If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

•       •       •

2484 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jun 2013 at 8:59 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:    more»

 Paginated (1/page) Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Borowitz...this is attempted satire or humor or something, right?

Well, corporations  are people.

Aside from the horrible satire here, the charges are farking comical. It's only a hop skip and jump from totalitarian 'law' where the very idea of doing something illegal (i.e. against the government) is treason.

DamnYankees: Aside from the horrible satire here, the charges are farking comical. It's only a hop skip and jump from totalitarian 'law' where the very idea of doing something illegal (i.e. against the government) is treason.

Mr. A:  "I think the government is violating the Constitution with increasing regularity and to a frightening extent"

Mr B:  "Well...that pisses me off...fk the government"

Mr. A:  "Hey, look, this guy released information proving my claim!"

Mr. B:  "F*CK THAT GUY!  HANG HIM!!  F*CKING TRAITOR!!1!"

Lionel Mandrake: Borowitz...this is attempted satire or humor or something, right?

Yes.

Also, nothing else in the New Yorker is ever that short. NOTHING

The charges that are still sealed and considered secret? Those charges?

DamnYankees: It's only a hop skip and jump from totalitarian 'law' where the very idea of doing something illegal (i.e. against the government) is treason.

Pointing out treason is treason. Prepare for your punishment!

Lionel Mandrake: DamnYankees: Aside from the horrible satire here, the charges are farking comical. It's only a hop skip and jump from totalitarian 'law' where the very idea of doing something illegal (i.e. against the government) is treason.

Mr. A:  "I think the government is violating the Constitution with increasing regularity and to a frightening extent"

Mr B:  "Well...that pisses me off...fk the government"

Mr. A:  "Hey, look, this guy released information proving my claim!"

Mr. B:  "F*CK THAT GUY!  HANG HIM!!  F*CKING TRAITOR!!1!"

But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

Snowden is a traitor by revealing this information

Note:no one in congress is surprised by the NSA actions or calling this a scandal. Everyone is saying Snowden being a traitor.

Darth_Lukecash: But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legalso far unchallenged and approved by the congress.

FTFY

Darth_Lukecash: But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

Snowden is a traitor by revealing this information

Note:no one in congress is surprised by the NSA actions or calling this a scandal. Everyone is saying Snowden being a traitor.

So, all those people in the government who supported the policy that led to the government spying on all of us are labeling him a "traitor" for telling all of us that the government has been spying on us, and you agree that he is a traitor for telling citizens what the government has been doing to us behind our backs? How do those boots taste?

Darth_Lukecash: But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

So were the contents of the Pentagon Papers.

El Pachuco: Darth_Lukecash: But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

So were the contents of the Pentagon Papers.

Actually, if it was unconstitutional it wasn't legal, even if it complied with statute.

"These charges send a clear message," the spokesman said. "In the United States, you can't spy on people."

And somewhere off in the hinterlands of Canada Alanis Morrissette's head is heard exploding scanners style.

Darth_Lukecash: Lionel Mandrake: DamnYankees: Aside from the horrible satire here, the charges are farking comical. It's only a hop skip and jump from totalitarian 'law' where the very idea of doing something illegal (i.e. against the government) is treason.

Mr. A:  "I think the government is violating the Constitution with increasing regularity and to a frightening extent"

Mr B:  "Well...that pisses me off...fk the government"

Mr. A:  "Hey, look, this guy released information proving my claim!"

Mr. B:  "F*CK THAT GUY!  HANG HIM!!  F*CKING TRAITOR!!1!"

But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

Snowden is a traitor by revealing this information

Note:no one in congress is surprised by the NSA actions or calling this a scandal. Everyone is saying Snowden being a traitor.

Snowden is no more a traitor than George Washington was.

Is he a criminal? Most certainly, just based on the letter of the laws that he violated.

Would bringing him to stand trial be justice? I'm more iffy on that. I have a hard time believing that Americans are worse off because they're now aware that the government is spying on literally everything they put online or on their phones.

Honestly, I don't really see a reason to spend resources trying to get him, beyond the usual American government posturing and fist-shaking.

He's not a hero, but he's also not farking Bin Laden, either. No one was made less safe by his admissions (unless you somehow believe terrorists weren't already concerned about electronic surveillance.) He can only be a traitor if the enemy that received comfort is the American people.

Darth_Lukecash: Snowden is a traitor by revealing this information

No, he's not.  He's a *criminal* by revealing this information.  Blames of traitor/treason are a bit over done.

Lionel Mandrake: Borowitz...this is attempted satire or humor or something, right?

all things being equal and quotation marks not withstanding i really hope a spokesman for my government didn't say those things.

this is enough of a clusterfark as it is without adding "the stupidity, it burns".

Darth_Lukecash: Lionel Mandrake: DamnYankees: Aside from the horrible satire here, the charges are farking comical. It's only a hop skip and jump from totalitarian 'law' where the very idea of doing something illegal (i.e. against the government) is treason.

Mr. A:  "I think the government is violating the Constitution with increasing regularity and to a frightening extent"

Mr B:  "Well...that pisses me off...fk the government"

Mr. A:  "Hey, look, this guy released information proving my claim!"

Mr. B:  "F*CK THAT GUY!  HANG HIM!!  F*CKING TRAITOR!!1!"

But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

Snowden is a traitor by revealing this information

Note:no one in congress is surprised by the NSA actions or calling this a scandal. Everyone is saying Snowden being a traitor.

Congress cannot make it legal to violate the constitution.

Darth_Lukecash: Snowden is a traitor by revealing this information

No, he's not. He broke the law of disclosing classified information. That's an entirely separate law from treason. The whole point is that we need to stop militarizing everything as a "crime against the people!" and calm the fark down.

Satanic_Hamster: Darth_Lukecash: Snowden is a traitor by revealing this information

No, he's not.  He's a *criminal* by revealing this information.  Blames of traitor/treason are a bit over done.

Pretty much. He's just a common criminal and should be dealt with as such.

It's all been downhill since

Jason Bourne,an American, beat all this shiat. Pussies, all of you.

Lionel Mandrake: Borowitz...this is attempted satire or humor or something, right?

NSA and Jew: If you ever needed a sign that Jews feel fully integrated and accepted by society, consider this: Not one major Jewish group made a peep over the revelations of National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance.
We, who throughout the modern era have been followed, spied on, singled out, labeled, rounded up, tortured and killed at the hands of the state, are officially just fine with our government tracking our every word.

A bit of hyperbole there to be sure but is shows that Jews feel government spying on individuals serves their interests now. Dominant in every field (ivy league academia, media, finance, government, etc.), do Jews feel secure that the government is there to protect them from the rest of the public?

The Borowitz Report is satire.

Darth_Lukecash: Lionel Mandrake: DamnYankees: Aside from the horrible satire here, the charges are farking comical. It's only a hop skip and jump from totalitarian 'law' where the very idea of doing something illegal (i.e. against the government) is treason.

Mr. A:  "I think the government is violating the Constitution with increasing regularity and to a frightening extent"

Mr B:  "Well...that pisses me off...fk the government"

Mr. A:  "Hey, look, this guy released information proving my claim!"

Mr. B:  "F*CK THAT GUY!  HANG HIM!!  F*CKING TRAITOR!!1!"

But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

Snowden is a traitor by revealing this information

Note:no one in congress is surprised by the NSA actions or calling this a scandal. Everyone is saying Snowden being a traitor.

If the government does it, it's legal?  What about the Japanese internment during WW2?  Didn't the Army intentionally infect some people with viruses?

Government spying on its citizens is wrong.

I know one thing: that guy ever comes around a card table you probably should get out of the game, cause a man with a poker face like that will pretty much leave you wearing a barrel.

wheres the source?  i want to see these actual spokesperson quotes

Bathia_Mapes: The Borowitz Report is satire.

Biological Ali: Satanic_Hamster: Darth_Lukecash: Snowden is a traitor by revealing this information

No, he's not.  He's a *criminal* by revealing this information.  Blames of traitor/treason are a bit over done.

Pretty much. He's just a common criminal and should be dealt with as such.

"Common criminals" generally commit crimes of opportunity for their own benefit, usually monetary. What did Snowden possibly have to gain for himself knowing full well that his actions would result I either lengthy incarceration or fleeing for his home county leaving behind his friends and family perhaps forever? Yes, I get that you think the rest of us have no right to know what our government is doing to us because our government is infallible, and knows what is best for us and we have no right to criticize, for we are it humbleservants of the almighty state, but what did behave to gain by this?

AeAe: Darth_Lukecash: Lionel Mandrake: DamnYankees: Aside from the horrible satire here, the charges are farking comical. It's only a hop skip and jump from totalitarian 'law' where the very idea of doing something illegal (i.e. against the government) is treason.

Mr. A:  "I think the government is violating the Constitution with increasing regularity and to a frightening extent"

Mr B:  "Well...that pisses me off...fk the government"

Mr. A:  "Hey, look, this guy released information proving my claim!"

Mr. B:  "F*CK THAT GUY!  HANG HIM!!  F*CKING TRAITOR!!1!"

But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

Snowden is a traitor by revealing this information

Note:no one in congress is surprised by the NSA actions or calling this a scandal. Everyone is saying Snowden being a traitor.

If the government does it, it's legal?  What about the Japanese internment during WW2?  Didn't the Army intentionally infect some people with viruses?

Government spying on its citizens is wrong.

Yes.  All that was legal.  Perfectly on the up and up.  And if anyone involved had revealed classified information in an effort to derail those programs they would have been breaking the law, breaking their pledges to keep the information secret.  They would have been traitors according to most people around here.

A lot of f*cking FARKers would call them bad guys.

One of the things I love(d) about FARK was that a lot of folks saw the difference between "legal" and "ethical."  I thought.

Nabb1: "Common criminals" generally commit crimes of opportunity for their own benefit, usually monetary. What did Snowden possibly have to gain for himself knowing full well that his actions would result I either lengthy incarceration or fleeing for his home county leaving behind his friends and family perhaps forever? Yes, I get that you think the rest of us have no right to know what our government is doing to us because our government is infallible, and knows what is best for us and we have no right to criticize, for we are it humbleservants of the almighty state, but what did behave to gain by this?

So if you commit a crime that's not to your benefit, it's not a crime?

Satanic_Hamster: Nabb1: "Common criminals" generally commit crimes of opportunity for their own benefit, usually monetary. What did Snowden possibly have to gain for himself knowing full well that his actions would result I either lengthy incarceration or fleeing for his home county leaving behind his friends and family perhaps forever? Yes, I get that you think the rest of us have no right to know what our government is doing to us because our government is infallible, and knows what is best for us and we have no right to criticize, for we are it humbleservants of the almighty state, but what did behave to gain by this?

So if you commit a crime that's not to your benefit, it's not a crime?

No, he said Snowden was a "common criminal." He may very well be a criminal.

Darth_Lukecash: Lionel Mandrake: DamnYankees: Aside from the horrible satire here, the charges are farking comical. It's only a hop skip and jump from totalitarian 'law' where the very idea of doing something illegal (i.e. against the government) is treason.

Mr. A:  "I think the government is violating the Constitution with increasing regularity and to a frightening extent"

Mr B:  "Well...that pisses me off...fk the government"

Mr. A:  "Hey, look, this guy released information proving my claim!"

Mr. B:  "F*CK THAT GUY!  HANG HIM!!  F*CKING TRAITOR!!1!"

But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

Snowden is a traitor by revealing this information

Note:no one in congress is surprised by the NSA actions or calling this a scandal. Everyone is saying Snowden being a traitor.

This may shock you, but Congress, an institution with single-digit approval ratings, can sometimes be wrong. Courts can't effectively check the constitutionality of secret acts if they give undue deference to the state secrets privilege or the Catch-22 that secrecy obscures who may have standing to sue, because one or both of those show stoppers prevent lawsuits from being decided on the merits.

The three charges against Snowden are:

"theft of government property"
"unauthorized communication of national defense information"
"willful communication of classified communications of intelligence information to an unauthorized person"

The last two are from the 1917 Espionage Act.

This is why, kids, if any law enforcement agents ask you about anything, no matter how little you know about it, you tell them to fark off and come back with a subpoena.

Nabb1: No, he said Snowden was a "common criminal." He may very well be a criminal.

And some criminals are heroes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

Lionel Mandrake: AeAe: Darth_Lukecash: Lionel Mandrake: DamnYankees: Aside from the horrible satire here, the charges are farking comical. It's only a hop skip and jump from totalitarian 'law' where the very idea of doing something illegal (i.e. against the government) is treason.

Mr. A:  "I think the government is violating the Constitution with increasing regularity and to a frightening extent"

Mr B:  "Well...that pisses me off...fk the government"

Mr. A:  "Hey, look, this guy released information proving my claim!"

Mr. B:  "F*CK THAT GUY!  HANG HIM!!  F*CKING TRAITOR!!1!"

But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

Snowden is a traitor by revealing this information

Note:no one in congress is surprised by the NSA actions or calling this a scandal. Everyone is saying Snowden being a traitor.

If the government does it, it's legal?  What about the Japanese internment during WW2?  Didn't the Army intentionally infect some people with viruses?

Government spying on its citizens is wrong.

Yes.  All that was legal.  Perfectly on the up and up.  And if anyone involved had revealed classified information in an effort to derail those programs they would have been breaking the law, breaking their pledges to keep the information secret.  They would have been traitors according to most people around here.

A lot of f*cking FARKers would call them bad guys.

One of the things I love(d) about FARK was that a lot of folks saw the difference between "legal" and "ethical."  I thought.

Sometimes I am shocked at the people here who are such willing subjects of the state. I suppose one can rationalize it as serving a greater good. i.e. the state takes care of "the poor" (whoever the fock they are).  I can't do that. And don't start on the transgressions of the sainted Mr. Lincoln. Too late people realize once you piss away your rights too serve a great good......

....you find out ITS A COOKBOOK.

The United States government charged former intelligence analyst Edward Snowden with spying on Friday, apparently unaware that in doing so it had created a situation dripping with irony.

Why yes, the irony is quite delicious. *nasal snort*

Lionel Mandrake: One of the things I love(d) about FARK was that a lot of folks saw the difference between "legal" and "ethical." I thought.

I know that feel, bro.

Our country was founded by traitors.  And that's good.

Satanic_Hamster: Nabb1: "Common criminals" generally commit crimes of opportunity for their own benefit, usually monetary. What did Snowden possibly have to gain for himself knowing full well that his actions would result I either lengthy incarceration or fleeing for his home county leaving behind his friends and family perhaps forever? Yes, I get that you think the rest of us have no right to know what our government is doing to us because our government is infallible, and knows what is best for us and we have no right to criticize, for we are it humbleservants of the almighty state, but what did behave to gain by this?

So if you commit a crime that's not to your benefit, it's not a crime?

Goes to motive.

And some laws need to be broken for the good of everyone.

DamnYankees: Aside from the horrible satire here, the charges are farking comical. It's only a hop skip and jump from totalitarian 'law' where the very idea of doing something illegal (i.e. against the government) is treason.

Well, that's what a lot of people seem to think. Even here on Fark.

What is the big secret that Snowden shockingly revealed?  That the NSA has been electronically eavesdropping on all of us?  That has not been a secret for many years now.

DamnYankees: Darth_Lukecash: Snowden is a traitor by revealing this information

No, he's not. He broke the law of disclosing classified information. That's an entirely separate law from treason. The whole point is that we need to stop militarizing everything as a "crime against the people!" and calm the fark down.

Crimes against the state are crimes against the people.  Said every statist ever.

Biological Ali
Pretty much. He's just a common criminal and should be dealt with as such.

The concept of whistleblowing no longer exists, apparently. Just like the concept that there's anything wrong with entrapment has gone out the window.

Lionel Mandrake
One of the things I love(d) about FARK was that a lot of folks saw the difference between "legal" and "ethical." I thought.

Ooh! Ohh! Hey! *waves arm frantically*

Bathia_Mapes: The Borowitz Report is satire.

Shhhh! You'll spoil all the fun!

The Emperor's New Clothes:  "But he has nothing on at all," said a little child at last.

sendtodave: Our country was founded by traitors. And that's good.

Our country was founded by traitors. And that's good.

There seems to be a lot of Americans - of all political stripes - who would gleefully string those traitorous bastards up.

At the end of this do we become a country worth bombing?

El Pachuco: Darth_Lukecash: But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

So were the contents of the Pentagon Papers.

AND the detention of Americans of Japanese ancestry.

Hey, he tired to warn everyone what he was planning with his 1992 hit single "Informer":

Snow

Snowden

See?

mrlewish: At the end of this do we become a country worth bombing?

Ask Bill Ayers.  He's set of plenty of bombs here.  He also says Fartbongo should face war crimes charges.  When a terrorist says you're a scumbag, you have problems.

Ooooo, we revoked his passport. He is in trouble now. I am sure Russia, China, and Ecuador will help us and hand over the traitor. Hahha. No they won't. They will just give us the finger and all we can do is take it up the rear end. Nobody fears Obama.

I swear, there is there a new Cold War we would lose. I am sure that is what all you leftists want.

I really hope Snowden gets to jail somehow and gets a$$raped by the biggest black guy there. Over and over again. Said it before, I'll say it again: Snowden gets hold of NSA secrets, leaks them through the press. Snowden is considered a Traitor. BUT If Snowden stayed anonymous as a source, leaks NSA secrets to a reporter, and the reporter then reports the story? Reporter is considered a hero. Snowden's a traitor because he cut out the middleman? 2wolves: The charges that are still sealed and considered secret? Those charges? If by "still sealed and considered secret" you mean "were unsealed on Friday afternoon", then yes, those charges. Link Nabb1: "Common criminals" generally commit crimes of opportunity for their own benefit, usually monetary. What did Snowden possibly have to gain for himself knowing full well that his actions would result I either lengthy incarceration or fleeing for his home county leaving behind his friends and family perhaps forever? Yes, I get that you think the rest of us have no right to know what our government is doing to us because our government is infallible, and knows what is best for us and we have no right to criticize, for we are it humbleservants of the almighty state, but what did behave to gain by this? Well, he's a minor international celebrity now, so he's got that going for him. Whether the gains from that offset everything else is a separate matter of course, but even if not, it's not as though that's something surprisng - plenty (perhaps even most, I daresay) common criminals actually end up making things worse for themselves. Probably because criminals in general tend not to be the brightest. Wow. The Internet Tough Guys are out in force tonight. RanDomino: The concept of whistleblowing no longer exists, apparently. Just like the concept that there's anything wrong with entrapment has gone out the window. Just to clarify, are you calling Snowden a whistleblower? And what does entrapment have to do with this discussion? Biological Ali: Nabb1: "Common criminals" generally commit crimes of opportunity for their own benefit, usually monetary. What did Snowden possibly have to gain for himself knowing full well that his actions would result I either lengthy incarceration or fleeing for his home county leaving behind his friends and family perhaps forever? Yes, I get that you think the rest of us have no right to know what our government is doing to us because our government is infallible, and knows what is best for us and we have no right to criticize, for we are it humbleservants of the almighty state, but what did behave to gain by this? Well, he's a minor international celebrity now, so he's got that going for him. Whether the gains from that offset everything else is a separate matter of course, but even if not, it's not as though that's something surprisng - plenty (perhaps even most, I daresay) common criminals actually end up making things worse for themselves. Probably because criminals in general tend not to be the brightest. "Tend not to be the brightest." No, most criminals are rather stupid. Some are smart, and the Snowden had to be intelligent just to end up in a situation where he could do what he did. Biological Ali: RanDomino: The concept of whistleblowing no longer exists, apparently. Just like the concept that there's anything wrong with entrapment has gone out the window. Just to clarify, are you calling Snowden a whistleblower? And what does entrapment have to do with this discussion? Yes, he is. He told Americans what their government was doing to them. There's an old bumper sticker that needs updating .. "don't steal- the government hates competition ". uknesvuinng: 2wolves: The charges that are still sealed and considered secret? Those charges? If by "still sealed and considered secret" you mean "were unsealed on Friday afternoon", then yes, those charges. Link Huh. So, they want to change him with espionage, but to get around Hong Kong's "We won't extradite political criminals" law, they framed it as "theft of government property." Oh, no, we won't try him for committing a political crime! Just theft! They straight up farking lied to the HK government. darkedgefan: I really hope Snowden gets to jail somehow and gets a$$ raped by the biggest black guy there. Over and over again.

oh my.

Cubicle Jockey: The three charges against Snowden are:

"theft of government property"

What property was "stolen"?  I know files were copied.  Given how so many people view that music "sharing" is not technically theft, how is this theft?

LeoffDaGrate: Said it before, I'll say it again:

Snowden gets hold of NSA secrets, leaks them through the press.  Snowden is considered a Traitor.

BUT

If Snowden stayed anonymous as a source, leaks NSA secrets to a reporter, and the reporter then reports the story?  Reporter is considered a hero.

Snowden's a traitor because he cut out the middleman?

Snowden is a traitor because the government, through the media, controls the narrative.  The narriative is that he threatened the security of the American people by telling them that the government doesn't value their input.

And he didn't want to go in anonymous, because 1)  He knew that'd be impossible, and 2) The media would just quash the story in the name of national security.

Thus controlling the narrative.

Anyone else really getting sick of "national security?"  Fark national security.  Fark it in the ear.

Nabb1: "Tend not to be the brightest." No, most criminals are rather stupid. Some are smart, and the Snowden had to be intelligent just to end up in a situation where he could do what he did.

The point is not whether or not he was generally "intelligent"; plenty of plenty of criminals are very bright and very well-edcuated. The point is that in committing this crime he did something stupid, which is something he has in common with many regular criminals.

Now, I may turn out to be wrong - he may have worked out an excellent scheme to keep from facing trial and to make a ton of money of his newfound celebrity status. In that case I'd have to concede that he's probably not so stupid.

Nabb1: Biological Ali: RanDomino: The concept of whistleblowing no longer exists, apparently. Just like the concept that there's anything wrong with entrapment has gone out the window.

Just to clarify, are you calling Snowden a whistleblower? And what does entrapment have to do with this discussion?

Yes, he is. He told Americans what their government was doing to them.

I see. What about Manning. Was he a whistleblower too?

Sgygus
What is the big secret that Snowden shockingly revealed? That the NSA has been electronically eavesdropping on all of us? That has not been a secret for many years now.

This one's "Poisoning the Well", right?

Biological Ali
Just to clarify, are you calling Snowden a whistleblower?

Yes

And what does entrapment have to do with this discussion?

Just pointing out a parallel motion.

sendtodave
They straight up farking lied to the HK government.

RanDomino: Yes

What exactly would you say Snowden "blew the whistle" on? And as a followup, do you consider Manning to be a "whistleblower" as well?

RanDomino:

sendtodave
They straight up farking lied to the HK government.

[img.fark.net image 537x588]

I thought the US revoked his passport.
I am surprised you can leave HK and enter another country without a valid passport.

Biological Ali: Nabb1: Biological Ali: RanDomino: The concept of whistleblowing no longer exists, apparently. Just like the concept that there's anything wrong with entrapment has gone out the window.

Just to clarify, are you calling Snowden a whistleblower? And what does entrapment have to do with this discussion?

Yes, he is. He told Americans what their government was doing to them.

I see. What about Manning. Was he a whistleblower too?

No, he indiscriminately dumped high volumes of information for reasons other than whistle blowing. Manning didn't even know the contents of most of what he released. Motive counts when you are talking about whistle blowing.

Oh, the reaction slideshow is cute.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said the court order for telephone records was part of a three-month renewal of an ongoing practice, the Associated Press reported.
"It's called protecting America," Feinstein said at a Capitol Hill news conference

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) thought everyone "should just calm down."
"Right now I think everyone should just calm down and understand this isn't anything that's brand new," Reid said.
Al GoreIn digital era, privacy must be a priority. Is it just me, or is secret blanket surveillance obscenely outrageous?

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he was "glad" the NSA was collecting phone records.
"I don't mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States," Graham said in an interview on "Fox and Friends."

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) also claimed that reports of the NSA collecting phone records was "nothing particularly new."
"Every member of the United States Senate has been advised of this," Chambliss said. "And to my knowledge we have not had any citizen who has registered a complaint relative to the gathering of this information."

Mike Lee
#NSA surveillance of #Verizon cell phone records illustrates why I voted against Patriot Act

Seems to run the gamut.  But, seriously?  "It's called protecting America?"  Go back to bed, Bush.

Biological Ali
I see. What about Manning. Was he a whistleblower too?

"But but it was indiscriminate!"

RanDomino: Sgygus
What is the big secret that Snowden shockingly revealed? That the NSA has been electronically eavesdropping on all of us? That has not been a secret for many years now.

This one's "Poisoning the Well", right?

Biological Ali
Just to clarify, are you calling Snowden a whistleblower?

Yes

And what does entrapment have to do with this discussion?

Just pointing out a parallel motion.

sendtodave
They straight up farking lied to the HK government.

[img.fark.net image 537x588]

Why is that signed by Nana Nana Nana Nana?

Guilty of treason:

No, I'm not comparing Snowden to these guys...don't be fatuous, Jeffrey

Biological Ali: Nabb1: "Tend not to be the brightest." No, most criminals are rather stupid. Some are smart, and the Snowden had to be intelligent just to end up in a situation where he could do what he did.

The point is not whether or not he was generally "intelligent"; plenty of plenty of criminals are very bright and very well-edcuated. The point is that in committing this crime he did something stupid, which is something he has in common with many regular criminals.

Now, I may turn out to be wrong - he may have worked out an excellent scheme to keep from facing trial and to make a ton of money of his newfound celebrity status. In that case I'd have to concede that he's probably not so stupid.

No, all criminals are stupid in one way or another. Even Bernie Madoff was stupid. Snowden was dumber than most--blowing the whistle on the government AND fleeing in such a public manner AND dumping a lot of sensitive information AND lying about his resume....he's made sure that whatever goodwill he garnered at the beginning of his little run has been destroyed. People who might have supported him for sticking it to The Man aren't going to be happy about his dumbassery for lying about his credentials; people who applaud his whistleblowing are less than happy about his release of classified intel.

He's dumb. He did something on the spur of the moment, and then tried to scramble together a reasonable excuse for why he did it, and it's not panning out for him.

Biological Ali: RanDomino: Yes

What exactly would you say Snowden "blew the whistle" on? And as a followup, do you consider Manning to be a "whistleblower" as well?

He blew the whistle on the HUGE TOPIC THAT EVERYONE IS DEBATING RIGHT NOW.

You might have read about it.  I can fill you in:  Get this, the NSA is spying on, well, everybody.

Nabb1: No, he indiscriminately dumped high volumes of information for reasons other than whistle blowing. Manning didn't even know the contents of most of what he released. Motive counts when you are talking about whistle blowing.

Snowden didn't know what he was leaking particularly well either, given the discrepancies his statements and the actual facts.

But okay. Let's define what exactly constitutes a "whistleblower". I think there's one thing that goes without saying - to be a whistleblower, you have to bring to light information about some action that was not previously known, and that the action must be something that unequivocally should not have happened. To let either of these two aspects out of the "whistleblower" definition would be to water it down to the point of meaninglessness.

Now, "unequivocally should not have happened" itself has several aspects. It could be on the basis of the action being illegal or unconstitutional (which is what seems to be the main basis for the "whistleblower" allegations), a breach of some internal policy, a result of incompetence, or in conflict with some principle of ethics that everybody agrees on. I think I've covered just about every important base here.

To give a sense of what I'm talking about when I say that Snowden, keep in mind that there are some people who genuinely consider Manning a "whistleblower". You may or may recall back when the wikileaks thing broke there were a number of comments from people who disagreed with the concept of diplomatic secrets altogether - to them, the fact that the government would keep any of it from the public was itself an act of wrongdoing, and therefore Manning was doing the public a service by bringing it to light (regardless of whether he knew what was in them).

Now, I obviously take issue with people who classify Manning as such, not because their stance on diplomatic secrets is per se wrong, but because I believe that calling someone a "whistleblower" is meaningful only if there is some unambiguous fact or universal principle that can be invoked to say why the leaked information showed some wrongdoing took place. That wasn't there with Manning, and it isn't here with Snowden.

sendtodave: Biological Ali: RanDomino: Yes

What exactly would you say Snowden "blew the whistle" on? And as a followup, do you consider Manning to be a "whistleblower" as well?

He blew the whistle on the HUGE TOPIC THAT EVERYONE IS DEBATING RIGHT NOW.

You might have read about it.  I can fill you in:  Get this, the NSA is spying on, well, everybody.

Is there any meaningful debate going on?
Seems from the comments posted earlier by Feinstein, Reid and others, Congress is fine with all of this.
So is Obama.

Who is engaging them in debate?

El Pachuco: Darth_Lukecash: But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

So were the contents of the Pentagon Papers.

I thought the Pentagon Papers proved that the Nixon administration had lied to congress?

Biological Ali: To give a sense of what I'm talking about when I say that Snowden is not a whistleblower,

Biological Ali
But okay. Let's define what exactly constitutes a "whistleblower".

Blah blah blah. You're attempting to derail this to the one tiny spot of dry ground on which you might be able to stand, ignoring the surrounding ocean.

Gyrfalcon:  people who applaud his whistleblowing are less than happy about his release of classified intel.

I have no problem with that, since it was necessary to blow the whistle.

I mean, if "the government is spying on you" is classified information, how exactly could someone tell everyone "Hey, the government is spying on you" without leaking classified information?

And the "here's how they do it" was necessary to prove the statement.

The ends justify the means, unless you think that this isn't something the people should know about, debate, and hopefully, get rid of.

fusillade762: El Pachuco: Darth_Lukecash: But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

So were the contents of the Pentagon Papers.

I thought the Pentagon Papers proved that the Nixon administration had lied to congress?

A 1996 article in The New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers "demonstrated, among other things, that the Lyndon Baines Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress

Biological Ali: Biological Ali: To give a sense of what I'm talking about when I say that Snowden is not a whistleblower,

Doesn't really matter, we are at the closing the barn door stage, and the clowns running DoJ are publicly embarrassing themselves with their ham fisted handling of the situation.

2wolves: The charges that are still sealed and considered secret? Those charges?

No, the charges that U.S. relayed to Hong Kong to justify his detention and return.  Nice try though,

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/21/194369059/feds-charge -n sa-leaker-with-spying-theft

And no, it wasn't satire.  He is being accused of spying and theft of documents.

tenpoundsofcheese: Is there any meaningful debate going on?
Seems from the comments posted earlier by Feinstein, Reid and others, Congress is fine with all of this.
So is Obama.

Who is engaging them in debate?

Uh.  Well.  Al Gore doesn't like it?

Crap.

And it's seems plenty of people would rather pile on him than hold these representatives feet to the fire.

"I'm OK with this, you'll get over it, and this guy should have kept his mouth shut.  We shouldn't even have this debate."

Biological Ali: Nabb1: No, he indiscriminately dumped high volumes of information for reasons other than whistle blowing. Manning didn't even know the contents of most of what he released. Motive counts when you are talking about whistle blowing.

Snowden didn't know what he was leaking particularly well either, given the discrepancies his statements and the actual facts.

But okay. Let's define what exactly constitutes a "whistleblower". I think there's one thing that goes without saying - to be a whistleblower, you have to bring to light information about some action that was not previously known, and that the action must be something that unequivocally should not have happened. To let either of these two aspects out of the "whistleblower" definition would be to water it down to the point of meaninglessness.

Now, "unequivocally should not have happened" itself has several aspects. It could be on the basis of the action being illegal or unconstitutional (which is what seems to be the main basis for the "whistleblower" allegations), a breach of some internal policy, a result of incompetence, or in conflict with some principle of ethics that everybody agrees on. I think I've covered just about every important base here.

By that definition he is not a whistle blower.

It wasn't illegal, unconstitutional, a breach of policy or a result of incompetence.  And since our elected officials knew and approved what is going on, it is not a principle of ethics that everybody agrees on.

Oh, it's that damned Andy Borowitz again! As if there is a spokesperson this side of the Looney Bin who could say that line with a straight face. Well, maybe this side of Fox and Friends. Same thing.

2wolves: The charges that are still sealed and considered secret? Those charges?

Oh, and the charges were unsealed when the retardedness of secret charges outweighed the ironiy of charging him with spying and accessing documents he wasn't given permission to see (i.e. charged with being NSA).

RanDomino: Biological Ali
But okay. Let's define what exactly constitutes a "whistleblower".

Blah blah blah. You're attempting to derail this to the one tiny spot of dry ground on which you might be able to stand, ignoring the surrounding ocean.

All I'm trying to do is keep "whistleblower" from going the same way as terms like "literally" and "begging the question". If you're dead set on watering this very useful term to the point where loses all significance, I obviously can't stop you. All I can hope is that enough other people continue to use it right, because once terms like these are lost, they're very hard to replace.

sendtodave: tenpoundsofcheese: Is there any meaningful debate going on?
Seems from the comments posted earlier by Feinstein, Reid and others, Congress is fine with all of this.
So is Obama.

Who is engaging them in debate?

Uh.  Well.  Al Gore doesn't like it?

Crap.

And it's seems plenty of people would rather pile on him than hold these representatives feet to the fire.

Insert picture of little girl saying "why can't we do both!"

"I'm OK with this, you'll get over it, and this guy should have kept his mouth shut.  We shouldn't even have this debate."

Here is the weird thing about it.  It seems that the debate was had by our elected officials and there was a decision.  It also seems that those that were against the decision decided not to say anything about it.  It will be interesting to see if there are any ramifications for them in the next election.

Sgygus: The Emperor's New Clothes:  "But he has nothing on at all," said a little child at last.

this times a million. come on people, we all KNEW this before he said it. snowden IS that little kid. for farks sake!

Biological Ali: RanDomino: Biological Ali
But okay. Let's define what exactly constitutes a "whistleblower".

Blah blah blah. You're attempting to derail this to the one tiny spot of dry ground on which you might be able to stand, ignoring the surrounding ocean.

All I'm trying to do is keep "whistleblower" from going the same way as terms like "literally" and "begging the question". If you're dead set on watering this very useful term to the point where loses all significance, I obviously can't stop you. All I can hope is that enough other people continue to use it right, because once terms like these are lost, they're very hard to replace.

Can we just use standard definitions, then, please?

Definition of WHISTLE-BLOWER
: one who reveals something covert or who informs against another <pledges to protect whistle-blowers who fear reprisals - Wall Street Journal>

Synonyms
betrayer, canary [slang], deep throat, fink, informant, nark [British], rat, rat fink, snitch, snitcher, squealer, stoolie, stool pigeon, talebearer, tattler, tattletale, telltale, whistle-blower

Biological Ali
All I'm trying to do is keep "whistleblower" from going the same way as terms like "literally" and "begging the question". If you're dead set on watering this very useful term to the point where loses all significance, I obviously can't stop you. All I can hope is that enough other people continue to use it right, because once terms like these are lost, they're very hard to replace.

And "entrapment", right?

Biological Ali: RanDomino: Biological Ali
But okay. Let's define what exactly constitutes a "whistleblower".

Blah blah blah. You're attempting to derail this to the one tiny spot of dry ground on which you might be able to stand, ignoring the surrounding ocean.

All I'm trying to do is keep "whistleblower" from going the same way as terms like "literally" and "begging the question". If you're dead set on watering this very useful term to the point where loses all significance, I obviously can't stop you. All I can hope is that enough other people continue to use it right, because once terms like these are lost, they're very hard to replace.

Keep fighting the good fight.
It is worth it.
But, unfortunately, I think you will lose.
Like, literally lose.

Sorry guys, I didn't realize the New Yorker posted satire.

/Subby

sendtodave: Gyrfalcon:  people who applaud his whistleblowing are less than happy about his release of classified intel.

I have no problem with that, since it was necessary to blow the whistle.

I mean, if "the government is spying on you" is classified information, how exactly could someone tell everyone "Hey, the government is spying on you" without leaking classified information?

And the "here's how they do it" was necessary to prove the statement.

The ends justify the means, unless you think that this isn't something the people should know about, debate, and hopefully, get rid of.

I wasn't talking to you specifically, or referring to my own opinion, specifically, with that phrase.

Interesting how some people seem to think, however that "I have no problem with X, so nobody should have a problem with X" ought to be the end of the debate.

tenpoundsofcheese: Is there any meaningful debate going on?

Nope...they're all tied up with REAL scandals like Benghazi and the IRS.

some_beer_drinker: Sgygus: The Emperor's New Clothes:  "But he has nothing on at all," said a little child at last.

this times a million. come on people, we all KNEW this before he said it. snowden IS that little kid. for farks sake!

You'd expect an authoritarian government, given the tools, to spy on it's own people.

You would not expect that a freedom loving democracy, given those same tools, to do the same.

So, the only way to have "known" about this before would be to have already been cynical enough to view our government in the same light as say, the Soviet Union.  Or China.

I did not know about this.  I guess I still had a shred of leftover faith in my country, and that blinded me.

Snowden is a traitor because the government, through the media, controls the narrative

It sure looks like that.

Gyrfalcon: Interesting how some people seem to think, however that "I have no problem with X, so nobody should have a problem with X" ought to be the end of the debate.

Who, me?

No, I am deathly afraid of this debate ending prematurely.  This issue needs to be resolved.

sendtodave: Can we just use standard definitions, then, please?

You'll also find standard definitions of "literally" which say that the term is also used a generic intensifier. That's how dictionaries are written - they're descriptive of how people are using (or misusing) the words of the time; they're not prescriptive.

That doesn't change the fact that a perfectly good and useful word is being watered down by people who could just as easily say something "leaker" instead.

RanDomino: Biological Ali
All I'm trying to do is keep "whistleblower" from going the same way as terms like "literally" and "begging the question". If you're dead set on watering this very useful term to the point where loses all significance, I obviously can't stop you. All I can hope is that enough other people continue to use it right, because once terms like these are lost, they're very hard to replace.

And "entrapment", right?

You're really hung up on "entrapment" for some reason. Is there a story you'd like to share with us?

Lackofname: Sorry guys, I didn't realize the New Yorker posted satire.

/Subby

Hey, it's the Fark Politics tab. It's not like people actually read the articles or anything.

No harm, no foul.

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Is there any meaningful debate going on?

Nope...they're all tied up with REAL scandals like Benghazi and the IRS.

Those scandals would tie up people a lot more if there were Snowden-like whistle-blowers.

Biological Ali: sendtodave: Can we just use standard definitions, then, please?

You'll also find standard definitions of "literally" which say that the term is also used a generic intensifier. That's how dictionaries are written - they're descriptive of how people are using (or misusing) the words of the time; they're not prescriptive.

That doesn't change the fact that a perfectly good and useful word is being watered down by people who could just as easily say something "leaker" instead.

Or "rat fink."

"Whistle-blower" only has positive connotations because it is ratting someone out for the "greater good."  Or, at least, what you believe to be the greater good.    But it's still means "stoolie."

Again,. it's an "end justifies the means" thing, to my mind.

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Is there any meaningful debate going on?

Nope...they're all tied up with REAL scandals like Benghazi and the IRS.

Did I hear someone say Benghazi?

sendtodave: Again,. it's an "end justifies the means" thing, to my mind.

So, to expound on that, anyone who would prefer to call Snowden other synonyms for whistle-blower that have less positive connotations ("leaker," neural, "traitor," negative) obviously don't think the ends (informing the public about his program) justified the means (breaking the law).

Which I have a problem with.  Because I feel that this is a Big Farking Deal.

sendtodave: Gyrfalcon: Interesting how some people seem to think, however that "I have no problem with X, so nobody should have a problem with X" ought to be the end of the debate.

Who, me?

No, I am deathly afraid of this debate ending prematurely.  This issue needs to be resolved.

It was resolved.  Our elected representatives are okay with it.
Just like Obamacare.
You need to get over it.

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Is there any meaningful debate going on?

Nope...they're all tied up with REAL scandals like Benghazi and the IRS.

Those scandals would tie up people a lot more if there were Snowden-like whistle-blowers.

There might be whistle-blowers if they were scandals.

sendtodave: uknesvuinng: 2wolves: The charges that are still sealed and considered secret? Those charges?

If by "still sealed and considered secret" you mean "were unsealed on Friday afternoon", then yes, those charges.

Huh.  So, they want to change him with espionage, but to get around Hong Kong's "We won't extradite political criminals" law, they framed it as "theft of government property."

Oh, no, we won't try him for committing a political crime!  Just theft!

They straight up farking lied to the HK government.

Umm, know.  You mischaracterize both HK law and what the U.S. communicated.

First, the U.S. doesn't classify any crimes as "political."   It's just a felony.  He violated numerous U.S. laws.  Multiple federal felonies would be about the only classification.

Second, Hong Kong has the option not to expedite if they determine it's a political crime AND it's in their interest not to extradite.  They can still extradite for crimes even if they determined they are political.  It's there option.

The U.S. expected Hong Kong to comply with a request for the return of a U.S. citizen indicted in a U.S. federal court.  It's a major embarrassment that U.S. was unable to accomplish this and seriously degrades the U.S. image in the world.   Syria, Iran,and North Korea just had a "we got your back:" moment over this one person.

tenpoundsofcheese: sendtodave: Gyrfalcon: Interesting how some people seem to think, however that "I have no problem with X, so nobody should have a problem with X" ought to be the end of the debate.

Who, me?

No, I am deathly afraid of this debate ending prematurely.  This issue needs to be resolved.

It was resolved.  Our elected representatives are okay with it.
Just like Obamacare.
You need to get over it.

Seems more like rule of man than rule of law.

Because they are perfectly fine with whatever law they pass.

tbeatty: First, the U.S. doesn't classify any crimes as "political." It's just a felony. He violated numerous U.S. laws. Multiple federal felonies would be about the only classification.

Good point.  It's almost if HK law is better equipped to deal with political dissidents.

The U.S. expected Hong Kong to comply with a request for the return of a U.S. citizen indicted in a U.S. federal court.  It's a major embarrassment that U.S. was unable to accomplish this and seriously degrades the U.S. image in the world.   Syria, Iran,and North Korea just had a "we got your back:" moment over this one person

You're lumping Hong Kong in with friggen Syria, Iran, and North Korea because it didn't do what the US wanted it to do?

sendtodave: tbeatty: First, the U.S. doesn't classify any crimes as "political." It's just a felony. He violated numerous U.S. laws. Multiple federal felonies would be about the only classification.

Good point.  It's almost if HK law is better equipped to deal with political dissidents.

The U.S. expected Hong Kong to comply with a request for the return of a U.S. citizen indicted in a U.S. federal court.  It's a major embarrassment that U.S. was unable to accomplish this and seriously degrades the U.S. image in the world.   Syria, Iran,and North Korea just had a "we got your back:" moment over this one person

You're lumping Hong Kong in with friggen Syria, Iran, and North Korea because it didn't do what the US wanted it to do?

sendtodave: tenpoundsofcheese: sendtodave: Gyrfalcon: Interesting how some people seem to think, however that "I have no problem with X, so nobody should have a problem with X" ought to be the end of the debate.

Who, me?

No, I am deathly afraid of this debate ending prematurely.  This issue needs to be resolved.

It was resolved.  Our elected representatives are okay with it.
Just like Obamacare.
You need to get over it.

Seems more like rule of man than rule of law.

Because they are perfectly fine with whatever law they pass.

Yeah, that is always how it is.
That is why we have so many ridiculous laws, regulations and a gazzillion page tax code.

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Is there any meaningful debate going on?

Nope...they're all tied up with REAL scandals like Benghazi and the IRS.

Those scandals would tie up people a lot more if there were Snowden-like whistle-blowers.

There might be whistle-blowers if they were scandals.

You see how they treat whistleblowers?  This is first administration to go after the press since the Pentagon Papers and the Nixon administration.  Heck, even David Gregory was asking about going after the journalists.  See Thomas Allen Drake for whistleblowers.  Bush left the journalists alone.  Not Obama.

sendtodave: sendtodave: Again,. it's an "end justifies the means" thing, to my mind.

So, to expound on that, anyone who would prefer to call Snowden other synonyms for whistle-blower that have less positive connotations ("leaker," neural, "traitor," negative) obviously don't think the ends (informing the public about his program) justified the means (breaking the law).

Which I have a problem with.  Because I feel that this is a Big Farking Deal.

Well, Snowden isn't a "traitor" either, except under some heavy watering-down, as with "whistleblower".

And re: whistleblower being a synonym for rat fink etc., I wouldn't have a problem if people used it consistently that way (well, I would still have a problem to be honest, just not as big a problem). My main issue is with people who accept that there is a moral component to "whistleblower" and that there are some standards inherent in the term (as evidenced by the people who say they don't consider Manning a whistleblower), but who insist on calling Snowden one anyway in spite of the tenuousness of the claim.

tbeatty: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Is there any meaningful debate going on?

Nope...they're all tied up with REAL scandals like Benghazi and the IRS.

Those scandals would tie up people a lot more if there were Snowden-like whistle-blowers.

There might be whistle-blowers if they were scandals.

You see how they treat whistleblowers?  This is first administration to go after the press since the Pentagon Papers and the Nixon administration.  Heck, even David Gregory was asking about going after the journalists.  See Thomas Allen Drake for whistleblowers.  Bush left the journalists alone.  Not Obama.

Not sure if serious...

Biological Ali: My main issue is with people who accept that there is a moral component to "whistleblower" and that there are some standards inherent in the term (as evidenced by the people who say they don't consider Manning a whistleblower), but who insist on calling Snowden one anyway in spite of the tenuousness of the claim.

Seems the same to me, they don't feel Manning did what he did for the greater good, but out of spite.

sendtodave: Biological Ali: My main issue is with people who accept that there is a moral component to "whistleblower" and that there are some standards inherent in the term (as evidenced by the people who say they don't consider Manning a whistleblower), but who insist on calling Snowden one anyway in spite of the tenuousness of the claim.

Seems the same to me, they don't feel Manning did what he did for the greater good, but out of spite.

This goes back to my earlier post about the definition of the term. Which is to say, the thing that the person "blows the whistle" on should be a clear-cut act of wrongdoing; it shouldn't be something that just boils down to a difference in opinion.

Like Abu Ghraib, for instance - whoever brought that to light exposed a genuine wrongdoing and there's really no argument to be made. Contrast this with, say... if someone from the White House were to leak to the press that Obama secretly thinks Breaking Bad is a terrible show. Plenty of people are going to think that's wrong obviously, but there's never going to be a universal consensus on it.

Darth_Lukecash: Lionel Mandrake: DamnYankees: Aside from the horrible satire here, the charges are farking comical. It's only a hop skip and jump from totalitarian 'law' where the very idea of doing something illegal (i.e. against the government) is treason.

Mr. A:  "I think the government is violating the Constitution with increasing regularity and to a frightening extent"

Mr B:  "Well...that pisses me off...fk the government"

Mr. A:  "Hey, look, this guy released information proving my claim!"

Mr. B:  "F*CK THAT GUY!  HANG HIM!!  F*CKING TRAITOR!!1!"

But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

Snowden is a traitor by revealing this information

Note:no one in congress is surprised by the NSA actions or calling this a scandal. Everyone is saying Snowden being a traitor.

I wouldn't say it was legal... I mean, until now, the courts never ruled on it's legality, they only ruled that Americans couldn't sue because they couldn't prove they were affected by the program. Now that they have substantial evidence that their records were swept up by the program's indiscriminate "search"... they have the standing to sue about the fourth amendment violations. Frankly, I don't know whether or not the courts will find the program, as implemented was legal... I don't know how the courts will rule in terms of whether or not the FISA court actually had the right (under the law) to authorize intelligence gathering/surveillance on non-foreign entities. I understand congress wrote some parts of the PATRIOT Act with... considerable discretion placed on the courts, but it wouldn't be the first time that congress would be slapped on the wrist by the court for authorizing something that is not constitutional.

Biological Ali: Like Abu Ghraib, for instance - whoever brought that to light exposed a genuine wrongdoing and there's really no argument to be made. Contrast this with, say... if someone from the White House were to leak to the press that Obama secretly thinks Breaking Bad is a terrible show. Plenty of people are going to think that's wrong obviously, but there's never going to be a universal consensus on it.

I would say that the people participating in Abu Ghraib, and racists, would argue that it wasn't an act of wrong doing.  And we'd say that they are wrong.  Morally wrong.

But we can't say the same for those who think that a first world, democratic government should have the power to spy on it's own people?  Not just the ability, but the lack of restraint in using it?

Those people are morally wrong, too.

Magruda: Congress cannot make it legal to violate the constitution.

Congress cannot make it legal to violate the constitution.

sendtodave: I would say that the people participating in Abu Ghraib, and racists, would argue that it wasn't an act of wrong doing. And we'd say that they are wrong. Morally wrong.

I may be wrong, but I do believe the Abu Ghraib guys themselves either denied they did it or showed remorse when they were being court-martialed. As for the other people who might think they did nothing wrong, they're so few as to be negligible.

But we can't say the same for those who think that a first world, democratic government should have the power to spy on it's own people?  Not just the ability, but the lack of restraint in using it?
Those people are morally wrong, too.

This is where it crosses into "difference of opinion" territory. The people who carried out the surveillance don't think they did anything wrong. Most of Congress doesn't think there was anything wrong done. It's the people who have a problem that look to be the odd ones out here; this thing is at best a "controversy", and even that's stretching it a little.

Biological Ali: sendtodave: Biological Ali: My main issue is with people who accept that there is a moral component to "whistleblower" and that there are some standards inherent in the term (as evidenced by the people who say they don't consider Manning a whistleblower), but who insist on calling Snowden one anyway in spite of the tenuousness of the claim.

Seems the same to me, they don't feel Manning did what he did for the greater good, but out of spite.

This goes back to my earlier post about the definition of the term. Which is to say, the thing that the person "blows the whistle" on should be a clear-cut act of wrongdoing; it shouldn't be something that just boils down to a difference in opinion.

Like Abu Ghraib, for instance - whoever brought that to light exposed a genuine wrongdoing and there's really no argument to be made. Contrast this with, say... if someone from the White House were to leak to the press that Obama secretly thinks Breaking Bad is a terrible show. Plenty of people are going to think that's wrong obviously, but there's never going to be a universal consensus on it.

I think I changed my mind on this.
A blowing the whistle is technically morally neutral.  It just says that someone said revealed something e.g. she blew the whistle on the surprise party.  Any one who blew the whistle was a whistle blower.

People started using the phrase more when people were disclosing government or corporate malfeasance  and there were laws and such about protecting the whistle blower.  So the connotation was the noble cause.

But that doesn't change the original meaning.

foo monkey: Magruda: Congress cannot make it legal to violate the constitution.

Congress cannot make it legal to violate the constitution.

Okay.  But first you have to establish that something actually DID violate the constitution.

I hate to it but I am wishing for a Republican presidency again so this nation can rediscover its moral compass.

Biological Ali: It's the people who have a problem that look to be the odd ones out here; this thing is at best a "controversy", and even that's stretching it a little.

@algore
Al Gore
In digital era, privacy must be a priority. Is it just me, or is secret blanket surveillance obscenely outrageous?

This oddball has it right.  Because:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Courts have already ruled that email privacy falls under the fourth.  Electronic transmissions are "papers and effects."

Sucking up everything is the government TRYING to end round the law and fourth amendment (because they're not targeting anyone specifically!  Hur der!).   And trying to get around our basic law to violate it's spirit is morally objectionable.  It always has been.  I don't see how that can be argued.

"It's called protecting America" definitely does not cut it.

Vectron: I hate to it but I am wishing for a Republican presidency again so this nation can rediscover its moral compass.

Democrats would rally to fight GOP overreach.

Democratic overreach?  It seems not so much.

So, yeah, it's almost better to have the "bad guys" in charge, because we trust the "good guys" way too much.

Vectron: I hate to it but I am wishing for a Republican presidency again so this nation can rediscover its moral compass.

[ohwaityoureserious]

quatchi: Vectron: I hate to it but I am wishing for a Republican presidency again so this nation can rediscover its moral compass.

[ohwaityoureserious]

Both sides are bad so vote Republican.  Because at least you can admit that they are bad.

sendtodave: it's

its

/dammitsomuch

tenpoundsofcheese: foo monkey: Magruda: Congress cannot make it legal to violate the constitution.

Congress cannot make it legal to violate the constitution.

Okay.  But first you have to establish that something actually DID violate the constitution.

I don't. The Supreme Court does. Or better yet, Congress needs to know better than to violate the Constitution.

sendtodave: Biological Ali: RanDomino: Yes

What exactly would you say Snowden "blew the whistle" on? And as a followup, do you consider Manning to be a "whistleblower" as well?

He blew the whistle on the HUGE TOPIC THAT EVERYONE IS DEBATING RIGHT NOW.

You might have read about it.  I can fill you in:  Get this, the NSA is spying on, well, everybody.

Heh heh Americans finding it shocking the NSA wasn't baking cookies but actually coducting national and international surveillance.

/ Cue the But but but I'm an important person in my own head and I don't want the government knowing I sext with my fat girlfriend!

No one informed me jesus was going to walk a wire over the grand canyon. Thank you jesus.

Biological Ali: sendtodave: I would say that the people participating in Abu Ghraib, and racists, would argue that it wasn't an act of wrong doing. And we'd say that they are wrong. Morally wrong.

I may be wrong, but I do believe the Abu Ghraib guys themselves either denied they did it or showed remorse when they were being court-martialed. As for the other people who might think they did nothing wrong, they're so few as to be negligible.

But we can't say the same for those who think that a first world, democratic government should have the power to spy on it's own people?  Not just the ability, but the lack of restraint in using it?
Those people are morally wrong, too.

This is where it crosses into "difference of opinion" territory. The people who carried out the surveillance don't think they did anything wrong. Most of Congress doesn't think there was anything wrong done. It's the people who have a problem that look to be the odd ones out here; this thing is at best a "controversy", and even that's stretching it a little.

So what you're saying is that it's impossible to be doing the wrong thing if you don't believe what you were doing was wrong?

CourtroomWolf: So what you're saying is that it's impossible to be doing the wrong thing if you don't believe what you were doing was wrong?

Of course not. What I'm saying is that that fact, along with the other things I mentioned, cause the issue to go from "unequivocally wrong" to "controversial, at best".

tenpoundsofcheese: sendtodave: Biological Ali: RanDomino: Yes

What exactly would you say Snowden "blew the whistle" on? And as a followup, do you consider Manning to be a "whistleblower" as well?

He blew the whistle on the HUGE TOPIC THAT EVERYONE IS DEBATING RIGHT NOW.

You might have read about it.  I can fill you in:  Get this, the NSA is spying on, well, everybody.

Is there any meaningful debate going on?
Seems from the comments posted earlier by Feinstein, Reid and others, Congress is fine with all of this.
So is Obama.

Who is engaging them in debate?

Publicly, the Dems are lining up like they did on 9/11.

But what isn't widely reported is that Sen Feinstein was boo'ed at a speech in front of a Democrat crowd when she said Snowden was a criminal.

Toeing the Government line and pleasing donors might be difficult.

Like all the other stuff that seems to come out weekly to derail the agenda, there just might not be a lot of excitement for the base to be motivated in 2014.

SeismicJizzer: Heh heh Americans finding it shocking the NSA wasn't baking cookies but actually coducting national and international surveillance.

The NSA was never supposed to be conducting national surveillance. Their mission has always been exclusively foreign intelligence.  Now we know they are collecting domestic communications indiscriminately and putting a fig leaf over them, with no meaningful independent oversight over whether they decide in any given instance that they have any of many pre-approved justifications to remove that fig leaf.

Yeah, everybody wondered if NSA was doing this, so we should definitely punish the guy who thought we'd like to know for sure. Oh no, the government's ability to lie to its own people and friend and foe alike is weakened. That's a shame.

Biological Ali: CourtroomWolf: So what you're saying is that it's impossible to be doing the wrong thing if you don't believe what you were doing was wrong?

Of course not. What I'm saying is that that fact, along with the other things I mentioned, cause the issue to go from "unequivocally wrong" to "controversial, at best".

Mala in se vs. malum prohibitum?

tbeatty: But what isn't widely reported is that Sen Feinstein was boo'ed at a speech in front of a Democrat crowd when she said Snowden was a criminal.

Good.jpg

Too bad it isn't widely reported.  I doubt that will be in "liberal" media any time soon.  Even the right wing has more to lose than to gain by letting it's media go with it.

They could lose power.

We've lost our fourth estate.

tbeatty: But what isn't widely reported is that Sen Feinstein was boo'ed at a speech in front of a Democrat crowd when she said Snowden was a criminal.

Ah, here.

It was Pelosi

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/22/pelosi-booed-at-netroots-while -d efending-espionage-charges-against-snowden/

"I know that some of you attribute heroic status to that action," she said of Snowden's leaks to the Guardian and the Washington Post. "But, again, you don't have the responsibility for the security of the United States. Those of us who do have to strike a different balance."

Wow, that makes me angry.  "You may agree with him, but we know better than you."

Madam Speaker, WE GAVE YOU THAT POWER AND THAT RESPONSIBILITY.

We are not children to be managed, we are the People of the United States, and YOU get YOUR power from US.  We're the adults here, whether you like it or not.

Biological Ali: "unequivocally wrong" to "controversial, at best"

This is wrong on so many levels, not the least of which is the spending. How much is all this surveillance costing the taxpayer? I'm being serious, I do not want to pay for what amounts to a carrier group sitting around sucking down electricity and bandwidth. But since it's secret, we'll never know what the price tag is. My grandchildren are going to be paying \$1000/yr each for the privilege of being constantly spied on. That's bullshiat.

The major media sources are having fits of apoplexy trying to paint this guy as history's worst monster, claiming this, claiming that, changing the story 5 times in a day, associating him with this BAD guy and the BAD guy, running in a giant circle jerk accusing him of everything from rape to orchestrating the holocaust. It's obvious who the real BAD guys are.

kg2095: Satanic_Hamster: Nabb1: "Common criminals" generally commit crimes of opportunity for their own benefit, usually monetary. What did Snowden possibly have to gain for himself knowing full well that his actions would result I either lengthy incarceration or fleeing for his home county leaving behind his friends and family perhaps forever? Yes, I get that you think the rest of us have no right to know what our government is doing to us because our government is infallible, and knows what is best for us and we have no right to criticize, for we are it humbleservants of the almighty state, but what did behave to gain by this?

So if you commit a crime that's not to your benefit, it's not a crime?

Some crimes are justifiable. As an extreme example, if someone had managed to murder Adolf Hitler during the height of his murderous reign would you be calling that someone a criminal?

This case is nowhere near as extreme as that of course but the US government willfully ignoring the constitution to spy on it's citizens is something that should have been exposed. Finally and justifiably it was exposed.

When they finally get their hands on Snowden they'll make an example of him. I think they will kill him - all nice and legal of course. Well kinda, sorta anyway.

It looks like Obama isn't so different after all. Just another politician ready willing and able to break the rules as a means to an end.

OMIGOD....another person who believed in McDonald's cheeseburgers. I should start a list.

tenpoundsofcheese: sendtodave:
Because they are perfectly fine with whatever law they pass.

Yeah, that is always how it is.
That is why we have so many ridiculous laws, regulations and a gazzillion page tax code.

Actually, this is why we do;

Biological Ali: CourtroomWolf: So what you're saying is that it's impossible to be doing the wrong thing if you don't believe what you were doing was wrong?

Of course not. What I'm saying is that that fact, along with the other things I mentioned, cause the issue to go from "unequivocally wrong" to "controversial, at best".

What other things?  That it requires a 100% consensus on an issue to qualify as "whistleblowing"?  You've just defined "whistleblowing" out of existence.

sendtodave: tbeatty: First, the U.S. doesn't classify any crimes as "political." It's just a felony. He violated numerous U.S. laws. Multiple federal felonies would be about the only classification.

Good point.  It's almost if HK law is better equipped to deal with political dissidents.

No, they have almost no rules or precedent regarding political dissidents and are not equipped at all to deal with dissidents.  It's the main reason why Snowden chose it.  The lack of law creates hurdles, appeals and delays.  The U.S. doesn't designate crimes as political but they certainly have rules and precedent for accepting or rejecting dissidents that enter the country.  If the tables were turned, the u.S. would have certainly held a Hong Kong national in custody until his dissident status could be reviewed and a ruling made on extradition.

The U.S. expected Hong Kong to comply with a request for the return of a U.S. citizen indicted in a U.S. federal court.  It's a major embarrassment that U.S. was unable to accomplish this and seriously degrades the U.S. image in the world.   Syria, Iran,and North Korea just had a "we got your back:" moment over this one person

You're lumping Hong Kong in with friggen Syria, Iran, and North Korea because it didn't do what the US wanted it to do?

Did you have a reading comprehension issue? Hong Kong isn't lumped in anywhere.  They aren't even relevant. You realize that Hong Kong would not have dismissed the U.S. request without receiving approval from Beijing right?  Russia and China standing against the U.S. regarding a U.S. citizen when the U.S. has been lobbying both countries to get tough on Syria, North Korea and Iran will undoubtedly bolster the confidence of those countries.  This not a novel idea (or even controversial) and has been widely reported.  Put another way, the U.S. will be much less confident in being able to line Russia and China up against Syria, North Korea and Iran after this.  Before Snowden-gate, the administration seemed confident that talks with Beijing and Moscow would yield action regarding those countries.

After Snowden-gate (or during if you prefer), it's clear that Moscow and Beijing do not fear actions the U.S. might take and are not trying to gain goodwill from the U.S. by taking actions the U.S. wants even if those actions don't really cost them anything.  Strategically, it's a huge boost to those countries (Iran, Syria, North Korea) as they were probably worried about being sold out by their biggest supporters.  That fear is now reduced considerably.  The U.S. is certainly resetting expectations of cooperation with Beijing and Moscow regarding Syria, North Korea and Iran.  If Obama thought he had enough cards to play to get anti-Syrian measures through the Security Council and past Russia, that's now gone.

Obama's foreign policy objectives regarding Syria, North Korea and Iran require the cooperation of China and Russia.  Syria, North Korea and Iran know this is the case.  If they had any doubts about China and Russia being coerced into doing the U.S.'s bidding, that was erased this week.   The actions by Russia and China weren't a Human Rights act of mercy or protection, they were a message to the world that they will stand against the U.S. without fear or compromise. For example, if Syria thought Russia might cave to U.S. pressure and allow intervention such as 'No Fly Zones', that was erased.  Expect them to be more bold with the use of chemical agents and other acts that they might have feared Moscow would abandon them over.   Russia and China helped Snowden because it was a way to show resolve to their allies and the world.  That was Snowden's only value to them.     Actions speak louder than words and you can bet that other countries heard it.

Nabb1: Darth_Lukecash: But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

Snowden is a traitor by revealing this information

Note:no one in congress is surprised by the NSA actions or calling this a scandal. Everyone is saying Snowden being a traitor.

So, all those people in the government who supported the policy that led to the government spying on all of us are labeling him a "traitor" for telling all of us that the government has been spying on us, and you agree that he is a traitor for telling citizens what the government has been doing to us behind our backs? How do those boots taste?

Wait, you are telling me you're surprised that the government is spying on us? I was always against the patriot act-because of this very result.

All I'm saying is is that currently the actions were legal. Congress has not challenged . So there are only two options; the people have to elect new congress critters to change the law... Or the Supreme Court has to overrule them.

Considering the make up of the court... I'm not hopeful.

Lionel Mandrake: AeAe: Darth_Lukecash: Lionel Mandrake: DamnYankees: Aside from the horrible satire here, the charges are farking comical. It's only a hop skip and jump from totalitarian 'law' where the very idea of doing something illegal (i.e. against the government) is treason.

Mr. A:  "I think the government is violating the Constitution with increasing regularity and to a frightening extent"

Mr B:  "Well...that pisses me off...fk the government"

Mr. A:  "Hey, look, this guy released information proving my claim!"

Mr. B:  "F*CK THAT GUY!  HANG HIM!!  F*CKING TRAITOR!!1!"

But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

Snowden is a traitor by revealing this information

Note:no one in congress is surprised by the NSA actions or calling this a scandal. Everyone is saying Snowden being a traitor.

If the government does it, it's legal?  What about the Japanese internment during WW2?  Didn't the Army intentionally infect some people with viruses?

Government spying on its citizens is wrong.

Yes.  All that was legal.  Perfectly on the up and up.  And if anyone involved had revealed classified information in an effort to derail those programs they would have been breaking the law, breaking their pledges to keep the information secret.  They would have been traitors according to most people around here.

A lot of f*cking FARKers would call them bad guys.

One of the things I love(d) about FARK was that a lot of folks saw the difference between "legal" and "ethical."  I thought.

That was before it was popular and when it grew popular it attracted a fair amount of shills.

I'd wager the biggest "treason" claimers here are either a) trolling or b) paid to espouse a certain point of view.

It only takes a handful of people in agreement, between 3-7, to start to sway the opinions of a group of people.

What these folks are working on here is pretty simple. They argue something that is potentially technically correct (that what Snowden did was against the law), and try to tie that to the natural assumption that what is "legal" is also "right" (ethically and morally) since that is what most people are taught to believe when they are growing up. And for a good chunk of our laws, it's true. But of course, not for all of them.

Now that they've got people sub-consciously assuming that what Snowden did was also "wrong", it's a much shorter jump to convince people what he did should also be considered "treason".

You follow?

A) What Snowden did was illegal.
B) Therefor what he did was *wrong*.
C) And since it was against the government (not any one person), what he really did was "wrong the United States".
D) And wronging the United States is treason.
E) Thus Snowden is a traitor.

You'll notice none of the arguments they make to support this claim use any actual legal standing of the matter. It's pure emotional speculation/debate.

/which is par for the course when politicians argue something.

cuzsis: Now that they've got people sub-consciously assuming that what Snowden did was also "wrong", it's a much shorter jump to convince people what he did should also be considered "treason".

It's not like there isn't a whistleblower procedure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project#Whistleblowing

potterydove: El Pachuco: Darth_Lukecash: But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

So were the contents of the Pentagon Papers.

Actually, if it was unconstitutional it wasn't legal, even if it complied with statute.

So does that mean you can never know if what you are doing is legal or not, because even if you somehow knew every applicable law and got expert advice on it, you could still retroactively become a criminal because the Supreme Court later decides the law was unconstitutional?

cuzsis: You follow?

A) What Snowden did was illegal.
B) Therefor what he did was *wrong*.
C) And since it was against the government (not any one person), what he really did was "wrong the United States".
D) And wronging the United States is treason.
E) Thus Snowden is a traitor.

You'll notice none of the arguments they make to support this claim use any actual legal standing of the matter. It's pure emotional speculation/debate.

/which is par for the course when politicians argue something.

xria: potterydove: El Pachuco: Darth_Lukecash: But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

So were the contents of the Pentagon Papers.

Actually, if it was unconstitutional it wasn't legal, even if it complied with statute.

So does that mean you can never know if what you are doing is legal or not, because even if you somehow knew every applicable law and got expert advice on it, you could still retroactively become a criminal because the Supreme Court later decides the law was unconstitutional?

No; see "ex post facto" laws. Most of the time; see also what happened to junk-bond king Michael Miliken.

However, something can be totally unconstitutional and still be legal; it can also be totally illegal and completely constitutional. For the former, any law which is unconstitutional but hasn't yet received a final ruling by the Supreme Court and hasn't been stayed by an injunction of a lower federal court could still be applicable law (which is why the ACLU moves so fast when there's a law that seems to violate the 1st Amd.), for the latter, any action which flies in the face of an unconstitutional law so as to force a court case to obtain a ruling by a federal court would be such an act.

However, why do you think that saying "Everyone commits three felonies a day" came into being? Nobody can know all the statutes that exist, or the subsequent rulings; all anyone can do is do the best they can and hope they didn't do anything too illegal. Sometimes it's also called "involuntary noncompliance."

xria: potterydove: El Pachuco: Darth_Lukecash: But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

So were the contents of the Pentagon Papers.

Actually, if it was unconstitutional it wasn't legal, even if it complied with statute.

So does that mean you can never know if what you are doing is legal or not, because even if you somehow knew every applicable law and got expert advice on it, you could still retroactively become a criminal because the Supreme Court later decides the law was unconstitutional?

No.

I wonder what, other than facing punishment for revealing information classified as top secret, trying him will get. Some politicians seem to think that if they get him back, that somehow they can put the genie back in the bottle. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Snowden's actions - on the one hand, he did leak top secret information and on the other, it could have been much worse, and on the other we already kinda knew this was happening. It was a 'Shhh, don't tell anybody' kind of top secret. No one acknowledged it officially, but everyone knew it was probably happening.

But, now that the genie is out of the bottle, or in a more apt analogy - you can't uncook a goose. The goose is cooked. Deal with it.

mephox: I wonder what, other than facing punishment for revealing information classified as top secret, trying him will get. Some politicians seem to think that if they get him back, that somehow they can put the genie back in the bottle. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Snowden's actions - on the one hand, he did leak top secret information and on the other, it could have been much worse, and on the other we already kinda knew this was happening. It was a 'Shhh, don't tell anybody' kind of top secret. No one acknowledged it officially, but everyone knew it was probably happening.

But, now that the genie is out of the bottle, or in a more apt analogy - you can't uncook a goose. The goose is cooked. Deal with it.

Closing the barn door after the horse has bolted

cuzsis: A) What Snowden did was illegal.
B) Therefor what he did was *wrong*.
C) And since it was against the government (not any one person), what he really did was "wrong the United States".
D) And wronging the United States is treason.
E) Thus Snowden is a traitor.

Congratulations, you've just redefined speeding as treason.

2 questions for the "Snowden is a traitor" crowd that I would very much like answers to:

#1 How could any of the info he has revealed possibly have aided or abetted our enemies? Does anybody seriously think that AQ assumed their communications weren't being monitored?
#2 If he worked for the government and went to the press intending to expose abuse and fraud, how could he not be a "whistleblower"?

mephox: I wonder what, other than facing punishment for revealing information classified as top secret, trying him will get. Some politicians seem to think that if they get him back, that somehow they can put the genie back in the bottle. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Snowden's actions - on the one hand, he did leak top secret information and on the other, it could have been much worse, and on the other we already kinda knew this was happening. It was a 'Shhh, don't tell anybody' kind of top secret. No one acknowledged it officially, but everyone knew it was probably happening.

But, now that the genie is out of the bottle, or in a more apt analogy - you can't uncook a goose. The goose is cooked. Deal with it.

If I heard it correctly, it's been reported that he still has several laptops full of unreleased US secrets. If that's true, it's in America's best interests to get Snowden back.

kg2095: Satanic_Hamster: Nabb1: "Common criminals" generally commit crimes of opportunity for their own benefit, usually monetary. What did Snowden possibly have to gain for himself knowing full well that his actions would result I either lengthy incarceration or fleeing for his home county leaving behind his friends and family perhaps forever? Yes, I get that you think the rest of us have no right to know what our government is doing to us because our government is infallible, and knows what is best for us and we have no right to criticize, for we are it humbleservants of the almighty state, but what did behave to gain by this?

So if you commit a crime that's not to your benefit, it's not a crime?

Some crimes are justifiable. As an extreme example, if someone had managed to murder Adolf Hitler during the height of his murderous reign would you be calling that someone a criminal?

This case is nowhere near as extreme as that of course but the US government willfully ignoring the constitution to spy on it's citizens is something that should have been exposed. Finally and justifiably it was exposed.

When they finally get their hands on Snowden they'll make an example of him. I think they will kill him - all nice and legal of course. Well kinda, sorta anyway.

It looks like Obama isn't so different after all. Just another politician ready willing and able to break the rules as a means to an end.

So I can kill anyone if I think they're Hitler?

sendtodave: We're the adults here, whether you like it or not.

And we are going to voice our disapproval, anonymously, on a website (named for the F-word) on the internet (created by the government) without any fear of reprisal.

So there!

GoSlash27: 2 questions for the "Snowden is a traitor" crowd that I would very much like answers to:

#1 How could any of the info he has revealed possibly have aided or abetted our enemies? Does anybody seriously think that AQ assumed their communications weren't being monitored?
#2 If he worked for the government and went to the press intending to expose abuse and fraud, how could he not be a "whistleblower"?

He has already given interviews exposing our intelligence gathering against other countries.
Abuse and fraud? The NSA has broken no laws and has not violated the constitution.

GoSlash27: 2 questions for the "Snowden is a traitor" crowd that I would very much like answers to:

#1 How could any of the info he has revealed possibly have aided or abetted our enemies? Does anybody seriously think that AQ assumed their communications weren't being monitored?
#2 If he worked for the government and went to the press intending to expose abuse and fraud, how could he not be a "whistleblower"?

His claims/releases that the US are spying on China and other governments aren't really helping his cause, though.

MooseUpNorth: Congratulations, you've just redefined speeding as treason.

Obviously a student of  Aristotelian logic.

*rolls eyes*

GoSlash27: #2 If he worked for the government and went to the press intending to expose abuse and fraud, how could he not be a "whistleblower"?

What he exposed was neither abuse nor fraud, but rather the NSA operating in an now-perfectly legal space created for them by the Patriot Act and other laws.  Whether those laws themselves are unconstitutional some thing which has yet to be challenged legally.

/don't think he's a traitor
//or a whilstleblower
///glad he did what he did

Sgygus: What is the big secret that Snowden shockingly revealed?  That the NSA has been electronically eavesdropping on all of us?  That has not been a secret for many years now.

Then why are so many whiny and outraged about it? And why did Snowden reveal it, if we all knew it was happening anyway? Is he just an attention whore?

Debeo Summa Credo: Is he just an attention whore?

Well, not JUST an attention whore.

He's also a thief.

MooseUpNorth: cuzsis: A) What Snowden did was illegal.
B) Therefor what he did was *wrong*.
C) And since it was against the government (not any one person), what he really did was "wrong the United States".
D) And wronging the United States is treason.
E) Thus Snowden is a traitor.

Congratulations, you've just redefined speeding as treason.

Yeah that really was idiotic

Without Fail: Debeo Summa Credo: Is he just an attention whore?

Well, not JUST an attention whore.

He's also a thief.

Is the government going to establish that copying Files is theft?

That will make the music industry happy.

GoSlash27: 2 questions for the "Snowden is a traitor" crowd that I would very much like answers to:

#1 How could any of the info he has revealed possibly have aided or abetted our enemies? Does anybody seriously think that AQ assumed their communications weren't being monitored?
#2 If he worked for the government and went to the press intending to expose abuse and fraud, how could he not be a "whistleblower"?

In regards to 1), he revealed our eavesdropping on electronic communications of the chinese. Although they spy on us and we spy on them and both know it, he handed the Chinese a propaganda victory. Secondly, although sophisticated al qaeda members would know that they were under surveillance, run of the mill dopes like the Boston bombers likely wouldn't know. Now such people are more aware do and may change their tactics.

I don't know whether that rises to the level of "treason" but he clearly aided and abetted. The guy's a farking criminal. I hope he ends up in some federal prison for the rest of his life.

quatchi: "These charges send a clear message," the spokesman said. "In the United States, you can't spy on people."

And somewhere off in the hinterlands of Canada Alanis Morrissette's head is heard exploding scanners style.

It's like the Rains of Castamere on your wedding day.

Debeo Summa Credo: Secondly, although sophisticated al qaeda members would know that they were under surveillance, run of the mill dopes like the Boston bombers likely wouldn't know. Now such people are more aware do and may change their tactics.

Thank God we had this domestic spying program in place which was able to stop the Boston marathon bombings.

Vectron: Snowden is a traitor because the government, through the media, controls the narrative

It sure looks like that.

Pretty much this; the government and the Washington Press Corps are calling him a "traitor" because he told the American people the truth.  That's something Washington can't have because it destroys the narrative they want to spin.

Blathering Idjut: Thank God we had this domestic spying program in place which was able to stop the Boston marathon bombings.

They had other targets. Lots of them.
They were caught before they could kill more.

NSA data was probably used to do this.

"In the United States, you can't spy on people."

Without Fail: Blathering Idjut: Thank God we had this domestic spying program in place which was able to stop the Boston marathon bombings.

They had other targets. Lots of them.
They were caught before they could kill more.

NSA data was probably used to do this.

At some point, someone is gonna have to spit out actual facts about intercepts, instead of ^ this.
"X program has prevented X terror plots in the last X years" has become the new Refuge of a Scoundrel.

\it is utter and complete bullshiat that you can't pick one of those "plots" and show, step by step, how X surveillance program saved the day
\\but it's much more efficient and cost effective to just lie about it

Without Fail: Blathering Idjut: Thank God we had this domestic spying program in place which was able to stop the Boston marathon bombings.

They had other targets. Lots of them.
They were caught before they could kill more.

NSA data was probably used to do this.

Are you seriously arguing that the NSA program prevented Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev from enacting more terrorist plots?

They were caught after they killed a poor cop on the MIT campus and a huge manhunt ensued.  Not because the government was listening to grandma's phone calls with her knitting club.

The Boston Marathon bombing is not by any stretch of the imagination a "win" for domestic spying.

Without Fail: He's also a thief.

So he's a banker?

Biological Ali: This goes back to my earlier post about the definition of the term. Which is to say, the thing that the person "blows the whistle" on should be a clear-cut act of wrongdoing; it shouldn't be something that just boils down to a difference in opinion.

The government spying on all of it's citizens is not a simple difference of opinion.  It is wrongdoing.  Fark them.

I'm surprised at the number of people lining up to suck this guy's dick. The only thing of any consequence that he leaked was the degree of collusion between big internet companies and the government's metadata program. His argument seems to go 'here are some things you didn't know that I dug up using my security clearance, now you should believe me when I say that the government is listening to your phone calls', and everyone is buying it. Nobody seems to notice that there is a huge gap between a metadata program and someone listening on your phone calls, or that his claim is 'not even wrong', or that he has a history of being less than truthful.

Right now, the only thing I'm surprised about is that tenpoundsofderp is sounding somewhat rational.

quatchi: And somewhere off in the hinterlands of Canada Alanis Morrissette's head is heard exploding scanners style.

Alanis Morrissette lives in Los Angeles.

Typical 1984 double-speak:

CheapEngineer: it is utter and complete bullshiat that you can't pick one of those "plots" and show, step by step, how X surveillance program saved the day

(1) Give them time; fabricating evidence is hard

(2) They'd also need to show that the plot couldn't have been foiled by other, less intrusive means

NostroZ: Typical 1984 double-speak:
[img.fark.net image 260x346]

Pretty much; I wish Jon Stewart would come do a special Daily Show just to call those idiots out for that.

Lionel Mandrake: AeAe: Darth_Lukecash: Lionel Mandrake: DamnYankees: Aside from the horrible satire here, the charges are farking comical. It's only a hop skip and jump from totalitarian 'law' where the very idea of doing something illegal (i.e. against the government) is treason.

Mr. A:  "I think the government is violating the Constitution with increasing regularity and to a frightening extent"

Mr B:  "Well...that pisses me off...fk the government"

Mr. A:  "Hey, look, this guy released information proving my claim!"

Mr. B:  "F*CK THAT GUY!  HANG HIM!!  F*CKING TRAITOR!!1!"

But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

Snowden is a traitor by revealing this information

Note:no one in congress is surprised by the NSA actions or calling this a scandal. Everyone is saying Snowden being a traitor.

If the government does it, it's legal?  What about the Japanese internment during WW2?  Didn't the Army intentionally infect some people with viruses?

Government spying on its citizens is wrong.

Yes.  All that was legal.  Perfectly on the up and up.  And if anyone involved had revealed classified information in an effort to derail those programs they would have been breaking the law, breaking their pledges to keep the information secret.  They would have been traitors according to most people around here.

A lot of f*cking FARKers would call them bad guys.

One of the things I love(d) about FARK was that a lot of folks saw the difference between "legal" and "ethical."  I thought.

We need to get rid of half of our government. It's just not worth the risks they pose to the average american to keep these farks around.

FuryOfFirestorm: mephox: I wonder what, other than facing punishment for revealing information classified as top secret, trying him will get. Some politicians seem to think that if they get him back, that somehow they can put the genie back in the bottle. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Snowden's actions - on the one hand, he did leak top secret information and on the other, it could have been much worse, and on the other we already kinda knew this was happening. It was a 'Shhh, don't tell anybody' kind of top secret. No one acknowledged it officially, but everyone knew it was probably happening.

But, now that the genie is out of the bottle, or in a more apt analogy - you can't uncook a goose. The goose is cooked. Deal with it.

If I heard it correctly, it's been reported that he still has several laptops full of unreleased US secrets. If that's true, it's in America's best interests to get Snowden back.

So you think there aren't 15 copies of those laptops in China and Russia?

tbeatty: FuryOfFirestorm: mephox: I wonder what, other than facing punishment for revealing information classified as top secret, trying him will get. Some politicians seem to think that if they get him back, that somehow they can put the genie back in the bottle. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Snowden's actions - on the one hand, he did leak top secret information and on the other, it could have been much worse, and on the other we already kinda knew this was happening. It was a 'Shhh, don't tell anybody' kind of top secret. No one acknowledged it officially, but everyone knew it was probably happening.

But, now that the genie is out of the bottle, or in a more apt analogy - you can't uncook a goose. The goose is cooked. Deal with it.

If I heard it correctly, it's been reported that he still has several laptops full of unreleased US secrets. If that's true, it's in America's best interests to get Snowden back.

So you think there aren't 15 copies of those laptops in China and Russia?

Probably. Who knows? If that's the case, grabbing him and shipping him off to Gitmo will bring that information to light real quick.

Blathering Idjut: Debeo Summa Credo: Secondly, although sophisticated al qaeda members would know that they were under surveillance, run of the mill dopes like the Boston bombers likely wouldn't know. Now such people are more aware do and may change their tactics.

Thank God we had this domestic spying program in place which was able to stop the Boston marathon bombings.

Thank god we have an inclusive society and sp many arguing that we should not assume all Muslims are terrorists. Clearly, treating them with respect prevented them from killing innocent people.

See how that works?

Blathering Idjut: Debeo Summa Credo: Secondly, although sophisticated al qaeda members would know that they were under surveillance, run of the mill dopes like the Boston bombers likely wouldn't know. Now such people are more aware do and may change their tactics.

Thank God we had this domestic spying program in place which was able to stop the Boston marathon bombings.

Thank god we have an inclusive society and sp many arguing that we should not assume all Muslims are terrorists. Clearly, treating them with respect prevented them from killing innocent people.

/not arguing that we should assume all Muslims are terrorists, just pointing out how illogical it is to assume that any current policy is failing universally because it failed on one or a few occasions.

This is... literally... the sort of thing that happens in 1984.

CourtroomWolf: Biological Ali: CourtroomWolf: So what you're saying is that it's impossible to be doing the wrong thing if you don't believe what you were doing was wrong?

Of course not. What I'm saying is that that fact, along with the other things I mentioned, cause the issue to go from "unequivocally wrong" to "controversial, at best".

What other things?  That it requires a 100% consensus on an issue to qualify as "whistleblowing"?  You've just defined "whistleblowing" out of existence.

Other things being judicial approval, approval from the vast majority of Congress etc.

And I already gave an example of something that would constitute "whistleblowing" under my standards: Abu Ghraib (there are other examples from history, but that's the best recent one). The idea is that it should be something that is unambiguously wrong, because if you allow something to be termed whistleblowing based on mere differences of opinion, then that will cause the term to lose all meaning. Because then, Manning becomes a "whistleblower", and those clowns the GOP called to testify during the Benghazi hearings become "whistleblowers" etc. etc. You may as well just do away with the term altogether then, because it's obviously just become pointless filler at that stage.

Debeo Summa Credo: Blathering Idjut: Debeo Summa Credo: Secondly, although sophisticated al qaeda members would know that they were under surveillance, run of the mill dopes like the Boston bombers likely wouldn't know. Now such people are more aware do and may change their tactics.

Thank God we had this domestic spying program in place which was able to stop the Boston marathon bombings.

Thank god we have an inclusive society and sp many arguing that we should not assume all Muslims are terrorists. Clearly, treating them with respect prevented them from killing innocent people.

/not arguing that we should assume all Muslims are terrorists, just pointing out how illogical it is to assume that any current policy is failing universally because it failed on one or a few occasions.

Except you're the one up-thread using the Boston marathon bombing as justification for the spying program.  You specifically argued that it won't catch organized terrorist organizations but would catch lone knuckleheads like the Tsarnaevs.

It didn't.  Know why?

Because putting aside the dubious constitutionality of the program the program itself is built on a ridiculous assumption- that people that want to do the U.S. harm are really, really stupid.

Smeggy Smurf: mrlewish: At the end of this do we become a country worth bombing?

Ask Bill Ayers.  He's set of plenty of bombs here.  He also says Fartbongo should face war crimes charges.  When a terrorist says you're a scumbag, you have problems.

Good God. This thread went from "mildly entertaining" to "alcohol poisoning" in 4 sentences...

sendtodave: Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) also claimed that reports of the NSA collecting phone records was "nothing particularly new."
"Every member of the United States Senate has been advised of this," Chambliss said. "And to my knowledge we have not had any citizen who has registered a complaint relative to the gathering of this information."

fark me, really? The ol' "Nobody seemed to mind!" argument? Because from where I'm standing LOTS of citizens are complaining. I wonder how Chambliss could sound more out of touch?

FuryOfFirestorm: mephox: I wonder what, other than facing punishment for revealing information classified as top secret, trying him will get. Some politicians seem to think that if they get him back, that somehow they can put the genie back in the bottle. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Snowden's actions - on the one hand, he did leak top secret information and on the other, it could have been much worse, and on the other we already kinda knew this was happening. It was a 'Shhh, don't tell anybody' kind of top secret. No one acknowledged it officially, but everyone knew it was probably happening.

But, now that the genie is out of the bottle, or in a more apt analogy - you can't uncook a goose. The goose is cooked. Deal with it.

If I heard it correctly, it's been reported that he still has several laptops full of unreleased US secrets. If that's true, it's in America's best interests to get Snowden back.

Several laptops? lulz... if that's how the US thinks data portability works, good god, we farking deserve to fail (on many other levels too). The thing is, until Snowden, there was no solid evidence of US citizens being spied on or having their data collected... the ACLU and other people (despite Chambliss' claims) sued, but lost, because the court said they didn't have standing to sue, as they could not show that any American's data had been collected, er go they were not affected, and subsequently lacked standing to argue that such collection was unconstitutional. This is a really serious issue, and definitely should make its way thorugh the court... congress effectively gave a secret court the right to provide warrants without due process, against US citizens... the supreme court needs to rule on whether or not congress can simply circumnavigate the fourth and fifth amendments in such a manner (as the taking of private property for public use is prohibited)... the courts have ruled time and time again that piracy or copying of private data constitutes taking private property when ordinary citizens do it... so it would be interesting to see how they view the issue when the government is the one surreptitiously copying private intellectual property without consent or process.

Biological Ali: CourtroomWolf: Biological Ali: CourtroomWolf: So what you're saying is that it's impossible to be doing the wrong thing if you don't believe what you were doing was wrong?

Of course not. What I'm saying is that that fact, along with the other things I mentioned, cause the issue to go from "unequivocally wrong" to "controversial, at best".

What other things?  That it requires a 100% consensus on an issue to qualify as "whistleblowing"?  You've just defined "whistleblowing" out of existence.

Other things being judicial approval, approval from the vast majority of Congress etc.

And I already gave an example of something that would constitute "whistleblowing" under my standards: Abu Ghraib (there are other examples from history, but that's the best recent one). The idea is that it should be something that is unambiguously wrong, because if you allow something to be termed whistleblowing based on mere differences of opinion, then that will cause the term to lose all meaning. Because then, Manning becomes a "whistleblower", and those clowns the GOP called to testify during the Benghazi hearings become "whistleblowers" etc. etc. You may as well just do away with the term altogether then, because it's obviously just become pointless filler at that stage.

It all comes down to your personal opinion.  I believe that it's unambiguously wrong for a government to set up a massive spying operation on its own people, so I would consider Ed Snowden to be a whistleblower.  You obviously don't.  I also don't believe that secret courts and Congress are able to give any meaningful oversight, especially when Congress is being lied to about the program.  We both agree Benghazi and other stupid manufactured scandals like that don't constitute "whistleblowing," because they're not exposing any real wrongdoing.  But there are a lot of derpers out there that really, honestly, believe that crap is a scandal.  The problem is not in their definition of whistleblower, but in their underlying reasons for calling it that.  If you're going to protest against calling it whistleblowing because there's any ambiguity at all, you have to give anyone else that same thing.  If someone was to disagree that Abu Ghraib was wrong, no matter how wrong they actually are, they would refuse to call its exposure "whistleblowing".  That's what I mean by defining it out of existence, if we apply your reasoning to its logical conclusion.  You can't be the sole arbiter of its usage, which is what you're attempting to do.

FuryOfFirestorm: tbeatty: FuryOfFirestorm: mephox: I wonder what, other than facing punishment for revealing information classified as top secret, trying him will get. Some politicians seem to think that if they get him back, that somehow they can put the genie back in the bottle. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Snowden's actions - on the one hand, he did leak top secret information and on the other, it could have been much worse, and on the other we already kinda knew this was happening. It was a 'Shhh, don't tell anybody' kind of top secret. No one acknowledged it officially, but everyone knew it was probably happening.

But, now that the genie is out of the bottle, or in a more apt analogy - you can't uncook a goose. The goose is cooked. Deal with it.

If I heard it correctly, it's been reported that he still has several laptops full of unreleased US secrets. If that's true, it's in America's best interests to get Snowden back.

So you think there aren't 15 copies of those laptops in China and Russia?

Probably. Who knows? If that's the case, grabbing him and shipping him off to Gitmo will bring that information to light real quick.

Getting him will be only to set an example.  The information is gone.  It's also a matter of saving face in that we expected cooperation so we will be hearing a lot about "rule of law" and that stuff.   Some 3rd world nation will be getting a large aid package.

CourtroomWolf: If you're going to protest against calling it whistleblowing because there's any ambiguity at all, you have to give anyone else that same thing. If someone was to disagree that Abu Ghraib was wrong, no matter how wrong they actually are, they would refuse to call its exposure "whistleblowing".

You seem to be confusing "ambiguity" with "lack of complete and utter unanimity". The latter was never my standard (you can go through my earlier posts where I addressed this specifically). Obviously some people are going to be deranged and literally crazy; they might thing Abu Ghraib was a good thing, they might think that slavery should be reintroduced or any number of insane things. But when there is such widespread acceptance that something was wrong to the point where even the people who did it concede that it was wrong, and the people who don't agree are so few as to be practically indistinguishable for zero, that's when the thing is unambiguously wrong.

CourtroomWolf: I believe that it's unambiguously wrong

Here's the thing. You believe it's wrong; you may even believe very strongly that it is wrong, but it is certainly not unambiguously wrong, because the situation at the moment is at best an unsettled controversy, and at worst one that has already been settled not in your favour. You dismiss Benghazi (rightly in my opinion, obviously) as a "stupid manufactured scandal" even while you concede that there are people who genuinely believe that Clinton/Obama/Rice/whoever did something wrong and should be punished. You feel the same way about people who call Manning a "whistleblower", I assume.

This is in contrast to something Abu Ghraib, where there was no controversy or ambiguity, at least on the basic question of whether something happened that shouldn't have happened. If you genuinely believe that there is documented evidence of something happening here that is as unambiguously wrong as what happened at Abu Ghraib (not in terms of severity, but just in terms of the basic question of whether something wrong happened), then all I can say is that you've overestimated the legality, popularity and/or the soundness of the ethical logic behind your position. I'll even grant that your own concerns are nowhere near as silly as the Benghazi stuff, but at the same time, it's nowhere near a question that's been settled in your favour.

I'm not claiming to be the "sole arbiter" of anything; obviously I can't stop you from talking about this or any other topic in whichever manner you please. All I can tell you is that when you argue as though you're taking it for granted that the thing you're arguing against is obviously unethical/unconstitutional/whatever, in lieu of making a convincing argument that the thing was wrong to begin with, then you're not going to get much traction, except with people who already agree with you, and what good would that do? Certainly you're not going to make much headway with people who have already been briefed on the programs and come to the conclusion that they're okay (like most of Congress, and others in their position).

Biological Ali: You seem to be confusing "ambiguity" with "lack of complete and utter unanimity". The latter was never my standard (you can go through my earlier posts where I addressed this specifically). Obviously some people are going to be deranged and literally crazy; they might thing think Abu Ghraib was a good thing, they might think that slavery should be reintroduced or any number of insane things. But when there is such widespread acceptance that something was wrong to the point where even the people who did it concede that it was wrong, and the people who don't agree are so few as to be practically indistinguishable for from zero, that's when the thing is unambiguously wrong.

Biological Ali
Here's the thing. You believe it's wrong; you may even believe very strongly that it is wrong, but it is certainly not unambiguously wrong

That is a farking idiotic standard and you should feel bad.

RanDomino: Biological Ali
Here's the thing. You believe it's wrong; you may even believe very strongly that it is wrong, but it is certainly not unambiguously wrong

That is a farking idiotic standard and you should feel bad.

It's "idiotic" to think that there's much more ambiguity in the claim that something "wrong" was done here than there was with Abu Ghraib? Really?

Be honest - you didn't even read my post, did you?

Without Fail: GoSlash27: 2 questions for the "Snowden is a traitor" crowd that I would very much like answers to:

#1 How could any of the info he has revealed possibly have aided or abetted our enemies? Does anybody seriously think that AQ assumed their communications weren't being monitored?
#2 If he worked for the government and went to the press intending to expose abuse and fraud, how could he not be a "whistleblower"?

He has already given interviews exposing our intelligence gathering against other countries.
Abuse and fraud? The NSA has broken no laws and has not violated the constitution.

I'll address this one since it conveys the gist of the other responses.
Point #1, exposing our intel gathering is not "treason". Not even if it gives China political points. "Treason" is aiding and abetting our enemies. How has anything Snowden released aided our enemies?
Point #2 Seems you have a disagreement with him. *He* believes it's illegal even if you don't. His intent matters in the legal definition.

Biological Ali
It's "idiotic" to think that there's much more ambiguity in the claim that something "wrong" was done here than there was with Abu Ghraib? Really?

RanDomino: Biological Ali
It's "idiotic" to think that there's much more ambiguity in the claim that something "wrong" was done here than there was with Abu Ghraib? Really?

[farm3.staticflickr.com image 640x480]

You read half of the opening sentence of somebody's post in a conversation that you weren't even involved with, got outraged and decided to make an insulting comment based on some garbled notion of what you thought the person was talking about. It happens; it doesn't even bother me. If you want to enter into a proper exchange with me, though, you'll have to first read the whole post, and then (if you still insist on it) respond to whatever point you object to in context.

I'm not a big fan of the out-of-context quotes/silly pictures game, so if that's all you're aiming for you'll have to carry on by yourself, or find someone else to play along.

FuryOfFirestorm: mephox: I wonder what, other than facing punishment for revealing information classified as top secret, trying him will get. Some politicians seem to think that if they get him back, that somehow they can put the genie back in the bottle. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Snowden's actions - on the one hand, he did leak top secret information and on the other, it could have been much worse, and on the other we already kinda knew this was happening. It was a 'Shhh, don't tell anybody' kind of top secret. No one acknowledged it officially, but everyone knew it was probably happening.

But, now that the genie is out of the bottle, or in a more apt analogy - you can't uncook a goose. The goose is cooked. Deal with it.

If I heard it correctly, it's been reported that he still has several laptops full of unreleased US secrets. If that's true, it's in America's best interests to get Snowden back.

I did not know that. In that case, set loose the dogs of... hounding?

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest