Treason or Whistle Blower?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What qualifies him, in your opinion, to decide which secrets should be kept and which secrets should be exposed?

It's well-known that China has been hacking US computers. Do you think it's prudent for the US to retaliate and hack theirs?

Nothing qualifies him anymore than anybody else. When you see something wrong do you wait to decide whether you're qualified to decide whether it's right or wrong, or do you work to make it right? If he wanted to hurt the U.S. government, however, then he wouldn't have gone to the press with this information. He would've sold it to any number of interested parties around the world.

No, the U.S. should be better. It doesn't benefit the American people to hack China's computers, and there is no constitutional justification to do so. War has not been declared against China, so where does this authority come from in the first place?

There is much more to aggressive activities than those done in a declared war. The authority comes from the National Security Act of 1947.

Not according to the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So all secrets should be exposed? Location of nuclear submarines, codes for the missiles, identities of foreign assets, locations of covert safe houses, tomorrow's movements of our military forces?

Only those actions of the government which are illegal should be exposed. Violating the Fourth Amendment by spying on every single American is one of those actions. The U.S. government tried to hide behind the law by classifying this information, but that was to protect themselves from being held accountable.

So anyone who thinks nuclear weapons are illegal would be fine in releasing the launch codes?

I'm not sure releasing the launch codes if you think nuclear weapons are illegal is a rational action. I personally see no possible justification for the use of nuclear weapons, and yet I can't see myself ever thinking that giving up launch codes would somehow make that situation better.

Regardless, the act of civil disobedience is every person's to make, yet it becomes every other person in a society's duty to judge whether that action exposes something that needs to be changed. So a person could release launch codes, and accept the consequences, but I doubt there'd be much sympathy from any quarters. Civil disobedience does come with consequences, as Edward Snowden obviously took into account before releasing this information to the press. He knows he, at best, can probably never return to the United States, and at worst, and very much a possibility, he could be extradited to the U.S. to face charges and be dumped into a hole like Bradley Manning was. However, the question is did he do something good or bad, whether or not it was illegal. I say he did something good.

 

[asterism]

So only the government can decide the limits of its own power. Yeah, I can see how that wouldn't be prone to abuse at all.

Good thing Edward Snowden didn't have that servile mindset.

Good grief Kevin, we've had a pretty good run for the last two centuries and you and others like you believe you know best. That's pretty damn narcissistic.

I'd call it narcissistic to spy on every American and then think you can classify your actions in an attempt to hide it from the people you purport to serve, but that's just me.

I'm still trying to figure out how aggregating call data is "spying on every American."

Your every move is tracked online and is matched with your financial data by marketing companies. Furthermore, use of a cellular phone is optional and is not protected by any law. Your call data is not private, just like your IP address on this site is not private. You car license plate is not private. Your home address is not private. Your driver's license number is not private.

This might be news to you, but those are the facts.

 

[asterism]

Nothing qualifies him anymore than anybody else. When you see something wrong do you wait to decide whether you're qualified to decide whether it's right or wrong, or do you work to make it right? If he wanted to hurt the U.S. government, however, then he wouldn't have gone to the press with this information. He would've sold it to any number of interested parties around the world.

No, the U.S. should be better. It doesn't benefit the American people to hack China's computers, and there is no constitutional justification to do so. War has not been declared against China, so where does this authority come from in the first place?

There is much more to aggressive activities than those done in a declared war. The authority comes from the National Security Act of 1947.

Not according to the Constitution.

The Constitution provides authority for the Executive and Legislative Branches to pass laws and for the Judicial Branch to rule on their Constitutionality. The National Security Act of 1947 has been duly passed and has passed all Judicial challenges.

Covert actions are legal.

 

[asterism]

Only those actions of the government which are illegal should be exposed. Violating the Fourth Amendment by spying on every single American is one of those actions. The U.S. government tried to hide behind the law by classifying this information, but that was to protect themselves from being held accountable.

So anyone who thinks nuclear weapons are illegal would be fine in releasing the launch codes?

I'm not sure releasing the launch codes if you think nuclear weapons are illegal is a rational action. I personally see no possible justification for the use of nuclear weapons, and yet I can't see myself ever thinking that giving up launch codes would somehow make that situation better.

Regardless, the act of civil disobedience is every person's to make, yet it becomes every other person in a society's duty to judge whether that action exposes something that needs to be changed. So a person could release launch codes, and accept the consequences, but I doubt there'd be much sympathy from any quarters. Civil disobedience does come with consequences, as Edward Snowden obviously took into account before releasing this information to the press. He knows he, at best, can probably never return to the United States, and at worst, and very much a possibility, he could be extradited to the U.S. to face charges and be dumped into a hole like Bradley Manning was. However, the question is did he do something good or bad, whether or not it was illegal. I say he did something good.

All he did was make a big show out of something that is going to continue. There were other options and this program could have been stopped. There's little chance of that happening now.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Good grief Kevin, we've had a pretty good run for the last two centuries and you and others like you believe you know best. That's pretty damn narcissistic.

I'd call it narcissistic to spy on every American and then think you can classify your actions in an attempt to hide it from the people you purport to serve, but that's just me.

I'm still trying to figure out how aggregating call data is "spying on every American."

Your every move is tracked online and is matched with your financial data by marketing companies. Furthermore, use of a cellular phone is optional and is not protected by any law. Your call data is not private, just like your IP address on this site is not private. You car license plate is not private. Your home address is not private. Your driver's license number is not private.

This might be news to you, but those are the facts.

I voluntarily contract with marketing companies, who use my data for my own benefit. I am not voluntarily turning over my data to the federal government. They are simply taking it, in secret, from companies that I do voluntarily contract with. Verizon having my data, and the federal government having my data are two different things.

As for license plates and drivers licenses, don't even get me started.

 

[dblack]

For the 'Opies' on the board, let's go over this once again...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wL9Li0f1Po]Andy Griffith Vs. the Partiot Act - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There is much more to aggressive activities than those done in a declared war. The authority comes from the National Security Act of 1947.

Not according to the Constitution.

The Constitution provides authority for the Executive and Legislative Branches to pass laws and for the Judicial Branch to rule on their Constitutionality. The National Security Act of 1947 has been duly passed and has passed all Judicial challenges.

Covert actions are legal.

To pass laws in accordance with the Constitution, not any law that they please. That the judiciary says they're constitutional doesn't make it so. Something can be constitutional to them one minute and not the next, and the language of the Constitution itself never changes. That a branch of the federal government has no problem increasing the power of the federal government should not come as a shock to anybody.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So anyone who thinks nuclear weapons are illegal would be fine in releasing the launch codes?

I'm not sure releasing the launch codes if you think nuclear weapons are illegal is a rational action. I personally see no possible justification for the use of nuclear weapons, and yet I can't see myself ever thinking that giving up launch codes would somehow make that situation better.

Regardless, the act of civil disobedience is every person's to make, yet it becomes every other person in a society's duty to judge whether that action exposes something that needs to be changed. So a person could release launch codes, and accept the consequences, but I doubt there'd be much sympathy from any quarters. Civil disobedience does come with consequences, as Edward Snowden obviously took into account before releasing this information to the press. He knows he, at best, can probably never return to the United States, and at worst, and very much a possibility, he could be extradited to the U.S. to face charges and be dumped into a hole like Bradley Manning was. However, the question is did he do something good or bad, whether or not it was illegal. I say he did something good.

All he did was make a big show out of something that is going to continue. There were other options and this program could have been stopped. There's little chance of that happening now.

What were the other options that could have stopped this program?

 

[asterism]

I'd call it narcissistic to spy on every American and then think you can classify your actions in an attempt to hide it from the people you purport to serve, but that's just me.

I'm still trying to figure out how aggregating call data is "spying on every American."

Your every move is tracked online and is matched with your financial data by marketing companies. Furthermore, use of a cellular phone is optional and is not protected by any law. Your call data is not private, just like your IP address on this site is not private. You car license plate is not private. Your home address is not private. Your driver's license number is not private.

This might be news to you, but those are the facts.

I voluntarily contract with marketing companies, who use my data for my own benefit. I am not voluntarily turning over my data to the federal government. They are simply taking it, in secret, from companies that I do voluntarily contract with. Verizon having my data, and the federal government having my data are two different things.

As for license plates and drivers licenses, don't even get me started.

Without an individual agreement with each of those companies detailing their measures you aren't

The reason the programs are secret is because the methods, actors, and specifics of use cannot be public to be effective. The existence of the collection has been public for a long time. Now if you're saying that the government should not be as able as a telemarketer to access information about you then that is a separate issue altogether.

ALL this guy Snowden had to do was call Bill Binney, a famous former NSA operator. He would have known the proper means to get this information to those that can actually do some good while at the same time serve the public interest by publicizing that which needs to be made public. Snowden wouldn't even have had to quit his job at BAH if he didn't want to. There would be no cloak and dagger though, and that's what I think this guy is interested in doing. He wants to be a celebrity. Well, he got that wish.

Instead of being smart he's selling our secrets to China for his personal protection.

 

[asterism]

For the 'Opies' on the board, let's go over this once again...

Andy Griffith Vs. the Partiot Act - YouTube

Do you honestly think that there should be no covert surveillance?

 

[asterism]

Not according to the Constitution.

The Constitution provides authority for the Executive and Legislative Branches to pass laws and for the Judicial Branch to rule on their Constitutionality. The National Security Act of 1947 has been duly passed and has passed all Judicial challenges.

Covert actions are legal.

To pass laws in accordance with the Constitution, not any law that they please. That the judiciary says they're constitutional doesn't make it so. Something can be constitutional to them one minute and not the next, and the language of the Constitution itself never changes. That a branch of the federal government has no problem increasing the power of the federal government should not come as a shock to anybody.

Actually, that the Judiciary says they are constitutional is the definition of "make it so." The dynamic can change to allow laws to evolve, change, or be deemed unfit.

But according to the Constitution, the National Security Act of 1947 stands.

 

[dblack]

For the 'Opies' on the board, let's go over this once again...

Andy Griffith Vs. the Partiot Act - YouTube

Do you honestly think that there should be no covert surveillance?

No, I'm saying it should be constrained by due process - i.e. it should require specific, defensible suspicion that a crime has been committed or is being planned.

 

[asterism]

I'm not sure releasing the launch codes if you think nuclear weapons are illegal is a rational action. I personally see no possible justification for the use of nuclear weapons, and yet I can't see myself ever thinking that giving up launch codes would somehow make that situation better.

Regardless, the act of civil disobedience is every person's to make, yet it becomes every other person in a society's duty to judge whether that action exposes something that needs to be changed. So a person could release launch codes, and accept the consequences, but I doubt there'd be much sympathy from any quarters. Civil disobedience does come with consequences, as Edward Snowden obviously took into account before releasing this information to the press. He knows he, at best, can probably never return to the United States, and at worst, and very much a possibility, he could be extradited to the U.S. to face charges and be dumped into a hole like Bradley Manning was. However, the question is did he do something good or bad, whether or not it was illegal. I say he did something good.

All he did was make a big show out of something that is going to continue. There were other options and this program could have been stopped. There's little chance of that happening now.

What were the other options that could have stopped this program?

I have already stated other options. If you're not going to read this thread, then there is no point in discussing this further.

 

[asterism]

For the 'Opies' on the board, let's go over this once again...

Andy Griffith Vs. the Partiot Act - YouTube

Do you honestly think that there should be no covert surveillance?

No, I'm saying it should constrained by due process - i.e. it should require specific, defensible suspicion that a crime has been committed or is being planned.

Fair enough. So far I think that due process has been satisfied in this case. That said, my objection is to saying a drama queen Jullian Assange wannabe is a hero. That he's now giving up state secrets to China might make him a traitor.

 

[dblack]

Do you honestly think that there should be no covert surveillance?

No, I'm saying it should constrained by due process - i.e. it should require specific, defensible suspicion that a crime has been committed or is being planned.

Fair enough. So far I think that due process has been satisfied in this case.

What specific crime is the government investigating when it conducts blanket surveillance of our private communications?

 

[Katzndogz]

The state secrets given to China:

"Pssst, hey China the United States government has put Americans under the kind of surveillance that would make you blush. obama has attacked the people in ways that hasn't been seen since the stasi. America has secret courts and a secret police. The IRS now has more power than the KGB."

Those are some dangerous state secrets.

 

[asterism]

No, I'm saying it should constrained by due process - i.e. it should require specific, defensible suspicion that a crime has been committed or is being planned.

Fair enough. So far I think that due process has been satisfied in this case.

What specific crime is the government investigating when it conducts blanket surveillance of our private communications?

Collecting call data is not surveillance. That said, even if this information was considered private one needs a normal set of data to be able to do pattern analysis and in that case the specific crime would be terrorism.

 

[asterism]

The state secrets given to China:

"Pssst, hey China the United States government has put Americans under the kind of surveillance that would make you blush. obama has attacked the people in ways that hasn't been seen since the stasi. America has secret courts and a secret police. The IRS now has more power than the KGB."

Those are some dangerous state secrets.

He announced US hacking of China's networks. That might be something they suspected, but someone with access to NSA systems confirming it is a huge benefit to them.

 

[dblack]

Fair enough. So far I think that due process has been satisfied in this case.

What specific crime is the government investigating when it conducts blanket surveillance of our private communications?

Collecting call data is not surveillance. That said, even if this information was considered private one needs a normal set of data to be able to do pattern analysis and in that case the specific crime would be terrorism.

What one needs to achieve a specific goal is irrelevant. The question is what is government allowed to collect, for what purposes, and whether they can do it secretly without the knowledge of those being spied on. Do you really want a 'Big Brother is Watching' kind of society?