Edward Snowden

[Jake]

What do you all think of Edward Snowden?

1. Did he do the right or wrong thing by leaking information about the NSA surveillance program?

2. Did he do the right or wrong thing by fleeing the country?

3. Is the establishment justified in condemning him as a traitor and a coward?

I know exactly where I stand on this issue, but I want your unbiased opinions before I share my thoughts.

[Goat]

I wonder where you see the war on terror ending up. Do you foresee (or even hope for) a future in which we've slaughtered every last man, woman, and child living in Sharia-ruled countries? Or do you anticipate that once we've destroyed enough homes and torn apart enough families, the Islamists will finally realize how great America is and how they've been on the wrong side all along? How are we supposed to end the war on terror if we don't try to fix the deeper, cultural problems that afflict these countries? Do you have ANY interest in understanding those people so that we can come to some diplomatic solution, or are you content to sit back and rack up the kill count?

Please respond to this before we go any further, as it is really the entire point of this argument.

Good questions, although there is probably no man on this planet who knows The answers.

There are multiple reasons why people become terrorists including: lack of opportunities (as seen in Palestine, i.e.); personal drama (someone's family was killed by a [maybe US-originated] bomb); religious and other organized beliefs aka brainwashing (including organizations such as white and black supremacists, anti-abortion groups, and some "green" organizations); maybe something else...

Not all people who became terrorists did so due to actions of the US, Israel, Russian, and other governments. Yes, it is possible to negotiate a peace process with Palestinians, but there is no way many lone terrorists whose reasons may have nothing to do with military actions of governments can be found and negotiated with.

Summarizing, yes there are some government actions that may multiply terrorists and it makes sense to discuss them. BUT, there are terrorist threats which are not necessarily provoked by unwillingness of the government to negotiate. Therefore, the possibility to reduce some terrorists threats through better policies and negotiation actions should never stop the government from watching people's activities through available technologies in order to identify potential threats. Such programs were always here and will always be here.

I am MUCH MORE concerned about private internet companies mining my private data in order to load my web pages with their junk to sell. Who knows what they are going to do to me next.

I don't know if I am 'MUCH MORE' concerned.. I personally and somewhat more concerned. I definitely don't like either.

I think actions have to be taken on both fronts.

[WinePusher]

I wonder where you see the war on terror ending up. Do you foresee (or even hope for) a future in which we've slaughtered every last man, woman, and child living in Sharia-ruled countries? Or do you anticipate that once we've destroyed enough homes and torn apart enough families, the Islamists will finally realize how great America is and how they've been on the wrong side all along? How are we supposed to end the war on terror if we don't try to fix the deeper, cultural problems that afflict these countries? Do you have ANY interest in understanding those people so that we can come to some diplomatic solution, or are you content to sit back and rack up the kill count?

Many countries in the Middle East are comprised of literate, pro western populations who would undoubtedly implement democratic policies given the chance. The problem is that they are oppressed by illegitimate, theocratic Islamic governments. The United States should work to undermine these governments, not necessarily through war but also through other means. The Iranian protests were an opportune moment to finally rid that country of the unstable dictatorship, but Obama messed up and let the moment slip away.

We do not have to engage in any nation building. All we should do is plant the seeds of democracy and let them grow naturally. This can be achieved through indirect military support.

Please respond to this before we go any further, as it is really the entire point of this argument.

How convenient. You ignore every single point I made in my previous post and tell me I have to respond to your post? I'll take that as a tacit concession on your part. And I don't blame you for ignoring my arguments, you must be having a hard time since your position is pretty indefensible to begin with.

P.S. I couldn't help but laugh when I read the description of the libertarian usergroup after noticing you were a member: "For those who support liberty and the Constitution instead of empire, endless military campaigns, and 'big brother' government."

Well, I suggest you look more closely because that definition was written by another forum member who is certainly no authority on libertarianism. The basic libertarian principle is maximum liberty, which is what I support. None of my views, other than abortion perhaps, contradicts this principle. I don't support liberty only for myself and America, I support liberty for all peoples across the world. I believe that all people should live in societies that are politically, economically, and socially free. The Middle East is the most unfree region in the world so it's only natural for me, as a libertarian, to want to change things over there.

[Jake]

[Replying to post 37 by WinePusher]

For what reason do you criticize the government's national security programs? Are they causing un-repairable grief and hardship to you? Has this NSA scandal hurt you personally in some way? It certainly hasn't hurt me in any way whatsoever.

The point is the government should not be allowed ultimate power over the lives of its citizens. Monitoring the conversations and web searches of every single American gives them this ultimate power. Sure, you and I haven't been harmed by the program -- yet -- but the government can use its databases to find dirt on anyone whom they view as an enemy. This is pre-crime. It's wrong for the same reasons that it's wrong for the police to invade your home and search for drugs before they have reason to suspect you of possessing drugs.

I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't criticize the government. I criticize the government day in and day out. The difference between you and me is that we probably criticize the government for different reasons. People like you are critical of the government when it fails to give Miranda rights or due process to terrorists, or when it does it's constitutionally mandated duty to protect us and provide for the common defense.

If a prisoner's Miranda rights aren't read to him or her, it can prevent his or her statements from being used in court. That's why they matter. As for giving due process to terrorists, how do you know they're terrorists if they're not given due process? We have dozens of people in Guantanamo who are cleared for release; they are innocent. The ones who aren't cleared for release haven't been given due process. We have to give everyone due process to determine their guilt or innocence, and then determine how to deliver justice. That's how the justice system works. I'm starting to wonder if we live in different countries, because the America I grew up in has a Constitution that matters. You seem to have forgotten to entire point of this country.

Yes, and so does everybody else who is not deluded by liberal lies. They are called Islamic extremists for a reason. They interpret the Qur'an in a fundamentalist manner and use it to justify their terrorist activities. Islamic terrorists have a fundamental hatred for western culture and that hatred is what drives their terrorism.

What proof do you have of this? Have you talked to any of them? Have you studied them at any length? It must be convenient to view war in such black-and-white terms. It would be a shame if you had to use your analytic skills (such as they are) to study the psychology of the enemy and determine their true motives. You may be right that many of the terrorists are simply driven by fanaticism and faith, but many of the people who join their ranks are not driven by their faith, but by their hated for the country that dropped bombs on their houses and destroyed their families. I assure you, you'd feel the same if a drone obliterated your home for no reason. I'd also like to know what you think the motives of these liberals are. Why do you think they invent "lies" that sway people toward peace and empathy?

Islam has been a militant religion since it came into existence. The origin of its militant extremism is by in large unknown. However, what is known for sure is that we, the United States, didn't create the problem. This is a liberal lie.

What is unknown? The origins of the military powers in the middle east? I'm not sure what you're claiming is unknown. And are you claiming that if the United States had become an isolated country after gaining its independence, instead of sending forces overseas, we'd be in the exact same position regarding the war on terror? You think the terrorists' hate for us has nothing to do with the fact that we have soldiers over there?

I really doubt you try to genuinely understand their motives because you are merely repeating the liberal falsehood which has been discredited numerous times. Like I said, if we withdraw our presence from the Middle East completely do you really think the problem of Islamic terrorist would disappear?

I'm not arguing for complete withdrawal -- it's too late for that -- but I am arguing for more precise tactics and diminished civilian casualties. We turn the people as a whole against us by bombing their homes and families. Refer to my explanation of drone strikes (signature vs. personality strikes) in my earlier post. We are too careless with how we use our drones. And what is this liberal falsehood which has been discredited? I'm not sure to which specific claim you're referring.

Even if we weren't there, women and children would still be killed, beaten and oppressed. You only care about the civilian casualties when the United States causes them, what about all the civilian deaths caused by these crazy Islamic governments? According to you, we should just ignore them.

Are you just totally opposed to personal responsibility? We have to try to correct our own actions, because they are our own. Just because people would still get hurt is no excuse to just kill hundreds of people.

We do not have to engage in any nation building. All we should do is plant the seeds of democracy and let them grow naturally. This can be achieved through indirect military support.

And you think slaughtering civilians in the hopes of also killing militants and a few high-level targets is "planting the seeds of democracy"?

How convenient. You ignore every single point I made in my previous post and tell me I have to respond to your post? I'll take that as a tacit concession on your part. And I don't blame you for ignoring my arguments, you must be having a hard time since your position is pretty indefensible to begin with.

I wanted to know what the point of this argument was before continuing it. Excuse me for trying to save us several more days of pointless quarreling. And yes, I realize the position of understanding the enemy, empathizing with people who have lost loved ones, and conserving human life may seem indefensible to you. For that, you have my sympathies.

None of my views, other than abortion perhaps, contradicts this principle.

I assume you're implying you're pro-life. I do love how the majority of those who are pro-life only care about protecting unborn fetuses rather than protecting innocent farmers who live in fear of being killed by a drone. Try protecting the lives of those who are already alive. But I'm glad to hear you support "maximum liberty". Then you must support the right to privacy as well? Oh, right, you don't. You must support the right to live without the fear of being bombed because you happen to live in a Sharia-ruled country? Oh, no, not that one either.

I still don't buy your claim that you're a libertarian. If you were, you'd oppose extremely powerful government that violates Constitutional rights and interferes with matters in other countries. Every view you've expressed is in conflict with the views held by true libertarians such as Ron and Rand Paul.

[Darias]

In the mean time, even more intrusive and personal information is leaking to international corporation, including personal finance stuff, and people don't give a good gahoot.

Are you also accounting for private information that corporations are forced to surrender to the federal government?

When my friend was calling to get a new power cord for her laptop that was under warrentee, the call center person wanted her credit card number so they could confirm that it was a legit problem. Now, I don't know about you, but giving a credit card number to get part covered by warrentee delivered is a big intrusion .. particularly if the call center person can't even speak English in a clear and coherent manner.

Hearsay isn't an argument. But assuming everything is true about this, this example is only the inappropriate request of one customer service representative, who likely lacks the required training. Such a request is unacceptable and ultimately harmful for the said business, whether or not it is an unethical and illegal company policy, since it would drive anyone with common sense to cease business with that company. Yet, even if it was part of a deceptive practice, they still could not obtain that information without your friend's willful release of her credit card number.

Contrast that with a secretive state program that steals your information (I argue illegally), often by seizing it from corporations and businesses you have voluntarily done business with -- all without your knowledge or consent. How can you even compare the two?

And how many times have you looked at a web site, then got spam email about the product you were looking at, even though you didn't leave an email address at that web site?

[...]

Just wait till the Google glasses start getting hacked.

The difference is, no one is forcing you to visit a website, to have a Facebook account, or to give games permission to access your personal information in order to play Farmville. All of your business with these companies and corporations is completely voluntary. If you don't like the fact that they take your information to customize ads to your liking, don't engage in business with them. Use DuckDuckGo instead of Google. Use Linux instead of PC.

Microsoft took a big hit with Xbox One when people found out that the microphone couldn't be turned off. As a result people flooded to the cheaper and more advanced PS4. You can still see utter contempt for Microsoft on /r gaming

You don't have these same options with the state. You are born into it and told to adhere to a social contract you never consented to. You don't have a stunning selection of alternatives; instead you have state monopolizing every sector you can imagine, from healthcare to education. If you don't like the services you are being forced to pay for, that's just too bad, because you can't opt out. If you fail to pay taxes, you go to jail. And the state is free to collect all the information it wants from you by forcing internet service providers and cell phone companies to relinquish all their data about you -- without warrant, despite the fact you never committed a crime.

I'm worried about Google Glass insofar that the government can just take Google users' data. Not only can your internet activities and phone calls be monitored, but now the government will be able to see everything you do... to keep you "safe" of course.

If you want privacy, you got to get laws passed about corporations, and not just the government.

You can't seriously be proposing laws as the answer to this problem. Politicians serve the corporate interest because their elections are dependent on corporate donations; this is the reality of politics and it will never change because there are too many benefits involved. Those politicians help pass laws that do one of two things: benefit corporations, or give unconstitutional government activities an appearance of legality. If the 4th amendment and the Patriot Act won't stop the government from a broad interpretation of the laws, nothing will. How can you entrust a government as corrupt as ours to crack down on corporations, especially when their relationship is practically symbiotic?

Are people perfectly comfortable that AT&T collects such information, and Facebook does to, and in many cases, sells the trends to other private parties... yet if the Government collects data on our calls, for the sake of security, that is somehow

Are people actually more comfortable with PRISM, a program that forces all those companies to surrender their customers' private data? How can you even compare the two?

Furthermore, "in the name of" is very different from "in the sake of." Given all the terrorist attacks committed on US soil, including 9/11, this seizure of data is not preventing that which people were told it would prevent. It is only for the state's benefit, growth, and control--nothing more.

We live in a different world, and while I promote the keeping of the constitution as a dead document, impervious to popular opinion of any particular generation, I think we should make an exception, not only because common sense demands it, but because our survival is more important then quoting some dogma like "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

The reality is that the march towards a police state is much more likely to get me killed than a terrorist attack. When you also account for the increased risk of terrorist attacks that result from a counterproductive US foreign policy, the illusion of safety falls apart like a deck of cards.

The problem is that a vast majority of people want to make exceptions to liberties--from the freedom of speech to gun ownership to protection from illegal searches--because they believe it will make them safer. The opposite is true. When freedom of speech is curtailed in an effort to prevent the offended from acting out violently, innocent opinionated people go to jail. When gun bans are implemented crime and assaults increase. When the state can search your house, listen in on your conversations, and browse your Googling habits without a warrant, innocent non-violent drug users can go to jail, and innocent political activists can be held indefinitely.

We could all be put into a vat of gelatin like something out of the Matrix in the name of safety. There is literally no limit to what the state can do if people think it's for a good cause.

Franklin's quote is not dogma, but a warning.

I do fear the expansive reach of the State, but it now has new wars it has to fight, and it must have all the necessary tools to do its job. Government corruption and misuse against civilians is a very real issue, but that only means that we chart new standards, and cut the NSA's staff from 40,000 and/or make severe changes to its organizational structure to increase its leniency, accountability, and transparency, and make it accountable to congress.

Illegal mass surveillance has been in place even before 9/11. It doesn't prevent terrorist attacks, unless you are to believe a man who lied under oath.

I also think it's a fantasy to believe that the state will curtail the powers of the NSA in any way. The idea that Obama is contemplating the end of PRISM is something only the most naive and uninformed among us could ever accept.

I am MUCH MORE concerned about private internet companies mining my private data in order to load my web pages with their junk to sell. Who knows what they are going to do to me next.

I don't know if I am 'MUCH MORE' concerned.. I personally and somewhat more concerned. I definitely don't like either.

I think actions have to be taken on both fronts.

I'm no apologist for corporations, but I find it either dishonest or ignorant for anyone to claim that corporate theft of data is just as widespread and alarming as state theft -- much less that corporate theft is worse than what the state is doing.

Both of these viewpoints are the result of a very unhealthy trust in the state; it comes from public school indoctrination: i.e. "we are the government" or that the government has our best interests at heart. It also comes from an irrational demonization of the rich. This mindless mindset has to change. Just look at all the evidence around you. How can anyone be fine with PRISM, yet outraged with Facebook? What hypocrisy!

[100%atheist]

I'm no apologist for corporations, but I find it either dishonest or ignorant for anyone to claim that corporate theft of data is just as widespread and alarming as state theft -- much less that corporate theft is worse than what the state is doing.

Any clue why is it so?

Both of these viewpoints are the result of a very unhealthy trust in the state; it comes from public school indoctrination: i.e. "we are the government" or that the government has our best interests at heart. It also comes from an irrational demonization of the rich.

And how do we know you do not have an irrational demonization of the government problem?

This mindless mindset has to change.

Or what?!

Just look at all the evidence around you. How can anyone be fine with PRISM, yet outraged with Facebook? What hypocrisy!

I am fine with the PRISM and I am outraged with the Facebook. Why is it a hypocrisy?
I didn't elect Sugarmountain to collect data with the sole purpose to multiply wealth of few. I know there will be no way [or very very little chance] to get to people who will see my personal information in corporate offices and use it for their personal needs. I am still confident that government agencies are far more transparent (by law) than any private corporation. So, why being afraid of corporations more than being afraid of the government is a hypocrisy? And by the way, to make your accusations even more pointless, I voted against data mining corporations by having no accounts Facebook and Twitter.

[100%atheist]

[Replying to post 44 by 100%atheist]


I am starting to consider seriously withdrawing from the forum. I have just learned that Sleepsholder, one of the most sane and polite members was banned. The forum is filled with all the same stuff, so no new information, no new conversations are here. And it is getting occupied more and more by paranoid people on both sides of religion.

Ah.... to the topic! I don't like Snowden's haircut. Wouldn't it be enough reason to dunk him?

[Jake]

Please keep it constructive and on topic, 100%atheist...or you may find yourself in Sleepsholder's position.

Anyway, if you visit a website or use an online service, you're pretty much giving consent to have your information used to throw advertisements and products at you. That's just the reality of internet commercialism. I do, however, understand if it bothers some people. I'm just not concerned. I'd rather give my information to Google, who will simply try to use it to sell me services (which I find useful and entertaining) than to the government, which will use it to control me. And as Darias said, the NSA gives you no choice. At least you can avoid having your information gathered by corporations, albeit at great inconvenience.

[WinePusher]

For what reason do you criticize the government's national security programs? Are they causing un-repairable grief and hardship to you? Has this NSA scandal hurt you personally in some way? It certainly hasn't hurt me in any way whatsoever.

The point is the government should not be allowed ultimate power over the lives of its citizens. Monitoring the conversations and web searches of every single American gives them this ultimate power. Sure, you and I haven't been harmed by the program -- yet -- but the government can use its databases to find dirt on anyone whom they view as an enemy. This is pre-crime. It's wrong for the same reasons that it's wrong for the police to invade your home and search for drugs before they have reason to suspect you of possessing drugs.

Yes, I agree that this NSA program crosses the line. This is the only thing I agree with you on. When it comes to torture, drones, the Iraq war, and other issues that are relevant to this discussion I probably would disagree with you.

If a prisoner's Miranda rights aren't read to him or her, it can prevent his or her statements from being used in court.

A military combatant from a foreign country should not be given a civilian trial in the first place.

As for giving due process to terrorists, how do you know they're terrorists if they're not given due process? We have dozens of people in Guantanamo who are cleared for release; they are innocent. The ones who aren't cleared for release haven't been given due process. We have to give everyone due process to determine their guilt or innocence, and then determine how to deliver justice. That's how the justice system works. I'm starting to wonder if we live in different countries, because the America I grew up in has a Constitution that matters. You seem to have forgotten to entire point of this country.

What you said is only true for domestic criminals. I never said that we should suspend due process or Miranda rights for a domestic criminal. Our constitutional rights are afforded only to United States citizens, not foreign terrorists.

Yes, and so does everybody else who is not deluded by liberal lies. They are called Islamic extremists for a reason. They interpret the Qur'an in a fundamentalist manner and use it to justify their terrorist activities. Islamic terrorists have a fundamental hatred for western culture and that hatred is what drives their terrorism.

What proof do you have of this? Have you talked to any of them? Have you studied them at any length? It must be convenient to view war in such black-and-white terms.

It's unbelievable that you would reject this widely accepted fact. Islam is by in large a barbaric religion that has not gone through a period of 'enlightenment.' Christianity certainly used to behave in a barbaric manner but luckily the religion was subject to the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, and multiple reformations, revivals and internal revolutions. Islam has never gone through this type of cultural revolution, which is why most Muslims still accept the tenants of Sharia law.

It would be a shame if you had to use your analytic skills (such as they are) to study the psychology of the enemy and determine their true motives. You may be right that many of the terrorists are simply driven by fanaticism and faith, but many of the people who join their ranks are not driven by their faith, but by their hated for the country that dropped bombs on their houses and destroyed their families. I assure you, you'd feel the same if a drone obliterated your home for no reason. I'd also like to know what you think the motives of these liberals are. Why do you think they invent "lies" that sway people toward peace and empathy?

Our intent is not to kill civilians. Civilian casualties always occur during any war, and the United States (being the exceptional country it is) works to prevent as many civilian casualties as possible. And yes, you're right that we probably do create some revenge seeking fanatics through our military operations. But the alternative, to simply leave and do nothing, would generate far more terrorists.

Islam has been a militant religion since it came into existence. The origin of its militant extremism is by in large unknown. However, what is known for sure is that we, the United States, didn't create the problem. This is a liberal lie.

What is unknown?

Islamic extremism and terrorism.

I assume you're implying you're pro-life. I do love how the majority of those who are pro-life only care about protecting unborn fetuses rather than protecting innocent farmers who live in fear of being killed by a drone.

The United States does not seek out innocent farmers to strike down. Please stop spewing this nonsense.

Try protecting the lives of those who are already alive.

That is what America is trying to do through it's intervention in the Middle East.

But I'm glad to hear you support "maximum liberty". Then you must support the right to privacy as well? Oh, right, you don't. You must support the right to live without the fear of being bombed because you happen to live in a Sharia-ruled country? Oh, no, not that one either.

Yes, I support privacy rights. But like I said, as someone who is a universal supporter of maximum liberty it's only natural for me to want to change the structure of the Middle East (the most unfree region in the world).

I still don't buy your claim that you're a libertarian. If you were, you'd oppose extremely powerful government that violates Constitutional rights and interferes with matters in other countries. Every view you've expressed is in conflict with the views held by true libertarians such as Ron and Rand Paul.

You clearly don't know anything about libertarianism. War and national security are constitutional functions of the government. Therefore there is nothing wrong when the government engages in either of the two. Libertarians do not object to wars based on the principle of liberty, libertarians object to war based on the principle of non intervention. Those are two separate principles. My support for the Iraq war and my support for an aggressive, proactive government (when it comes to national security) does not contradict libertarianism (aka: liberty) it only contradicts noninterventionism which is not a libertarian principle.

[Goat]

In the mean time, even more intrusive and personal information is leaking to international corporation, including personal finance stuff, and people don't give a good gahoot.

Are you also accounting for private information that corporations are forced to surrender to the federal government?

Yes, I am. I am pointing out just because the government has it.. doesn't mean the corporations don't.. and they HAVE been known to share it between themselves.

If we are going to have a privacy laws enforced, we have to include restrictions on corporations too.

[JohnPaul]

In the mean time, even more intrusive and personal information is leaking to international corporation, including personal finance stuff, and people don't give a good gahoot.

Are you also accounting for private information that corporations are forced to surrender to the federal government?

Yes, I am. I am pointing out just because the government has it.. doesn't mean the corporations don't.. and they HAVE been known to share it between themselves.

If we are going to have a privacy laws enforced, we have to include restrictions on corporations too.

In other words, you want your "privacy rights" to prevent you from participating in the economy? If I were a "corporation" and you wanted to borrow money from me for a business loan, a mortgage, or even a credit card, I would damsure want some personal information from you about your personal financial history. If yor came to me applying for a job, I would damsure want some personal information about your education, your employment history, your criminal history, etc. You would have a perfect right to withhold that information, of course, and I would have an equal right to tell you to get out of my office.