U.S. bugged EU offices.

By saying that someone should be killed, regardless of reason, is to say they are deserving of death. You can't say "Well we should kill this guy but he doesn't really deserve it". They've either earned the distinction of being marked for death or not in which case you aren't saying they should be killed. It doesn't matter if it's the "lesser of two evils" (it isn't by the way, killing someone because they might do something that might lead to others dying is incredibly f*cked up and while this spying thing is not Orwellian, just dickery, that would be) because by saying someone should be killed you're saying that in your opinion they are deserving of that.Ace6301

It isn't that simple. Sometimes you don't feel that somebody deserves to die but you will kill them or let them die as a last resort to prevent a greater tragedy from happening.

This happens in a lot of Middle Eastern countries when you are dealing with suicide bombers. Sometimes the bomber isn't really al Qaeda or some other terrorist group but he was given an ultimatum: either blow yourself up in this market or next to that passing US convoy or we will kill your wife and kids.

The bomber doesn't deserve to die because he is being forced to do his actions. However, if we see him running or driving towards us we are going to shoot him so only one man dies versus 20 or 30 men, women, and children die and countless other survivors are disfigured.

I don't want Snowden to die. However, if the government killed him because they had actionable intelligence that he was about to hand over a list of names to al Qaeda then in my opinion they were justified in killing him, one man, to potentially save hundreds of agents and their families from being targeted by both domestic and foreign terrorists.

Not to mention that even if Snowden doesn't willingly hand over the names that doesn't prevent him from being kidnapped and tortured into giving them up. Or his laptop could simply be stolen and the thief either hacks into it himself or he sells it to somebody who can.

If you want to look at it based on a fictional method, on the second season of 24 where [spoiler] Jack was willing to fly the plane with the nuke on it into the Mojave Desert when the bomb squad realized they couldn't disarm the bomb. It was obvious he was going to die if he was successful. Nobody thought Jack deserved to die but his death was going to save millions and although he got out of it in the end his death would have been considered justified for the greater good. [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

He isn't accused of treason here. He's accused of spying.

In any case, I don't consider him a traitor. I think he did us a favor, and I hope he finds a safe harbor. I realize you don't agree, but nothing you've said has come even remotely close to changing my mind on the subject... so far.

m0zart

The definition of a traitor, by the Constitution, is one who gives "aid and comfort" to an enemy. By announcing to everyone in the world that the NSA was eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails, he effectively gave aid to terror plotters like al Qaeda, who are enemies of the US.

I don't hold blind allegiance to my country, so I could care less what definitions he fits that they've drummed up. The Constitution can be a great documetn at times, and a completely stupid one at others. I am thankful someone had the courage to make their activities public, regardless of what it says about that.

Again, I only hope he can find safe harbor.

Thank you for introducing some sense in this apologetic mess.

It isn't that simple. Sometimes you don't feel that somebody deserves to die but you will kill them or let them die as a last resort to prevent a greater tragedy from happening.

This happens in a lot of Middle Eastern countries when you are dealing with suicide bombers. Sometimes the bomber isn't really al Qaeda or some other terrorist group but he was given an ultimatum: either blow yourself up in this market or next to that passing US convoy or we will kill your wife and kids.

The bomber doesn't deserve to die because he is being forced to do his actions. However, if we see him running or driving towards us we are going to shoot him so only one man dies versus 20 or 30 men, women, and children die and countless other survivors are disfigured.

I don't want Snowden to die. However, if the government killed him because they had actionable intelligence that he was about to hand over a list of names to al Qaeda then in my opinion they were justified in killing him, one man, to potentially save hundreds of agents and their families from being targeted by both domestic and foreign terrorists.

Not to mention that even if Snowden doesn't willingly hand over the names that doesn't prevent him from being kidnapped and tortured into giving them up. Or his laptop could simply be stolen and the thief either hacks into it himself or he sells it to somebody who can.

If you want to look at it based on a fictional method, on the second season of 24 where [spoiler] Jack was willing to fly the plane with the nuke on it into the Mojave Desert when the bomb squad realized they couldn't disarm the bomb. It was obvious he was going to die if he was successful. Nobody thought Jack deserved to die but his death was going to save millions and although he got out of it in the end his death would have been considered justified for the greater good. [/spoiler]

ad1x2

no he's an idiot the knife can be held to.

he did not need to take the information he did, he could have revealed any illegal activities (he didn't), and not taken other information hostage.

just because someone has a risky job does not mean someone has the right to threaten their lives, OR THEIR FAMILIES(as is the case)

frannkzappa

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

because the world is stationary nothing bad will ever happen again, foreign national threats are a thing of the past.:roll:

 

:| No not with nuclear weapons in existence.. It is why there hasn't been another world war since.. And it has nothing to do with the United States military power in that regard..

 

history shows that peace has always lasted forever and "great enemies" never show up, right?

I am pointing out your bullsh!t logic.. A) There were many wars happening during the era of the Cold War, the US and Soviet union caused or at very least promoted many of them.. B) Great enemies in the past didn't have to fear nuclear weapons with the threat of mutually assured destruction. C) Economics are different now.. Our "rivals" are all economically tied to one another in which if one were to go down we would all hurt for it..

 

And I am sorry but Peace? The US has been involved in multiple wars in the past decade.. If anything it illustrates how wrong your reasoning this is, that the US's large military doesn't prevent wars.. Quite often it has CAUSED wars.

frannkzappa

when did i say the US military prevented wars? do you even know what my original point was?

You're not making any sense.

There never was a period before in human history where the Western world was at peace for this long. If you were to say 200 years ago that Europe would be in peace no one would believe you. Europe has always been at war. The existence of WMDs is a very good reason, but I think you fail to realize how capitalism plays a big role. You don't need to invade a foreign country to have access to its resources. You now "invade" foreign countries through corporations. That's incredibly more profitable.

You talk about South America and Africa. South America's conflicts were mostly due to the Cold War with US and USSR fighting in proxy wars, trying to control the region. Africa had many problems with civil wars following the independence from European countries, but many countries are slowly getting their act together. Angola and Mozambique, for example, had 20 years of civil war and are now booming economies.

The major conflicts now take place in countries that resist to enter the "global market" and are still ruled by military dicatorships. The West couldn't care less about people dying, they just want those regimes to be replaced with friendly "democracies" so that Western corporations are free to go there and profit. That's how it works.

For starters you've provided another example where someones peers don't feel they deserved death. Those who killed him almost certainly felt he deserved death which is why they intentionally killed him. By stating that someone should be intentionally killed, regardless of the reason, you are saying they deserve death. Ace6301

Let's agree to disagree on the definition of whether or not you can say somebody can want somebody to die without actually believing that they deserve to die. We will probably go in circles doing that.

Also the law was in fact broken. A top intelligence member in the US a few months back testified that they were not retrieving millions of phone records from Americans. This is now shown to be false. That's perjury for one.Ace6301

Truthfully answering that question would have required General Alexander to openly reveal Top Secret//No Foreign information in an open chamber that anybody with an internet connection or TV could see. Classified information requires two things: the proper clearance level and being read on to the program. Even if you have a TS if you aren't read on to PRISM he couldn't legally tell you about it, let alone the whole country on live TV.

In my opinion the person who asked him that information should have had the foresight to ask him that inside of a secure SCIF (which there are plenty of in Washington) instead of inside of an unsecure room being broadcasted on TV where anybody could have heard it. Mainly because if GEN Alexander answered "that's classified" or even something on the lines as "I don't want to reveal our capabilities in an unsecure setting but we can discuss them in a secure area" Joe Average will put two and two together and say that he means yes.

For another it could easily be argued that this goes against the 4th amendment.Ace6301

Yes, it could be argued that it goes against the Fourth Amendment (even though the internet and telephones didn't exist back then and the Founding Fathers probably didn't intend on their rules to be used to impede legitimate operations against enemy parties). If it does actually violate it then the people of America should come together, agree on a team of lawyers, and send them to the Supreme Court argue that it does indeed violate the law.

If the Supreme Court agrees with their arguments and declares the NSA programs unconstitutional then the DOJ can start sending out arrest warrants to anybody who knowingly took part in it if they feel that they need to be jailed for it. In addition to that, they can get Snowden's arrest warrant voided for leaking the NSA programs due to whistleblower laws (although he would still be in trouble for the other intel he leaked such as us spying on some of our allies).

Until the Supreme Court makes that decision as of right now the only person who broke the law is Edward Snowden and he will be prosecuted if he steps foot back in the US. Public support will most likely get him off light, though, to prevent riots from Snowden supporters.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Don't be naive enough to think other countries aren't doing that. :roll:LJS9502_basic

So because other countries are doing it, it's fine?  Keep your own house in order.  

You can keep an eye on them without straight-up spying.  

Truthfully answering that question would have required General Alexander to openly reveal Top Secret//No Foreign information in an open chamber that anybody with an internet connection or TV could see. Classified information requires two things: the proper clearance level and being read on to the program. Even if you have a TS if you aren't read on to PRISM he couldn't legally tell you about it, let alone the whole country on live TV.

In my opinion the person who asked him that information should have had the foresight to ask him that inside of a secure SCIF (which there are plenty of in Washington) instead of inside of an unsecure room being broadcasted on TV where anybody could have heard it. Mainly because if GEN Alexander answered "that's classified" or even something on the lines as "I don't want to reveal our capabilities in an unsecure setting but we can discuss them in a secure area" Joe Average will put two and two together and say that he means yes.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]For another it could easily be argued that this goes against the 4th amendment.ad1x2

Yes, it could be argued that it goes against the Fourth Amendment (even though the internet and telephones didn't exist back then and the Founding Fathers probably didn't intend on their rules to be used to impede legitimate operations against enemy parties). If it does actually violate it then the people of America should come together, agree on a team of lawyers, and send them to the Supreme Court argue that it does indeed violate the law.

If the Supreme Court agrees with their arguments and declares the NSA programs unconstitutional then the DOJ can start sending out arrest warrants to anybody who knowingly took part in it if they feel that they need to be jailed for it. In addition to that, they can get Snowden's arrest warrant voided for leaking the NSA programs due to whistleblower laws (although he would still be in trouble for the other intel he leaked such as us spying on some of our allies).

Until the Supreme Court makes that decision as of right now the only person who broke the law is Edward Snowden and he will be prosecuted if he steps foot back in the US. Public support will most likely get him off light, though, to prevent riots from Snowden supporters.

I don't give a shit if truthfully answering would have caused him to spontaneously light on fire, it's what he should have done. Perjury, like all laws, should apply to everyone in such circumstances with no special treatment. If the American public put two and two together from that and got mad then good. They have every right to be mad at this sort of thing as the government is going behind their back. If someone can just lie because of whatever reason in that situation it raises all sorts of unfortunate questions about the levels of corruption in the US government. No doubt people are trying to get something together to present to the Supreme Court, that sort of thing takes time though. Germany already is actually getting a court case ready against the US for the spying. Ace6301

You can get upset all you want, it doesn't change how disclosure of classified information works.

At the same time you have to look at it this way: there are procedures in place to deal with people with security clearances who are asked information under oath that would require them to break their Non-Disclosure Agreement by answering truthfully. 

It is very likely the following happened:

1. General Alexander was asked a question where answering the question truthfully would have revealed classified information.
2. GEN Alexander lied to protect the information from public disclosure that could later be taken advantage of by al Qaeda and other terror groups.
3. One of the general's aide's or the general himself contacted the congressmen who were questioning him for a closed briefing to answer their questions.
4. GEN Alexander revealed the truth about the program inside of a SCIF so they knew what was happening while not alerting the media and the enemy.

More than likely that is what happened, since GEN Alexander wasn't arrested for perjury after the program was leaked. I can all but guarantee most of the congressmen who are acting like they knew nothing about it are just covering their asses so it doesn't affect their chances of reelection.

This may seem like abuse of power to you but when it comes down to it anybody who is trusted with classified information is expected to protect it at all costs, unlike what we can say about Mr. Snowden. Do you think that if an overzealous congressman asked  a military official classified war plans in an open session that he would just spill the beans in front of the world, putting our plans in danger?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]I don't give a shit if truthfully answering would have caused him to spontaneously light on fire, it's what he should have done. Perjury, like all laws, should apply to everyone in such circumstances with no special treatment. If the American public put two and two together from that and got mad then good. They have every right to be mad at this sort of thing as the government is going behind their back. If someone can just lie because of whatever reason in that situation it raises all sorts of unfortunate questions about the levels of corruption in the US government. No doubt people are trying to get something together to present to the Supreme Court, that sort of thing takes time though. Germany already is actually getting a court case ready against the US for the spying. ad1x2

You can get upset all you want, it doesn't change how disclosure of classified information works.

At the same time you have to look at it this way: there are procedures in place to deal with people with security clearances who are asked information under oath that would require them to break their Non-Disclosure Agreement by answering truthfully. 

It is very likely the following happened:

1. General Alexander was asked a question where answering the question truthfully would have revealed classified information.
2. GEN Alexander lied to protect the information from public disclosure that could later be taken advantage of by al Qaeda and other terror groups.
3. One of the general's aide's or the general himself contacted the congressmen who were questioning him for a closed briefing to answer their questions.
4. GEN Alexander revealed the truth about the program inside of a SCIF so they knew what was happening while not alerting the media and the enemy.

More than likely that is what happened, since GEN Alexander wasn't arrested for perjury after the program was leaked. I can all but guarantee most of the congressmen who are acting like they knew nothing about it are just covering their asses so it doesn't affect their chances of reelection.

This may seem like abuse of power to you but when it comes down to it anybody who is trusted with classified information is expected to protect it at all costs, unlike what we can say about Mr. Snowden. Do you think that if an overzealous congressman asked  a military official classified war plans in an open session that he would just spill the beans in front of the world, putting our plans in danger?

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]I don't give a shit if truthfully answering would have caused him to spontaneously light on fire, it's what he should have done. Perjury, like all laws, should apply to everyone in such circumstances with no special treatment. If the American public put two and two together from that and got mad then good. They have every right to be mad at this sort of thing as the government is going behind their back. If someone can just lie because of whatever reason in that situation it raises all sorts of unfortunate questions about the levels of corruption in the US government. No doubt people are trying to get something together to present to the Supreme Court, that sort of thing takes time though. Germany already is actually getting a court case ready against the US for the spying. Ace6301

You can get upset all you want, it doesn't change how disclosure of classified information works.

At the same time you have to look at it this way: there are procedures in place to deal with people with security clearances who are asked information under oath that would require them to break their Non-Disclosure Agreement by answering truthfully. 

It is very likely the following happened:

1. General Alexander was asked a question where answering the question truthfully would have revealed classified information.
2. GEN Alexander lied to protect the information from public disclosure that could later be taken advantage of by al Qaeda and other terror groups.
3. One of the general's aide's or the general himself contacted the congressmen who were questioning him for a closed briefing to answer their questions.
4. GEN Alexander revealed the truth about the program inside of a SCIF so they knew what was happening while not alerting the media and the enemy.

More than likely that is what happened, since GEN Alexander wasn't arrested for perjury after the program was leaked. I can all but guarantee most of the congressmen who are acting like they knew nothing about it are just covering their asses so it doesn't affect their chances of reelection.

This may seem like abuse of power to you but when it comes down to it anybody who is trusted with classified information is expected to protect it at all costs, unlike what we can say about Mr. Snowden. Do you think that if an overzealous congressman asked  a military official classified war plans in an open session that he would just spill the beans in front of the world, putting our plans in danger?

If you're trusted with classified information that is either going to harm innocents or violate the constitution then you should absolutely come out publicly with it.

If a congressman asked a military official classified war plans and the response was "That is classified" or "I'm not at liberty to reveal that information at this time" then that's fine. If said information was in violation of international law or in other ways extremely dubious then he should come out and say it to the best of his abilities without putting personnel at risk. He should notoutright lie however.

Before you said the American public would put 2 and 2 together if he said it was classified. Why is that a bad thing? Why should their being kept in the dark be seen as more important than the laws of the country?

If you are ever trusted with classified information then you would understand why the general gave the answer he did. If there truly wasn't a program where the NSA collected information then he can comfortably say no, he wouldn't have to cover it by saying "that's classified." So by answering the question that way he just hinted to America, and more importantly al Qaeda that we do have a monitoring program.

You can go to jail for telling your own wife classified information in the privacy of your bedroom if somebody finds out you did, so imagine the penalty for revealing a Top Secret program on live TV without prior authorization. If General Alexander believed the program violated any laws then it would be his duty to bring that information up to his superiors IN A CLOSED AREA.

I say a closed area because if he publically protests the program and then the Supreme Court decides the program is legal then it's off to Fort Leavenworth with him for revealing classified information to the public. There are so many ways to report illegal information in the government that don't require running to the media that you can almost assume several of the people who do go public are doing it more for fame than to reveal wrongdoing.

You can say all day that you have a "right" to know about the program, but if the program works and is legal then for the program to be effective it needs to be secret. There are US citizens who openly support al Qaeda, so all it would take is for one of them to admit to the program they had a "right" to know for it to be passed to the enemy.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="ad1x2"]

You can get upset all you want, it doesn't change how disclosure of classified information works.

At the same time you have to look at it this way: there are procedures in place to deal with people with security clearances who are asked information under oath that would require them to break their Non-Disclosure Agreement by answering truthfully. 

It is very likely the following happened:

1. General Alexander was asked a question where answering the question truthfully would have revealed classified information.
2. GEN Alexander lied to protect the information from public disclosure that could later be taken advantage of by al Qaeda and other terror groups.
3. One of the general's aide's or the general himself contacted the congressmen who were questioning him for a closed briefing to answer their questions.
4. GEN Alexander revealed the truth about the program inside of a SCIF so they knew what was happening while not alerting the media and the enemy.

More than likely that is what happened, since GEN Alexander wasn't arrested for perjury after the program was leaked. I can all but guarantee most of the congressmen who are acting like they knew nothing about it are just covering their asses so it doesn't affect their chances of reelection.

This may seem like abuse of power to you but when it comes down to it anybody who is trusted with classified information is expected to protect it at all costs, unlike what we can say about Mr. Snowden. Do you think that if an overzealous congressman asked  a military official classified war plans in an open session that he would just spill the beans in front of the world, putting our plans in danger?

ad1x2

If you're trusted with classified information that is either going to harm innocents or violate the constitution then you should absolutely come out publicly with it.

If a congressman asked a military official classified war plans and the response was "That is classified" or "I'm not at liberty to reveal that information at this time" then that's fine. If said information was in violation of international law or in other ways extremely dubious then he should come out and say it to the best of his abilities without putting personnel at risk. He should notoutright lie however.

Before you said the American public would put 2 and 2 together if he said it was classified. Why is that a bad thing? Why should their being kept in the dark be seen as more important than the laws of the country?

If you are ever trusted with classified information then you would understand why the general gave the answer he did. If there truly wasn't a program where the NSA collected information then he can comfortably say no, he wouldn't have to cover it by saying "that's classified." So by answering the question that way he just hinted to America, and more importantly al Qaeda that we do have a monitoring program.

You can go to jail for telling your own wife classified information in the privacy of your bedroom if somebody finds out you did, so imagine the penalty for revealing a Top Secret program on live TV without prior authorization. If General Alexander believed the program violated any laws then it would be his duty to bring that information up to his superiors IN A CLOSED AREA.

I say a closed area because if he publically protests the program and then the Supreme Court decides the program is legal then it's off to Fort Leavenworth with him for revealing classified information to the public. There are so many ways to report illegal information in the government that don't require running to the media that you can almost assume several of the people who do go public are doing it more for fame than to reveal wrongdoing.

You can say all day that you have a "right" to know about the program, but if the program works and is legal then for the program to be effective it needs to be secret. There are US citizens who openly support al Qaeda, so all it would take is for one of them to admit to the program they had a "right" to know for it to be passed to the enemy.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

nunovlopes

when did i say the US military prevented wars? do you even know what my original point was?

You're not making any sense.

There never was a period before in human history where the Western world was at peace for this long. If you were to say 200 years ago that Europe would be in peace no one would believe you. Europe has always been at war. The existence of WMDs is a very good reason, but I think you fail to realize how capitalism plays a big role. You don't need to invade a foreign country to have access to its resources. You now "invade" foreign countries through corporations. That's incredibly more profitable.

You talk about South America and Africa. South America's conflicts were mostly due to the Cold War with US and USSR fighting in proxy wars, trying to control the region. Africa had many problems with civil wars following the independence from European countries, but many countries are slowly getting their act together. Angola and Mozambique, for example, had 20 years of civil war and are now booming economies.

The major conflicts now take place in countries that resist to enter the "global market" and are still ruled by military dicatorships. The West couldn't care less about people dying, they just want those regimes to be replaced with friendly "democracies" so that Western corporations are free to go there and profit. That's how it works.

that's my entire point.

you're taking my arguments out of context.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

It isn't that simple. Sometimes you don't feel that somebody deserves to die but you will kill them or let them die as a last resort to prevent a greater tragedy from happening.

This happens in a lot of Middle Eastern countries when you are dealing with suicide bombers. Sometimes the bomber isn't really al Qaeda or some other terrorist group but he was given an ultimatum: either blow yourself up in this market or next to that passing US convoy or we will kill your wife and kids.

The bomber doesn't deserve to die because he is being forced to do his actions. However, if we see him running or driving towards us we are going to shoot him so only one man dies versus 20 or 30 men, women, and children die and countless other survivors are disfigured.

I don't want Snowden to die. However, if the government killed him because they had actionable intelligence that he was about to hand over a list of names to al Qaeda then in my opinion they were justified in killing him, one man, to potentially save hundreds of agents and their families from being targeted by both domestic and foreign terrorists.

Not to mention that even if Snowden doesn't willingly hand over the names that doesn't prevent him from being kidnapped and tortured into giving them up. Or his laptop could simply be stolen and the thief either hacks into it himself or he sells it to somebody who can.

If you want to look at it based on a fictional method, on the second season of 24 where [spoiler] Jack was willing to fly the plane with the nuke on it into the Mojave Desert when the bomb squad realized they couldn't disarm the bomb. It was obvious he was going to die if he was successful. Nobody thought Jack deserved to die but his death was going to save millions and although he got out of it in the end his death would have been considered justified for the greater good. [/spoiler]

Ace6301

no he's an idiot the knife can be held to.

he did not need to take the information he did, he could have revealed any illegal activities (he didn't), and not taken other information hostage.

just because someone has a risky job does not mean someone has the right to threaten their lives, OR THEIR FAMILIES(as is the case)

frannkzappa

like what?

he doesn't need to, the fact that he has the information is dangerouse enough.

like what?

he doesn't need to, the fact that he has the information is dangerouse enough.

frannkzappa

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

like what?

he doesn't need to, the fact that he has the information is dangerouse enough.

Ace6301

Funny how the US can spy on anyone and not care but if someone spied on the US it would be all out war.Rattlesnake_8

http://floppingaces.net/2013/06/24/edward-snowden-obama-is-getting-his-clock-cleaned/

"Beyond technical systems, U.S. officials are deeply concerned that Snowden used his sensitive position to read about U.S. human assets, for example spies and informants overseas as well as safe houses and key spying centers".

I had access to the full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community, and undercover assets all over the world. The locations of every station, we have what their missions are, and so forth. - Snowden himself

heres some more

http://www.webpronews.com/edward-snowden-will-release-nsa-documents-if-hes-caught-2013-06

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

http://www.usatoday.com/story/cybertruth/2013/06/11/could-edward-snowden-really-shut-down-the-nsa/2412839/

http://floppingaces.net/2013/06/24/edward-snowden-obama-is-getting-his-clock-cleaned/

"Beyond technical systems, U.S. officials are deeply concerned that Snowden used his sensitive position to read about U.S. human assets, for example spies and informants overseas as well as safe houses and key spying centers".

I had access to the full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community, and undercover assets all over the world. The locations of every station, we have what their missions are, and so forth. - Snowden himself

heres some more

http://www.webpronews.com/edward-snowden-will-release-nsa-documents-if-hes-caught-2013-06

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

http://www.usatoday.com/story/cybertruth/2013/06/11/could-edward-snowden-really-shut-down-the-nsa/2412839/

frannkzappa

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

http://floppingaces.net/2013/06/24/edward-snowden-obama-is-getting-his-clock-cleaned/

"Beyond technical systems, U.S. officials are deeply concerned that Snowden used his sensitive position to read about U.S. human assets, for example spies and informants overseas as well as safe houses and key spying centers".

I had access to the full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community, and undercover assets all over the world. The locations of every station, we have what their missions are, and so forth. - Snowden himself

heres some more

http://www.webpronews.com/edward-snowden-will-release-nsa-documents-if-hes-caught-2013-06

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

http://www.usatoday.com/story/cybertruth/2013/06/11/could-edward-snowden-really-shut-down-the-nsa/2412839/

Ace6301

i find it to be more assumptive to believe this man forgot and or no longer has this information.

he has already shown quite clearly that his word is not to be trusted.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

http://floppingaces.net/2013/06/24/edward-snowden-obama-is-getting-his-clock-cleaned/

"Beyond technical systems, U.S. officials are deeply concerned that Snowden used his sensitive position to read about U.S. human assets, for example spies and informants overseas as well as safe houses and key spying centers".

I had access to the full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community, and undercover assets all over the world. The locations of every station, we have what their missions are, and so forth. - Snowden himself

heres some more

http://www.webpronews.com/edward-snowden-will-release-nsa-documents-if-hes-caught-2013-06

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

http://www.usatoday.com/story/cybertruth/2013/06/11/could-edward-snowden-really-shut-down-the-nsa/2412839/

frannkzappa

i find it to be more assumptive to believe this man forgot and or no longer has this information.

he has already shown quite clearly that his word is not to be trusted.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] The full quote with context Greenwald: "If your motive had been to harm the United States and help its enemies or if your motive had been personal material gain were there things you could have done with these documents to advance those goals that you didn't end up doing?" Snowden: "Oh absolutely. Anyone in the positions of access with the technical capabilities that I had could suck out secrets, pass them on the open market to Russia; they always have an open door as we do. I had access to the full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community, and undercover assets all over the world. The locations of every station, we have what their missions are and so forth." So he's not actually saying he has this on him right now and in fact seems to imply he does not which I've added emphasis to. So really this is an assumption.Ace6301

i find it to be more assumptive to believe this man forgot and or no longer has this information.

he has already shown quite clearly that his word is not to be trusted.

i'll admit that was clever,,, and i did laugh.

>he has already shown quite clearly that his word is not to be trusted. I disagree. Edward Snowden was not lying about PRISM because the government verified it. BranKetra

wrong. he joined exclusively to leak information as stated by himself..

he has broken several oaths, this has nothing to do with the validity of leaked information.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]>he has already shown quite clearly that his word is not to be trusted. I disagree. Edward Snowden was not lying about PRISM because the government verified it. frannkzappa

wrong. he joined exclusively to leak information as stated by himself..

he has broken several oaths, this has nothing to do with the validity of leaked information.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]>he has already shown quite clearly that his word is not to be trusted. I disagree. Edward Snowden was not lying about PRISM because the government verified it. frannkzappa

wrong. he joined exclusively to leak information as stated by himself..

he has broken several oaths, this has nothing to do with the validity of leaked information.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]>he has already shown quite clearly that his word is not to be trusted. I disagree. Edward Snowden was not lying about PRISM because the government verified it. BranKetra

wrong. he joined exclusively to leak information as stated by himself..

he has broken several oaths, this has nothing to do with the validity of leaked information.

I am not this thread.

my separate argument=/= this thread.

my point had little to do with the general flow of the thread.

you also focus on semantics and non issues to avoid arguing or agreeing with points.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]>he has already shown quite clearly that his word is not to be trusted. I disagree. Edward Snowden was not lying about PRISM because the government verified it. Ace6301

wrong. he joined exclusively to leak information as stated by himself..

he has broken several oaths, this has nothing to do with the validity of leaked information.

i can't say i can vouch for this mans intelligence.

in the best case scenario we are dealing with an ideological idiot.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

wrong. he joined exclusively to leak information as stated by himself..

 

 

he has broken several oaths, this has nothing to do with the validity of leaked information.

frannkzappa

I am not this thread.

my separate argument=/= this thread.

my point had little to do with the general flow of the thread.

you also focus on semantics and non issues to avoid arguing or agreeing with points.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

wrong. he joined exclusively to leak information as stated by himself..

he has broken several oaths, this has nothing to do with the validity of leaked information.

frannkzappa

i can't say i can vouch for this mans intelligence.

in the best case scenario we are dealing with an ideological idiot.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] I think this thread is all about validity. BranKetra

I am not this thread.

my separate argument=/= this thread.

my point had little to do with the general flow of the thread.

you also focus on semantics and non issues to avoid arguing or agreeing with points.

don't attempt to contribute or be a part of a "tangent" if you don't want to be part of a meaningful discussion.

you're statement on the relevancy of my arguments to the flow of the thread is a non issue.

the thread is about the EU offices being bugged and the effects of snowdens leaks, what i posted was completely relevant.

yet instead of entering the debate you focus on pointless perceived technicalities.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] While he is without a doubt an oathbreaker I think the smarter move on his part would be to announce he has that sort of document and that they've been given out to various people in case something happens to him. Even if that's just a bluff it could be a bargaining chip. I don't know if he does have them for sure or not. But right now I'd lean toward him not having them based on what would be prudent and what he's said in the past.Ace6301

i can't say i can vouch for this mans intelligence.

in the best case scenario we are dealing with an ideological idiot.

he was not in his position based on intelligence (I.E intellectual capacity).

and have you ever thought that maybe it's not the best idea to force an entire country to face the consequences of your subjective whims and opinions?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

i can't say i can vouch for this mans intelligence.

in the best case scenario we are dealing with an ideological idiot.

frannkzappa

he was not in his position based on intelligence (I.E intellectual capacity).

and have you ever thought that maybe it's not the best idea to force an entire country to face the consequences of your subjective whims and opinions?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Maybe. He got pretty high up in an agency I know I'd have no hope in hell getting into (possibly in part because I've said several times here that if I felt something crossed the line I'd expose it).Ace6301

he was not in his position based on intelligence (I.E intellectual capacity).

and have you ever thought that maybe it's not the best idea to force an entire country to face the consequences of your subjective whims and opinions?

1. we do not yet know what snowden is yet capable of.

2 the spying is neither illegal or unconstitutional, this is the problem with republics and democracies (which i have always advocated for replacing). the popular nature of government allowed this to happen.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

he was not in his position based on intelligence (I.E intellectual capacity).

and have you ever thought that maybe it's not the best idea to force an entire country to face the consequences of your subjective whims and opinions?

frannkzappa

1. we do not yet know what snowden is yet capable of.

2 the spying is neither illegal or unconstitutional, this is the problem with republics and democracies (which i have always advocated for replacing). the popular nature of government allowed this to happen.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] I have thought that. I'm not seeing how he is forcing them to face the consequences though. Mostly he just gave them the info and they've been left to decide what to do. Now the government doing all this spying and such I find to have much larger consequences. Ace6301

1. we do not yet know what snowden is yet capable of.

2 the spying is neither illegal or unconstitutional, this is the problem with republics and democracies (which i have always advocated for replacing). the popular nature of government allowed this to happen.

i've already pointed out that he plausibly has info that endangers the lives of innocents.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

I am not this thread.

my separate argument=/= this thread.

my point had little to do with the general flow of the thread.

you also focus on semantics and non issues to avoid arguing or agreeing with points.

frannkzappa

don't attempt to contribute or be a part of a "tangent" if you don't want to be part of a meaningful discussion.

you're statement on the relevancy of my arguments to the flow of the thread is a non issue.

the thread is about the EU offices being bugged and the effects of snowdens leaks, what i posted was completely relevant.

yet instead of entering the debate you focus on pointless perceived technicalities.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] You made a tangent in this thread. If you want to talk more about your points then make a thread about them. Also, I focus on semantics if a discussion is about them. Focusing on non-issues is not something I do. If there is something I was talking about that you consider a non-issue, it is most likely your opinion which is your own, but that does not make it correct.

BranKetra

don't attempt to contribute or be a part of a "tangent" if you don't want to be part of a meaningful discussion.

you're statement on the relevancy of my arguments to the flow of the thread is a non issue.

the thread is about the EU offices being bugged and the effects of snowdens leaks, what i posted was completely relevant.

yet instead of entering the debate you focus on pointless perceived technicalities.

no, that is not what i'm saying in the least.

i more than welcome disagreement, but until this post you offered none.

also i said that snowdens promises COULD NOT be trusted, just to clear up any confusion.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

1. we do not yet know what snowden is yet capable of.

2 the spying is neither illegal or unconstitutional, this is the problem with republics and democracies (which i have always advocated for replacing). the popular nature of government allowed this to happen.

frannkzappa

i've already pointed out that he plausibly has info that endangers the lives of innocents.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Again we could assume he's capable of pulling a planet destroying death ray out of his ass but I'd rather stick to what we know and so far he's really only forced the US government to admit it's actions which I have no problem with. Illegal no, not as of about 2009. Unconstitutional...weeeeell that's a bit harder to say for sure. Ace6301

i've already pointed out that he plausibly has info that endangers the lives of innocents.

this is in no way a wild theory.

it is more than plausible enough to warrant the capture of this man.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

i've already pointed out that he plausibly has info that endangers the lives of innocents.

frannkzappa

this is in no way a wild theory.

it is more than plausible enough to warrant the capture of this man.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Maybe he does. Maybe he doesn't. I can't say for sure so I won't. Again we can spin all kinds of wild theories but I feel sticking to what we know is best. No sense punishing people for things they haven't done when we don't have any evidence they intend to or even are in a position to do it. Ace6301

this is in no way a wild theory.

it is more than plausible enough to warrant the capture of this man.

i see you would rather mop up a mess than prevent one.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

this is in no way a wild theory.

it is more than plausible enough to warrant the capture of this man.

frannkzappa

i see you would rather mop up a mess than prevent one.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Enh. Until he starts hurting people I can't say I give a shit about him. The information released is far more interesting than the individual releasing it.Ace6301

i see you would rather mop up a mess than prevent one.

who's smashing the pantry?

We are all bugged and the utah data center hosts all our thoughts.  is snowden really the next osama bin ladin?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

i see you would rather mop up a mess than prevent one.

frannkzappa

who's smashing the pantry?