Edward Snowden: American Hero

#203
#203
I read something on another board that it was found unconstitutional to keep a history of library check-outs. Is that true? Google is not coming through for me.
 
#206
#206
Weezy said:
I read something on another board that it was found unconstitutional to keep a history of library check-outs. Is that true? Google is not coming through for me.
Click to expand...

We've been looking for you. Stay put. A team is on the way.
 
#212
#212
notabed22 said:
So sorry; I forgot how much you love to ignore information from those with whom you do not agree.
Click to expand...

I would not make a good federal government then.

They seem to want devour as much information as possible from people with whom they disagree.
 
#213
#213
therealUT said:
Why does this matter? You think that a government capable of being monstrous in the light will be angelic in the dark? That is delusional.
Click to expand...

It is not delusional; thinking that the government will be monstrous with their classified programs just because you view them as engaging in occasionally monstrous behavior in the open is, however, absolutely cynical.

Do you support the leaks and the exposing of every classified government program just because there's the chance that they're "monstrous?" Seeking complete transparency would be simply ridiculous.

Being in support of this leak just because you're opposed to the program in question is silly. If everyone with access to classified information leaked the information that they felt was an affront to the American people, we'd be in a real pickle.

Obsessed said:
Bump


Notabed.
Click to expand...

You make a better cheerleader than you do participant.
 
#214
#214
notabed22 said:
It is not delusional; thinking that the government will be monstrous with their classified programs just because you view them as engaging in occasionally monstrous behavior in the open is, however, absolutely cynical.

Do you support the leaks and the exposing of every classified government program just because there's the chance that they're "monstrous?" Seeking complete transparency would be simply ridiculous.

Being in support of this leak just because you're opposed to the program in question is silly. If everyone with access to classified information leaked the information that they felt was an affront to the American people, we'd be in a real pickle.



You make a better cheerleader than you do participant.
Click to expand...

Let me borrow your dress.




TRUT is a good dude. He has schooled me a time or two. I'm not his cheerleader. I'm a admirer. He has forgotten more than you or ill will ever know.

Choo choo

Better run back to bed before he comes back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#215
#215
notabed22 said:
It is not delusional; thinking that the government will be monstrous with their classified programs just because you view them as engaging in occasionally monstrous behavior in the open is, however, absolutely cynical.
Click to expand...

1. I am cynical of governments of all kinds.

2. I think that the government can be monstrous with their classified programs; I think this government has been monstrous in the open in both the past and the present. I think the only way to keep the government from being monstrous in the dark is to continually shine light upon what they are doing in the dark.

notabed22 said:
Do you support the leaks and the exposing of every classified government program just because there's the chance that they're "monstrous?" Seeking complete transparency would be simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I do support exposing all government classified information and programs. Further, I support the abolition of "state secrets". Seeking complete transparency would be simply representative government based upon democratic principles.

notabed22 said:
Being in support of this leak just because you're opposed to the program in question is silly. If everyone with access to classified information leaked the information that they felt was an affront to the American people, we'd be in a real pickle.
Click to expand...

Please describe this "real pickle" we would be in.

The problem is that representative governments cannot truly be representative so long as state secrets exist, and this is for two obvious reasons:

1. The Citizens, i.e. the electorate, does not have access to all relevant information. Hence, the citizenry, by default, can never even hope to be an informed citizenry. Yet, an informed citizenry is, according to the vast majority of all political theory since at least as far back as Aristotle, a necessary condition of representative governments.

2. If someone has privileged access to information and the ability to run programs in the dark, they have the capability to control others, particularly if the classified program and the privileged access concerns the vast majority of all the communications of the entire electorate. While one might argue that controls exist on the storage, collection, and access to this metadata, these controls are, for the most part, internal controls. This was made quite evident this week by the fact that the Senate and the House were blown away by the scope and breadth of the PRISM program. Thus, while there exist internal controls today, those controls could vanish tomorrow. Hell, Hoover controlled more than a small handful of elected officials by using the FBI on a much narrower scale. An especially ambitious and zealous director of the CIA or NSA could easily access this information and control plenty of elected officials in the US: thus controlling policy. Add that amount of control to the drone program and the never-ending war on terror (to include targeting American Citizens in American based on nothing more than suspicion sans due process) and you have the potential for an incredibly brutal dictatorship, whether this dictatorship is run in the light or the dark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#216
#216
therealUT said:
1. I am cynical of governments of all kinds.

2. I think that the government can be monstrous with their classified programs; I think this government has been monstrous in the open in both the past and the present. I think the only way to keep the government from being monstrous in the dark is to continually shine light upon what they are doing in the dark.
Click to expand...

You're completely entitled to your cynicism of governments, and I did not intend to say or imply that there could never exist a circumstance under which the United States government was being "monstrous" with its classified programs. While the only way to make absolutely positive that there was no "monstrous" behavior within the government is to "shine light" upon everything they're doing, this certainly raises issues of its own.

I do support exposing all government classified information and programs. Further, I support the abolition of "state secrets". Seeking complete transparency would be simply representative government based upon democratic principles.
Click to expand...

Like this. You support exposing all classified information and programs as well as the complete abolition of "state secrets." And you know what? That would definitely lead to a more informed electorate, or at the very least an electorate with access to any and all information regarding our government. But...

Please describe this "real pickle" we would be in.

The problem is that representative governments cannot truly be representative so long as state secrets exist, and this is for two obvious reasons:

1. The Citizens, i.e. the electorate, does not have access to all relevant information. Hence, the citizenry, by default, can never even hope to be an informed citizenry. Yet, an informed citizenry is, according to the vast majority of all political theory since at least as far back as Aristotle, a necessary condition of representative governments.

2. If someone has privileged access to information and the ability to run programs in the dark, they have the capability to control others, particularly if the classified program and the privileged access concerns the vast majority of all the communications of the entire electorate. While one might argue that controls exist on the storage, collection, and access to this metadata, these controls are, for the most part, internal controls. This was made quite evident this week by the fact that the Senate and the House were blown away by the scope and breadth of the PRISM program. Thus, while there exist internal controls today, those controls could vanish tomorrow. Hell, Hoover controlled more than a small handful of elected officials by using the FBI on a much narrower scale. An especially ambitious and zealous director of the CIA or NSA could easily access this information and control plenty of elected officials in the US: thus controlling policy. Add that amount of control to the drone program and the never-ending war on terror (to include targeting American Citizens in American based on nothing more than suspicion sans due process) and you have the potential for an incredibly brutal dictatorship, whether this dictatorship is run in the light or the dark.
Click to expand...

Complete transparency poses an absolutely enormous threat to national security. Actually, no, it wouldn't threaten or jeopardize national security... it would destroy national security. Can you imagine if everyone in the world knew about the Manhattan Project as opposed to about 10 people understanding its full scope? If we just let everyone in America know about our black projects? The electorate has a "right to know," sure, but hardly a right to know everything the government is doing. I'm certainly willing to live in a country that isn't "truly" a representative democracy and understand that I won't be privy to absolutely everything the government is doing in exchange for superior national security.

I understand if you aren't comfortable with this, but you have to recognize that the desire for a completely transparent government is just as extreme as if someone felt that national security was so important that freedom of speech and information shouldn't exist whatsoever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#217
#217
notabed22 said:
Here are my first two posts in the topic:





I am against calling him a hero for leaking classified information regarding a completely legal government program.

Coming up with "immoral" or "bad" examples of legal exercises/programs in America's past that weren't classified is irrelevant, just as coming up with a hypothetical classified program that would be illegal based on our current laws is also irrelevant.

In this particular situation, this man leaked classified information pertaining to a completely legal government program. This, again, does not make him a hero.
Click to expand...

So immoral programs are okay as long as theyre classified? Hell, slave owners should have kept it hush hush.
 
#218
#218
notabed22 said:
You're completely entitled to your cynicism of governments, and I did not intend to say or imply that there could never exist a circumstance under which the United States government was being "monstrous" with its classified programs. While the only way to make absolutely positive that there was no "monstrous" behavior within the government is to "shine light" upon everything they're doing, this certainly raises issues of its own.



Like this. You support exposing all classified information and programs as well as the complete abolition of "state secrets." And you know what? That would definitely lead to a more informed electorate, or at the very least an electorate with access to any and all information regarding our government. But...



Complete transparency poses an absolutely enormous threat to national security. Actually, no, it wouldn't threaten or jeopardize national security... it would destroy national security. Can you imagine if everyone in the world knew about the Manhattan Project as opposed to about 10 people understanding its full scope? If we just let everyone in America know about our black projects? The electorate has a "right to know," sure, but hardly a right to know everything the government is doing. I'm certainly willing to live in a country that isn't "truly" a representative democracy and understand that I won't be privy to absolutely everything the government is doing in exchange for superior national security.

I understand if you aren't comfortable with this, but you have to recognize that the desire for a completely transparent government is just as extreme as if someone felt that national security was so important that freedom of speech and information shouldn't exist whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Of course it is extreme. Here is the thing, though: I'd support declassification even at the risk of seven billion lives.

Here's the critical point. Once you start speaking to threats and security, you are speaking in terms of value. And, value theory is quantitative. One can say life is more valuable in two possible ways: there is nothing more valuable than life; or, life is more valuable than liberty but less valuable than something else. Prima facie, both of these assertions look like they may be used to justify slavery, but, upon deeper reflection, only the latter justifies slavery. If I say that life is less valuable than happiness or the common good (or whatever other good you want to substitute) and that life is more valuable than liberty, then I have committed myself (logically) to saying there are some things worth slavery (and, maybe even extermination of lives). This is where you find yourself in this debate.

On the other hand, if I say there is nothing more valuable than life, then I am saying that life is infinitely valuable. This might look as though it can be used to support slavery, but certainly not slavery merely due to the risk of losing life. This is due to the fact that if life is infinitely valuable, then all threats to life are infinitely risky, and, further, there is no possible way to reduce these risks. Thus, security becomes a means not for life but for other goods.

What are these other goods? If I say personal happiness, it's difficult to see how I could be happy without liberty and autonomy. If it is difficult to see how I could be happy without liberty and autonomy, then it is either difficult for me to see how others could be or I must admit that other individuals have desires distinctly different from me. If that is the case, then governments that try to tell individuals how to be happy will always err when providing a general solution, since the desires are particular and distinct. Thus, for happiness and/or the common good (which no longer includes mere physical security)the government must protect and defend choice: i.e., liberty and autonomy, neither of which is protected by keeping information away from individuals, and neither of which can be protected by a non-representative government (unless you believe in benevolent dictatorships).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#219
#219
therealUT said:
Of course it is extreme. Here is the thing, though: I'd support declassification even at the risk of seven billion lives.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's that extreme at all. It's highly unlikely that complete transparency in government would lead to catastrophic loss of life. That's just a complete scare tactic.
 
#221
#221
Obsessed said:
Exactly. He LEAKED THE PROCESS.

Not classified info. In other words HE CONFIMED WHAT WE ALREADY SUSPECTED.

are you really that dense?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I have to side with Not on this one. The actual court order, marked TOP SECRET/NOFORN/ORCON was on the UK paper's website. He gave them an actual copy of a classified document that he shouldn't have been able to take out of the building, much less out of the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#222
#222
Vol Main said:
Snowden is a high school drop out, who was discharged from the Army because of an injury. He somehow managed to work his way up in that industry to make a six figure income at age 29. That is not one hundred thousand dollars a year; he made two hundred thousand dollars a year and lived in Hawaii. He was living a dream life and gave it up... to be unemployed, living in exile as a man without a country, facing very serious charges by the government of the most powerful country in the world and the extreme displeasure of a former employer with extraordinary resources. He is not a Marxist, Nazi, Muslim or any other form of political extremist. Why did he do that?
Click to expand...
Its called old fashioned NERD.
 
#224
#224
The compromise between complete transparency and complete classification is already in place. Our elected representatives on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence are responsible for shining the light that TrUT calls for and representing the electorate in examining classified programs and assessing their value.

Additionally, the Congress, in their wisdom, wrote legislation that rightfully gave part of the responsibility in the execution of these programs into the hands of the Judicial Branch in the form of the FISA Court.

This system is the best compromise anyone could devise. Congress looks at the programs before funding and/or legislating the proper authorities and the Courts look at the situations before allowing them to proceed. These are right and proper checks on the power of the Executive Branch that are in place and active today.

So what is the problem? The problem is the people in the process who are not doing their part. They are shirking their responsibilities and have either been co-opted or are negligent and the Executive Branch is taking advantage of the situation.

This won't change until the following happens:
Someone gets impeached.
Someone gets recalled.
New people decide to run for office.

It is not enough for us to vote for the right people as the right people aren't running. We continue to be faced with the choice among people that we don't respect and don't really want to be in office. So we chose the lesser of two evils and then go home and take a shower.

We need to find the right people and convince them to run. If that is you, stop whining and get involved.
 
#225
#225
YorkVol said:
The compromise between complete transparency and complete classification is already in place. Our elected representatives on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence are responsible for shining the light that TrUT calls for and representing the electorate in examining classified programs and assessing their value.

Additionally, the Congress, in their wisdom, wrote legislation that rightfully gave part of the responsibility in the execution of these programs into the hands of the Judicial Branch in the form of the FISA Court.

This system is the best compromise anyone could devise. Congress looks at the programs before funding and/or legislating the proper authorities and the Courts look at the situations before allowing them to proceed. These are right and proper checks on the power of the Executive Branch that are in place and active today.

So what is the problem? The problem is the people in the process who are not doing their part. They are shirking their responsibilities and have either been co-opted or are negligent and the Executive Branch is taking advantage of the situation.

This won't change until the following happens:
Someone gets impeached.
Someone gets recalled.
New people decide to run for office.

It is not enough for us to vote for the right people as the right people aren't running. We continue to be faced with the choice among people that we don't respect and don't really want to be in office. So we chose the lesser of two evils and then go home and take a shower.

We need to find the right people and convince them to run. If that is you, stop whining and get involved.
Click to expand...

Your are right. However, when somebody that appears to be even remotely good does get elected, they get bashed by both parties. The sheep bye into it, and say they are just spewing rhetoric. I've seen it happen a lot on this forum alone.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement













Back
Top