Snowden charged with espionage for exposing NSA spying on public

[Liar]

that's the ONLY option, is it?

Dunno, I'm happy to hear testimony of effective alternatives. That's why my post ended with a question mark.

 

[pete]

i'd consider that a 'hollywood' solution.

look at the new and current movies that carry the themes of overcoming insurmountable odds in order to change the system. older movies used to describe it as a game of strategy and tact, using their intellect and wiles to get their voices heard, to enact a change.

now, hollywood shows only the violent approach, the smash & grab, kicking in the door because the 'hero' couldn't take the time to figure out a more elegant solution. i saw 2 movie trailers recently, "elysium" and "snowpiercer", where society is separated into the have's and the have-not's, and apparently the only way to balance things is to launch a violent coup in order to right the wrongs.

maybe it's a reflection of modern american or modern western pop culture that we want everything now, quick, catering to our ADD and twitter attention spans. fixes have to happen right away, by any means necessary.

i'm just talking out of my ass here, but anyway that's sort of how it seems to me

 

[mercury14]

The thing is, sitting down and having a nice chat does sod all most of the time. the way to make the people who decide what's legal change what you think is a bad law or practice allowed by flawed law, is to make a big stink about it in the court of public opinion. When the practice is classified, what are the options except making a big illegal stink about it?

Practice, or rather potential practice is encoded into law so it's not really very secret.

Yeah make a public stink about it. But stinks don't mean that it's okay to turn over classified US security documents to the Chinese.

 

[Liar]

Practice, or rather potential practice is encoded into law so it's not really very secret.

Yeah make a public stink about it. But stinks don't mean that it's okay to turn over classified US security documents to the Chinese.

You seem to have missed the question: You can't make a legal public stink about something that is illegal to talk about. And it's not the law per se. It's a practice allowed by a law. And which of the things allowed by law that the NSA et al actually do IS really very secret.

Well, it was. Until someone spilled the beans.

A lot of hypothetical things are allowed by law. Some merely because no lawmaker thought of covering it.

Also: Glenn Greenwald is Chinese?

 

[BotanyBoy]

*worshipper

i'm not a fan of a police state, but then again i'm not the type to start dropping chunks of masonry out of my ass just because 'homeland' and 'fatherland' sound similar and therefore according to some must be a signal of the end of freedom

No...but their "Legal" spying and even carrying out of military action against it's own people?

Becoming the #1 prison nation in the world by a landslide to protect corporate profit margins.....

Homeland security says "Terrorist, national security" and they get WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT!!! PATRIOT act says you don't get any rights as a suspected terrorist......and you have SUPPORTED ALL OF IT, in this thread.

It's pretty clear you are a fan of the police state...

i disagree with republicans all the time, but if compartmentalizing me helps you sleep better at night then you do what you gotta do

And there is your stupid flag waving proudly......you actually think this is a partisan issue.
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/sheep.jpg

 

[mercury14]

You seem to have missed the question: You can't make a legal public stink about something that is illegal to talk about. And it's not the law per se. It's a practice allowed by a law. And which of the things allowed by law that the NSA et al actually do IS really very secret.

Well, it was. Until someone spilled the beans.

A lot of hypothetical things are allowed by law. Some merely because no lawmaker thought of covering it.

Also: Glenn Greenwald is Chinese?

Everything that's been leaked has so far been legal and reference-able in existing law. I kind of just assumed that if a law was written to let the NSA carry out a particular type of surveillance that they're actually carrying it out.

I guess I don't see why any of Snowden's leaks are a surprise to anyone.

 

[mercury14]

Homeland security says "Terrorist, national security" and they get WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT!!! PATRIOT act says you don't get any rights as a suspected terrorist......and you have SUPPORTED ALL OF IT, in this thread.

Per the 2008 revision to the Patriot Act, this is:

1) only in the case of an immediate/emergency threat against America

2) must go through a FISA court for review within 5 days

3) is reviewed by both houses of Congress

4) the case is examined by the Inspector General who then evaluates whether anyone's 4th amendment rights were violated

 

[Liar]

Everything that's been leaked has so far been legal and reference-able in existing law. I kind of just assumed that if a law was written to let the NSA carry out a particular type of surveillance that they're actually carrying it out.

I guess I don't see why any of Snowden's leaks are a surprise to anyone.

Then what sensitive operation did he compromise? You know, to aid and abet The Enemy and stuff?

 

[pete]

1. No...but their "Legal" spying and

2. even carrying out of military action against it's own people?

3. Becoming the #1 prison nation in the world by a landslide

4. to protect corporate profit margins.....

5. Homeland security says "Terrorist, national security" and they get WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT, NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHTS!!!...

6. and you have SUPPORTED ALL OF IT.

7. It's pretty clear you are a fan of the police state...

8. And there is your stupid flag waving proudly......you actually think this is a partisan issue.

i numbered these so i could address them seriatim:

1. i'm not a spy, i don't work in the intelligence industry (nor do you, from what you've said in the past), so i can't speak knowledgably about this type of thing. but every industry has its own methods and systems, every industry has its trade secrets, a curtain that's drawn closed to the public. legal spying may have been going on since WW1, it may be an open secret that all nations carry out, to greater or lesser degrees. to condemn it blanketly without knowing the in's and out's of the industry is a bit naive.
example: when you get fried chicken at a restaurant, it might have fallen on the floor for a moment in the kitchen prior to hitting your plate. certain healthcare regulations might consider this acceptable, even though it might make you a bit non-plussed. but it's legal, and it happens.

2. which military actions are you talking about?

3. we're a nation of laws. when laws are broken, people land in jail. other countries have fewer people in jail because their laws are either fewer, or more lenient, or non-existent. basically, it's not an apt comparison.

4. you're making an illogical leap here. putting convicted offenders in jail has no direct connection to profits, corporate or otherwise. do you have any documentation on this?

5. i understand the thought process behind their use of national security as a legal catch-all, but it's a dangerous precedent they've set and i think it needs to be reviewed, and probably re-worked

6. actually i haven't supported all of it. there was no need for bush to create the DHS when we already have a DoD in place. a waste of money and the genesis of a huge clusterfuck, imo.

7. it's not clear, really. because i don't support that.

8. my republican comment was a direct reply to the previous poster calling me a RW asshat, or something.

 

[pete]

Then what sensitive operation did he compromise? You know, to aid and abet The Enemy and stuff?

it's not about the content of his leaks. it's the fact that he did it.

when you steal a box of pencils from your employer, it might only cost him $1.50 but the point is you stole it and therefore incur the consequences.

 

[mercury14]

Then what sensitive operation did he compromise? You know, to aid and abet The Enemy and stuff?

He leaked that the NSA was using telecom phone matrixes to gather evidence on and discover new overseas terror suspects... when their call phone calls hopped through a US server. And in real time. And they get real time call data on all the people that the suspects are calling which has apparently been able to discover entire terrorist cells.

This specific use of electronic telecom data was classified and Snowden knew it. He chose to go to China and leak it anyway, willfully committing a high level felony.

 

[KRCummings]

Doesn't really matter what the information is, you can't just tell secrets cuz you want to or don't like what they are.
Anyone with any kind of security clearance knows this. He knew it. Fuck him.

 

[BotanyBoy]

to condemn it blanketly without knowing the in's and out's of the industry is a bit naive.
.

To accept it blanketly without knowing the in's and out's is a bit naive.

I'm not saying they should expose the information they gather, but I think they owe us a fully public and transparent information on how they determine who they are going to spy on and why. The whole process is a bit sketchy, getting hidden behind "National Sekurity!!"

2. which military actions are you talking about?

The one where we drone striked a US citizen...

3. we're a nation of laws. when laws are broken, people land in jail. other countries have fewer people in jail because their laws are either fewer, or more lenient, or non-existent. basically, it's not an apt comparison.

BULLSHIT.....
http://cdn3.chartsbin.com/chartimages/l_eqq_2b000b533c011d1af04c0a5ed4e85144

We imprison more people by a fucking LANDSLIDE. The overwhelming majority of which are victimless crimes because we have turned it into a for profit industry.

If making the imprisonment of your people a for profit mltibillion dollar industry isn't some straight up evil corporate police state shit idk what is, it doesn't get any more blatant than providing government sponsored monetary incentives to put people in prison.

We have made such a big industry no other society has EVER imprisoned as many of it's people as the US.....EVER, as in all time biggest prison state.

4. you're making an illogical leap here. putting convicted offenders in jail has no direct connection to profits, corporate or otherwise. do you have any documentation on this?

Bullshit...private prisons get mad funding for each prisoner they hold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), now the nation's largest private prison company, was founded just over 30 years ago in Nashville. Since then, it has become a multi-billion-dollar-a-year business with more than 60 facilities across the country. Meanwhile, the U.S. prison population has grown 500 percent.

A look at the CCA's annual shareholder reports over the past few years shows an aggressive business strategy based on building prison beds, or buying them off the government, and contracting them to government authorities — sometimes with decades-long contacts mandating minimum occupancy rates as high as 90 percent. Profits, after lining the pockets of shareholders, are used to create more beds and to lobby state and federal agencies to deliver inmates to fill them. The resulting facilities can be violent and disgusting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/cca-prison-industry_n_3061115.html

CCA aren't the only ones either, just google it....it's disgusting.

5. i understand the thought process behind their use of national security as a legal catch-all, but it's a dangerous precedent they've set and i think it needs to be reviewed, and probably re-worked

No shit....

6. actually i haven't supported all of it. there was no need for bush to create the DHS when we already have a DoD in place. a waste of money and the genesis of a huge clusterfuck, imo.

Military and law enforcement are two very different things. Legally he couldn't use the DOD...so he made DHS.

And it's not about the money it's about the fact that EVERYONE is a terrorist suspect!! BE AFRAID!!! Surrender your civil liberties for your own good!!!

Yea...I'll buy that pile of shit when I see Pig's fly out of KR's twat.

7. it's not clear, really. because i don't support that.

You have been going to bat in defense of all this shit the entire thread...should I go quote all your pro popo state comments in here??

8. my republican comment was a direct reply to the previous poster calling me a RW asshat, or something.

My mistake...the quote didn't put squibbs bit in so it looked like it was directed at me.

Doesn't really matter what the information is, you can't just tell secrets cuz you want to or don't like what they are.
Anyone with any kind of security clearance knows this. He knew it. Fuck him.

This is true.....if you're going to be a "Whistle Blower" you better be DAMN mother fuckin' 150 billion % sure a all fuck you caught/have evidence of some bad juju happening.

It's like relieving a CO of command....oh you can do it, but if you're not totally sure you're in the right and they are clearly in the wrong, it's going to cost you dearly.

 

[mercury14]

We imprison more people by a fucking LANDSLIDE. The overwhelming majority of which are victimless crimes

Can you back this up?

 

[Liar]

He leaked that the NSA was using telecom phone matrixes to gather evidence on and discover new overseas terror suspects... when their call phone calls hopped through a US server. And in real time. And they get real time call data on all the people that the suspects are calling which has apparently been able to discover entire terrorist cells.

This specific use of electronic telecom data was classified and Snowden knew it. He chose to go to China and leak it anyway, willfully committing a high level felony.

Is this, like you said, reference-able in existing law?

 

[mercury14]

Is this, like you said, reference-able in existing law?

The law provides a process to obtain telecom records. The Snowden leak contained the specific real-world application, the technology the NSA is employing, as well as the capabilities and limitations of that technology. Those things aren't part of the law and are (were) classified.

 

[Liar]

it's not about the content of his leaks. it's the fact that he did it.

when you steal a box of pencils from your employer, it might only cost him $1.50 but the point is you stole it and therefore incur the consequences.

I agree. I'm not disputing that he did a crime, and should pay for it. That's why I said that it was an illegal big stink. And maybe he shoulda manned up and stood for it, and turned himself in in the most public way possible. Preferrably on late Night with Conan or something. Snowden did the Brave Sir Robin thing and ran away. It happens.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Can you back this up?

On Dec. 31, 2011, there were 197,050 sentenced prisoners under federal jurisdiction. Of these, 94,600 were serving time for drug offenses, 14,900 for violent offenses, 10,700 for property offenses, and 69,000 for "public order" offenses (of which 22,100 were sentenced for immigration offenses, 29,800 for weapons offenses, and 17.100 for "other").

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#sthash.OdwWe1aJ.dpuf

Total victimless crime prisoners= 266,050

Total non victimless crime prisoners= 25,600

That's just federal sure, but the states aren't too far off from this either, though less extreme.

Older date, I doubt the percentages have changed much despite the increase in sheer volume. Also offers a logical line of reasoning as to the "How" of the situation.


" Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges"

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/us042903.pdf

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p09.pdf

 

[KRCummings]

I agree. I'm not disputing that he did a crime, and should pay for it. That's why I said that it was an illegal big stink. And maybe he shoulda manned up and stood for it, and turned himself in in the most public way possible. Preferrably on late Night with Conan or something. Snowden did the Brave Sir Robin thing and ran away. It happens.

He wants to be the big hero without any of the big hero consequences. I hope we get him and put him away somewhere to rot. Got no use for people who think state secrets are theirs to do with as they wish.

 

[Liar]

The law provides a process to obtain telecom records. The Snowden leak contained the specific real-world application, the technology the NSA is employing, as well as the capabilities and limitations of that technology. Those things aren't part of the law and are (were) classified.

So it woulda been cool if he leaked more... vaugely?

Look, all I'm saying is that he either made a public stink over a classified secret practice or he didn't. The public seems to, at least from what I can see, catch a whiff. If it's just because they haven't been paying attention because hey look Amanda Bynes! or something, is of course a possibility.

I'm just trying to understand the needle you're threading here. It seems like you're arguing that he did reveal super secret stuff that Terrorist Tim had no way of knowing while it's something that Average Andy should have been fully aware of all along.

 

[mercury14]

On Dec. 31, 2011, there were 197,050 sentenced prisoners under federal jurisdiction. Of these, 94,600 were serving time for drug offenses, 14,900 for violent offenses, 10,700 for property offenses, and 69,000 for "public order" offenses (of which 22,100 were sentenced for immigration offenses, 29,800 for weapons offenses, and 17.100 for "other").

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#sthash.OdwWe1aJ.dpuf

Total victimless crime prisoners= 266,050

Total non victimless crime prisoners= 25,600



" Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges"

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/us042903.pdf

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

That's more than I thought. But prison-worthy "drug offenses" is an extremely broad category that are on a spectrum of victimization. I don't think it's accurate to paint them all all as victimless crimes.


- Essentially victimless - ie possessing large quantities of pot

- Potential victims - highly addictive, physically dangerous drugs such as heroin. Ending up as a non-functioning gutter rat with a chemical compulsion to go to great lengths to obtain money (stealing, etc) can create victims. Society ends up being stuck with medical bills, etc. A pregnant woman hooked on something that permanently damages her fetus.

- Definite victim - ie prescription fraud. It's stealing, fraud, forgery, can get doctors in legal trouble or trouble with their licensing board. This happened to me in residency and it was awful trying to get it sorted out.

- Definite acute victim potential - Driving under the influence, certain other high-risk behaviors under the influence.

 

[pete]

To accept it blanketly without knowing the in's and out's is a bit naive.
this is true, except i don't accept it blanketly. again, i'm not in that industry so i can't speak about it's in's and out's with complete knowledge

I'm not saying they should expose the information they gather, but I think they owe us a fully public and transparent information on how they determine who they are going to spy on and why. The whole process is a bit sketchy, getting hidden behind "National Sekurity!!"
this sounds pretty on paper, but the argument can be made that notifying everyone about who we're investigating kinda botches the investigation, doesn't it? they (nsa, fbi, etc) should notify someone in the justice dept, maybe, but putting ads in the ny times about who we're investigating seems inept

The one where we drone striked a US citizen...
yeah ok i heard about that. but is this one instance reason to assume evidence of a pattern? the police accidentally shoot innocent people but that doesn't mean every police force across the country is out to get us (not the best analogy, but i'm eating and typing so you get what you get)

the rest of your post about the cca and the money going towards prison corps is something i haven't read much about, so i'll look into that. not saying you're full of shit, just that i don't know much at all about it. but even if there's some shady shit going on between the prison corps and their finances, that still doesn't provide an explanation of your assertions. the various police forces catch law-breakers, the court system determines their incarceration. are you saying that groups like the cca have powerful influence over these 2 entities across the full spectrum of city, county, state, and federal justice system?

i def disagree with people who argue that simply having a large number of citizens in prison in itself means we're somehow a bad society.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The people setting and enforcing the laws benefit from prisons and get paid by capacity. Do you seriously not know everything you claim not to Pete?

If being a nation of laws results in having more people in prison than any other nation, including ones run by dictators then perhaps it's time we stopped being a nation of laws. Clearly the price is too damn high.

 

[pete]

The people setting and enforcing the laws benefit from prisons and get paid by capacity. Do you seriously not know everything you claim not to Pete?

the people who set the laws: the legislative, executive, and to a lesser degree the judicial branches of gov't. they're benefitting... how, exactly? how, specifically?
for example, how does tom corbett, the govenor of pennsylvania, benefit from signing into law that makes certain activities criminal, and punishable by incarceration?

the people who enforce the laws: city police, county police, county sherrifs, state police, et. al.
how are they benefitting from a jail that gets paid to house inmates?

If being a nation of laws results in having more people in prison than any other nation, including ones run by dictators then perhaps it's time we stopped being a nation of laws. Clearly the price is too damn high.

you have to ask why people in less-civilized nations have low incarceration rates. again, simply comparing numbers of prisoners per capita doesn't tell the whole story. in certain arabic countries i hear that if you get caught shoplifting they chop off your hand, and deter a lot of theft that way. maybe we should adopt more corporal punishements like this, yeah?

many times when i'm asking questions, i might be aware of the answer, or think i might, but i'm really interested in the other person's explanation, and the basis for their argument.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's more than I thought. But prison-worthy "drug offenses" is an extremely broad category that are on a spectrum of victimization. I don't think it's accurate to paint them all all as victimless crimes.

No....it's not.

- Essentially victimless - ie possessing large quantities of pot

How is that any different than possessing large quantities of any drug?

- Potential victims - highly addictive, physically dangerous drugs such as heroin. Ending up as a non-functioning gutter rat with a chemical compulsion to go to great lengths to obtain money (stealing, etc) can create victims. Society ends up being stuck with medical bills, etc. A pregnant woman hooked on something that permanently damages her fetus.

Personal choice man, you can do the same fucking thing with any number of legal substances/OTC's/legal prescriptions. No one holds a gun to their head and makes someone be a crack head.

And you KNOW (if you are a shrink) that these types of people DO NOT respond to incarceration. They use the second they are out, thus the sky high recidivism ...because they need medical treatment, not hard time. Treatment has been PROVEN far more effective in numerous other societies, why are american junkies special?

Because they come with 30-70+K worth of funding a MONTH (depending on the facility) attached to them

- Definite victim - ie prescription fraud. It's stealing, fraud, forgery, can get doctors in legal trouble or trouble with their licensing board. This happened to me in residency and it was awful trying to get it sorted out.

That's fraud/forgery man...that shit is already illegal, you don't need to give them a 20yr mandatory minim for possession on top of it....unless your boy owns a bunch of prisons and wants the funding off of them, what a fucking gravy train man!!!

- Definite acute victim potential - Driving under the influence, certain other high-risk behaviors under the influence.

That's DUI man, totally different crime.....has NOTHING to do with possession/use/manufacturing. Not any more than a vineyard/distillery/store is responsible for drunk drivers.

the rest of your post about the cca and the money going towards prison corps is something i haven't read much about, so i'll look into that. not saying you're full of shit, just that i don't know much at all about it. but even if there's some shady shit going on between the prison corps and their finances, that still doesn't provide an explanation of your assertions. the various police forces catch law-breakers, the court system determines their incarceration. are you saying that groups like the cca have powerful influence over these 2 entities across the full spectrum of city, county, state, and federal justice system?

Through the ways they lobby and get various legislation passed, you're damn right they do. Right now these prison companies are spending BIG BUX along with big pharma to raid the piss out of medical/legal cannabis states (Obama has been on board with them since day 1) and ramp up the war on drugs in spite of the democratic will of the people.

It's a major corporate police state set up man.

Don't like the competition? Pay a legislator to ban it....then offer them your prison services to make money on the back end.

i def disagree with people who argue that simply having a large number of citizens in prison in itself means we're somehow a bad society.

I do too...and that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying giving corporate america a monetary incentive to be the best prison nation we can be is NOT a good thing.