Reply With Quote
or maybe he knows other judges have ruled the other way, and knows this is going to his party's SCOTUS, anyway, so he can rule this way for OBAMA's NSA, iow, a purely Repug political ruling
I am absolutely happy we know more about the NSA because of Snowden.
But he broke the law, I am glad he did. He apparently has a bunch more info. Is he keeping it as insurance, does he not know the magnitude of what it contains? Is he protecting it as he has determined it might be important to National security?
So much for one man to be in control of...
And his reasoning for picking refuge was to go to a country who had open internet access? I don't see him as a hero. He is determined to save his own skin. But what he has done has been very important. I just hope this leads to strict oversight of the NSA.
or maybe he knows other judges have ruled the other way, and knows this is going to his party's SCOTUS, anyway, so he can rule this way for OBAMA's NSA, iow, a purely Repug political ruling
lol @ boutons scoffing @ judicial contempt for the actually existing NSA dragnet and @actual protection for the 4th Amendment at a high appellate level.
It's an smear-Obama political decision, and, why not?, a career-pumping/fame decision, dressed up as a judicial decision, just like the Repug SCOTUS's right-wing ideology decisions are dressed up in bull , twisted, perverse legalisms.
I'm sure Leon's political decision would have gone the other way if McLiar/BishopGecko would have been in the WH.
Judge Leon granted release to five Gitmo detainees under GWB. Please tell us how that was politically motivated, boutons.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-20-2013 at 01:00 PM.
waiting . . .
I didn't say anything about little Fat Repug Bas 's ruling on GITMO.
NSA defenders’ shameless “national security” bait and switch
In order to have a genuinely constructive debate, data must be compiled, evidence must be amassed and verifiable truths must be presented. This truism is particularly significant when it comes to debates about security and liberty. When public policy disputes involve such grave issues, facts are a necessity. Without facts, we get the counterproductive discourse we are being treated to right now — the one hijacked by the National Security Agency’s defenders throwing temper tantrums, tossing out fear-mongering pla udes and trying to prevent any scrutiny of the agency.
You don’t have to look far to find this sad spectacle. Tune in to a national news program and you inevitably will hear pundits who have spent the last decade mindlessly cheering on wars and warrantless wiretapping now echoing the talking points emanating from surveillance-state apparatchiks like Reps. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md.
This week, these two lawmakers who head the House Intelligence Committee summarized all the bluster in a press release that should be enshrined for posterity. In an attempt to defend the NSA, the bipartisan duo breathlessly claimed that whistle-blower Edward Snowden ended up “endangering each and every American” by exposing the government’s mass surveillance (i.e., metadata) programs. Additionally, they insisted that “the harm to our country and its citizens will only continue to endure,” they indicted Snowden’s patriotism and they said his disclosures of the NSA’s unlawful and uncons utional programs “aligned him with our enemy.”
If these talking points and all of their media-promoted derivatives had been backed up by a tranche of corroborating facts, you might be able to argue that they represent a productive if caustic contribution to the conversation about national security. But the facts now leaking out of the government’s national security apparatus are doing the opposite. They are debunking — rather than confirming — the NSA defenders’ pla udes.
Back in October, for instance, ProPublica reported that while NSA officials claimed the metadata programs stopped 54 terrorist attacks, “there’s no evidence that the oft-cited figure is accurate.”
The next month, Senate Intelligence Committee members Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., said that in their review of classified information, they have “seen no evidence” that the programs exposed by Snowden are necessary to thwart terrorism.
The month after that, President Obama’s NSA oversight panel reviewed the metadata program and found that it “was not essential to preventing attacks.”
One panel member flatly admitted “we found none” when asked about evidence that the program had stopped any major terrorist plots.
Then most recently came a New America Foundation study of the surveillance. Evaluating 225 terrorism cases, the analysis concluded that the metadata programs “had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism.”
These are the inconvenient truths that NSA defenders do not want the public to know because they threaten to ignite a powerful backlash against the surveillance state. Thus, without countervailing facts of their own, the agency’s defenders are resorting to an age-old public relations trick: They are trying to scream a scary motto (in this case, “national security!”) as often and as loudly as possible to either distract everyone’s attention or fully drown out any fact-based discourse.
Disingenuous as it is, this bait and switch may yet work in a political culture based on manufacturing and spreading panic, regardless of whether that panic has anything to do with reality. If, though, this old trick doesn’t work — if evidence trumps the paranoia — then we will have reason to finally feel a bit optimistic. We will be able to celebrate not only serious legislative reforms of the NSA, but also a more mature political culture that is able to prioritize facts over fear.
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/16/nsa_...witch_partner/
Pentagon & NSA officials say they want Snowden extrajudicially assassinated
‘In a world where I would not be restricted from killing an American, I personally would go and kill him myself,’ a current NSA analyst told BuzzFeed. ‘A lot of people share this sentiment.’
‘I would love to put a bullet in his head,’ one Pentagon official, a former special forces officer, said bluntly…
‘His name is cursed every day over here,’ a defense contractor told BuzzFeed, speaking from an overseas Intelligence collections base. ‘Most everyone I talk to says he needs to be tried and hung, forget the trial and just hang him.’
One Army intelligence officer even offered BuzzFeed a chillingly detailed fantasy.
‘I think if we had the chance, we would end it very quickly,’ he said. ‘Just casually walking on the streets of Moscow, coming back from buying his groceries. Going back to his flat and he is casually poked by a passerby. He thinks nothing of it at the time starts to feel a little woozy and thinks it’s a parasite from the local water. He goes home very innocently and next thing you know he dies in the shower.’
http://pando.com/2014/01/16/pentagon...-assassinated/
Sirota quoting deep background, or something like that.
Still, a chillingly detailed fantasy, or something like that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4596162.htmlThe Snowden revelations undermined trust in U.S.-based cloud services by revealing how some of the largest American tech companies using cloud computing -- including Google and Yahoo -- had their data accessed by the NSA. About 10 percent of non-U.S. companies have canceled contracts with American cloud providers since the NSA spying program was disclosed, according to a survey by the Cloud Security Alliance, an industry group.
U.S. cloud providers could lose as much as $35 billion over the next three years as fears over U.S. government surveillance prompt foreign customers to transfer their data to cloud companies in other countries, according to a study by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank based in Washington, D.C.
"If European cloud customers cannot trust the United States government, then maybe they won't trust U.S. cloud providers either," Neelie Kroes, European commissioner for digital affairs, said last summer after the NSA revelations were made public. "If I am right, there are multibillion-euro consequences for American companies. If I were an American cloud provider, I would be quite frustrated with my government right now."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/bu...s.html?hp&_r=0Microsoft has lost customers, including the government of Brazil.
IBM is spending more than a billion dollars to build data centers overseas to reassure foreign customers that their information is safe from prying eyes in the United States government.
And tech companies abroad, from Europe to South America, say they are gaining customers that are shunning United States providers, su ious because of the revelations by Edward J. Snowden that tied these providers to the National Security Agency’s vast surveillance program.
Even as Washington grapples with the diplomatic and political fallout of Mr. Snowden’s leaks, the more urgent issue, companies and analysts say, is economic. Tech executives, including Eric E. Schmidt of Google and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, are expected to raise the issue when they return to the White House on Friday for a meeting with President Obama.
It is impossible to see now the full economic ramifications of the spying disclosures— in part because most companies are locked in multiyear contracts — but the pieces are beginning to add up as businesses question the trustworthiness of American technology products.
Saab beats out Boeing for contract to make jets for Brazil: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9BH11C20131218
Read the OP when you are sober and try again. Talk about a tangent and a stretch to get out there at that.
That's just barely English syntax.
lol
Well we know the / to start the quote is pretty fail in the english department if you are going to go that route. Have to love grammar smack that fails at it's own standard.
I will help sense you have an issue reading. It's in second person and the conjunction is for the verbs.
ie
(you) *verb* *prepositional phrase* <and> *verb* *prepositional phrase* *prepositional phrase* *prepositional phrase*
Its perfect syntax you just don't know grammar worth a .
lol ESL. you suck at this, Fuzzy.
Not at all. NSA surveillance of foreign dignitariies has already cost us billions and will cost us billions more. Trust counts.
lol perfect incomprehensible syntax. spoken like a true non-native speaker.
If you are, God bless you. You barely make any sense. If you claim English competence, you're about as good as boutons.
Three concepts that wine has failed to grasp and it should be noted that he at no point gives a specific issue with my sentence structure. It just reads as butthurt flailing tbh.
What is obvious is that wine has issues with either:
a) the under stood you
b) conjunctions with verbs, or
c) prepositional phrase.
It is clear that I used the proper subject-verb arrangement and indeed the prepositional phrases proceeded the term they modified.
So, drunkard, come back with another mindless flail where you once again repeat the same thing.
so it is both perfect and incomprehensible or is it perfect in how it is incomprehensible? your structure makes that unclear.
now I get that to be pedantic baggery but I wanted to point out what your tactic looks like. at least I make an argument though in place of your plaintive whining.
how much did you drink tonight btw?
Have to love grammar smack that fails at it's own standard.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions