Print

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

[Baffler]

Nothing regarding the actual situation would be any different in that case, though. The only difference would be that one party would be able to posture a bit more effectively to garner public support. Points scored, issue forgotten, moving along. It's just tiring at this point.

[GlyphGryph]

Except, if you look at the last vote, roughly 45% of the House is opposed enough to this to vote to defund the NSA program. I don't think that is just a token resistance attempt - it may not end up being successful, but that was a vote against the wishes of both party leadership.

I fully trust the Republican loyalist's to try and score political points against Obama on this, but I expect it to limit itself to the media - I don't think they'll start sponsoring any opposed legislation anytime soon.

[palsch]

A bit of a debate at Lawfare today.

Carrie Cordero defends the current structure of the FISC.

Steve Vladeck arguing for reforms.

I would recommend reading both. The first is pretty conservative (opposing some seemingly slam-dunk reforms), but is another good look at how those inside see the current checks within the system. Basically it's the opinion of the current establishment.

[GlyphGryph]

Aren't the opinions of the current establishment mostly "We wish no one had found out about this and dragged out out so we're required to adopt positions reasonable people might actually agree with"?

But I'll give them a read when I get a chance, I don't always agree with Lawfare arguments but they are usually several steps above the conversation that's happening in most other places.

[Descan]

ptw

[Morrigi]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/researchers-say-tor-targeted-malware-phoned-home-to-nsa/

So it looks like the NSA have been writing some infectious malware on top of everything else.

As if there wasn't already enough fuel on the fire...

Someone has attempted to frame Stewart Rhodes (head of the Oathkeepers, a group dedicated to ensuring that the military and police will stand with the people in the event of an even bigger shitstorm) and Daniel Johnson (head of the People Against the N.D.A.A., what it says on the tin) in the distribution and consumption of child pornography? The mistake that led to their exposure? A fake tormail account.

The video has both of them talking about what happened to a third party.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYVvuDRstDw&feature=c4-overview&list=UUEHsSWvrGVSIA63OV3J6vhA


And yeah yeah, conspiracy theories, etc. Do all those far-fetched conspiracy theories look so far-fetched now?

[Sheb]

BTW, how many of you think the recent "Let's close all our embassies in MENA" was mostly made for domestic consumption and to prove the NSA's usefulness?

Not saying the phone call intercepted wasn't real, but since the administration's modus operandi is usually "stay silent and thwart the plot", I can't help but think they orchestrated a massive overreaction as a PR operation.

[palsch]

BTW, how many of you think the recent "Let's close all our embassies in MENA" was mostly made for domestic consumption and to prove the NSA's usefulness?

Not saying the phone call intercepted wasn't real, but since the administration's modus operandi is usually "stay silent and thwart the plot", I can't help but think they orchestrated a massive overreaction as a PR operation.

Warning: Rampant and half-informed speculation follows.

It would depend on where the leak about the conference call came from.

If it was an authorised, political leak then there may well be an element of this.

However, if it was unauthorised then what they did makes more sense.

The conference calls they tapped must have been an amazing trove of information, and you would expect them to keep as quiet and subtle about having tapped them as possible. You don't want to tip off the enemy that you are listening in on their planning and coordination sessions. They may well have had enough information to do a far more targeted takedown of any plot planned, but gone with a broad and vague reaction to hide the depth of their knowledge and better milk the quality intelligence source while still thwarting or minimising whatever attack was planned.

If that's the case then the leak of the nature of the call and fact that it was tapped would be more directly damaging than the Snowden leaks and you would expect to see an investigation and maybe prosecution. Although probably a quiet or internal one if they don't want to appear to be going after another leaker.

As if there wasn't already enough fuel on the fire...
...

I'm not really sure what this has to do with the thread. Those are a couple of far right activists (one of whom has his own page on the SPLC's website) who got targeted by some random 'hackers' who are trying to get random right wingers to open child porn on their computers. Which is a really pathetic plot against anyone not too paranoid to think about it for two seconds.

[GlyphGryph]

http://libertymcg.com/2013/07/23/this-is-your-brain-on-terrorism/

A little treatise on WHY people accept things like this. Fear, obviously - but why are people so afraid of such a minuscule and relative ineffective threat such as terrorism that they are willing to make sacrifices they wouldn't even consider to stop other more serious threats?

[misko27]

BTW, how many of you think the recent "Let's close all our embassies in MENA" was mostly made for domestic consumption and to prove the NSA's usefulness?

Not saying the phone call intercepted wasn't real, but since the administration's modus operandi is usually "stay silent and thwart the plot", I can't help but think they orchestrated a massive overreaction as a PR operation.

Absolutely not. The Over-reaction was at worst a remnant of Benghazi. In terms of Intelligence, letting people know your sources is very bad, something to do in dire circumstances. They let Al Qaeda know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that their upper-most communications had been breached. AND Obama is getting Criticism for jumping the gun on "Al Qaeda on the run". That can't have been taken lightly.

And yeah yeah, conspiracy theories, etc. Do all those far-fetched conspiracy theories look so far-fetched now?

Literally anything that includes a variation of this sentence makes me want to run screaming from the room.

http://libertymcg.com/2013/07/23/this-is-your-brain-on-terrorism/

A little treatise on WHY people accept things like this. Fear, obviously - but why are people so afraid of such a minuscule and relative ineffective thread such as terrorism that they are willing to make sacrifices they wouldn't even consider to stop other more serious threats?

That is standard though, people embrace extremes to fight extremes. Also, what do you mean by "a minuscule and relative ineffective thread such as terrorism". This thread isn't that scary.

[GlyphGryph]

*threat

And yeah yeah, conspiracy theories, etc. Do all those far-fetched conspiracy theories look so far-fetched now?

Literally anything that includes a variation of this sentence makes me want to run screaming from the room.

Well, when conspiracy theories get confirmed and it's revealed the government is actually up to all sorts of shady conspiracies it is... kind of understandable that people might consider that maybe they are up to some conspiracies and some more theories about them might be right? I mean, that seems pretty sensible to me. Yeah, plenty of people are going to jump to the stupidly far fetched ones, but it's likely more of the more plausible conspiracy theories are probably going to bear fruit in the near future, since lately conspiracy theories have gone
Crazy dude: "I think the government is doing this!"
Normal person: "Haha that is crazy and impossible!"
Government: "We are definitely NOT doing that!"
Leaks/Media: "Yeah you kind of are."
Government: "Well, uh, it's for your own good, stop thinking about it too much!"
Crazy Dude: "Validation!"
Normal Person: "Huh... maybe crazy dude isn't so crazy after all..."

People jumping to the extremes... That's just the sort of thing you have to deal with when it's revealed you are actually outright engaging in conspiracies against the American people and it comes out. (Even if you argue those conspiracies are for their own good)

Hell, there are the PRO-government crazies too, like the people in this very thread who continued to deny that the government monitored the content of e-mail connection, that they spied on the bulk of the American populace, and that they tracked communications of American citizens, even after the government practically admitted it and there was significant evidence. As they become less believable, people naturally pop over to the other side, that might be just as crazy but has a better track record of actually being right.

[misko27]

*threat

That is kinda what I was afraid of.

...so afraid of such a minuscule and relatively ineffective threat such as terrorism...

terrorism* is by no definition either ineffective nor minuscule. I would go so far as to say the threat of terrorism is equal to that of an oppressive government. I can point easily to countries where terrorism, daily terrorism, is common** and say the fear there is as great there is it'd be under a repressive government. I'm not saying it's out everywhere at all times, and the US leans more to tyranny of the government then Terror, but to trivialize it is absurd. One cannot in striking down one evil enable a different one to take it's place.

Remember Ambrose Bierce:

DICTATOR, n. The chief of a nation that prefers the pestilence of despotism to the plague of anarchy.

*To me all militias or organizations of a non-governmental nature that attack civilians are Terrorists. Even if they do other things too.
**In Iraq, 22 children were killed today in a playground by a bomb. Yesterday, 7 were killed by a car bomb, and 11 were killed by a suicide bomber in a cafe. These are literally the first 3 news posts on Google. Iraq is like the anti-North Korea now.

[GlyphGryph]

Okay, ineffective at what people think it's doing i.e. trying to kill people wreak havoc and cause damage (at least in most any western nation). I will admit it certainly seems to be good at causing anxiety, but one could argue that's more a result of effective media than effective terrorism in most parts of the world. Perhaps I used the incorrect word - not dangerous? That's probably a better word, if I could think of what to use there. Not harmless, but comparatively far less dangerous than other things we take in stride.

But this is in regards to the United States - the situation is different elsewhere in the world. I wonder, though - by your definition... would mob hits be acts of terrorism?

[Scoops Novel]

Please take it to PM's. Let's try and stay particular.

[GlyphGryph]

I have absolutely no idea what your problem is. Who asks people to take things to PM, a relevant conversation, without adding anything themselves to talk about instead? That's not only pretty rude it's also kinda dumb.

Also I have no idea what it means to "stay particular" but the wording to that seems hilarious to me for some reason.

But seriously, Novel, you're getting pretty annoying as you do this in every thread - either actually contribute to the conversation or anything or stay out of threads. And no, demanding people do things, usually for you, is not contributing. Provide something worthwhile to talk about! If you can't say anything worth hearing, don't say anything at all.