Post #384,584
12/24/13 11:53:55 AM
|
more on flogging Snowden's dead horse
http://www.washingto...ff6b8d_story.html
Beginning in October 2012, he said, he brought his misgivings to two superiors in the NSAÂs Technology Directorate and two more in the NSA Threat Operations CenterÂs regional base in Hawaii. For each of them, and 15 other co-workers, Snowden said he opened a data query tool called BOUNDLESSINFORMANT, which used color-coded Âheat maps to depict the volume of data ingested by NSA taps.
His colleagues were often Âastonished to learn we are collecting more in the United States on Americans than we are on Russians in Russia, he said. Many of them were troubled, he said, and several said they did not want to know any more.
ÂI asked these people, ÂWhat do you think the public would do if this was on the front page?Â  he said. He noted that critics have accused him of bypassing internal channels of dissent. ÂHow is that not reporting it? How is that not raising it? he said. as an interested citizen I would like to know if BOUNDLESSINFORMANT is true, and what was done about his misgivings. If the answer is a shrug, he stood up.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
|
Post #384,586
12/24/13 12:27:11 PM
|
Old news.
It was reported on in early June, if not earlier.
I'd be more interested in why "need to know" apparently didn't apply to Snowden's activities on their network. Having a clearance doesn't entitle one to look at anything one wants with that classification level.
Snowden's a demonstrated liar (his "nearly $200k" salary and other things). I wouldn't trust his take on things farther than I can throw them.
YMMV.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #384,590
12/24/13 2:42:06 PM
|
Baby-with-bathwater; out-throw?
Lies about his salary (and other things... People exaggerate their income ergo status umm, about as often as they say.. Yer lookin-Good today, Lizzie Borden!.
But IF there is any believable corroboration of his having RAISED those issues ... once? ... twice?
(How many times constitutes 'sincerity'?)
THEN we are forever left with the consequences of his aberrant actions:
The secret/hushed-up/camouflaged [pick a few more] FACT of HUMONGOUS-levels of data-collection (as seem both comical AND surreal)--as a way to spend Taxpayer$$, or even to amuse aging Frat-boys who do things because THEY CAN:
THAT INFO is now OUT THERE. A growing consensus appears to converge on some form of ~~ Oh, say:
'We-The-fucking-People' bloody-well DID/DO Want to Know when Twelve Years! of 9/11 Paranoia has created a Monster which HAS NO SANE LIMITS, anywhere IN SIGHT.
Jeez it must be The Solstice--bein with Box on this issue? ;^>
C'mon Scott: you have to admit: that their entire Limitless-net, were its origin manifest >in *One Person*< would send that person to some Legal process demanding that A SHRINK EVALUATE the sucker ... instantly.
Folie a deux? Folie a millon? How about: Crazed Times, then?
(Just as we fully realized, a few days after 9/11) NO ONE AGAIN shall ever be able to hi-jack an airliner: ALL KNOW that they might die but, by mass resistance: MOST probably WILL NOT. Period. Yet we continue to play absurd Safety Theatre, overseen by mouth-breathers.
Militarizarion of Cops + attendant utterly-Stupid deaths: an increasing pattern now, By real STATS.
Fatherland Security and all the related stuff culminating in THIS farrago: Proves that Muricans ARE THE scardiest-cats ever lampooned. I simply cannot take much of Security-2001-2012 as Other-than
Schizo--phree--nee
Life is too short to fritter-it-away in perpetual Âearz of The Unknown bump-in-the Day, The Night and just Everywhere. And we have been fritterin-away ever since 9/12/01.
LET'S JUST STOP acting like buffoons.. so we can cease being ashamed of fellow fraidy-cats, 'K?
(It will also be a lot cheaper with those Fatherland Security Forces back on unemployment, and away from X-ray Peep Shows + guffaws and especially, Self-importance writ Large.)
(Then maybe I can Fly again, too.)
YMMV and, apparently Does. S'OK though--Nobody is actually 'Right' about most things, we see.
|
Post #384,595
12/24/13 5:47:46 PM
|
Don't let me get to you.
We've been through this stuff before, and today isn't the day to go through it again. :-)
Here's hoping Krampus stays away from all of us tomorrow!
https://www.youtube....tch?v=9p1JYvV178E (2:34)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #384,599
12/24/13 7:13:14 PM
|
Nevertheless we are puzzled
...Ashton and I, and sundry other regulars here, to find ourselves flying in approximate formation on this issue with a half-deranged anarchist crypto-libertarian as our accustomed wingman flies a swastika pattern a couple of thousand feet beneath us. Your antipathy to Snowden, whom even his defenders in this venue will readily acknowledge to be an imperfect messenger, is difficult to fathom weighed against the naked authoritarian villainy of the Stasi apparatchiks screaming for his blood. As I mentioned in the PHB forum, I found that in the clutch I was too cowardly to stand up for the sanctity of my precious bodily fluids, even though I could have quit on the spot with a reasonably generous defined-benefits pension. My principles turned out not to be equal to my desire to reap the last five years of my career. Snowden gave it all up on principle. He didn't think it out very well, but he likely condemned himself to long-term exile (incidentally, I can't recall ever hearing anyone in the West ever fault those who fled from the bestial Red Russians for lacking the courage to go back and face Soviet justice).
I think you are in denial, Scott, regarding the fact that the United States of America is the most vicious, brutal, unjust, unequal, unprincipled and intrusive nation-state in the admittedly exclusive club that constitutes the "First World" today. The powers asserted and wielded by the Deep State—and I care not any more whether Bush, Cheney or Obama happen to serve as its public face at any given moment—are illegitimate and inconsistent with anything remotely resembling permitted executive powers as conceived and envisaged by the authors of the Constitution.
As you say, it's not the day to go through it again. Believe me, I've considered the possibility that if boxley and I find ourselves arrayed on the opposite side from you, could it be that I've taken a wrong turn? I've done some soul-searching, and concluded that I have not. But I suspect that we've run out of arguments to woo you, or Yoo, away from the insanely benign view you have adopted of American intentions.
cordially,
|
Post #384,601
12/24/13 7:37:33 PM
|
Re: Nevertheless we are puzzled
http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=377740 is the thread that covered it before. I don't think I can express it better now.
:-)
Take it easy. Best wishes to you and yours.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #384,605
12/24/13 11:54:04 PM
|
FWIW re: "facing justice"
After seeing dozens of expressions of the idea that Snowden isn't a whistle blower because he didn't stick around to face justice, I finally figured out the fatal flaw with the idea:
There's a difference between whistle blowing and civil disobedience.
In the former, you violate a policy, if not a law, to expose a greater sin. In the latter you publicly violate the very law you are protesting, using your punishment to draw attention to the bad law.
--
Drew
|
Post #384,607
12/25/13 12:26:06 AM
|
Re: FWIW re: "facing justice"
http://www.whistlebl...ncement-act-wpea-
by Dylan Blaylock on November 27, 2012 ( The Whistleblogger / 2012 )
After 13 Year Campaign, Federal Workers Get Long-Overdue Upgrades
(Washington, DC) Â The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is praising President Obama's signing of S. 743, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA), into law earlier today. The legislation provides millions of federal workers with the rights they need to report government corruption and wrongdoing safely. The bill reflects an unequivocal bipartisan consensus, having received the vote of every member in the 112th Congress, passing both the Senate and House of Representatives by unanimous consent over the past couple of months. The text of the bill can be read here.
[...]
The WPEA does not include jury trials to enforce newly-enacted protections, or the extension of free speech rights to national security workers making disclosures within agency channels. While the House removed the national security whistleblower provision from the bill, last month the Obama administration made good on its promise to take executive action on those rights, signing a Presidential Policy Directive to restore the lion's share of national security rights that the House removed.
http://en.wikipedia....licy_Directive_19
The United States Presidential Policy Directive 19, signed by President Barack Obama, is designed to ensure that employees who serve in the Intelligence community or have access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse, while protecting classified information. It is the executive order establishing standards for all Federal agencies with employees covered by the Directive, including those under Defense Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection and the U.S. Department of Defense Whistleblower Program. It also prohibits retaliation against these employees for their reports.[1] PPD-19 accordingly establishes a system of Intelligence community whistleblowing and source protection under the Office, Director of National Intelligence and supervised by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG).
http://www.dni.gov/i...te/contact-the-ig
How to Report Waste, Fraud, Abuse or Misconduct
To report waste, fraud, abuse, or misconduct in the Intelligence Community, there are three ways to contact us:
Phone:
1-855-731-3260
Fax:
1-571-204-8088
Mail:
Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, Investigations Division
Reston 3
Washington D.C. 20511
What is Reportable?
The IC IG is authorized to investigate complaints or information concerning allegations of a violation of law, rule, regulation, waste, fraud, abuse of authority, or a substantial or specific danger to public health and safety in connection with ODNI and/or IC intelligence programs and activities.
(Emphasis added.)
There are ways for whistleblowers to report suspected things listed above in bold.
That's not what Snowden did.
If he didn't trust the chain of command to take his allegations seriously, he could have gone to the IC IG. If he didn't trust the IC IG, he could have sent the information to people on the Intelligence committees. If he didn't trust them to take his allegations seriously, well, that indicates he thinks knows more and his opinion is more important than policy-makers.
Our system doesn't, and can't, work that way. Unelected 30 year old individuals don't get to unilaterally set national security policy or get to decide what classified information can or cannot be released based on their opinions.
Snowden isn't a whistleblower.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #384,611
12/25/13 12:52:51 AM
|
Re: FWIW re: "facing justice"
You assume that the systems put in place (by the NSA) for whistleblowing (about the activities of the NSA) will actually work.
I don't share your optimism, mainly because we know we can't trust the NSA further than I can comfortably spit a live, struggling rhino.
|
Post #384,612
12/25/13 1:03:07 AM
|
Re: FWIW re: "facing justice"
http://www.law.corne...de/text/50/403-3h
(a) Office of Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
There is within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence an Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
(b) Purpose
The purpose of the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community isÂ
(1) to create an objective and effective office, appropriately accountable to Congress, to initiate and conduct independent investigations, inspections, audits, and reviews on programs and activities within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence;
[...]
(c) Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
(1) There is an Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, who shall be the head of the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
[...]
(4) The Inspector General may be removed from office only by the President. The President shall communicate in writing to the congressional intelligence committees the reasons for the removal not later than 30 days prior to the effective date of such removal. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal.
[...]
(f) Limitations on activities
(1) The Director of National Intelligence may prohibit the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community from initiating, carrying out, or completing any investigation, inspection, audit, or review if the Director determines that such prohibition is necessary to protect vital national security interests of the United States.
(2) Not later than seven days after the date on which the Director exercises the authority under paragraph (1), the Director shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees an appropriately classified statement of the reasons for the exercise of such authority.
(3) The Director shall advise the Inspector General at the time a statement under paragraph (2) is submitted, and, to the extent consistent with the protection of intelligence sources and methods, provide the Inspector General with a copy of such statement.
(4) The Inspector General may submit to the congressional intelligence committees any comments on the statement of which the Inspector General has notice under paragraph (3) that the Inspector General considers appropriate.
The IC IG was set up by Congress. While not all-powerful when it comes to investigations, they are independent, and if the President or DNI interferes with his or her investigation, they have to report to Congress on why they're doing so.
IG's aren't puppets.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #384,613
12/25/13 2:43:50 AM
|
Re: FWIW re: "facing justice"
The same Congress that Clapper quite happily lied to?
I default to a "their lips are moving, therefore at best there's something they're not telling me, but most probably they're outright lying" position.
I suspect that the reality is that they're as plausibly independent as they need to be in order to be visibly plausibly independent.
Behold! Oversight!
(Merry Xmas, btw!)
|
Post #384,615
12/25/13 11:59:41 AM
|
Devil's advocate.
http://www.washingto...99ff459_blog.html
SEN. RON WYDEN (D-Ore.): ÂThis is for you, Director Clapper, again on the surveillance front. And I hope we can do this in just a yes or no answer because I know Senator Feinstein wants to move on. Last summer, the NSA director was at a conference, and he was asked a question about the NSA surveillance of Americans. He replied, and I quote here, ÂThe story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people is completely false.Â
ÂThe reason IÂm asking the question is, having served on the committee now for a dozen years, I donÂt really know what a dossier is in this context. So what I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question, does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?Â
Director of National Intelligence JAMES CLAPPER: ÂNo, sir.Â
SEN. WYDEN: ÂIt does not?Â
DIR. CLAPPER: ÂNot wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly.Â
SEN. WYDEN: ÂThank you. IÂll have additional questions to give you in writing on that point, but I thank you for the answer.Â
 exchange during a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, March 12, 2013
Clapper was between a rock and a hard place. Wyden said he wanted a yes or no answer. It was an open session. There was no way for him to accurately describe what the NSA on this front does without either: 1) giving up classified information about "sources and methods" in an open session, or 2) giving a misleading answer.
Wyden knew the best way to get a complete, straight answer from Clapper about the details.
Now maybe Clapper has been misleading the committee about what the NSA has been doing. If that's the case, then by all means go after him (and the NSA). But I don't think that this was the way to do it.
And if this is the best example of Clapper "lying to Congress" then he's been a very good boy. Everyone testifying to Congress shades the truth to their best advantage - it's human and institutional nature. That's why Congress should get testimony from a variety of viewpoints...
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #384,616
12/25/13 12:23:48 PM
|
See da box on their charter
If they're acting within their charter, they're not violating a rule. How do you blow the whistle when the charter is overly broad, and being interpreted as aggressively as possible?
--
Drew
|
Post #384,618
12/25/13 1:28:04 PM
|
If they're within their charter, then it's not whistleblowin
That's a potential problem, but not one that Snowden can solve.
We're a government of laws, not of men. Snowden doesn't know better than everyone else in positions of responsibility what's best for the country when it comes to NSA activities.
If it really were the case that Snowden were exposing an out-of-control NSA that was something out of 1984, and his actions would have ended the practices, then Ya! Snowden! (But he still should have stuck around, or remained hidden, rather than running to Hong Kong and elsewhere.)
But, so far, it doesn't seem that way to me. The courts have (up until the last week or so at least) have not said that the activities are illegal. The Congress has not changed the laws in any meaningful way. The Administration and the independent review board have not said that the NSA has been overstepping its bounds.
(I suspect any changes to the NSA's oversight will be minor - far less than the changes to the CIA's activities as a result of the Church Commission.)
Consider the list here - http://en.wikipedia....of_whistleblowers I don't think Snowden fits there, myself. YMMV.
Bottom line: Congress needs to change the law if the country wants the NSA to do less.
We'll see how all this turns out.
Merry Christmas!
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #384,622
12/25/13 4:09:49 PM
|
I very much doubt his ability
to remain hidden in North America. There are cameras everywhere here. If they really wanted to find him, they would.
I find it interesting that the US chose Russia as his location when they revoked his passport.
|
Post #384,625
12/25/13 5:02:19 PM
|
Heh.. most astute, that last! (wheels-within-wheels churn..)
|
Post #384,624
12/25/13 4:59:14 PM
|
Re: FWIW re: "facing justice"
Nicely linked, concise sequence of fine-sounding safeguards, all spelled-out such that Surely! 'a one' would suppose that Actually They Will Be Respected.
(For 'ones' who believe that they have divined levels-of-habitual, predictable corruption--of the sort which nullifies all theoretical 'protections'-- maybe not quite so.. Surely! Eh?)
tl;dr? A promise-to-be-Nice/Fair is only as good as the historical, then actual thus reputed record Â
of the Promiser [aka 'promised Agency'--in that word's generic meaning]
IMO, certain Outrages--either by their frequency or via the magnitude of some: transcend punctilious-analysis of their relationship to any historical Document however brilliantly conceived, originally followed--then allowed to lapse into irrelevance Â
as seen in daily, egregious deeds: which completely confound the original Principles enshrined within such a Document.
(That Snowden is flawed as are we all, that his actions included ones reckless: of his own future prospects as well as "of the Nation's??"-- bald-face Begs the Existential Questions indubitably raised by the factualness of his material (and the fear engendered by those facts--within perps-of-all-levels, behind their creation and then: Actualization to a ludicrous degree.)
As it indeed-is Christmas, I shall leave any meat in this riposte within the writing-hands of a person manifestly able to parse his avowed theological-Scale--separately from--his analysis of human foibles (even Murican foibles Â
for those who suspect that (re. 'human') our Empire now accommodates more infra-humans than Humans (and what could be sadder than that?))
A soupçon of Reinhold Niebuhr's observations:
There are historic situations in which refusal to defend the inheritance of a civilization, however imperfect, against tyranny and aggression may result in consequences even worse than war.
Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.
Our age knows nothing but reaction, and leaps from one extreme to another.
(The mastery of nature is vainly believed to be an adequate substitute for self mastery.)
(Democracies are indeed slow to make war, but once embarked upon a martial venture are equally slow to make peace and reluctant to make a tolerable, rather than a vindictive, peace.)
I think there ought to be a club in which preachers and journalists could come together and have the sentimentalism of the one matched with the cynicism of the other. That ought to bring them pretty close to the truth.
Goodness, armed with power, is corrupted; and pure love without power is destroyed.
The final wisdom of life requires not the annulment of incongruity but the achievement of serenity within and above it.
http://organizations...young_niebuhr.htm
The relationship of NiebuhrÂs political analysis to this theology may correctly be compared to relationship of general to special revelation. In the first volume of The Nature and Destiny of Man Niebuhr makes the distinction between truths Âthat belong to general revelation in the sense that any astute analysis of the human situation must lead to it and truths dependent upon a Âfurther revelation of the divine.Â[43] An astute analysis of the political situation points to an awareness to human limitations. Much of NiebuhrÂs writings -- especially The Irony of American History -- can be described as Âastute analyses of factual events and situations that are evident to any observer. The fact that Niebuhr has influenced many political leaders and thinkers both in his lifetime and even *today is a tribute to the Âastuteness of his analysis for which theological presuppositions are not immediately evident or necessary.[44]
General revelation provides a common ground of reflection and experience with readers who do not share his theological presuppositions. General revelation alone, however, is insufficient to provide a complete understanding of life and history because it fails to resolve the incongruities it exposes. Divine revelation accepted by faith, Niebuhr writes, ÂÂ
completes our ignorance without pretending to possess its certainties as knowledge; and in which contrition mitigates our pride without destroying our hope.Â[45]
Bold and ___ added. * including BHO, though I shan't do the searches.
¡Feliz Navidad! O' fellow-toiler within the morass of double-plus-ungood Language Murder, in which daily we swim.
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
|
Post #384,630
12/25/13 10:31:14 PM
|
what is that 1/2 crap?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
|
Post #384,631
12/25/13 10:34:56 PM
|
rofl. :-)
|
Post #384,660
12/27/13 7:45:46 AM
|
On salary
Snowden's a demonstrated liar (his "nearly $200k" salary and other things).
I actually less inclined to believe Booz Allen in this regard. They're getting a lot of heat for excessive costs in Government.
So, let's back up a second. Booz Allen claims that Snowden's rate is $112K. No mention of overtime or any other perks.
Could I believe Booz Allen was charging the government $200k for Snowden's services? Yep, that I can believe.
Flip-side of the coin - the $200K references were about Snowden's comfortable lifestyle. Now we find out Snowden was working a 3 month contract. (Of course, those contracts can and have been extended before)
|
Post #384,663
12/27/13 11:07:55 AM
|
It's part of the piece for me.
Do you believe he could wiretap the President if he simply had his e-mail address?
http://www.dailymail...p--president.html
On his salary, he told Greenwald - http://www.theguardi...les-whistleblower
Question:
User avatar for D. Aram Mushegian II
D. Aram Mushegian II
17 June 2013 2:16pm
Did you lie about your salary? What is the issue there? Why did you tell Glenn Greenwald that your salary was $200,000 a year, when it was only $122,000 (according to the firm that fired you.)
Answer:
I was debriefed by Glenn and his peers over a number of days, and not all of those conversations were recorded. The statement I made about earnings was that $200,000 was my "career high" salary. I had to take pay cuts in the course of pursuing specific work. Booz was not the most I've been paid.
Maybe that's the way it happened, but I can't imagine a conversation with the press that would go that way - "Tell me, how much did you make in your best-paid year?" ?!?
He also said in that Greenwald Q&A:
Question:
User avatar for Mathius1
Mathius1
17 June 2013 2:54pm
Is encrypting my email any good at defeating the NSA survelielance? Id my data protected by standard encryption?
Answer:
Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on. Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find ways around it.
Rather categorical, given what's been reported about RSA, and the fact that US regulations have not restricted the export some commonly-used types of encryption for decades. (See a previous thread here.)
He exaggerated his importance and capabilities. He doesn't seem to know what he's talking about in several cases. Someone in that position who wants to be seen as credible as a whistleblower has to be careful not to embellish the truth or his understanding of the truth. He wasn't.
My $0.02. YMMV.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #384,673
12/27/13 5:22:49 PM
12/27/13 5:32:00 PM
|
Personally, I don't care.. if he fails to live up to your
(or my) imaginations of a fully-conscious, utterly circumspect Renaissance Man. (There seem not to be any DaVincis around with whom to compare.)
Is he also to be ridiculed because he did-Not: scheme meticulously to create some secret rat-hole-with Persian rugs, before acting? Fact is: we. do. not. know. the full-extent of his pilfered data/no matter what Anyone (esp. NSA talking heads) might speculate--nor can we be sure that NSA actually Knows [the negative]: that which {they Hope!} he did not filch.
I see all of their talking-heads scurryinyFar-Around that interesting topic..
(And along with All of US: I cannot comprehend whether BHO Likes! the burgeoning Securitat Staat--is thus, a closet-Control Freak/Who Knew?)
So, as in Pyramus and Thisbe: There he stands, all illegible; perpetual fodder next for every cockamamie assignment of scurrilous-or-frivolous "motivations"--like Lee Harvey O, Adam Lanza and a passel of other people we all imagine we can psychoanalyze, and about whom we know less than ..about neutrinos, to date.
What is evident, thus far: is that he DID 'risk everything' in the sense that all do comprehend (if they try): obviously sans even a Bolt Hole
(we have no idea how much of his gross income he ever saved--A Lot? would be inconsistent with his suggested 'living style', I wot) etc.
IMΣE there are damn-few amongst our comfortable/pampered selves who would even entertain fantasies of such a Principled Action--no more likely to be about 'future remuneration' and other scurrilous suppositions--than any other motivation everyone imagines self capable of assigning.
The vox-pop will do as it Does: usually denigrate and pontificate, but.. THIS.. TIME.. I have a small sense that The Mob Will Get It (perhaps a majority already have?)
I have read-for-comprehension your rebuttals to the Goodness?/Relevance!/Importance of this event.
As always these are in Logical-format, but thus far, are sans the huge-Scale/the many clear consequences already unfolding: you seem still.. naive about the fishbowl in which we swim, thus your [-] conclusions I must deem unReasonable. At this stage of 'revelations'.
Sending him back for Murican justice, as Rand juxtaposed: IS precisely tantamount to "sending back Russkie defectors for Soviet justice".
(Just one of the aspects of your logic-sans-Scale arguments. You may believe that the US is not sufficiently-broken for travesty to trump Justice):
I believe the converse. More reluctantly than you imagine.
Finally on the Goodness/Badness! polarity matters, re this Event: I do not deem that you are Wrong and I am Right, as in purest digital think.
Mainly I believe that we both lack knowledge of many details/aspects--guaranteed by the extant-Press and by daily immersion in the omnipresent language-murder of our Tribe
(especially over that last 150 years or so.)
Somewhat-believable material.. may surface ... sufficiently un-spun as to corroborate either of our present positions.
But for right now..
Ed: oTyp
Edited by Ashton
Dec. 27, 2013, 05:32:00 PM EST
|
Post #384,680
12/27/13 6:38:40 PM
|
Well said. Thanks.
|
Post #384,717
12/28/13 11:13:41 AM
|
Okay...I missed that article
and I see exactly where you're coming from.
|
Post #384,617
12/25/13 1:17:55 PM
|
WaPo interview w/Snowden 12/23/13
Long; well worth the read. Former NSA and CIA director Michael V. Hayden predicted that Snowden will waste away in Moscow as an alcoholic, like other Âdefectors. To this, Snowden shrugged. He does not drink at all. Never has. To which I say, fuck Michael V. Hayden with a rasp.
http://www.washingto...ff6b8d_story.html
cordially,
|
