. People take a argument on something they feel powerfully about as a attack, and they defend it hotly. Note I didn't dispute the comment on what others see as a punishable crime, even though I could.

Oh yeah,  And If you feel the need to take the time out of your day to post a response, yes, it is relevant. You make it so by responding. Please refrain from the sarcasm, it adds nothing to the conversation except hostility.

[GlyphGryph]

Wow, taking up a side job trolling? "If you respond, it's relevant!"

Fuck off.

You claimed your counter argument was an argument, and yet it didn't counter anything. Now you claim you weren't even refuting a point, you were refuting an argument... except your refutation didn't have anything to do with a single argument being made - I claimed someone should be prosecuted for breaking the law, and you proposed to counter that that... someone should be prosecuted for breaking the law. It wasn't relevant, it was a retarded attempt at ad hominem by appealing to my potential hypocrisy. If you're so concerned about arguments being valid, a concern I share, perhaps you should deign to look at your own before posting them?

tl;dr Troll harder.

P.S. I didn't use any sarcasm. Please refrain from specious arguments and deceptive implications, they do nothing but invoke hostility.

[misko27]

Dude, seriously? Please, be calm. I attempted to see if you would hold a double standard for Snowden, or what your reasoning was given many find him a hero above prosecution (as do some on this forum) and instead you get upset, and at me personally. You started off by demeaning the importance and relevance of my comments, talking down to me, and all this seemingly out of nowhere.

I could dispute what you're saying, the fact you are saying that I am straying from the topic of conversation, or that I claimed something about my post (which appears to be a mis-understanding) but this is irrelevant to your tone. The point of my second post was what seemed to be a lack of respect in your first. You could tell me it's irrelevant, or that I am out of line, but such language seems needlessly hostile.

Again, be calm. There is no reason to act like this. This wasn't a argument that got heated, this was a single post. A 17 word post, where in you get upset. You seemed to snap at me for no reason. And now, telling someone to fuck off? Even if I was trolling, the tone of your comments would still not be appropriate..

I am not upset at all about your complaints about my comments, hell they may well be right, but I am upset with the lack of respect.

[GlyphGryph]

I'm not stupid, misko. You were looking for an opening to call me a hypocrite and ignoring my point in order to get in a possible dig against me. That's not cool.

And when I pointed that out, you turn this into an argument about my tone, and accused me of things I didn't do.

You may not be trolling and instead just trying to discredit me and hope it carries over to my argument, but you're arguing dishonestly either way, and that's not the sort of the behaviour that deserves respect. Hell yes I am going to call you on that.

You're contempt for me notwithstanding (and yes, I too am amazed at how much insinuation and contempt you managed to fit into 17 words) this IS a tangent and was never anything but. Do you have an actual objection to my actual argument, the one you claimed to be responding to? Do you think that we should be okay with perjury? Do you even disagree with the argument that was actually made?

[SalmonGod]

Glyphgryph:  You're responding a bit harshly.
misko27:  If you want to prove you're not provoking, there are couple ways you can do it.  The first is to drop it.

The second is to address this.

Counter argument: Snowsden committed crimes. Therefore he should see justice. He broke the law, it's what's expected.

I do think laws against revealing the wrongdoing of others are bad laws on a practical. It is a law that paradoxically needs to be broken for their to be any chance of the law being upheld. But he did break the law and I would be okay with him being prosecuted if all the other criminals were as well - of course he's the only one who will be.

Instead of acknowledging his response to your counter argument, you chose to scold him for making you feel personally offended.  It would have even been ok if you did both, but you only did the one that that guaranteed the discussion would devolve into bickering.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Do you have an actual objection to my actual argument, the one you claimed to be responding to? Do you think that we should be okay with perjury? Do you even disagree with the argument that was actually made?

So, I tried to find the cohesive argument the last page or so but I couldn't find one. Less emotion. Misko wasn't even being that snarky with his Counter argument to warrant the backlash. You guys need to reset and try again with this tangent. Snowden leaked confidential information, on a top-secret program, which happens to be a crime despite any sort of whistleblower-like intentions unfortunately. Perjury during committee hearings getting wrist slaps is a debate for a different time as it consists of the entire culture in Washington, not specifically related to the surveillance state being unaccountable.

I'm worried about the causes. The PATRIOT, limitless war powers acts passed post 9-11, the FISA being able to determine interpretations of law outside of public view. Can we atleast agree on that bit?

[Sheb]

It is relevant in that it makes the government's claim that the surveillance is okay because it's reviewed by the three branches of government void. Congressional oversight is a joke if the program is not even acknowledged in front of Congressmen. Which leave us with a rubber-stamp court and whatever internal measures they decide to take, in secret.

[SalmonGod]

So, I tried to find the cohesive argument the last page or so but I couldn't find one.

I do think laws against revealing the wrongdoing of others are bad laws on a practical. It is a law that paradoxically needs to be broken for their to be any chance of the law being upheld. But he did break the law and I would be okay with him being prosecuted if all the other criminals were as well - of course he's the only one who will be.

In other words, if it's illegal to report a crime, then how is justice to be done?  How are authority figures supposed to be held accountable to their duty to serve the public?  The law has to be broken.  And when that happens, any gesture of respect for the law has to be equal.  If you're going to punish the crime of illegally reporting a crime, then you have to punish the crime that was reported as well.  Else the pretense of respect for the law is a total sham.  And if the law only works so far as it protects those in power, then why should we have any respect for it?  How can we stand up for ourselves if we abide by laws that only exist to be used against us?

It is relevant in that it makes the government's claim that the surveillance is okay because it's reviewed by the three branches of government void. Congressional oversight is a joke if the program is not even acknowledged in front of Congressmen. Which leave us with a rubber-stamp court and whatever internal measures they decide to take, in secret.

It's reminiscent of the CIA of the 50s, isn't it?  When nobody had a fucking clue what they were up to, and we find out decades later from partial and heavily redacted documentation (who knows what else we'll never know) that they were doing shit like human experimentation on unwilling/unaware subjects.  Different magnitudes, of course, but the same mechanisms seem to be in effect, allowing for the elite to play ridiculous power games behind a heavy veil of secrecy.

[GlyphGryph]

So, I tried to find the cohesive argument the last page or so but I couldn't find one. Less emotion. Misko wasn't even being that snarky with his Counter argument to warrant the backlash.

What an appropriate picture for this post. Especially since you didn't actually read anything I wrote, which SalmonGod has conveniently repeated for you twice now, focusing on the important bits.

[palsch]

It is relevant in that it makes the government's claim that the surveillance is okay because it's reviewed by the three branches of government void. Congressional oversight is a joke if the program is not even acknowledged in front of Congressmen.

Two separate issues.

Congressional hearings are public. You aren't going to have congressional oversight of secret/classified programs in public hearings. That would be a little counter-productive. Instead there are oversight committees that have clearance to hear about these programs and who then have greater control over bills that would effect them. Looking at statements and interviews coming out of the Intelligence and Judiciary (only one I can find right now, but Franken seems to have kept his head in this so a worthwhile one to listen to) committees there seems to have been substantial information given to those congresscritters.

Standard disclaimers as to whether this is sufficient, blah blah blah.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

So, I tried to find the cohesive argument the last page or so but I couldn't find one. Less emotion. Misko wasn't even being that snarky with his Counter argument to warrant the backlash.

What an appropriate picture for this post. Especially since you didn't actually read anything I wrote, which SalmonGod has conveniently repeated for you twice now, focusing on the important bits.

Of course. Being offended at every counter point makes you look a bit petty.

[Scoops Novel]

Here's the protest's i mentioned that were planned for Saturday. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jun/15/snowden-protesters-hong-kong-video. According to this poll, Snowden's "a hero" to 40%, with a large amount undecided in each category. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/15/edward-snowden-prism-hero-poll

[palsch]

Not entirely related to the Snowden leaks, so if people want we can move this back to the general American politics thread, but still related to the NSA so posting here for now;

New WaPo story on the history of NSA surveillance.

I'd say most of it is just a summary of what was known about the Bush era surveillance debates, but with a lot of previously undisclosed meat on the normally bare-bone story.

There is also this piece on minimisation procedures; methods the NSA use to make sure they aren't looking at information they aren't allowed to look at.