Obama Admin. admits to surveillance methods: Beating a Dead Horse Pt. 74

[VIII]

LOVEINT

[VIII]

In the summer of 2012, NSA experts succeeded in getting into the U.N. video conferencing system and cracking its coding system, according one of the documents cited by Der Spiegel.

"The data traffic gives us internal video teleconferences of the United Nations," Der Spiegel quoted one document as saying, adding that within three weeks the number of decoded communications rose to 458 from 12.

[goDel]

Yeah,it's all Obama's fault. If he's gone everything will be different.

[SR4]

Yes. With a Republican in power I think we can finally steer this ship right.

[MisterE]

i never said either of those two things. asses.

[SR4]

no one said you did.

 

edit: also, that Time article you posted is pretty fucking damning. But one article isn't "enough" evidence to show that a mass surveillance system can be horribly corrupted*.

 

 

 

 

*historical precedent not included

[MisterE]

it may or may not be his 'fault' that the programs seem to have been drastically ramped up during his time in office, just like the use of drones has. but that's not the point. the point is he came out and said that there were safeguards and checks in place that would prevent abuses.

 

the point is, he lied. and the question you should ask yourself is, 'why'? i never said a republican would fix things. but i will say that there almost certainly exists plenty of people who would not stand there like a complete fucking asshole and lie to the people who he/she was appointed to represent, about these programs which are clearly being abused, and clearly could be abused by people like HIM who have access to these systems, to dig up dirt on anyone they want.

[MisterE]

no one said you did.

it's totally implied by the fact of your and godel's comments happening right after i make a comment digging up a thread that hasn't been active in over a month

 

why would you and he make those comments unless they were referring to... SOMETHING?

[SR4]

 

no one said you did.

it's totally implied by the fact of your and godel's comments happening right after i make a comment digging up a thread that hasn't been active in over a month

 

why would you and he make those comments unless they were referring to... SOMETHING?

 

 

 

i was responding to goDel quite honestly but feel free to continue the persecution complex.

[goDel]

What

it may or may not be his 'fault' that the programs seem to have been drastically ramped up during his time in office, just like the use of drones has. but that's not the point. the point is he came out and said that there were safeguards and checks in place that would prevent abuses.

 

the point is, he lied. and the question you should ask yourself is, 'why'? i never said a republican would fix things. but i will say that there almost certainly exists plenty of people who would not stand there like a complete fucking asshole and lie to the people who he/she was appointed to represent, about these programs which are clearly being abused, and clearly could be abused by people like HIM who have access to these systems, to dig up dirt on anyone they want.

For everything that is wrong about this program, your point is that Obama lied? About what? There were checks and balances, right? Did he claim the world is perfect?

 

People like HIM who have access to these systems? O? Obama was one of those analysts going after his love interests now as well? Do you think he has direct access to these systems? Really? What kind of nonsense are you on about?

[awepittance]

what a weird response to give to MisterE. I think the whole point of the snowden leak is that we have no idea who has access to it because it is entirely private and secret. If Obama wanted to spy on a political enemy, he has means at his disposal more powerful and potentially damaging than any other previous president in history. It just doesn't make any sense to me that by default Obama is somehow a reasonable man, why because of his rhetoric? If its on that alone, i could understand because he does great speeches. But of all the policies you know of that he's not just continued, but enhanced/exacerbated and enacted himself that are egregious and morally reprehensible. This is not 'fud', this is using common sense to know that the president has free will, he's not a robot. He could tomorrow if he wanted to announce that Geneva conventions and POW international law now applies to Gitmo, whatever that would mean in practice is not important, the point it he has the power to announce and make executive orders.
If you want to talk about checks and balances, why did Obama repeatedly lie on television and to congress itself that he disclosed the full scope of this NSA program to them. He did not, and some of the ones he did disclose it to were so horrified they went to the press, but can't speak any details under penalty of law.
I just honestly can't believe that anyone is defending Obama at this point, he's toast. This Snodwen leak broke the dam, it's over.

edit: i didn't read all the recent posts, but just for the record I don't think this is partisan problem or that a republican or democrat would be better equipped to handle the situation. The office of the presidency is now an extremely undeniably corrupt organization, and the only way it won't be is if a future president rolls back over a decade of law.

if you think what I'm saying is hyperbolic, why is the CEO of the Associated Press talking like Awepittance?

[goDel]

 

what a weird response to give to MisterE. I think the whole point of the snowden leak is that we have no idea who has access to it because it is entirely private and secret.

 

 

sure. mistere's point was that obama is a liar. not about the point of the snowden leak.

 

 

If Obama wanted to spy on a political enemy, he has means at his disposal more powerful and potentially damaging than any other previous president in history.

 

Welcome to Hollywood.

 

Obama makes political decisions and he can say who should be running some agency (congress have to agree...). He is not the head of intelligence in the sense that every decision the intelligence agencies make, are made on Obama's desk. Within the executive branch, the intelligence agencies have a specific mandate to do specific things (set in those laws and all). Political oversight is, as far as I can tell, more a thing for the intelligence committee in congress. Don't hold me account for the specifics, but the main point is: this president blame game is pretty much based on some hollywood vision of how washington works. In only a few instances Obama is involved , signing some orders about drones and what not. Those instances are way on the end side of any process of investigation of those intelligence agencies.

 

So, what has this president done? He asked for some investigation about this program because of concerns he basically shared with snowden. That's what he said, right? And he's, or is going to propose some changes to this program. Has he lied here?

 

 

It just doesn't make any sense to me that by default Obama is somehow a reasonable man, why because of his rhetoric? If its on that alone, i could understand because he does great speeches.

 

His rhetoric is irrelevant. Let me repeat: his rhetoric is irrelevant. The reasonable part behind all this, is that government works with laws, mandates and budgets. Yes, it's that simple. In principle. ...

 

So to a certain extent, anything government does which is within those mandates and laws (which happen to be made with some sort of democratic process) is reasonable.

 

But, hey, that's odd, I can hear you think. How can you say the process is reasonable, while the current program is hardly transparent/reasonable/democratic/whatever the hell we've been talking about?

 

Well, the thing is, those agencies have a mandate which is simply too big. Plus, those laws are more suited for the world before the internet came into existence. Is Obama to blame? Well, in the sense that he's the current president, yes. Has he lied about the mandates? Not as far as I can tell. About those laws? Again, not as far as I can tell. But here, that post Alco made in the conspiracy-thread is crucial: we don't know how the agency/government interpret the laws. But whatever the interpretation, no lie at this point as far as I can tell.

 

 

But of all the policies you know of that he's not just continued, but enhanced/exacerbated and enacted himself that are egregious and morally reprehensible. This is not 'fud', this is using common sense to know that the president has free will, he's not a robot. He could tomorrow if he wanted to announce that Geneva conventions and POW international law now applies to Gitmo, whatever that would mean in practice is not important, the point it he has the power to announce and make executive orders.

 

Haven't used fud in quite a bit. And I don't have the intention either.

 

My point is simply about people blaming Obama for all kinds of shit, without understanding the politics behind what is actually going on. It's just lazy, imo.

 

Obama could do all kinds of shit. And if it was realistic he could announce Gitmo falling under Geneva conventions. I'm sure you know the consequences if he did such a thing. And I'm sure you can tell how realistic it would be, regardless of it being the most moral option. Morality and realism aren't the biggest friends, if you catch my drift.

 

It's fine if you want to associate those morally reprehensible policies to Obama personally. I think it'd be more realistic if you'd be able to separate the two. Being president of the US doesn't mean you can do/say all the things you want to. He's no despot.

 

 

If you want to talk about checks and balances, why did Obama repeatedly lie on television and to congress itself that he disclosed the full scope of this NSA program to them. He did not, and some of the ones he did disclose it to were so horrified they went to the press, but can't speak any details under penalty of law.
I just honestly can't believe that anyone is defending Obama at this point, he's toast. This Snodwen leak broke the dam, it's over.

 

It's all legal gibberish, imo. Nor is Obama in the position to know every detail. He can only tell what he knows. And what he knows, is mostly about those mandates, laws and budgets I talked about earlier. And probably some executive reports about what the hell is going on inside those agencies. I don't know how familiar you are with "executive reports" but let me try to translate: grab a helicopter and tell me what you see on the ground. What you can tell me is the executive report. I'm sure you understand there's not much room for details.

 

edit: i didn't read all the recent posts, but just for the record I don't think this is partisan problem or that a republican or democrat would be better equipped to handle the situation. The office of the presidency is now an extremely undeniably corrupt organization, and the only way it won't be is if a future president rolls back over a decade of law.

 

SR4 might think a republican president might do things differently. My take on this is, that if a republican president would do things differently, the biggest difference would have been that we wouldn't be having this discussion simply because we wouldn't know. I'm sure we can all agree that some GOP hawk as president has no problems to pull everything back under the curtain. Don't forget there's at this point probably already way more outside the curtains, than some GOP nutbag would have allowed. GOP and transparency is imo what fire is to water. Again, imo.

 

A GOP nutbag wouldn't have handled the Snowden thing as softly as the current administration has, imo.

 

Also, extremely undeniably corrupt organization? How come? If you go from the view that the president is some despot having control over every bit of info/action within the executive branch, perhaps. Things go wrong, and apparently Obama knows everything but doesn't tell us.

 

As you could have read, I've got a quite different view of how things function within an executive branch.

 

The funny thing is that I can sort of agree with some GOP talking points at this points. The executive branch is imperfect, and therefore you should be careful with what you want this branch to do.

 

Continuing this logic I'm sure we can all agree that the mandate the intelligence branch had got was not realistic. It was not realistic because the laws are problematic (don't fit...). Although the laws might be constitutional (I'd argue they aren't), thing is, the practice is far beyond what should be considered constitutional. And it wasn't realistic because it puts pressure on the democratic process.

 

My defense of Obama, or any other president, would be that no president would ever say the executive branch act unconstitutionally. Never. Even in the cases where it is proven. It is not to the president to make a case that it is unconstitutional. What I expect a president should do however, is making sure the political processes are (and remain) democratic, that the laws are up to the standards and that things happen within budget. And if things don't go as planned, that laws, mandates and or budgets get changed accordingly.

 

 

if you think what I'm saying is hyperbolic, why is the CEO of the Associated Press talking like Awepittance?

[SR4]

the whole thing about a Republican president was a complete joke, btw.

[goDel]

yeh yeh

 

 

i got confused about the "responded to godel quite honestly" part. misread. lost in translation. i'm sorry, big master obi 4 kenobi.

[Guest cult fiction]

Don't worry, Glenn Beck has the answer:

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/12/glenn-beck-announces-brand-new-1791-email-service/

[goDel]

So, what are you guys doing the 26th?

[Plarkreluke Banloboh]

It feels as if there really is no such thing as leaders with principles, ethics and integrity anymore. It's sad. I suppose it's true that all power is corrupting.

[goDel]

Cynicism is understandable. But it's just as important to see those spots of light in the darkness.

 

Also, the two top dogs of the NSA will soon leave and different people make it easier to implement different policies.

[delet...]

especially when these leaders are sociopathic simpletons. (is power corrupting (they were already broken people is my point, compromised individuals)).

[SR4]

Cynicism is understandable. But it's just as important to see those spots of light in the darkness.

 

Also, the two top dogs of the NSA will soon leave and different people make it easier to implement different policies.

 

by "implement different policies", do you mean make far worse policies?

[goDel]

nope, better.

 

the people have been leading the nsa from the bush period. it takes more than a new administration to change the entire executive branch.

 

but yeah, i'm completely out of place to try to put some hope into this thread.

[Plarkreluke Banloboh]

Posted Today, 02:30 AMdelet...

 

especially when these leaders are sociopathic simpletons. (is power corrupting (they were already broken people is my point, compromised individuals)).

 

Indeed. It seems as if the single-minded ambition and 'dog-eat-dog' drive required to become a political leader is a personality trait that is a rarely going to accompany the selfless generosity one needs in order to act in the interests of the greater good of all people.

[goDel]

Politicians are just people...how many people do you know acting in the name of the greater good? Don't hold politicians to higher standards than you do for other people. Even though they might be more responsible. It's the voters responsible for voting for them. (Although in the us system, this works slightly different..)

[delet...]

 

Posted Today, 02:30 AMdelet...

 

especially when these leaders are sociopathic simpletons. (is power corrupting (they were already broken people is my point, compromised individuals)).

Indeed. It seems as if the single-minded ambition and 'dog-eat-dog' drive required to become a political leader is a personality trait that is a rarely going to accompany the selfless generosity one needs in order to act in the interests of the greater good of all people.

 

 

pretty much, it's a great flaw in our current system. One that we can argue more effectively in an attempt to rectify it, using all the new science that we have on how brains work.

[Plarkreluke Banloboh]

It's true that not many ordinary people are doing what they do for the common good but their actions usually affect a lot less people. I do think political leaders should be held to higher standards of integrity (I'm not talking about largely irrelevant personal-life scandals like affairs or oval-office BJs) otherwise what is the prestige of the position all about?