Snowden Interview

[CountDeMoney]

At least Snowden gets called to interviews.

Long term unemployed nutpuncher.

[Valmy]

It was an interesting interview, but I think it avoided some of the tougher questions, and let him get away with stating the most positive case for himself.  For example, some of Snowden's revelations concerned spying on potential enemy nations.  His off-hand statement that his revelations didn't hurt our national security are hard to believe, and impossible to confirm in such a short period of time anyway.

Yeah, I feel now that his motives were as much or more to sabotage US intel gathering and give the info to US opponents, rather than any grand interest in exposing wrong doing by NSA.  He went straight to opponents of the US, to nations that would benefit the most at learning of US intel practices. He may have exposed workings that go too far domestically but he did irreparable damage to US intel gathering vs terrorists, and nations not so friendly to US interests.

Still waiting for all the dead people and huge harm the wikileaks thing caused.  Probably be waiting around for this one to.  Oh all the irreparable harm!  The chicken-little act is getting a bit old. 

Meanwhile we finally get information disclosed the goverment should have disclosed anyway.  Maybe they should be forthwright about their policies that abuse their own citizens and fewer things like this might happen?

Look up something called "The Pentagon papers" and a man named Daniel Ellsworth, and you will see that your assumptions are incorrect.

Pre-9/11, the rules have changed a bit.  Which is ridiculous because one would think our national security was far more in jeopardy during the freaking Cold War but there it is.

[Admiral Yi]

The Wikileaks stuff was low grade stuff--diplomatic dirty laundry.

How exactly would we go about determining which terrorist attacks would have been prevented if they had not known about NSA surveillance of their calls and emails?  An anonymous phone survey of terrorists?

[garbon]

Didn't expect V to show support for this individual.

[CountDeMoney]

Pre-9/11, the rules have changed a bit.  Which is ridiculous because one would think our national security was far more in jeopardy during the freaking Cold War but there it is.

No kidding.

[garbon]

Pre-9/11, the rules have changed a bit.  Which is ridiculous because one would think our national security was far more in jeopardy during the freaking Cold War but there it is.

No kidding.

How many Americans did the Soviets kill on American soil?

[Razgovory]

Still waiting for all the dead people and huge harm the wikileaks thing caused.  Probably be waiting around for this one to.  Oh all the irreparable harm!  The chicken-little act is getting a bit old. 

Meanwhile we finally get information disclosed the goverment should have disclosed anyway.  Maybe they should be forthwright about their policies that abuse their own citizens and fewer things like this might happen?

Look up something called "The Pentagon papers" and a man named Daniel Ellsworth, and you will see that your assumptions are incorrect.

Pre-9/11, the rules have changed a bit.  Which is ridiculous because one would think our national security was far more in jeopardy during the freaking Cold War but there it is.

http://www.newsweek.com/taliban-seeks-vengeance-wake-wikileaks-71659  Here's a dead guy.

fter WikiLeaks published a trove of U.S. intelligence documents—some of which listed the names and villages of Afghans who had been secretly cooperating with the American military—it didn't take long for the Taliban to react. A spokesman for the group quickly threatened to "punish" any Afghan listed as having "collaborated" with the U.S. and the Kabul authorities against the growing Taliban insurgency. In recent days, the Taliban has demonstrated how seriously those threats should be considered. Late last week, just four days after the documents were published, death threats began arriving at the homes of key tribal elders in southern Afghanistan. And over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province's embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.

[CountDeMoney]

How many Americans did the Soviets kill on American soil?

9/11 was a bad day at the office for Cantor Fitzgerald and certainly the nation's darkest moment since Pearl Harbor, but it was a distant second to what was the very real possibility of global thermonuclear holocaust over the course of 40+ years.

[garbon]

How many Americans did the Soviets kill on American soil?

9/11 was a bad day at the office for Cantor Fitzgerald and certainly the nation's darkest moment since Pearl Harbor, but it was a distant second to what was the very real possibility of global thermonuclear holocaust over the course of 40+ years.

In retrospect aka today (when such policies that V is concerned about are in place) we know which one was more deadly.

[Jacob]

How many Americans did the Soviets kill on American soil?

9/11 was a bad day at the office for Cantor Fitzgerald and certainly the nation's darkest moment since Pearl Harbor, but it was a distant second to what was the very real possibility of global thermonuclear holocaust over the course of 40+ years.

In retrospect aka today (when such policies that V is concerned about are in place) we know which one was more deadly.

What are you suggesting?

[LaCroix]

Didn't expect V to show support for this individual.

he has a tendency to distrust the government, so it makes sense

[garbon]

What are you suggesting?

I think it isn't surprising (or necessarily problematic) that the gov't would adopt more heavy handed measures in the face of a threat that actually saw several thousand people die on American soil vs. a threat that never actually materialized.

Also, I'd guess that it is easier these days to do said spying given how we are all freely putting said information out there.

That's not to say that we shouldn't have discussions about what is reasonable and allowable for our gov't to do but the Cold War comparison seems to me...off key.

[garbon]

Didn't expect V to show support for this individual.

he has a tendency to distrust the government, so it makes sense

I would think I've demonstrated that tendency as well.

[Berkut]

What are you suggesting?

I think it isn't surprising (or necessarily problematic) that the gov't would adopt more heavy handed measures in the face of a threat that actually saw several thousand people die on American soil vs. a threat that never actually materialized.

Also, I'd guess that it is easier these days to do said spying given how we are all freely putting said information out there.

That's not to say that we shouldn't have discussions about what is reasonable and allowable for our gov't to do but the Cold War comparison seems to me...off key.

I think it is just kind of apples and oranges. The Cold War threat was a existential threat from an outside nation state with well understood means of executing that threat, if necessary. You did not need added domestic surveillance or additional and questionable "shadow war" powers to combat that threat, but to the extent that those thing WERE needed at times, note that the US did in fact engage in them to the extent of our capability.

The idea that the reaction to 9/11 from an intelligence standpoint is somehow some kind of fundamental evidence that US intelligence services all went crazy or irrationally hysterical is just plain stupid.

They will take as much power as we are willing to give them to do their jobs. In the service of the Cold War, they did shit all the time that was probably illegal, or of at least very questionable legality. I don't know what rose colored glasses Seedy and the like are wearing when they think of Cold War era intelligence and counter intelligence. After all, it was Cold War intel that decided the US needed to dump a million men into Vietnam.

[LaCroix]

I would think I've demonstrated that tendency as well.

iirc you tend to be a bit more rational, though