He's called a "traitor"

[stahrgazer]

Our spy satellites aren't being used to spy on random citizens and if they were I would laud anyone that revealed that as a hero. The distinction here is not that I am not opposed to our government having the capability to wire tap anyone and everyone, I am opposed to them actually doing it, especially without any oversight.

There is oversight. It's just that "ordinary citizens" aren't the ones doing the overseeing. The populace elects "representatives" who're supposed to take care of those sorts of things, whether themselves or by appointees/employees, remember?

Meanwhile, please, don't be as naive and hypocritical as those who refused to believe, "them" could be "you."

We KNEW they were monitoring at least phones well over a decade ago. Maybe you didn't "know" then that they would also monitor email and such but you really should have suspected it.

I mean, really, since when has a government NOT done whatever it "could do" ?

So, whether YOU "know" they use the spy satellites that they have and that ARE capable of zooming in to that degree, within US soil or not, trust me, I KNOW they do - even if I don't have access to classified material to "prove it" to you (and if I did have that access, I wouldn't be sharing it because I'm not a traitor.)

Restating: the "terrorist activity" the US Government is MOST concerned with, is that terrorist activity that can affect folks on US soil. That includes folks ON US SOIL who might be planning to engage....

Which means, really, that they're spying MOST on "folks within US soil," and using every means the Patriot Act and technology allow, to do it.

[Woodruff]

Okay, so Snowden opened eyes that chose to be blind. If the eye-opening "confidential material" he'd shared to the open press and who knows what dignitaries in foreign countries were secrets about how the government makes and handles its nuclear weapons, and just how deadly they can be, would you have any doubt his actions are illegal?

Yet that quite clearly is a different situation, in that the handling of nuclear weapons is not an act against the US citizenry.

You're a riot, wooddy. Don't you know, they tested nukes on US soil which means citizenry are affected which means it damned well is an "act against US citizenry" even if, like "spying on electronic sources for terrorist activity" it's ultimately supposed to be "to protect us."

At the time, it wasn't really clear that nuclear testing was as dangerous as it was, both in the short-term and long-term...so no, I don't believe that's a valid comparison at all.

And you still don't answer why you (and anyone else who somehow wants to proclaim this spy to be a hero) didn't read the Patriot act that was passed well over a decade ago and start your protests then, against the Congress that passed it into LAW; because it's very clear that they can do some "spying for terrorist activity" within US soil.

Where did you get the silly idea that I didn't read it and realize what it was? Why do you presume I haven't been protesting about it since then? Apparently, you have read nothing I've posted in these fora. Probably for almost the entire time I've been here in these fora, I've been talking about it...certainly once I left the military (probably not prior to that, I suppose).

So, what has you up in arms, that you didn't choose to think that that could include your emails? Shame on you, then.

It's funny, given my past occupation within the military, that you would think such a stupid thing.

It still doesn't make a traitor a hero.

Perhaps you can point out for me where I've called him a hero? In fact, I believe I have specifically refrained from that term. I do have a lot of difficulty calling him a traitor at this point, however (as I've said before, further information may change that viewpoint). I suppose since the enemy is us, you think it was traitorous for him to tell us?

[Woodruff]

We KNEW they were monitoring at least phones well over a decade ago. Maybe you didn't "know" then that they would also monitor email and such but you really should have suspected it.

Actually, we didn't KNOW it previously. It had been "leaked", but there was no evidence, at least of the level that has been revealed. That is why Snowden was significant...it was no longer lacking in evidence.

So, whether YOU "know" they use the spy satellites that they have and that ARE capable of zooming in to that degree, within US soil or not, trust me, I KNOW they do - even if I don't have access to classified material to "prove it" to you (and if I did have that access, I wouldn't be sharing it because I'm not a traitor.)

You do realize that there's a vast difference between "rumor and conspiracy theory" and "actual evidence"...right? Because without actual evidence, it's impossible to do anything about it.

Restating: the "terrorist activity" the US Government is MOST concerned with, is that terrorist activity that can affect folks on US soil. That includes folks ON US SOIL who might be planning to engage....

Or anyone doint something that the government doesn't like. Do you have any idea what sorts of people make the "terrorist lists" these days? They certainly aren't very limited at all.

Which means, really, that they're spying MOST on "folks within US soil," and using every means the Patriot Act and technology allow, to do it.

Well, you managed to stumble upon the problem, at least.

[saxitoxin]

So when the Patriot Act allowed un-warranted phone tapping and information gathering, folks who'd give it any thought would realize that didn't mean tapping, "them." It meant tapping "you," in case you WERE "them."

#1 - The Patriot Act did not legalize "un-warranted phone tapping." The Patriot Act did not legalize a program similar to PRISM.

#2 - The Patriot Act extended the authorization for judges to issue wiretap warrants against people instead of telephone numbers, AKA "roving wiretaps," that was first allowed in 1998 under an amendment to the Safe Streets Act that Clinton signed. That's the only section of the Patriot Act that has anything to do with wiretapping.

[BigBallinStalin]

Our spy satellites aren't being used to spy on random citizens and if they were I would laud anyone that revealed that as a hero. The distinction here is not that I am not opposed to our government having the capability to wire tap anyone and everyone, I am opposed to them actually doing it, especially without any oversight.

There is oversight. It's just that "ordinary citizens" aren't the ones doing the overseeing. The populace elects "representatives" who're supposed to take care of those sorts of things, whether themselves or by appointees/employees, remember?

Who's that exactly?

[oVo]

Government oversight is an interesting concept
that often contradicts itself.

[Woodruff]

Government oversight is an interesting concept
that often contradicts itself.

While true, I think there is a difference. First of all, as I understand the situation, it was the military that made the suggestion that hacking was a declaration of war (some General somewhere). Aside from that, the general was specifically speaking in regards to hacking that threatened American lives, commerce or infrastructure and that not every cyberattack would be considered an act of war unless it did so.

Not that I'm one to really try to defend it, but I don't think it's as clear-cut an offense as the article tries to paint it.

[patches70]

While true, I think there is a difference. First of all, as I understand the situation, it was the military that made the suggestion that hacking was a declaration of war (some General somewhere). Aside from that, the general was specifically speaking in regards to hacking that threatened American lives, commerce or infrastructure and that not every cyberattack would be considered an act of war unless it did so.

Not that I'm one to really try to defend it, but I don't think it's as clear-cut an offense as the article tries to paint it.

Oh, kind of like uploading a sophisticated virus into the computer system of a nuclear power plant?

Yeah, we did that. Of course, we did it to Iran and they had it coming. So the narrative goes.

[Woodruff]

While true, I think there is a difference. First of all, as I understand the situation, it was the military that made the suggestion that hacking was a declaration of war (some General somewhere). Aside from that, the general was specifically speaking in regards to hacking that threatened American lives, commerce or infrastructure and that not every cyberattack would be considered an act of war unless it did so.

Not that I'm one to really try to defend it, but I don't think it's as clear-cut an offense as the article tries to paint it.

Oh, kind of like uploading a sophisticated virus into the computer system of a nuclear power plant?

There's no question in my mind that we were involved in the Stuxnet worm. And absolutely that would qualify, in my view. I'm certainly not saying our government is innocent (I would hope you'd realize that having seen my other posts), rather I am saying that the declaration was not aimed at all forms of cyberhacking.

[oVo]

What if the accusations are true that the second highest General
in the US military (now retired) is the one who leaked the details
about the Stuxnet cyber attack?

In Snowden and Manning's situations, why is there BS going on via US Embassies
and other diplomatic communications about government covert activities
and secret negotiations that are an embarrassment?
Isn't America supposed to be the good guys in white hats?

[Frigidus]

What if the accusations are true that the second highest General
in the US military (now retired) is the one who leaked the details
about the Stuxnet cyber attack?

In Snowden and Manning's situations, why is there BS going on via US Embassies
and other diplomatic communications about government covert activities
and secret negotiations that are an embarrassment?
Isn't America supposed to be the good guys in white hats?

See, we're the good guys by default, so when we do Orwellian bullshit its OK.

[Woodruff]

What if the accusations are true that the second highest General
in the US military (now retired) is the one who leaked the details
about the Stuxnet cyber attack?

In Snowden and Manning's situations, why is there BS going on via US Embassies
and other diplomatic communications about government covert activities
and secret negotiations that are an embarrassment?
Isn't America supposed to be the good guys in white hats?

See, we're the good guys by default, so when we do Orwellian bullshit its OK.

What he said. <sigh>

[BigBallinStalin]

What if the accusations are true that the second highest General
in the US military (now retired) is the one who leaked the details
about the Stuxnet cyber attack?

In Snowden and Manning's situations, why is there BS going on via US Embassies
and other diplomatic communications about government covert activities
and secret negotiations that are an embarrassment?
Isn't America supposed to be the good guys in white hats?

See, we're the good guys by default, so when we do Orwellian bullshit its OK.

What he said. <sigh>

Wait. Y'all wear white hats? What kind of night-time meetings do y'all attend??

[Woodruff]

What if the accusations are true that the second highest General
in the US military (now retired) is the one who leaked the details
about the Stuxnet cyber attack?

In Snowden and Manning's situations, why is there BS going on via US Embassies
and other diplomatic communications about government covert activities
and secret negotiations that are an embarrassment?
Isn't America supposed to be the good guys in white hats?

See, we're the good guys by default, so when we do Orwellian bullshit its OK.

What he said. <sigh>

Wait. Y'all wear white hats? What kind of night-time meetings do y'all attend??

Not those white hats. Only our southern...uhhh...contemporaries...wear those.

[Woodruff]

For those that actually care:

http://www.alternet.org/glenn-greenwald

[rishaed]

Its a well written article there.

[BigBallinStalin]

For those that actually care:

http://www.alternet.org/glenn-greenwald

I'm not sure how much of it is true, but I do like how they provided links to some of their claims (better than mainstream media), and it was successfully in making me annoyed at the government.

[Woodruff]

It makes me wonder...why hasn't Clapper been sanctioned for his perjury?

[patches70]

It makes me wonder...why hasn't Clapper been sanctioned for his perjury?

He didn't lie, he just made an error. He's a loyal public servant. Heh heh.

My response was clearly erroneous — for which I apologize,”........ “mistakes will happen, and when I make one, I correct it"

[Woodruff]

It makes me wonder...why hasn't Clapper been sanctioned for his perjury?

He didn't lie, he just made an error.

That sounds suspiciously like something Spock said in Star Trek VI (I think).

My response was clearly erroneous — for which I apologize,”........ “mistakes will happen, and when I make one, I correct it"

Yeah...of course, the follow-up to that is that if he could have possibly made that error when he's in the position that he is in, he should be fired.

Also, do they allow that explanation of us "regular folks"?

[patches70]

Also, do they allow that explanation of us "regular folks"?

Of course not! After all, the pigs need the greater share of the apples because of all that hard work they do on behalf of the regular people. Where would we be without the pigs to think for us?

[Metsfanmax]

Ars has reported that Snowden had huge problems with leakers when George Bush was President. Hm...

< TheTrueHOOHA> HOLY SHIT

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/washi ... ml?_r=1&hp
< TheTrueHOOHA> WTF NYTIMES
< TheTrueHOOHA> Are they TRYING to start a war?
Jesus christ
they're like wikileaks
< User19> they're just reporting, dude.
< TheTrueHOOHA> They're reporting classified shit
< User19> shrugs
< TheTrueHOOHA> about an unpopular country surrounded by enemies already engaged in a war
and about our interactions with said country regarding planning sovereignity violations of another country
you don't put that shit in the NEWSPAPER
< User19> meh
< TheTrueHOOHA> moreover, who the f*ck are the anonymous sources telling them this?
< TheTrueHOOHA> those people should be shot in the balls.

...

< TheTrueHOOHA> I enjoy it when it's ethical reporting.
< TheTrueHOOHA> political corruption, sure
< TheTrueHOOHA> scandal, yes
< User19> is it unethical to report on the government's intrigue?
< TheTrueHOOHA> VIOLATING NATIONAL SECURITY? no

(TheTrueHOOHA = Snowden)

[oVo]

Wait. Y'all wear white hats? What kind of night-time meetings do y'all attend??

Don't be confusing "hats" for "hoods" although both groups may have had the best of intentions, it might be beyond suggestion to note that they have common ground. Both feel confident their might makes right and any covert means they employ to achieve their objective --regardless of how misguided or unscrupulous-- is above reproach or accountability.

Reagan & Bush defying Congress with Iran/Contra --cocaine, cash & weapons-- was probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Thanks for the Greenwald Link Woodruff, I'm checking it out now.

Maybe the democratic advances in Arab countries will lead to some Spring Cleaning of our own right here in America.

[saxitoxin]

All letters sent via U.S. Mail are photographed and logged by the regime -

Mr. Pickering was targeted by a longtime surveillance system called mail covers, a forerunner of a vastly more expansive effort, the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program, in which Postal Service computers photograph the exterior of every piece of paper mail that is processed in the United States — about 160 billion pieces last year. It is not known how long the government saves the images.

“In the past, mail covers were used when you had a reason to suspect someone of a crime,” said Mark D. Rasch, who started a computer crimes unit in the fraud section of the criminal division of the Justice Department and worked on several fraud cases using mail covers. “Now it seems to be, ‘Let’s record everyone’s mail so in the future we might go back and see who you were communicating with.’ Essentially you’ve added mail covers on millions of Americans.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/mo ... share&_r=0