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.

(Guardian)   President Obama's assault on the First Amendment continues   (theguardian.com) divider line 337
    More: Obvious, Obama administration, 1st amendment, shield laws, press freedom, First Amendment Center, Espionage Act, duty of care  
•       •       •

5434 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Aug 2013 at 11:32 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



337 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-12 05:11:50 PM

cman: We get it. He's a Democrat.


I'd love to know why you think that matters.
 
2013-08-12 05:11:53 PM

BeesNuts: vygramul: BeesNuts: The problem is that we're not even examining the information that was leaked before we determine that the leak was illegal.

When the Snowden thing first happened, I considered the possibility the NSA had crossed a line. People who spend too much time looking for bad guys eventually see bad guys everywhere. And then they want to do a whole bunch of shiat to protect us, even if it isn't really justifiable. The endless warnings and tips and "credible" sources can be relentless.

But Snowden said several things that totally did not mesh with my experience and I started paying attention. Then it turned out he lied. He didn't work there years, he worked there three months. He didn't make $200k he made only a little more than half that. Oh, of course, there are explanations, but wonderfully vague. "I meant career high salary." But he was careful not to tell us WHERE lest we be able to actually CHECK on his claim. Then there's the contradictions. On the one hand, the government collects EVERYTHING. But then he says he could authorize a wiretap on someone's email. Wait - I thought we already collected that. Doesn't he mean he could do a database query to retrieve their email? What's this about wiretap?

One you start paying attention to the details and look at the slides without preconceptions as to what they say, the story all this tells is very different.

What do all those discrepencies have to do with the difference between leaking and whistleblowing?  I thought it was about whether the activities disclosed were legal?  And also who the information was given to?

So is Prism constitutional?  I think the jury's still out on that.  The other half of the question is who should he have brought that to?

I don't see where the amount of time he worked there or claimed to work there fits into the discussion of whether what he did was illegal or not.  It calls his credibility into question, but we're not arguing about that.


Whistleblowing definitionally assumes illegality, so whether what's going on is illegal even in spirit is important to whether Snowden even qualifies as a whistleblower to begin with.

The question of his claims goes to credibility. If he lies about some things, why believe him on ANY thing?
 
2013-08-12 05:12:04 PM

Cletus C.: Biological Ali: First of all, this article is something entirely different from TFA or the Drake case ...

Amanda Bynes really did ask for it, which makes a huge difference.


Is that trolling or just joking around?


Amanda who? What's all this then?
 
2013-08-12 05:14:40 PM

LasersHurt: cman: We get it. He's a Democrat.

I'd love to know why you think that matters.


I doubt you would be saying the same things if it wasn't
 
2013-08-12 05:16:03 PM

vygramul: BeesNuts: vygramul: BeesNuts: The problem is that we're not even examining the information that was leaked before we determine that the leak was illegal.

When the Snowden thing first happened, I considered the possibility the NSA had crossed a line. People who spend too much time looking for bad guys eventually see bad guys everywhere. And then they want to do a whole bunch of shiat to protect us, even if it isn't really justifiable. The endless warnings and tips and "credible" sources can be relentless.

But Snowden said several things that totally did not mesh with my experience and I started paying attention. Then it turned out he lied. He didn't work there years, he worked there three months. He didn't make $200k he made only a little more than half that. Oh, of course, there are explanations, but wonderfully vague. "I meant career high salary." But he was careful not to tell us WHERE lest we be able to actually CHECK on his claim. Then there's the contradictions. On the one hand, the government collects EVERYTHING. But then he says he could authorize a wiretap on someone's email. Wait - I thought we already collected that. Doesn't he mean he could do a database query to retrieve their email? What's this about wiretap?

One you start paying attention to the details and look at the slides without preconceptions as to what they say, the story all this tells is very different.

What do all those discrepencies have to do with the difference between leaking and whistleblowing?  I thought it was about whether the activities disclosed were legal?  And also who the information was given to?

So is Prism constitutional?  I think the jury's still out on that.  The other half of the question is who should he have brought that to?

I don't see where the amount of time he worked there or claimed to work there fits into the discussion of whether what he did was illegal or not.  It calls his credibility into question, but we're not arguing about that.

Whistleblowing definitionally assumes illegality, so whether what's going on is illegal even in spirit is important to whether Snowden even qualifies as a whistleblower to begin with.

The question of his claims goes to credibility. If he lies about some things, why believe him on ANY thing?


Irrelevant. Snowden is irrelevant. At issue is the scope of domestic survalance and the existence if secret laws. Those must not be!
 
2013-08-12 05:16:25 PM

cman: LasersHurt: cman: We get it. He's a Democrat.

I'd love to know why you think that matters.

I doubt you would be saying the same things if it wasn't


So, like I said - butthurt crap to imply a double standard.
 
2013-08-12 05:19:14 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: LasersHurt: super_grass: Domestic surveillance

Is not Whistleblowing. You're once more conflating different things and going "Psh that Obama and his dick-slapping of whistleblowers."

I never implied anything of the sort. My posts were about the bigger trend in how government is subverting transparency and rule of law under Obama. You're the one who insists on focusing on legal labels rather than the big picture.

No, I insist on accurate and honest discussion. Constantly going asking "wheres the change Obama removed promises about whistleblowers etc" and using NSA spying (which BTW is not a Domestic Spying Program anyway) is disingenuous and distracting. The two are not one in the same, and "well I wouldn't put it past them with the recent news" is not proof of anything.


I didn't want to argue the legal merits of Snowden's whistleblower claim, so I talked about whether or not the secrets he leaked really deserved protection.

Neither of these issues are mentioned in the headline of course.
 
2013-08-12 05:20:52 PM

coyo: Secret laws and trials are not compatible with healthy democracy.


Ok. That has to do with Snowden, how?

It is irrelevant if he is a traitor; more importantly, the spirit if the bill of rights is being violated. That is far more serious than what mr snowden did.

That would be true if, well, true. But Snowden certainly didn't demonstrate any such thing.
 
2013-08-12 05:21:33 PM

firefly212: I think where the story goes is that a loyalist to the constitution can still be considered a traitor to the government once the government has strayed far enough from the constitution.


Not in my book.
 
2013-08-12 05:21:48 PM

Biological Ali: First of all, this article is something entirely different from TFA or the Drake case - are you conceding the arguments you were making about those things before moving onto this new one?


The argument I've made all along is that Obama has continued Bush's policies of lack of transparency.  Other cases are just more evidence of that.  Going after whistleblowers and being as aggressive as they are against leakers, going so far as to detain the president of Bolivia suspecting that he's carrying Snowden, are indicative of a broader policy of secrecy and creating a chilling effect to deter anybody who would reveal information about the bad things the administration is doing.

Biological Ali: And, with regards to the link you've just posted: Insinuating that Obama's somehow responsible for court rulings is silly. I mean, I'm sure it's an interesting and controversial topic but framing it as "Obama Poised to Deliver Another Blow to Whistleblower Protections" is really very silly and does a great disservice to anybody trying to encourage meaningful discourse on these topics.


The case went up because agencies within the Administration brought them there.  In order for there to be a case, a party has to be pushing from both sides.  Whistleblower advocates and free press advocates push for protection, while the Administration pushes against them   The DOJ is about to throw a reporter in jail.  The Court's findings are irrelevant to the fact that the Obama Administration is challenging these protections in court and trying to get them thrown out or diminished, while claiming to be pro-transparency.
 
2013-08-12 05:23:45 PM

LasersHurt: cman: LasersHurt: cman: We get it. He's a Democrat.

I'd love to know why you think that matters.

I doubt you would be saying the same things if it wasn't

So, like I said - butthurt crap to imply a double standard.


LasersHurt: cman: LasersHurt: cman: We get it. He's a Democrat.

I'd love to know why you think that matters.

I doubt you would be saying the same things if it wasn't

So, like I said - butthurt crap to imply a double standard.


Whatever
 
2013-08-12 05:25:58 PM

coyo: Irrelevant. Snowden is irrelevant. At issue is the scope of domestic survalance and the existence if secret laws. Those must not be!


That IS a question. But that's not what we've been talking about all thread.
 
2013-08-12 05:27:52 PM

Cletus C.: mediablitz: The Numbers: vernonFL: nmrsnr: There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.

[i301.photobucket.com image 450x385]

Thankfully Obama never ran under a banner of change, or he'd be looking pretty stupid...

So you think by "change" he meant change long standing SCOTUS rulings?

Really? That's the "argument" your going with?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the administration must crack down on leakers, sometimes going to extreme measures such as threatening to jail reporters? Now, that's an activist court. Interesting.


No. That is not what the administration has ruled. Please stop lying.
 
2013-08-12 05:29:29 PM
huuuurrr durrr iz it tyme yet sheeping???

t.qkme.me
 
2013-08-12 05:41:24 PM

firefly212: Having worked with some of the agencies before, and having had clearance... I can attest that there are times where classification is the default, and agencies demand a compelling reason not to classify things. Without speaking to any particular topic, I've written reports based on publicly available data that ended up getting classified, though even I can't for the life of me figure out why. There is a culture within some parts of the government, not just intelligence parts, where they feel like the less that is public, the less they'll get criticized for by politicians... ultimately a lot of the classification process in many parts of the government ends up being a function of PR more than security.


It must be quite dependent on agency. These all DoD clearances, BTW? Just wondering because DoS has (had?) its own and now HHS, apparently, has one, and they're independently administered.

firefly212: The problem with this approach is that it actually harms security. In order to access relatively benign and useless information, because of rampant over-classifying, there are tens of thousands of people who have security clearances that they really shouldn't have. They get issued the clearances because they need that benign information to do their job, but it also gives them access to a litany of data that was rightly classified.


It's weird because that hasn't been my experience at all. You couldn't get a TS unless you no kidding needed it. Then again, my secret came with a universal need to know, so there's that.

I did find it amusing that there was stuff that was literally marked, "For Soviet Eyes Only." (For our how audience, this was usually stuff required by treaty.)
 
2013-08-12 05:41:59 PM
*home* audience
 
2013-08-12 05:43:09 PM

imontheinternet: The argument I've made all along is that Obama has continued Bush's policies of lack of transparency. Other cases are just more evidence of that. Going after whistleblowers and being as aggressive as they are against leakers, going so far as to detain the president of Bolivia suspecting that he's carrying Snowden, are indicative of a broader policy of secrecy and creating a chilling effect to deter anybody who would reveal information about the bad things the administration is doing.


If you want to prove a point, you'd be better off sticking with just one point of fact and making a coherent argument out of it. Throwing out a whole bunch of half-formed arguments about different stories isn't going to accomplish that, even if you've got many of them. That kind of thing really only works on people more interested in being outraged than in being informed or having meaningful discussion.


The case went up because agencies within the Administration brought them there.  In order for there to be a case, a party has to be pushing from both sides.  Whistleblower advocates and free press advocates push for protection, while the Administration pushes against them   The DOJ is about to throw a reporter in jail.  The Court's findings are irrelevant to the fact that the Obama Administration is challenging these protections in court and trying to get them thrown out or diminished, while claiming to be pro-transparency.

I don't think you've understood what was actually happening in the case in question. It had nothing to do with whistleblowing; it was an employee dismissal that was being challenged, and the court ruled that a certain class of employees in "noncritical sensitive" positions couldn't have their dismissals and demotions reviewed the same way that other government employees could. Obviously, the Obama administration can't order courts not to set new precedents - the guy can't just tell courts how to rule.

Even "whistleblower advocates" acknowledge this, as per your article (but it's buried way below the misleadingly sensational headline):

Whistleblower advocates say the court ruling and the president's memo spell a major rewiring of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. "It's not thatOPM and DOJ are arguing thatwhistleblowers in sensitive positions shouldn't have access to protections. It's an unintended consequence that they have not tried to prevent," says Angela Canterbury, public policy director at the Project on Government Oversight, where I used to work.

Unless you're going to say that the administration should just never defend itself in court at all, lest the court ruling sets some precedent that has "unintended consequences", there's really not a lot to say here.
 
2013-08-12 05:46:31 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: mediablitz: The Numbers: vernonFL: nmrsnr: There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.

[i301.photobucket.com image 450x385]

Thankfully Obama never ran under a banner of change, or he'd be looking pretty stupid...

So you think by "change" he meant change long standing SCOTUS rulings?

Really? That's the "argument" your going with?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the administration must crack down on leakers, sometimes going to extreme measures such as threatening to jail reporters? Now, that's an activist court. Interesting.

No. That is not what the administration has ruled. Please stop lying.


Ruled? This is not a monarchy.

You see, the point was that court rulings establish law but in this case the administration has no legal obligation to push every law to its extreme. In fact, the administration could ignore leaks of classified information, establish some sort of personnel policies that result in termination or myriad other methods of dealing with leaks.

A court of appeals panel has agreed with the administration that it can compel a reporter to testify in a case being brought against a leaker. The administration does not have to force that testimony. The court did not say they must.

The administration has been very aggressive against leakers. Perhaps you've missed the stories. There was the Fox reporter who Holder was threatening. There's this guy. Both have been threatened with jail time.
 
2013-08-12 05:48:24 PM

LasersHurt: firefly212: that promise got deleted from his website right in the midst of the Snowden issue

And we all know that deletions from websites override literally everything else that has happened in reality related to the concepts.


Fortunately for President Obama, there was nothing to override, as he had done absolutely nothing to strengthen whistleblower protections in the first place... deleting the promise, as much as you'd like to pretend it was never there in the first place, was just the finishing touch on a half decade of abject failure to even attempt to fulfill the promise.
 
2013-08-12 05:51:51 PM

firefly212: deleting the promise


In case you missed my earlier comment:

You're not referring to that thing where Obama's 2008 campaign website was taken down in its entirety, are you? Because it would be silly if you were.
 
2013-08-12 05:52:06 PM

firefly212: he had done absolutely nothing to strengthen whistleblower protections in the first place


LasersHurt: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/obama-issues-wh is tleblower-directive-to-security-agencies/2012/10/10/5e2cbbfe-132d-11e2 -ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html

 
2013-08-12 05:53:23 PM

super_grass: Massive invasions of privacy.

Done.

And don't give me that "legally sound" crap. One of the reasons why these surveillance programs are so obnoxious is the wall of shady legal technicalities used to shield them from scrutiny.


Find a law broken and file your court motion if you have the legal standing then buddy.

coyo:When I hear whistleblower, someone who points out wrongdoing comes to mind. However, whistleblowing is not really relevant here. What is relevant is the extent of survelance that is taking place that certainly violates the spirit if the bill of rights. That is where we must focus on. Any distraction from that is a tacit acceptance of the violations.

Indeed. PRISM is totally legal, and totally WRONG. Why can't people accept something as totally wrong being totally legal and taking action appropriately? Trying to convince the Supreme Court that you're the greater legal eagle seems like an idiot's resolution to this issue to me.

I also wish there were not so many child-like adults who can't accept that legal and right have very different definitions.
 
2013-08-12 05:55:09 PM

Cletus C.: administration has no legal obligation


Arguing that the administration has "no legal obligation" to do something is very different from suggesting that the administration made some commitment or promise not to do it, which is how that particular exchange started.
 
2013-08-12 05:56:17 PM

Biological Ali: Cletus C.: administration has no legal obligation

Arguing that the administration has "no legal obligation" to do something is very different from suggesting that the administration made some commitment or promise not to do it, which is how that particular exchange started.


Sure, it started with the whole "I was promised change" thing. That wasn't me.
 
2013-08-12 05:59:14 PM

vygramul: coyo: Secret laws and trials are not compatible with healthy democracy.

Ok. That has to do with Snowden, how?

It is irrelevant if he is a traitor; more importantly, the spirit if the bill of rights is being violated. That is far more serious than what mr snowden did.

That would be true if, well, true. But Snowden certainly didn't demonstrate any such thing.


Have you ever read the bill of rights and wondered why those were written?

Snowden is irrelevant. Either the government is overstepping and abusing its information gathering apparatus using terrorism as an excuse or it is not. I want to find out and being these things to light. The only reason to keep the survalance this secret is to hide it from the voters.
 
2013-08-12 05:59:44 PM

Cletus C.: Biological Ali: Cletus C.: administration has no legal obligation

Arguing that the administration has "no legal obligation" to do something is very different from suggesting that the administration made some commitment or promise not to do it, which is how that particular exchange started.

Sure, it started with the whole "I was promised change" thing. That wasn't me.


I know that wasn't you. I'm just pointing out that you're (apparently) not actually disagreeing with anyone there - there's no point getting this thread cluttered up any further with people talking past each other.
 
2013-08-12 06:00:24 PM

vygramul: coyo: Irrelevant. Snowden is irrelevant. At issue is the scope of domestic survalance and the existence if secret laws. Those must not be!

That IS a question. But that's not what we've been talking about all thread.


It's what should be discussed. It is far more important.
 
2013-08-12 06:03:59 PM

coyo: vygramul: coyo: Irrelevant. Snowden is irrelevant. At issue is the scope of domestic survalance and the existence if secret laws. Those must not be!

That IS a question. But that's not what we've been talking about all thread.

It's what should be discussed. It is far more important.


We might disagree on where the line lies WRT security versus oversight but I think we can agree that Snowden really screwed the pooch on this one.
 
2013-08-12 06:04:25 PM

Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: mediablitz: The Numbers: vernonFL: nmrsnr: There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.

[i301.photobucket.com image 450x385]

Thankfully Obama never ran under a banner of change, or he'd be looking pretty stupid...

So you think by "change" he meant change long standing SCOTUS rulings?

Really? That's the "argument" your going with?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the administration must crack down on leakers, sometimes going to extreme measures such as threatening to jail reporters? Now, that's an activist court. Interesting.

No. That is not what the administration has ruled. Please stop lying.

Ruled? This is not a monarchy.

You see, the point was that court rulings establish law but in this case the administration has no legal obligation to push every law to its extreme. In fact, the administration could ignore leaks of classified information, establish some sort of personnel policies that result in termination or myriad other methods of dealing with leaks.

A court of appeals panel has agreed with the administration that it can compel a reporter to testify in a case being brought against a leaker. The administration does not have to force that testimony. The court did not say they must.

The administration has been very aggressive against leakers. Perhaps you've missed the stories. There was the Fox reporter who Holder was threatening. There's this guy. Both have been threatened with jail time.


*yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.
 
2013-08-12 06:06:20 PM

Cletus C.: Biological Ali: Cletus C.: administration has no legal obligation

Arguing that the administration has "no legal obligation" to do something is very different from suggesting that the administration made some commitment or promise not to do it, which is how that particular exchange started.

Sure, it started with the whole "I was promised change" thing. That wasn't me.


I love how "Hope and Change" has been trotted out like it is some bad thing.
 
2013-08-12 06:10:10 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: (farky'd as: 7375133, 7324714 Waahh! Libruls Blaem Amurka First)


Ohh darn, now I gotta add another thread number.
 
2013-08-12 06:11:17 PM

Biological Ali: I don't think you've understood what was actually happening in the case in question. It had nothing to do with whistleblowing; it was an employee dismissal that was being challenged, and the court ruled that a certain class of employees in "noncritical sensitive" positions couldn't have their dismissals and demotions reviewed the same way that other government employees could. Obviously, the Obama administration can't order courts not to set new precedents - the guy can't just tell courts how to rule.

Even "whistleblower advocates" acknowledge this, as per your article (but it's buried way below the misleadingly sensational headline):


I don't think you understand the judicial process.

The case is being appealed, and the Administration is seeking to have that ruling upheld.

Biological Ali: Unless you're going to say that the administration should just never defend itself in court at all, lest the court ruling sets some precedent that has "unintended consequences", there's really not a lot to say here.


Again, you're not getting it.  The Administration picks and chooses which issues it pursues.  While the Bush DOJ might not challenge state abortion restrictions, the Obama DOJ does.  A Tea Party DOJ might try to challenge rule changes that give more access to the polls.  Just because it's possible to bring a case doesn't mean that you do it.  Just because you CAN throw a reporter in jail doesn't mean you should do it.
 
2013-08-12 06:11:38 PM

Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.


Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.
 
2013-08-12 06:14:10 PM

coyo: Have you ever read the bill of rights and wondered why those were written?


You're not making sense here. You appear to be objecting to something I've not said.

Snowden is irrelevant. Either the government is overstepping and abusing its information gathering apparatus using terrorism as an excuse or it is not. I want to find out and being these things to light. The only reason to keep the survalance this secret is to hide it from the voters.

That's like saying the only reason to keep the stealth technology this secret is to hide it from the voters.
 
2013-08-12 06:21:50 PM

vygramul: firefly212: Having worked with some of the agencies before, and having had clearance... I can attest that there are times where classification is the default, and agencies demand a compelling reason not to classify things. Without speaking to any particular topic, I've written reports based on publicly available data that ended up getting classified, though even I can't for the life of me figure out why. There is a culture within some parts of the government, not just intelligence parts, where they feel like the less that is public, the less they'll get criticized for by politicians... ultimately a lot of the classification process in many parts of the government ends up being a function of PR more than security.

It must be quite dependent on agency. These all DoD clearances, BTW? Just wondering because DoS has (had?) its own and now HHS, apparently, has one, and they're independently administered.

firefly212: The problem with this approach is that it actually harms security. In order to access relatively benign and useless information, because of rampant over-classifying, there are tens of thousands of people who have security clearances that they really shouldn't have. They get issued the clearances because they need that benign information to do their job, but it also gives them access to a litany of data that was rightly classified.

It's weird because that hasn't been my experience at all. You couldn't get a TS unless you no kidding needed it. Then again, my secret came with a universal need to know, so there's that.

I did find it amusing that there was stuff that was literally marked, "For Soviet Eyes Only." (For our how audience, this was usually stuff required by treaty.)


I cannot speak to all agencies, and I'm not sure if I can identify the one for which I wrote without breaking the rules. I can say that in the agency I was working with, that I had access to things I didn't need access to (I never used that access, but it was there)... I had that access because I got my clearance, a clearance that was necessitated by the (imho) improper classification of stuff with no discernible security value whatsoever. I cannot imagine, within DoD (to include NSA) organizational ratings, there are decent safeguards... lost in the hay of the Manning case, with everyone debating right/wrong and the merits of the case... nobody in the press or elsewhere seemed to ask wtf a private first class was doing with access to so much data... frankly, nobody asks why anyone needed access to that volume of data. There needs to be a centralized, standardized system of classification, but beyond that, even people with say... a Secret clearance, should be filtered, such that they don't have unnecessary access to secret documents not relevant to their job/assignment.

The issue with universal (within any given level) clearances are numerous, but the biggest issue is that there are far too many of them. At the classified level, a total of 4.2 MILLION people have a classified security clearance (DNI 2010, published, not classified information...http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/intel/clearance.pdf  ) The meaning of "classified" has largely changed... when we say something is classified... it's damned hard to take it seriously when "classified" quite literally translates to "a population the entire size of the DC metro area has access to this." The combination of over-classification and over-certification leads to a system that is more of a punchline than a security apparatus.
 
2013-08-12 06:23:23 PM

LasersHurt: firefly212: he had done absolutely nothing to strengthen whistleblower protections in the first place

LasersHurt: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/obama-issues-wh is tleblower-directive-to-security-agencies/2012/10/10/5e2cbbfe-132d-11e2 -ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html


rofls, and what directives does he issue when the doors are closed. Seriously, it's not even an EO... this directive carries all the weight of daydreaming about the US building a starship to battle space pirates.
 
2013-08-12 06:24:15 PM

firefly212: LasersHurt: firefly212: he had done absolutely nothing to strengthen whistleblower protections in the first place

LasersHurt: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/obama-issues-wh is tleblower-directive-to-security-agencies/2012/10/10/5e2cbbfe-132d-11e2 -ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html

rofls, and what directives does he issue when the doors are closed. Seriously, it's not even an EO... this directive carries all the weight of daydreaming about the US building a starship to battle space pirates.


So I prove you wrong, and your response is "nuh uh." Mature, and classy.
 
2013-08-12 06:25:21 PM

Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.

Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.


Stealing classified information is not legal. Period. This guy is no a whistleblower. He released classified information as revenge for getting fired. He is not doing it because some terrible secret, but because he is a pompous asshole who wanted revenge. The CIA person who gave him the info broke the law, and is on trial. And for the record, the AP phone record grab was legal, because of the same exact reason.
 
2013-08-12 06:29:04 PM

imontheinternet: Again, you're not getting it. The Administration picks and chooses which issues it pursues. While the Bush DOJ might not challenge state abortion restrictions, the Obama DOJ does. A Tea Party DOJ might try to challenge rule changes that give more access to the polls. Just because it's possible to bring a case doesn't mean that you do it. Just because you CAN throw a reporter in jail doesn't mean you should do it.


Again, it doesn't seem as though you know what the case is actually about, or how the thing you seem to be objecting to about has come about. The case itself has nothing to do with whistleblowing - it's about particular employees who think they were terminated unfairly, and the administration obviously disagrees. And the judiciary seems to agree with the administration on that count.

What you're apparently expecting them to do is to essentially try to "throw" this case about the dismissal of particular government employees (which they've already won) because the court possibly set a precedent that you don't like. The administration is just trying to win its case about the dismissed employees - it can't tell the court how to rule, which is why holding the administration responsible for "unintended consequences" arising out of a court ruling is silly. Even if the administration had known ahead of time that this is how the judges are going to rule, the only way for them to avoid this ruling would be to concede every single employee dismissal case that would be heard by those particular judges, and that's a ludicrously high burden to place on them.

I'd advise you not to put too much stock in this misleading headline from Mother Jones, which they themselves seem to disavow later into the piece. The AP version of the story (also cited in the article) puts it in a much more straightforward and accurate way: "Appeals court removes key civil service protection".
 
2013-08-12 06:29:34 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: coyo: vygramul: coyo: Irrelevant. Snowden is irrelevant. At issue is the scope of domestic survalance and the existence if secret laws. Those must not be!

That IS a question. But that's not what we've been talking about all thread.

It's what should be discussed. It is far more important.

We might disagree on where the line lies WRT security versus oversight but I think we can agree that Snowden really screwed the pooch on this one.


I don't care if he did; it's irrelevant.

We as a people need to be more active in government and find out just what powers we have allowed it to have over us. The Nsa is not automatically a bad actor here, it can't just be given a blank check and be immune from public scrutiny.
 
2013-08-12 06:33:03 PM

vygramul: coyo: Have you ever read the bill of rights and wondered why those were written?

You're not making sense here. You appear to be objecting to something I've not said.

Snowden is irrelevant. Either the government is overstepping and abusing its information gathering apparatus using terrorism as an excuse or it is not. I want to find out and being these things to light. The only reason to keep the survalance this secret is to hide it from the voters.

That's like saying the only reason to keep the stealth technology this secret is to hide it from the voters.


The crucial difference between stealth fighters and this survalance is that the survalance directly impacts the voters as it targets them and violates thre spirit of the fourth amendment.
 
2013-08-12 06:35:35 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.

Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.

Stealing classified information is not legal. Period. This guy is no a whistleblower. He released classified information as revenge for getting fired. He is not doing it because some terrible secret, but because he is a pompous asshole who wanted revenge. The CIA person who gave him the info broke the law, and is on trial. And for the record, the AP phone record grab was legal, because of the same exact reason.


See the papers, pentagon.

Your argument leads directly to the absurdity that if a massacre was classified, revealing it would be wrong and illegal.
 
2013-08-12 06:38:29 PM

Biological Ali: What you're apparently expecting them to do is to essentially try to "throw" this case about the dismissal of particular government employees (which they've already won) because the court possibly set a precedent that you don't like.


It's not just a ruling that I don't like, it's a ruling that goes against the supposed position of the administration, hence the problem people have with it.  The administration is seeking to make law that hurts whistleblower protection, and that's just one instance in a pattern of anti-whistleblower behavior, in spite of a supposed contrary position.  The administration gets hit every time this happens, because it's been an ongoing problem.
 
2013-08-12 06:49:19 PM

imontheinternet: Biological Ali: What you're apparently expecting them to do is to essentially try to "throw" this case about the dismissal of particular government employees (which they've already won) because the court possibly set a precedent that you don't like.

It's not just a ruling that I don't like, it's a ruling that goes against the supposed position of the administration [1], hence the problem people have with it.  The administration is seeking to make law that hurts whistleblower protection [2], and that's just one instance in a pattern of anti-whistleblower behavior [3] in spite of a supposed contrary position.  The administration gets hit every time this happens, because it's been an ongoing problem.


1 - Which is why, if you have a problem with the ruling, you should take it up with the court. What you're upset about has been an action by the judicial branch, and your attempts to somehow hold the executive branch responsible for this aren't making much sense.

2 - Nothing of the sort is happening. The administration is trying to win a case regarding the dismissal of a couple DoD employees for reasons completely unrelated to whistleblowing. It is being speculated that a precedent set in the court ruling could conceivably - as an unintended consequence - allow retaliatory dismissal or demotion of whistleblowers in the future. There's just no rational way to get from what actually happened to "The administration is seeking to make law that hurts whistleblower protection".

3 - You may think you see a pattern, but none of the arguments you've presented so far have held up under scrutiny - you've basically argued one thing for a little while, then eventually dropped it and started with something else. Weak arguments don't magically turn into good ones if you gather enough of them together.
 
2013-08-12 06:52:59 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.

Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.

Stealing classified information is not legal. Period. This guy is no a whistleblower. He released classified information as revenge for getting fired. He is not doing it because some terrible secret, but because he is a pompous asshole who wanted revenge. The CIA person who gave him the info broke the law, and is on trial. And for the record, the AP phone record grab was legal, because of the same exact reason.


Thats all good reason to try the guy, but I don't really see what's so compelling about this particular story that we need to go after associated journalists and bully them into being a witness anyways. I mean, if we let the government coerce unwilling people into testifying, what does it really say about the fairness of the trial for the defendant. Freedom of speech should include the freedom to not speak... my problem isn't with the government attempting to prosecute the leaker, but in this case, with their threatening witnesses.
 
2013-08-12 07:03:02 PM

coyo: vygramul: coyo: Have you ever read the bill of rights and wondered why those were written?

You're not making sense here. You appear to be objecting to something I've not said.

Snowden is irrelevant. Either the government is overstepping and abusing its information gathering apparatus using terrorism as an excuse or it is not. I want to find out and being these things to light. The only reason to keep the survalance this secret is to hide it from the voters.

That's like saying the only reason to keep the stealth technology this secret is to hide it from the voters.

The crucial difference between stealth fighters and this survalance is that the survalance directly impacts the voters as it targets them and violates thre spirit of the fourth amendment.


Not foreign surveillance. And we kept the fact we were listening to Ultra and Purple from the voters.
 
2013-08-12 07:18:16 PM

vygramul: coyo: vygramul: coyo: Have you ever read the bill of rights and wondered why those were written?

You're not making sense here. You appear to be objecting to something I've not said.

Snowden is irrelevant. Either the government is overstepping and abusing its information gathering apparatus using terrorism as an excuse or it is not. I want to find out and being these things to light. The only reason to keep the survalance this secret is to hide it from the voters.

That's like saying the only reason to keep the stealth technology this secret is to hide it from the voters.

The crucial difference between stealth fighters and this survalance is that the survalance directly impacts the voters as it targets them and violates thre spirit of the fourth amendment.

Not foreign surveillance. And we kept the fact we were listening to Ultra and Purple from the voters.


That's what gets me about this... I don't care about foreign surveillance... but what the FISA court has authorized, by saying anyone three steps out is that if A talks to B, and party A is foreign, and connected to a national security issue, that conversation is covered (I'm ok with that so far)... but then it goes further, even if B is American, it says that the NSA can listen to all calls between B and C, even if there is no evidence of knowledge or participation by B.... then it goes even further, the NSA can listen to conversations between parties C and D under the three steps out rule... C and D can both be American, and even if neither of them is aware of the existence of A, the NSA can record their conversations. What we've effectively constructed under those ospices is a system where the NSA can take any two parties (including domestically), record their conversations, then try to retroactively connect them to some other party, then try to connect that party to someone in one of their investigations... and voila, it's legit!

I know the argument has been made by President Obama, and some here on fark, that it isn't a domestic spying program, it's a foreign spying program that just *happens* to capture all your internet and phone data domestically... but the effect, if not the tortured reasoning behind it, is incredibly Orwellian, and just plain wrong... the net effect is that we are all, in the eyes of our own government, suspects, not citizens.
 
2013-08-12 07:36:34 PM
Bottom line - you can't pick and choose what is classified and what is whistleblower.

If D Day would have been leaked, would that have been OK?

How about the date and time for getting bin Laden?
 
2013-08-12 07:37:48 PM

vygramul: coyo: vygramul: coyo: Have you ever read the bill of rights and wondered why those were written?

You're not making sense here. You appear to be objecting to something I've not said.

Snowden is irrelevant. Either the government is overstepping and abusing its information gathering apparatus using terrorism as an excuse or it is not. I want to find out and being these things to light. The only reason to keep the survalance this secret is to hide it from the voters.

That's like saying the only reason to keep the stealth technology this secret is to hide it from the voters.

The crucial difference between stealth fighters and this survalance is that the survalance directly impacts the voters as it targets them and violates thre spirit of the fourth amendment.

Not foreign surveillance. And we kept the fact we were listening to Ultra and Purple from the voters.


Seems that this is only "foreign survalance" if you really stretch definitions.
 
2013-08-12 07:40:32 PM

firefly212: That's what gets me about this... I don't care about foreign surveillance... but what the FISA court has authorized, by saying anyone three steps out is that if A talks to B, and party A is foreign, and connected to a national security issue, that conversation is covered (I'm ok with that so far)... but then it goes further, even if B is American, it says that the NSA can listen to all calls between B and C, even if there is no evidence of knowledge or participation by B.... then it goes even further, the NSA can listen to conversations between parties C and D under the three steps out rule... C and D can both be American, and even if neither of them is aware of the existence of A, the NSA can record their conversations. What we've effectively constructed under those ospices is a system where the NSA can take any two parties (including domestically), record their conversations, then try to retroactively connect them to some other party, then try to connect that party to someone in one of their investigations... and voila, it's legit!

I know the argument has been made by President Obama, and some here on fark, that it isn't a domestic spying program, it's a foreign spying program that just *happens* to capture all your internet and phone data domestically... but the effect, if not the tortured reasoning behind it, is incredibly Orwellian, and just plain wrong... the net effect is that we are all, in the eyes of our own government, suspects, not citizens.


This is what really bothers me about short-sightedness in government. That Supreme Court ruling from DECADES ago, that phone metadata is not private, is now coming around to truly bite us in the ass.
 
Displayed 50 of 337 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report