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

[awepittance]

goDel, on 10 Jun 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

 

\Call it mass hysteria, if you will.

you can call it that if you want, but as I've pointed out and so has history, Paul Wolfowitz, Cheney and others had these plans in the works before 9/11 before any 'mass hysteria' set in. The people in charge took advantage of mass hysteria to push legislation through that they had already wanted to for years. The Patrot Act was already constructed by Viet Dinh previous to 9/11. I'm confused why your goal in this thread seems to be to deflect this obvious fact and make people shy away from government bashing. I will continue to do so for the duration of the thread

The part i do have a problem with that your asserting is that cheney and those who constructed our surveillance policy now were also 'taken' by the mass hysteria themselves, which I would very strongly disagree with. They were probably the coolest, most calm and collected people i've ever seen on 9/12, 9/13 and 9/14. Eerily calm in fact. Just pull up a Wolfowitz interview from 9/14 to see what i'm talking about. The guy seems blatantly sociopathic.

 

i'm not sure either why Godel seems to have a problem with distinguishing between wide spread government policy change VS something exclusive to the NSA. After 9/11 any federal law agency was allowed to use the civil liberties violating tools given to them in the patriot act. it wasn't exclusive to NSA or FBI, it was across the board. At this point maybe if people clarified that this a widespread systematic abuse in US government federal law enforcement it wouldn't rub you the wrong way as much as people just saying 'the government'?

 

either way it seems like an unecessary semantic differentiation at this point. Most critically thinking people know that when you criticize 'government wire tapping' you aren't talking about the postal service or low level paper pushers.

[awepittance]

Yes. I get the feeling he doesn't get the entire picture but is being "helped" by lawyer Greenwald. I don't think it's intentional. It's not in Greenwalds or the whistle blowers interest, as far as I can tell. It just feels there are still some holes in the story which get filled with assumptions and logic which are constructed by the both of them, without any real evidence.

 

IMO, the obvious mistake is for us to assume the whistle blower knows the entire story. Which he doesn't (who ever does? is that even possible?). That obviously doesn't mean he doesn't know about lots of the bad things happening there. But throwing accusations around like this is not right, imo.

 

They should stick to the facts. Making accusations is not their job.

 

I think Greenwald is pretty well versed in the history of NSA wiretapping and privacy violating surveillance, i would argue far more than you are. He's not filling in the 'holes' with assumptions, he's doing it with knowledge that he's collected for over 5 years about this subject.

there is plenty of real evidence out there, but it doesn't exist only surrounding this new story. It's been leaked out in drips for the past decade in various forms, all you have to do is look for it. You can't expect (or maybe you arent?) one story about a whistleblower to give you every single detail to provide context. If that's what you want then maybe you should go back and read previous NSA wiretapping leaks and revelations, so that you can educated yourself and Greenwald doesn't have to do all the work for you.

[awepittance]

and for more context, remember the US agency created right after 9/11

well people were so outraged by it that they claimed it was no longer necessary, it turns out though that every function it was supposed to originally perform has now been given over to the NSA.



with this new NSA whistleblower, it's becoming increasingly clear just the lengths they've gone to collect data on everybody, not just 'suspected terrorists'

[goDel]

 

Yes. I get the feeling he doesn't get the entire picture but is being "helped" by lawyer Greenwald. I don't think it's intentional. It's not in Greenwalds or the whistle blowers interest, as far as I can tell. It just feels there are still some holes in the story which get filled with assumptions and logic which are constructed by the both of them, without any real evidence.

 

IMO, the obvious mistake is for us to assume the whistle blower knows the entire story. Which he doesn't (who ever does? is that even possible?). That obviously doesn't mean he doesn't know about lots of the bad things happening there. But throwing accusations around like this is not right, imo.

 

They should stick to the facts. Making accusations is not their job.

 

I think Greenwald is pretty well versed in the history of NSA wiretapping and privacy violating surveillance, i would argue far more than you are. He's not filling in the 'holes' with assumptions, he's doing it with knowledge that he's collected for over 5 years about this subject.

I'm not trying to piss further than Greenwald. It's just that the way the story is currently being brought, shakes a bit, as I've mentioned ( and timothy). And my criticism does not come from a place of knowing more, but from a place of demanding for a better explanation, before being completely convinced by the story. Regardless of Greenwalds knowledge on this subject. He's also a lawyer, right? I don't see why he wouldn't present his case better than he did, other than filling some holes with assumptions. Imo.

 

Still, I believe it's their job to present us with facts and not with accusations. I don't understand what's your problem with this basic point. You rather have accusations than facts? Or do you think these facts don't speak for themselves and people need to be 'educated' in forming 'their own' opinion? Accusations without facts... I'd say we're back at dealing with FUD again. Happy to see you embracing those techniques openly.

 

Imo, the hysteria point is pretty obvious. Whether or not those laws and regulations had been developed before 911 doesnt matter, imo. What matters, is the way the democratic process functioned at the time it was decided to implement them. If it wasnt for 911, i'd argue these hadnt been implemented. In the context of that hysteria, i can see why these laws had been signed into practice. And as such it is perfectly understandable how things could have gone out of hand the way they are/seem. If i blame the government of one thing, it's that they have been continuing taking decisions on safety issues exactly the same way as in the direct aftermath of 911. I can understand the 911 mode of governing right after 911. But >5 years later, not so much. It's back to restoring the democratic process.

 

That's simply an issue of policy, imo. The widespread abuse, you refer to, is something different, imo. And it's at this point where the distinction between agencies and government is important. Not only because these socalled agencies outsourced most of these stuff to private companies. Here, greenwald and his whistle blower need to be extremely precise on the accusations part. Or as mentioned,I'd rather have them sticking to the facts: who did what and who was responsible for what specifically? Don't forget the whistleblower worked at such a private company, and not at some government agency. I dont understand why you say i have a problem making these distinctions, where these broad general accusations of abuse completely bypass any of such distinctions.

 

Apparently. I dont understand....

[goDel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/us/booz-allen-grew-rich-on-government-contracts.html?_r=0

 

WASHINGTON — Edward J. Snowden’s employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, has become one of the largest and most profitable corporations in the United States almost exclusively by serving a single client: the government of the United States.

 

Over the last decade, much of the company’s growth has come from selling expertise, technology and manpower to the National Security Agency and other federal intelligence agencies. Booz Allen earned $1.3 billion, 23 percent of the company’s total revenue, from intelligence work during its most recent fiscal year.

 

[awepittance]

 

That's simply an issue of policy, imo. The widespread abuse, you refer to, is something different, imo.

Well this brings up an important issue, that at this point it's extremely hard to differentiate was is an actual abuse of existing laws or what the new post 9/11 laws allow. Whether surveilling innocent people on a mass scale is 'abuse' or not seems to be at the crux of the argument. IF it's been 'abused' for so long and nobody has been reprimanded or arrested for these abuses, at one point does it become 'policy'.

 

I see a similar phenomenon with 'harsh interrogation techniques'. That the government wanted to paint the Abu Ghraib scandal as a 'bad apple' scenario but with enough digging you will find that it was actual policy, however they never openly admitted to this fact and instead threw low level people under the bus to act as if these people 'abused' policy rather than carrying out orders.

 

you do bring up a very interesting dilema, that also points to how far we've come when it's almost impossible to know the difference between widespread post 9/11 legalized new policy and abuse of the law.

 

 

I understand why you would want Greenwald to be make a stronger case, but I think he probably feels that he's written so extensively on this topic for over 5 years, and he has hundreds of articles with ample sourcing on the subject, that interviewing a *new* NSA whistleblower is merely adding to a case he's been building on during that time. I think since this story has gained so much traction (front page of Drudge, etc) it would be nice for it to be more bullet proof and laid out for people unfamiliar with his body of work. Since I have been an avid reader of his stuff, the story has already been laid out to me on numerous occasions with far more sourcing and documentation than appears in this interview article.

There aren't very many 'holes' being 'filled in' that I see personally. Whatever appears to be that, is him referencing his previous research in this area.

[lumpenprol]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/us/booz-allen-grew-rich-on-government-contracts.html?_r=0

 

WASHINGTON — Edward J. Snowden’s employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, has become one of the largest and most profitable corporations in the United States almost exclusively by serving a single client: the government of the United States.

 

Over the last decade, much of the company’s growth has come from selling expertise, technology and manpower to the National Security Agency and other federal intelligence agencies. Booz Allen earned $1.3 billion, 23 percent of the company’s total revenue, from intelligence work during its most recent fiscal year.

 

I fucking hate this part. I have always reluctantly understood the need for black budgets and secret govt. organizations (provided those on the right committees in congress have some sort of oversight), but I can't fathom or excuse farming out intelligence operations to a 3rd party. It just blows my mind. What, the govt is too incompetent to do it themselves? Or their "lining the pockets of our cronies" is just so blatant? I mean really wtf? Talk about entirely undemocratic! Why not farm out election oversight to Google, they are pretty damn good at crunching numbers. Farm out drone operations to Lockheed. Farm out troop deployment to McDonalds, Starbucks, and KFC (they've got the global distribution thing down pat!). Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck

[kcinsu]

[youtubehd]7BmdovYztH8[/youtubehd]

 

What a dick.

[awepittance]

I'm offended, do you mind if we only refer to our government and president in a respectful way in this thread? thank you

Farm out troop deployment to McDonalds, Starbucks, and KFC (they've got the global distribution thing down pat!). Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck

 

I am sitting here at my desk with a copy of a book called Spooks written in 1978 that details how McDonalds actually has worked with the CIA before, and this was back in the 1970s. PRetty wild, i can't even explain it because it's just so over the top and hard to believe

AIG has also been known to have intelligence branches all over the world among their hundreds of subsidiaries. This might go a long way to explain how they got bailed out so hardcore during the financial crisis, the government doesn't just depend on their money but also their intelligence operations.

the private sector and government intelligence gathering have been joined together at the hip for a lot longer than the post 9/11 years. It's only recently that many people are uncovering the absurdity of what this means .

My friend's dad worked for the CIA for over 2 decades, and then 'exited' the agency to go work for Sun Microsystems. And i asked him what he did for Sun and he said 'intelligence work contracted by the government' and i was like 'so you basically never left the CIA' and he just gave me this knowing smile

[goDel]

 

That's simply an issue of policy, imo. The widespread abuse, you refer to, is something different, imo.

 

Well this brings up an important issue, that at this point it's extremely hard to differentiate was is an actual abuse of existing laws or what the new post 9/11 laws allow. Whether surveilling innocent people on a mass scale is 'abuse' or not seems to be at the crux of the argument. IF it's been 'abused' for so long and nobody has been reprimanded or arrested for these abuses, at one point does it become 'policy'.

Thaaaanks. Finally. It's also about control. Does the government still control when third parties execute? To what extent? Etc

 

I see a similar phenomenon with 'harsh interrogation techniques'. That the government wanted to paint the Abu Ghraib scandal as a 'bad apple' scenario but with enough digging you will find that it was actual policy, however they never openly admitted to this fact and instead threw low level people under the bus to act as if these people 'abused' policy rather than carrying out orders.

you do bring up a very interesting dilema, that also points to how far we've come when it's almost impossible to know the difference between widespread post 9/11 legalized new policy and abuse of the law.

 

Similar because? This was already dealt with in the past and is actually one of the issues this government have openly dealt with. And, as far as I can tell, changed back to pre911 policies.

Is this a FUD for government in general again? What's the role of third parties executing policies in this 'similar' phenomenon? And the possible lack of control from the government?

 

I understand why you would want Greenwald to be make a stronger case, but I think he probably feels that he's written so extensively on this topic for over 5 years, and he has hundreds of articles with ample sourcing on the subject, that interviewing a *new* NSA whistleblower is merely adding to a case he's been building on during that time. I think since this story has gained so much traction (front page of Drudge, etc) it would be nice for it to be more bullet proof and laid out for people unfamiliar with his body of work. Since I have been an avid reader of his stuff, the story has already been laid out to me on numerous occasions with far more sourcing and documentation than appears in this interview article.

There aren't very many 'holes' being 'filled in' that I see personally. Whatever appears to be that, is him referencing his previous research in this area.

 

Nonsense. You try to reason from his point of view and why he may think it is not necessary. Which is irrelevant, imo. At this point he is a judge making a case, and the entirety of the us is the jury. That jury hasnt read, nor is it going to read, nor should it be forced to read about any previous pieces written by greenwald at whatever point in history. It should look at the case which is presented to them now, which is the interview (!). And this case seems to have some holes, as I and timothy have been discussing. And ironically, even though you still say you don't see these holes, you've basically admitted about the central hole - the difficulty of tracing where the responsibilities lie over the abuses (assuming at this point they are abuses with respect to existing law, which might be another hole).

 

So what is it? Do you see the hole, or don't you? And do you acknowledge this hole to be a central part of the argument, or is it just some side note, from your point of view?

 

Imo, that's a big hole, which is at the heart of the argument. And again, greenwald should stick to facts and refrain from accusations. Accusations are merely FUD ( how many times do I need to repeat this?) which doesn't serve his case and could be an indication of more plotholes. It's bad marketing, imo.

 

 

@ kcinsu

: around .40 current Obama talking in past tense!! Does that imply he and his team have changed their assessment?

 

Also, you cant blame Obama for taking responsibility for the current situation the way he is doing. (He is not blaming bush, right?) 2007 obama, was pre-president obama. Dont confuse the different roles behind both obamas. His role at this point is to simply defend government. And yes, it's pretty painful to see him using the exact same false choice, which he himself refuted in 2007. That also implies a plothole in his story. Somehow this false choice became a choice out of necessity. But has he explained this change? Was he simply wrong about it in 2007? Has the world changed? Something else?

[awepittance]

before I respond to your attempt, what the fuck is FUD? How many times do you need to repeat it? Please not again, I wish you'd stop because I have no idea what it means.

[goDel]

I posted a link and quote from wiki in an earlier response to a post of yours.

 

Well, at least you have read every greenwald piece ever written. Apparently that's more important to this discussion than the discussion itself?

 

I kid...

 

See#102/103

[SR4]

I posted a link and quote from wiki in an earlier response to a post of yours.

 

Well, at least you have read every greenwald piece ever written. Apparently that's more important to this discussion than the discussion itself?

 

I kid...

 

See#102/103

 

 

this guy is a beast!!!

 

GoDel what quandry haven't you cracked open with the techno-gallop?

[goDel]

My goal in life is to get every american to sing "FUD FUD FUD" to the music of the LOG-song from Ren& Stimpy!

 

 

Also notice how long it takes to get a response out of je. It must be a complex case....

;D

[SR4]

My goal in life is to get every american to sing "FUD FUD FUD" to the music of the LOG-song from Ren& Stimpy!

 

 

Also notice how long it takes to get a response out of je. It must be a complex case....

;D

 

 

about as long as it takes for you to hammer in semantic legalese past the inner core of pointlessness and out the otherside of the two moons

[goDel]

Here's the deal. If you all substitute LOG for FUD and sing along, I'd be mighty happy!

http://youtu.be/8L6Dpq5kY_A

[awepittance]

I guess I don't really see a point in arguing with you about my point of view being based on a psychological condition. It would be the same as me trying to imply that your beliefs in accepting the state of government surveillance are based on stockholm syndrome from being abused by your government.
edit: honestly not sure how you were using 'FUD' if you meant in regards to Greenwald's techniques in presenting his information or the belief systems of people who are automatically opposed to privacy invasion out of a fear of the unknown. Either way I'm just not really understanding your fixation on taking down Greenwald's singular article VS trying to take down the concept of this being a harmful evolution in intelligence gathering. Many people besides him have written about it for years, it's not hard to find. If you wanted to narrow the discussion to your own liking, by honing in on Greenwald's arguments, and not the over-arching concept being discussed I'm not going to follow you down that path, it seems pointless to me. It seems like you would feel as if you 'won' by just poking holes in one whistle blower video interview, when it is merely one small piece in a scandal that's been heavily documented in many forms by mainstream as well as fringe journalism, the ACLU, and the EFF. Greenwald went from being a nobody blogger to becoming an instant celebrity over night from his vocal stand agains the NSA telecom immunity bill. His missteps are so minuscule in comparison to the excellent body of work that he stands for that to me I've never seen anyone actually make a dent in his overall thesis, just make dents in some of his language and his emotional way of writing.

We obviously have very different points of view, and I'm not going to waste my time or energy trying to solidify Glenn Greenwald's case. I can accept the fact that you don't find it convincing. You spend a huge amount of energy trying to justify Gitmo staying open in one of our first political arguments on the forum, the way I see it you are very good at justifying almost anything. I'll give you that.

[goDel]

...

 

O dear.

 

Yes there is no point in debating whether or not greenwald presents his case well enough.

 

Nice of you to try get away with it using an ad hominem dig at stockholm syndrom. No, it's pathetic. Jerk.

[goDel]

Also nice to bring up the gitmo case. I was merely presenting a summary of a text written by some expert on international law for various reasons. Most importantly to try to explain why gitmo is such a disaster and who is to blame for what and why. That account simply made more sense to me. It was also a bit dissatisfying you never made an actual response, btw. ( after jokingly asking for it anyways?)

 

So at this point we're past content and in the ad hominem territory?

 

I guess we're finished having this discussion.

 

Reference:

http://forum.watmm.com/topic/75947-2012-presidential-debates/page-22?do=findComment&comment=1899621

[SR4]

.

[awepittance]

i take solace in the fact that Greenwald just made world-wide headlines for the first time in his career *clinks champagne glasses* huge props to him for breaking a story this big. And yeah I can be a jerk, yolo

[goDel]

Quite a feat for someone whos arguments rely so heavy on morals and ethics.

 

YOLOLOLOLO

[ghOsty]

Snowden has officially gone missing in Hong Kong...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22850901

 

I hope this is by his own doing and not an agency "making him disappear"

[awepittance]

y'all are fudding, he's in no danger

[goDel]

Automatically blaming government for snowdens leave without any evidence would be fud.

 

I dare you.