US spy court: NSA to keep collecting phone records

Jan 04, 2014 by Kimberly Dozier

(AP)—A secretive U.S. spy court has ruled again that the National Security Agency can keep collecting every American's telephone records every day, in the midst of dueling decisions in two other federal courts about whether the surveillance program is constitutional.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on Friday renewed the NSA phone collection program, said Shawn Turner, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Such periodic requests are somewhat formulaic but required since the program started in 2006.

The latest approval was the first since two conflicting court decisions about whether the program is lawful and since a presidential advisory panel recommended that the NSA no longer be allowed to collect and store the phone records and search them without obtaining separate court approval for each search.

In a statement, Turner said that 15 judges on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on 36 occasions over the past seven years have approved the NSA's collection of U.S. phone records as lawful.

Also Friday, government lawyers turned to U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to block one federal judge's decision that threatens the NSA phone records program.

The opposing lawyer who spearheaded the effort that led to the ruling said he hopes to take the issue directly to the Supreme Court.

The Justice Department filed a one-page notice of appeal asking the appeals court to overturn U.S. District Judge Richard Leon's ruling last month that the program was likely unconstitutional. The government's move had been expected.

Larry Klayman, who filed the class-action suit against President Barack Obama and top administration national security officials, said he intends to petition the next week to send the case directly to the Supreme Court. Klayman said the move was justified because the NSA case was a matter of great public importance.

"There are exigent circumstances here," Klayman said. "We can't allow this situation to continue. The NSA's continuing to spy on everybody."

Turner said U.S. intelligence agencies would be willing to modify the phone records surveillance program to provide additional privacy and civil liberties protections as long as it was still operationally beneficial. He said the Obama administration was carefully evaluating the advisory panel's recent recommendations.

Judges sitting on the secretive spy court have repeatedly approved the program for 90-day periods. They also have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the program—a judicial bulwark that held strong until Leon's surprise decision last month.

Leon said the NSA's program was "almost Orwellian," a reference to writer George Orwell's futuristic novel "1984," and that there was little evidence the operation had prevented terrorist attacks. He ruled against the government but agreed to postpone shutting down the program until the government could appeal.

In a separate case involving the same NSA phone records program, a district judge in New York last month upheld the government's data collection as lawful. The American Civil Liberties Union, which lost that case, said this week it will appeal to a federal appeals court in New York.

Explore further: ACLU will appeal NY NSA phone surveillance ruling

4.2 /5 (6 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Judge's word on NSA program won't be the last

Dec 17, 2013

A federal judge is making headlines by declaring that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of millions of Americans' telephone records is likely unconstitutional. But even he realizes his won't be the last word on the issue. ...

ACLU will appeal NY NSA phone surveillance ruling

Dec 27, 2013

A civil rights lawyer says the American Civil Liberties Union is very disappointed that a New York judge has found that a government program that collects millions of Americans' telephone records is legal. ...

Supreme Court rejects plea to look at NSA program

Nov 18, 2013

The Supreme Court is refusing to intervene in the controversy surrounding the National Security Agency, rejecting a call from a privacy group to stop NSA from collecting the telephone records of millions of Verizon customers ...

Judge says NSA program is likely unconstitutional

Dec 16, 2013

In the first ruling of its kind, a federal judge declared Monday that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of Americans' telephone records is likely to violate the U.S. Constitution's ban on unreasonable ...

AT&T says it will publish reports on data requests (Update 2)

Dec 19, 2013

AT&T Inc. says it will publish reports on the number of requests for customer information that it receives from law enforcement agencies, the latest move in the telecommunications industry toward fuller disclosure amid debate ...

NSA defends global cellphone tracking as legal (Update)

Dec 06, 2013

The National Security Agency on Friday said its tracking of cellphones overseas is legally authorized under a sweeping U.S. presidential order. The distinction means the extraordinary surveillance program is not overseen ...

Recommended for you

Digital dilemma: How will US respond to Sony hack?

Dec 18, 2014

The detective work blaming North Korea for the Sony hacker break-in appears so far to be largely circumstantial, The Associated Press has learned. The dramatic conclusion of a Korean role is based on subtle ...

UN General Assembly OKs digital privacy resolution

Dec 18, 2014

The U.N. General Assembly has approved a resolution demanding better digital privacy protections for people around the world, another response to Edward Snowden's revelations about U.S. government spying.

Online privacy to remain thorny issue: survey

Dec 18, 2014

Online privacy will remain a thorny issue over the next decade, without a widely accepted system that balances user rights and personal data collection, a survey of experts showed Thursday.

Spain: Google News vanishes amid 'Google Tax' spat

Dec 16, 2014

Google on Tuesday followed through with a pledge to shut down Google News in Spain in reaction to a Spanish law requiring news publishers to receive payment for content even if they are willing to give it away.

User comments : 111

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Returners
1.3 / 5 (8) Jan 04, 2014
"There are exigent circumstances here," Klayman said. "We can't allow this situation to continue. The NSA's continuing to spy on everybody."


Would you mind kindly standing between me and the next car bomber, crock-pot bomber, or mass shooter you don't believe we need protection from?

If you want to forfeit people's lives for your falsely so-called "liberties" you should forfeit your own first, before you demand that everyone else should just expect the government to give up on intelligence.

Even if the Constitution forbade the Government programs, which it doesn't, I'd still support them, because the Constitution is obsolete regarding this issue.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
Would you mind kindly standing between me and the next car bomber, crock-pot bomber, or mass shooter you don't believe we need protection from?

You are aware that you have just given up the right to any kind of privacy? That kind of argumentation was the one employed by the Stasi when they justified spying on everybody 24/7.

If that sort of setup appeals to you, fine. You may think that you have nothing to hide. But you most certainly do have things that would cause you difficulty if it were communicated to the right people (boss, spouse, friends, family, whatever). If you think you don't: watch this.

http://vidinteres...-to-hide
Returners
1.2 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2014
A_P:

I am aware of the privacy concerns. I just don't have a solution that doesn't involve us all acting like naive fools, waiting for the next mass killing.

I do have private things I wouldn't want everyone to know about, nor anyone for that matter.

I don't have children, but am I supposed to put my "freedoms" above the lives of my family, my 4 yrs old nephew, for example?

If you have any ideas, I'm all for it, but I'm fresh out, and so are our leaders in every government branch. You know it and I know it. They haven't had an original idea for fighting* this type of crime in DECADES, except for the spying program.

*Insert "Preventing," because I'm sick of the "clean up the mess after the fact" approach, and so is Obama, though he doesn't have any ideas that can be passed in the Congress either.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2014
I am aware of the privacy concerns. I just don't have a solution that doesn't involve us all acting like naive fools, waiting for the next mass killing.

How about the method that works for everybody else? When there is evidence for a reasonable suspicion get a court order from an open court for targetted surveillance. What part of that doesn't work for you?

I don't have children, but am I supposed to put my "freedoms" above the lives of my family, my 4 yrs old nephew, for example?

If you want your nephew not to grow up in a police state and live a life of oppression? Yes.

Going for ultimate safety means that sooner or later you're living in a locked, padded cell.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2014
How about the method that works for everybody else? When there is evidence for a reasonable suspicion get a court order from an open court for targetted surveillance. What part of that doesn't work for you?


The part that doesn't work for this is nobody knows the attack is coming ahead of time in order to get that court order.

How can you get a court order for something you don't even know about?

The government probably would not have gotten a court order to investigate the Tsarnaiev brothers, Russian tip, because they were here in the country legally, living with "moderate" family members. They didn't have enough evidence to get a court order.

Fro school and theatre shootings, nobody even knows who these people are. They come out of the cracks, kill a bunch of people, and it's over. Their own family doesn't even know about it until the day it happens or even the next day in some cases. What good is a "court order" there? You don't know till it's too late.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2014
I don't even quite know how to "role play" this legally to make the point, but try this.

If a hypothetical person were to walk, unarmed, into a school, or even a lightly guarded facility, and shout "bang bang", representing a terrorist, or some other nut, shooting at people. By the time the words "bang, bang" are heard by anyone, it's too late. Now this could be any random person; anyone at all.

There is no "obvious" criminal activity to track to establish "probable cause" in the normal legal sense. The people buy their weapons legally, or steal or borrow them from their parents in one case, but all the others bought them legally. They mention their plans to nobody.

In a few cases, people already thought they were "weird", but not that weird, moreover, their testimony is unscientific because it's corrupted by "confirmation bias". Which is to say, "oh yeah, now that you mention it, he was kinda weird. I remember......"

* continued.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2014
* ow for example the "weird incident" in the case of one of the mass shooters was that people remembered he had a habit of playing games with the philosophical meaning and origin of words, like the "is it a shark or is it a cup" argument his former friend pointed out.

Now crazy as that may seem, it's actually not an entirely invalid inquiry, and some noted authors have had similar obsessions of playing with the meaning of language, or making up their own languages, perfectly normal people, such as Tolkien or C.S. Lewis.

So that sort of behavior is not even out of the realm of mainstream philosophical or philologenic inquiry. That may be alarming for a listener, but it is an alarming topic. It is not necessarily a marker for the behavior of a mass shooter.

So one of the biggest "markers" people remembered about the guy turned out to be potentially irrelevant.

Are they supposed to get a court order for every school-yard "that guy is weird" situation?
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2014
Now if it turns out that you answer, "get a court order for every 'weird' kid at school or college, since that's the only apparent marker there is, based solely on other student's accusations," then that's just as bad a situation anyway, because it would literally devolve into a "he said she said," argument with no possible way to resolve it, and everyone would be "guilty until proven innocent" anyway.

Requirement to catch a terroris without spy agency:

SOMEBODY must over-hear them make a claim or threat.

or

They must draw so much suspicion to people who know them, so that they report them to the police, who by the way would not even investigate them for this matter, they'd treat the case like a domestic or civil dispute.

Now because we know most of them didn't go around claiming they were going to shoot up a room of people, or anything similar, we know that type of evidence is unreliable. Not to mention, teens say things like that on the internet all the time, which needs to sto
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2014
But as I was saying, teens and even twenty-somethings, say things like tha tall the time on the internet:

"Go kill yourself."

"Someone should kill you."

"Go hang yourself."

And so on.

In more than a few cases they literally mean it too.

I could link to some sites where that happens all the time. it happens on entertainment forums and youtube non-stop, every day of the year, in probably millions of cases per day. Many of them would be indistinguishable from something that people think a terrorist or a home-grown shooter might say, that is, if they were the vocal type, most of the recents haven't been.

Who can sit and sift through all of this to find out which cases are just some punk harassing people, which ought to be a crime anyway, or whether its the next mass shooter?

Besides all that, none of the recent mass shooters would have been caught this way.

Some might have been caught by tracking credit card spending r.e. weapons and ammo, don't know though.
kris2lee
3 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2014
@Returners do not piss yourself.
RealScience
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
@returers:
Your statements in favor of NSA spying ended up with several posts arguing that the need to get court orders would mean not stopping school shootings. To show how this supports mass surveillance, please explain how this mass surveillance was successful in stopping school shootings... (Edit - after submitting, I see from your last post that you realize this).

As for standing between you and the next terrorist: intrusive governments that spy on their own citizens have killed over 100,000,000 people over the past 100 years, while all terrorists together have killed only 100,000 in that time. The current US government has already started breaking laws, using secret courts and hidden evidence, punishing whistle blowers, assassinating people without trials, and torturing people, so the trend is alarming.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2014
@Returners do not piss yourself.


Can you kindly call the parents and family members of all the victims of mass shootings recently, and tell them not to piss themselves too?

Let's do an experiment, shall we. My only role is to make a suggestion to you.

Copy what you wrote, "Do not piss yourself," onto a sticky note, and put it by your calendar, and wait for the next incident to make you, or someone else piss themselves.

Let's just start keeping some sort of tally of how many people die, and have died in the past few years, but also any new attacks in the future, and keep track of how bad the existing policy is for protecting people, and that is with the spying, remove the spying and the policy will be even weaker.

Now Remember, the existing policy of this president and the previous one regarding this, is to apologize to the crowd of mourners after the fact, and ask the crowd if we could have done better.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2014
Realscience:

The U.S. government, and to a lesser extent a few other western nations, assassinated several Al Qaeda member who were known, and who proudly boasted themselves of being members of the organization, in some cases boasted of being active participants in the murder of unarmed civilians. The primary reason some were assassinated is because they are too dangerous to be left alive, and secondly, nations like Pakistan were secretly harboring them (though our government won't say as much directly, publicly,) and they were abusing international law to protect them. Osama Bin Laden was assassinated, and rightly so, and they should have did it 20 years ago after the first WTC bombing.

Why do you have difficulty separating "legal," or "government system," from "evil"?

The U.S. government, good old democracy, good old capitalists, butchered native Americans by the millions in the late 1700's and early 1800s.

Do you still think capitalism is morally superior to communism?
Zephir_fan
Jan 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2014
Let's do a comparison to the 1900's USSR vs 1800's USA, communism vs capitalism:

-Both kills political opponents.
-Both kills migrant workers.
-Both kills races they don't like.
-Both starts wars with other nations over trade rights (r.e. Spanish-American War).
-Both puts people of certain races or groups in concentration camps (philipinos, native americans, later Japanese in ww2, though Japanese may have been justifiable, since they invented suicide bombing.)

I'm running out of ones that are profanely obvious, but I don't need to continue at this point anyway.

Looks like capitalism and democracy have a pretty bad track record too.

So what gives here? I thought, I thought Americans believed Capitalism and Democracy were the great moral revolution, the great "freedom of the masses." What happened here?

The problem is "government" is only as good as it's members. Have enough good people, it'll be good. Have enough evil people, it will be evil. Doesn't matter what system you have.
Zephir_fan
Jan 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2014
And guess what?

The sick thing about the evils in the U.S. during the 1800's and up to the Spanish American War, is those things were perpetrated with the majority consent, and everybody had freedom of speech, to speak out against Andrew Jackson killing natives as fast as possible, but the average white, anglo-saxon, protestant was consenting to it.

The discussion really has nothing to do with system of government, except that for some reason those who are against surveillance always draw connections between that and "a hundred million massacre in COMMUNIST Russia, OH MY GOD IT'S THE REDS SENT TO KIDNAP US OUT OF OUR HOMES, EVERYBODY LOOK OUT..."

But your side tells ME not to piss myself.
Zephir_fan
Jan 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealScience
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
@Returners - you point out that:

The U.S. government, good old democracy, good old capitalists, butchered native Americans by the millions in the late 1700's and early 1800s.

and
Let's do a comparison to the 1900's USSR vs 1800's USA, communism vs capitalism:

-Both kills political opponents.
-Both kills migrant workers.
-Both kills races they don't like.
etc.

Yet you ask :
Why do you have difficulty separating "legal," or "government system," from "evil"?


After you have pointed out that governments of all stripes have committed great evil in the past, why do YOU want to let the NSA ignore the constitution, which is the best protection from government abuse that Americans have?

davidivad
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
face it guys, people are not robots.
kris2lee
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2014
@Returners At the very moment somebody can pass my house and shoot me. How would you prevent this happening?

Edit: I would not say to a victims of tragic moments that they should not piss themselves, that would be rude. But changes are very high that you, yes you, are not victim of such event you are so afraid of.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2014
You are aware that you have just given up the right to any kind of privacy? That kind of argumentation was the one employed by the Stasi when they justified spying on everybody 24/7.
Well by that logic we gave up the right to any kind of privacy when we gave in to Stasi demands to put licence plates on our cars.

Am I the only one here getting a little tired of a german bashing our country when his own govt spies on upwards of 40% of its citizens?

Clean up your own house hypocrite.
kochevnik
not rated yet Jan 04, 2014
It must be nice whenever one needs to break laws, he simply creates a new court. Would suck to be on his shit list
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2014
Stasi is everywhere

"Perhaps the best known incident involving the abuse of an ANPR database in North America is the case of Edmonton Sun reporter Kerry Diotte in 2004. Diotte wrote an article critical of Edmonton police use of traffic cameras for revenue enhancement, and in retaliation was added to an ANPR database of "high-risk drivers" in an attempt to monitor his habits and create an opportunity to arrest him. The police chief and several officers were fired as a result, and The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada expressed public concern over the "growing police use of technology to spy on motorists."
Other concerns include the storage of information that could be used to identify people and store details about their driving habits and daily life, contravening the Data Protection Act along with similar legislation (see personally identifiable information). The laws in the UK are strict for any system that uses CCTV footage and can identify individuals."
skippy_skippys
3 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2014
But your side tells ME not to piss myself.


From the tone of your posts Skippy it seems the advice was offered to late.


Don't stupid trolls wet themselves if they don't get enough attention?
skippy_skippys
3 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2014
Let's do an experiment, shall we.


Alright Skippy let's try one experiment. Let's see if you can make one post without pulling some flash of emotional logical argumentative genius reasoning right out of your ass.

Now Remember you, WITHOUT cooking up a gumbo seasoned with a dash of god, a shake of scientifical mumbo jumbo, and a pinch of foolishment.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy. (Down here that means "The Ira is looking forward to it.")


Or you can tell him why he is wrong but I guess you can't.
Zephir_fan
Jan 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
skippy_skippys
3 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2014
Let's do an experiment, shall we.


Alright Skippy let's try one experiment. Let's see if you can make one post without pulling some flash of emotional logical argumentative genius reasoning right out of your ass.

Now Remember you, WITHOUT cooking up a gumbo seasoned with a dash of god, a shake of scientifical mumbo jumbo, and a pinch of foolishment.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy. (Down here that means "The Ira is looking forward to it.")


Or you can tell him why he is wrong but I guess you can't.


He wouldn't listen no. But maybe you'll have better luck with him than I did. Laissez les bons temps rouler Cher. I'm really glad there are two of on the case now, he was running the Ira ragged yes.


You have to say facts and junk against him or peoples will think yous be a troll.
Zera
1 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2014
Fact is once a technology exists, it will not be shelved. Nuclear arms are an excellent example, anyone of any intelligence and morality would never use the splitting of an atom against their fellow human. But those technologies exist and are stockpiled against "threat" at least within certain countries.

The technology exists, it doesn't dissapear.

My humble suggestion would be that we co-opt the technology as opposed to trying to fight it.

You could use it to track poverty for example, or lack of education, gambling addiction, potentially immoral corporate practice, etc.

When you can track, trace and find any human being on the planet, well then you have the math to finally start balancing out the problem that is inequality.

There is an issue of privacy, and that needs to be addressed, but my argument is once a technology exists it will never dissapear, meerly become invisible, the publics greatest tool is transparency.

I do not believe that endangers lives.
RealScience
5 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2014
the publics greatest tool is transparency


Agreed.

Which is why Snowdon, who upheld his oath to the defend the constitution of the US, is a hero and should be protected as a whistle-blower, while the NSA director who lied under oath to congress is the one who should be charged with a crime (at least perjury and possibly also treason).

Maybe the laws should be changed and maybe they shouldn't, but the constitution is currently the highest law of the land, and the NSA's mass surveillance clearly goes against the constitution, interpreted in the spirit in which it was written.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2014
the publics greatest tool is transparency
Agreed.
And al Qaeda agrees as well. They're counting on people like you to whine until govts give in and they can begin to figure out more effective ways of attacking us. Which is what they have promised to do, and are attempting to do all the time.

You guys don't think there is a war on because we are currently winning it. But this could change at any time.
while the NSA director who lied under oath to congress
You will keep telling this lie no matter what the truth is. Am I right?
DavidW
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2014
...you're living in a locked, padded cell.


I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives. -Leo Tolstoy

Because you're better than that.

RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2014
On June 18th [NSA chief] Alexander testified at a congressional hearing that "The information gathered from these programs provided the U.S. government with critical leads to help prevent over 50 potential terrorist events in more than 20 countries around the world."

At a later senate hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy pushed Alexander to admit that plot numbers had been fudged in a revealing interchange:

"There is no evidence that [bulk] phone records collection helped to thwart dozens or even several terrorist plots," said Leahy. The Vermont Democrat then asked the NSA chief to admit that only 13 out of a previously cited 54 cases of foiled plots were genuinely the fruits of the government's vast dragnet surveillance systems:

"These weren't all plots, and they weren't all foiled," Leahy said, asking Alexander, "Would you agree with that, yes or no?"

"Yes," replied Alexander.

So, Otto, will you keep denying that Alexander lied after he admitted himself?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2014
I didn't say anybody lied or not. Where did I say that?
Zephir_fan
Jan 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2014
I didn't say anybody lied or not. Where did I say that?


You said it in your previous post in this thread, Otto.
You quoted my comment:
while the NSA director who lied under oath to congress

and followed it with this assertion:
You will keep telling this lie no matter what the truth is. Am I right?


Not only did you call my statement a lie, but the only way it would be a lie is if the NSA chief did NOT lie, so in one sentence you both said that somebody lied and said that somebody else did not lie. And then you say that you "didn't say anybody lied or not"?
You are normally smart on most issues, but on this one you are so blinded by SOMETHING that you forget history, overlook human nature, and apparently don't even ready your own comments. OPEN YOUR EYES.

So do you keep denying that NSA chief Alexander lied after he admitted it himself?
RealScience
not rated yet Jan 05, 2014
(And I can see that I don't read my own comments carefully enough, either - that's 'read your own comments', not 'ready your own comments'.)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2014
while the NSA director who lied under oath to congress
"... in response to the question "Does the NSA really keep a file on everyone, and if so, how can I see mine?" Alexander replied "Our job is foreign intelligence" and that "Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of DOSSIERS on people, is absolutely false...From my perspective, this is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE."
On June 6, 2013, the Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper released a statement admitting the NSA collects telephony metadata on millions of Americans telephone calls. This metadata information included originating and terminating telephone number, telephone calling card number, IMEI number, time and duration of phone calls"

-The metadata they collect, which has been ruled legal and necessary many times, is NOT the sort of data the questioners were referring to. Was he hedging, mincing, obfuscating? Sure. Our enemies do not need to know how we find them. Lying? NO.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
So, Otto, will you keep denying that Alexander lied after he admitted himself
Well it does appear that he may have exaggerated, but perhaps he was originally referring to classified info. I'm speculating. At any rate we (meaning YOU) can't know the facts until investigations are conducted. Has Alexander been held in contempt? Have any charges at all been filed? No. Only guys like you and a surprising number of news sources are willing to convict him without due process. How come?
RealScience
not rated yet Jan 06, 2014
Only guys like you and a surprising number of news sources are willing to convict him without due process. How come?


Convicted without due process? No, that's the type of behavior I object to. My post said that he should "be charged with a crime". Charging one with a crime is an early step in the judicial process. He should have a right to defend himself, including a good lawyer, a chance to see and challenge the evidence against him, and a chance to argue his case before an unbiased jury in an open court.

And he should have these EVEN THOUGH he is part of the current trend toward denying these fundamental rights to others.

So how come you confused 'charged with a crime' and 'convicted'? Are they synonymous in the world you desire?
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
If you want to forfeit people's lives for your falsely so-called "liberties" you should forfeit your own first, before you demand that everyone else should just expect the government to give up on intelligence.


False dilemma. The one premise is not requisite for the other. One need not listen in on every phone conversation to gather intelligence. That I have to point that out seems...well frankly flabbergasting.

Convicted without due process? No, that's the type of behavior I object to. My post said that he should "be charged with a crime". Charging one with a crime is an early step in the judicial process. He should have a right to defend himself, including a good lawyer, a chance to see and challenge the evidence against him, and a chance to argue his case before an unbiased jury in an open court.


I agree, I also think a few hundred people at the NSA and in the executive branch (including the chief executive) should be given the same opportunity...
RealScience
not rated yet Jan 06, 2014
In response to the question "Does the NSA really keep a file on everyone..." Alexander replied "...Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of DOSSIERS on people, is absolutely false... this is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE."

On June 6, 2013, the Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper released a statement admitting the NSA collects telephony metadata on millions of Americans telephone calls.


If Alexander had said "we do not keeps millions of dossiers on Americans", he would merely have been obfuscating due to the difference between big searchable files on everyone and individual files on individual people.

Even such obfuscation would be bad because during testimony one is not supposed to answer the question asked, and to not mislead congress.

But Alexander said that this was 'absolutely false' and 'absolute nonsense', and that is a LIE because even the wording he used to be able to say 'no' s is merely incorrect in the details.
RealScience
not rated yet Jan 06, 2014
- continued -
However even though your own quotes show that Alexander lied, that is not the example that I used because there he could at lead plead the he was trying not to reveal classified details (although congress is authorized to see national security details if it asks).

In the example that I used Alexander's lie does not even cover up any classified details of how a program works, and so he cannot try a national security claim.

So: Even in the example you used, Alexander LIED as well as obfuscated, and he also lied in the example that I used.

Let's apply the law the way your AI would - the public record shows that the NSA director both misled and lied to congress. This is against the law, so Alexander should be charged and further evidence subpoenaed, and he should defend himself in open court before an unbiased jury.

Do you agree?
Or will your AI label you a deviant for not supporting equal application of the law?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
My post said that he should "be charged with a crime". Charging one with a crime is an early step in the judicial process
More bullshit. You said he LIED. You say he's guilty without due process. The people who actually know the facts apparently don't feel there is reason enough even to indict him.
merely have been obfuscating due to the difference between big searchable files on everyone and individual files on individual people
'Merely'? You don't see the difference between the metadata they're collecting and the sort of 'dossier' indicated by the spin?

This is the difference between licence plates and a system which constantly and automatically tracks each and every one and ties this info to a cumulative personal file of each and every owner.

YES it is. The politicians and pundits are making you guys believe that metadata is big brother. It obviously isn't. According to judges and experts it is legal and necessary .
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
even though your own quotes show that Alexander lied
No it didn't. You always have as little regard for facts?
Let's apply the law the way your AI would - the public record shows that the NSA director both misled and lied to congress
See there you go again. AI would know automatically that in order to determine that he lied there would need to be due process. And AI would ensure that all appropriate steps were followed, thereby preventing lynchmobbers like yourself from having their way.

Unfortunately the way it is now, crooked politicians, judges, prosecutors, and spin doctors do enable lynchings to occur. AI WILL prevent this, which is why guys like you fear and loathe it.

And FYI members of congress are not automatically privy to classified info. Certain members in certain committees are, and they decide what the rest of congress and the public need to know. The house intelligence committee is one.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2014
AI would know automatically that in order to determine that he lied there would need to be due process. And AI would ensure that all appropriate steps were followed, thereby preventing lynchmobbers like yourself from having their way.


You can't predict what AI will or won't do any more than you can a human being...otherwise it wouldn't be AI...would it.
RealScience
not rated yet Jan 06, 2014
See there you go again. AI would know automatically that in order to determine that he lied there would need to be due process. And AI would ensure that all appropriate steps were followed, thereby preventing lynchmobbers like yourself from having their way.


Gee, Otto, you said to me:
You will keep telling this lie no matter what the truth is.

Where was the due process behind your statement?

Your AI would know, even if you for get, that an accusation of a lie does not require due process, but that conviction does. And I clearly said the the Alexander should be charged with a crime, not that he should be convicted:
the NSA director who lied under oath to congress is the one who should be charged with a crime
.

- continued -
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2014
And as for your denial on your own quotes showing Alexander as lying, as I explained:

If Alexander had said "we do not keeps millions of dossiers on Americans", he would merely have been obfuscating due to the difference between big searchable files on everyone and individual files on individual people.

Even such obfuscation would be bad because during testimony one is not supposed to answer the question asked, and to not mislead congress.

But Alexander said that this was 'absolutely false' and 'absolute nonsense', and that is a LIE because even the wording he used to be able to say 'no' s is merely incorrect in the details.


So I explained HOW Alexander's statement was a lie.
And that was YOUR example - my example was even more directly a lie - I'll re-post it below in cased you failed to read it.

- continued -
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2014
On June 18th [NSA chief] Alexander testified at a congressional hearing that "The information gathered from these programs provided the U.S. government with critical leads to help prevent over 50 potential terrorist events in more than 20 countries around the world."

At a later senate hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy pushed Alexander to admit that plot numbers had been fudged in a revealing interchange:

"There is no evidence that [bulk] phone records collection helped to thwart dozens or even several terrorist plots," said Leahy. The Vermont Democrat then asked the NSA chief to admit that only 13 out of a previously cited 54 cases of foiled plots were genuinely the fruits of the government's vast dragnet surveillance systems:

"These weren't all plots, and they weren't all foiled," Leahy said, asking Alexander, "Would you agree with that, yes or no?"

"Yes," replied Alexander.

Otto, you should look up what a 'lie' is, since you appear not to know.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
Where was the due process behind your statement?
Ahaahaaaa tard, its a lie to say we know he lied because, obviously, we dont. So I can reassert that you are a liar.
So I explained HOW Alexander's statement was a lie.
-And I explained to you how you were wrong. Metadata are not dossiers. Inadvertent exaggeration and misspeaking are not necessarily lies, especially if they are not germaine. And despite this you continue to repeat the LIE.

How come? Are you stupid? Or just a hopeless fashion whore?

Heres a clue to the nature of fashion: ANYTHING looks good on attractive young people. And older, aging, overweight people can kid themselves that they are young and attractive by merely donning fashionable clothes.

Of course theyre wrong. Ever see a fat woman in spandex? This is what your posts remind me of.

Painful really.
RealScience
5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
So, Otto, there is plenty of evidence on public record to establish probable cause that Alexander LIED to congress as well as obfuscated and misled congress.

Therefore your AI, were it indeed to apply the laws fairly, would charge Alexander and give him a fair trial.

QED
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
So, Otto, there is plenty of evidence on public record to establish probable cause that Alexander LIED to congress
If there was fashion pig he would have been indicted already. But he hasnt. How come?
would charge Alexander and give him a fair trial.
No fashion pig because AI would know what the experts who are intimately familiar with the evidence know, and refuse to indict him as well.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
Inadvertent exaggeration and misspeaking are not necessarily lies, especially if they are not germaine.


We've found a lot of "Earth like" planets out there according to scientists. How about you, as an Earthling, try to live for more than an minute on any one of them.

Germane? Germane?? The reason the guy obfuscated and LIED is because he knew without DOUBT the American people would go ballistic about the illegal activities his agency was perpetrating against them. If you deliberately exaggerate in order to MISLEAD people because you know you'll get a negative reaction that's called lying...ask any three year old...

If he didn't want to disclose his crime he should have taken the 5th or tried to weasel out and use the "national security" line. As it is now he's guilty of perjury and illegal search.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
More facets of lying that AI would consider:

"Statements which entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly, or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive... Further, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and it is not perjury to lie about matters immaterial to the legal proceeding... it is not considered perjury to lie about one's age unless age is a factor in determining the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits.

"Fundamentally, statements that are literally true cannot provide the basis for a perjury charge (as they do not meet the falsehood requirement) just as answers to truly ambiguous statements cannot constitute perjury. However, such fundamental truths of perjury law become muddled when discerning the materiality of a given statement and the way in which it was material to the given case."
RealScience
not rated yet Jan 06, 2014
Where was the due process behind your statement?

Ahaahaaaa tard, its a lie to say we know he lied because, obviously, we dont. So I can reassert that you are a liar.


Otto, would you please learn to read more carefully?

When I said that somebody lied you said that
in order to determine that he lied there would need to be due process


So I pointed out that you had called my statement a lie, and asked where the due process was.

Now you are changing your tune and saying that due process isn't necessary when the lie is in the public record. Yet my comment was made regarding an obvious lie that Alexander made IN THE PUBLIC RECORD (and that you still have failed to address), and not regarding the meta data.

(Furthermore I already explained how Alexander's "no" in the metadata was merely obfuscation, and that it was his statement that it was 'absolutely false' and 'absolute nonsense' that were lies in that case. Yet you failed to address that as well.)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2014
We've found a lot of "Earth like" planets out there according to scientists. How about you, as an Earthling, try to live for more than an minute on any one of them
We live on an earthlike planet. How about you trying to live at the bottom of one of its oceans or naked at its south pole? Or hovering at 40,000 ft?
he knew without DOUBT the American people would go ballistic about the illegal activities his agency was perpetrating against them
...And yet SINCE then we have had federal judges and experts and politicians and perhaps the majority of the american people agreeing that what the NSA was doing was not only legal but NECESSARY.

Only fashion pigs would willfully ignore this FACT.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2014
This is what you and all your buds believe constitute pergury...
only 13 out of a previously cited 54 cases of foiled plots were genuinely the fruits of the government's "vast dragnet" surveillance systems [please note the shameless idiot stomach-turning spin phrase "vast dragnet"]
-Correct? Please consider what experts, potential jurists, and future AI would weigh in their determination of perjury:

"... statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and it is not perjury to lie about matters immaterial to the legal proceeding..."

-I can hear AI muttering to itself... '13-54? What fucking difference does THAT make???' -although in reality it would be far faster than my cognition could cope with.
RealScience
not rated yet Jan 06, 2014
Your AI would realize that to state "over 50" when the reality is 13 is stretching the truth, and would chastise Alexander for misleading congress.

However Alexander later admitted that ONLY ONE OR TWO suspected plots were identified as a result of the bulk phone record collection program that the questions were related to, so the AI would then realize that stretching one or two to over 50 is an attempt to stretch the truth well beyond the breaking point. Your AI would mutter to itself stretching one or two to 'over 50' isn't even in the same ball park, and your AI would therefore censure Alexander for misleading congress in this case, and would indicate that initial evidence was sufficient to file charges because the law is supposed to be applied equally.

So let's turn it over to a jury and see what they decide!
Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2014
We live on an earthlike planet. How about you trying to live at the bottom of one of its oceans or naked at its south pole? Or hovering at 40,000 ft?


Exactly :)

...And yet SINCE then we have had federal judges and experts and politicians and perhaps the majority of the american people agreeing that what the NSA was doing was not only legal but NECESSARY.


http://en.wikiped..._populum

And you're calling me a fashion pig?

The majority of American's believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead too Otto....
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2014
And you're calling me a fashion pig?
So WHY did YOU use it??
the American people would go ballistic about the illegal activities
(Youll note the buzzphrase 'the american people")

-And as Ive pointed out many times, federal judges, politicians, and experts have determined that they are not only legal but NECESSARY. You have no grounds and no right to keep repeating lies about perjury and criminality.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2014
Your AI would mutter to itself stretching one or two to 'over 50' isn't even in the same ball park, and your AI would therefore censure Alexander for misleading congress in this case, and would indicate that initial evidence was sufficient to file charges because the law is supposed to be applied equally
No, no it wouldnt.

Our armed forces are comprised of many parts. Our nuclear sub fleet for instance has never fired a nuclear missile at anyone. But most (sane) people see the value of it as a deterrent. Together with all the other facets of the US military it protects us. And we NEED all those parts to accomplish this.

You have NO idea other than what you read in the trash rags, of what the NSA has discovered and what it has prevented. And god willing you never will, because the first thing YOU would want to do is give it to the enemy whom you refuse to acknowledge. You will just have to rely on the experts who have determined that what they do is not only LEGAL but NECESSARY.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2014
However Alexander later admitted that ONLY ONE OR TWO suspected plots were identified as a result of the bulk phone record collection program that the questions were related to
Source (reliable) please preferably with minimum spin and buzzwords.
RealScience
not rated yet Jan 06, 2014
And as Ive pointed out many times, federal judges, politicians, and experts have determined that they are not only legal but NECESSARY. You have no grounds and no right to keep repeating lies about perjury and criminality.


Those who determined that the programs were necessary in general did it based on the NSA's assertions of the programs' value, and even the NSA has acknowledged that those assertions were incorrect. Therefore those determinations are not relevant.

Alexander should be charged and a jury decide his guilt or innocence based on the evidence.

RealScience
not rated yet Jan 06, 2014
However Alexander later admitted that ONLY ONE OR TWO suspected plots were identified as a result of the bulk phone record collection program that the questions were related to
Source (reliable) please preferably with minimum spin and buzzwords.


Certainly.
Reference: Alexander's testimony to the Senate Judiciary committee.
One source of many: The Washington Times, Oct. 2nd: "Pressed by the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at an oversight hearing, Gen. Keith B. Alexander admitted that the number of terrorist plots foiled by the NSA's huge database of every phone call made in or to America was only one or perhaps two".

(You could have "Googled it", as you have told other to do for easy things to find (and as I have given you a 5 for saying when it was well deserved)).
RealScience
not rated yet Jan 06, 2014
You have NO idea other than what you read in the trash rags, of what the NSA has discovered and what it has prevented. And god willing you never will, because the first thing YOU would want to do is give it to the enemy whom you refuse to acknowledge.


Why would you think that I would give anything away to the enemy? I detest terrorists and anyone who uses force to impose their will upon others (in contrast to direct self defense, which is preventing others from imposing their will).

However I am also aware that not all enemies of my enemies are my friends, and that a government that forgets that it is supposed to be the servant of its people rather than their master is more dangerous to its people than outside terrorists (such governments have killed three orders of magnitude more people in modern times than terrorists have). I thus find the trend of the US government starting to use torture, secret courts, assassinations without trials, etc. alarming, and you should too.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
Why would you think that I would give anything away to the enemy? I detest terrorists and anyone who uses force to impose their will upon others
Because you said the following:
Which is why Snowdon, who upheld his oath to the defend the constitution of the US, is a hero and should be protected as a whistle-blower
Snowden stole tons of classified documents en masse and then released them to news sources readily accessible by enemies of the west. He had no idea what was in those docs or the kind of damage they would cause, nor was he qualified to make that judgement.

Yet you call him a hero and I assume you would have done exactly the same thing (at least in your mind).

I bet I could do a little searching and find that you expressed similar sentiments re Bradley manning.

Neither you nor Snowden nor manning have any idea what it takes to protect this country.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
Those who determined that the programs were necessary in general did it based on the NSA's assertions
How the fuck would you know what they based their decisions on??

Let me tell you what we can assume. We can assume that they are not idiots and wouldn't just take anybody's 'assertions' on anything. We can assume they know far more about the nature of intelligence and the specific aspects of the NSA program, than either you or Snowden. And we can assume that that they spent man-weeks pouring over the evidence, consulting other experts, and studying pertinent cases and legal precedent.

And after doing all this they decided that the NSA operations were not only LEGAL but NECESSARY. LEGAL and NECESSARY. How many times do I have to repeat myself?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
Some other tidbits from your ref:

"... Clapper denied that the number of plots foiled should be the sole metric by which the success of the program is measured. "I think there's another metric here that's very important. … I would call it the 'peace of mind' metric... He explained that the agency also could use the database to satisfy itself that global terrorists abroad did not have connections or associates in the U.S., and that attackers like those at the Boston Marathon were not part of a wider international plot." [this sort of info is crucial to limiting the scope of other investigations]

"during his 2012 re-election campaign, President Obama was being briefed that al Qaeda had metastasized" [Good to know eh? I wonder if the NSA told him this?]

[and way down at the bottom] "A number of senators made it clear at the hearing that they supported the domestic data gathering... the metadata program would have thwarted the Sept. 11 plot..."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
I thus find the trend of the US government starting to use torture, secret courts, assassinations without trials, etc. alarming, and you should too.
You don't like "secret courts" because it sounds nasty. They enforce the same laws as 'public' courts but are not subject to corruption and politicians seeking reelection. And most important they don't let the enemy know what we are doing. The enemy doesn't use courts. Does that bother you?

The enemy tortures in earnest, not just a little water up the nostrils and loud rock and roll at night when we are trying to sleep boohoo. They cut off digits and testicles and heads, and they skin people alive. They also execute 10yo kids for spying, and they blow up girls schools. Does this bother you?

And they have promised to assassinate every Jew in Palestine and a great many Americans as well, and have tried many times, and will NOT stop trying until either we or they are gone.

Shouldn't this bother you? Why doesn't this bother you??
RealScience
not rated yet Jan 06, 2014
Snowden stole tons of classified documents en masse and then released them to news sources readily accessible by enemies of the west. He had no idea what was in those docs or the kind of damage they would cause, nor was he qualified to make that judgement.

Snowden has apparently released just 1% of the documents that he has, and I have not yet seen any regarding specific plots or things that would be of high value to terrorists. He released just enough to alert congress and the American people the NSA was misleading them, and that the spying programs target many whom there is no reason to suspect are terrorists.

I call him a hero because I see that the current trend of the US intelligence agencies is more dangerous to our freedom than a bunch of loser terrorists, and he risked his own well-being to alert people to one aspect of the danger.

I'll take you bet on Manning - you find something similar, and I apologize, you find nothing similar, and you apologize. Search away!
RealScience
not rated yet Jan 06, 2014
Let me tell you what we can assume. We can assume that they are not idiots and wouldn't just take anybody's 'assertions' on anything. We can assume they know far more about the nature of intelligence and the specific aspects of the NSA program, than either you or Snowden. And we can assume that that they spent man-weeks pouring over the evidence, consulting other experts, and studying pertinent cases and legal precedent.


We can assume that they were briefed by the NSA (in many cases this is a matter of record). And even you have admitted that the NSA deliberately misled even congress, so we can assume that the NSA similarly misled them.
RealScience
not rated yet Jan 06, 2014
Snowden stole tons of classified documents en masse and then released them to news sources readily accessible by enemies of the west. He had no idea what was in those docs or the kind of damage they would cause, nor was he qualified to make that judgement.


Snowden has apparently released just 1% of the documents that he has, and I have not yet seen any regarding specific plots or things that would be of high value to terrorists. He released just enough to alert congress and the American people the NSA was misleading them, and that the spying programs target many whom there is no reason to suspect are terrorists.

I call him a hero because I see that the current trend of the US intelligence agencies is more dangerous to our freedom than a bunch of loser terrorists, and he risked his own well-being to alert people to one aspect of the danger.

I'll take you bet on Manning - you find something similar, and I apologize, you find nothing similar, and you apologize. Search away!

RealScience
not rated yet Jan 06, 2014
You don't like "secret courts" because it sounds nasty.


I don't trust secret court because historically they have led to dictatorships.

The enemy doesn't use courts. Does that bother you?
The enemy tortures in earnest ...They cut off digits and testicles and heads, and they skin people alive. They also execute 10yo kids for spying, and they blow up girls schools. Does this bother you?


Certainly it bothers me - I already told you I object when anyone uses force on other. That's why I agree that people who stoop to such things are an enemy.

But it also bother me when I see people in the U.S. thinking that the only way to win is to give up our freedoms. The terrorists hate free people; the U.S. curtailing its own citizens' freedom is just what they want, and chickens and dupes support it. What happen to the home of the free and the land of the brave?

The terrorists did billions in direct damage and the overreaction is costing us trillions.

Modernmystic
3 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2014
So WHY did YOU use it??


Because the context I used it in was COMPLETELY different than the one you did. Honestly I do think you get context Otto, so I think you're being deliberately dishonest here. "The American people will go ballistic" is used to show his motivations for LYING the negative consequences he wanted to avoid. YOU used it as an opinion poll like the opinion of the masses was a legitimate argument in and of itself.

-And as Ive pointed out many times, federal judges, politicians, and experts have determined that they are not only legal but NECESSARY. You have no grounds and no right to keep repeating lies about perjury and criminality.


I have EVERY RIGHT. Even if a federal judge didn't recently just hand an opinion that it was criminal. Free governments are routinely taken to task over their abuses WHETHER OR NOT THEY AGREE with the people over the issue. My RIGHT to do this is here...

http://en.wikiped...titution
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
Snowden has apparently released just 1% of the documents that he has, and I have not yet seen any regarding specific plots or things that would be of high value to terrorists
And you're simply not qualified to make that assessment. For instance the revelation that the NSA is using metadata on phone records to connect overseas al quaeda with operatives in this country, would certainly cause them to alter the way they communicate.

This is pretty obvious. Since you don't realize it or choose to ignore it, you're either an idiot or an asshole. Or both.
The American people will go ballistic
-So by this mm I am assuming you are talking about 2 guys in des moines? Or perhaps you are suggesting a certain significant percentage (which you were)? My phrase was 'the majority of Americans', also a suggestion of quantity. Same thing nitwit. I said nothing about polls.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
I have EVERY RIGHT. Even if a federal judge didn't recently just hand an opinion that it was criminal.
-An 'opinion' that it 'probably' would work in court.

"A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency's daily collection of virtually all Americans' phone records is almost certainly unconstitutional.

"U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon found that a lawsuit by Larry Klayman, a conservative legal activist, has "demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success" on the basis of Fourth Amendment privacy protections..."

But

"the court had issued a temporary injunction, blocking the NSA's collection of phone records. Although a temporary injunction was issued, the action is stayed pending appeal."

-Of course you have the right in this country to spout most any kind of lying bullshit you want. And I have every right to correct you. Opinions are not verdicts especially when they are very quickly nullified are they?
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2014
Snowden only released details on the metadata program after the NSA denied that it was tracking the phone calls of ordinary Americans. The NSA was deceiving its masters, both congress and the American people. And it got caught. It still tried to deceive, and it got caught again and again.

The NSA should be like a well-behaved pit-bull - always loyal to its masters and always ready to defend them, and never mistrustful of its masters. If a pit bull doesn't trust its masters, they should muzzle the dog before the situation gets worse, and then reestablish the dog's role.

In the long run a deceitful NSA would be far more dangerous to American freedom than bunch of terrorists it. You should thank Snowden for the information we need to turn the NSA back into a good servant. Instead you see the distant evil and panic, listening while your servant tells you how weak you are and how only he can save you from your enemy, if only you give him more everything he wants. Open your eyes!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
"Snowden's betrayal hurts in at least three important ways.

"First, there is the undeniable operational effect of informing adversaries of American intelligence's tactics, techniques and procedures. Snowden's disclosures go beyond the "what" of a particular secret or source. He is busily revealing the "how" of American collection... Snowden has documents that comprise "basically the instruction manual for how the NSA is built... there are already reports of counterterrorism targets changing their communications patterns"

"[Second] the undeniable economic punishment that will be inflicted on American businesses"

"The third great harm of Snowden's efforts to date is the erosion of confidence in the ability of the United States to do anything discreetly or keep anything secret... Snowden seems undeterred by any of these consequences..."

-And neither are you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
Snowdens motivation:

"[He] warned that the extent of mass data collection was far greater than the public knew and included what he characterized as "dangerous" and "criminal" activities... "I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded""

"[Metadata collected includes only] the telephone number of the phones making and receiving the call, and how long the call lasted. This information is known as "metadata" and doesn't include a recording of the actual call..."

-The NSA was not, and is not, and will not be, recording everything that citizens say unless they are part of a targeted criminal or terrorist investigation.

SNOWDEN LIED. And you fell for it.
Snowden only released details on the metadata program after the NSA denied that it was tracking the phone calls of ordinary Americans.
You began this thread by posturing instead of critically examining the evidence. You repeat lies and make up lies of your own in order to maintain your posture.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
deceiving its masters... pit-bull... distant evil and panic... Open your eyes
-Stop thinking in mindless catch-phrases. Ive given you the evidence which shows that what the NSA is doing is legal and necessary. Ive given you evidence that snowden lied fundamentally about why he did what he did. Ive given you evidence that you are mindlessly repeating sensationalist lies from biased news sources desperate for shrinking market share.

And Ive caught you making up idiot lies of your own. Heres one:
I don't trust secret court because historically they have led to dictatorships
Utter bullshit.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2014
Clapper denied that the number of plots foiled should be the sole metric by which the success of the program is measured.
The NSA used it as a prominent metric – until they got caught lying about the numbers by 25 the numbers 25x to 50x.

The enemy tortures in earnest, not just a little water up the nostrils and loud rock and roll at night when we are trying to sleep boohoo.

Right – our intelligence agencies are only a little bit pregnant because they have only just started torturing and violating the Geneva Convention a little bit. But unless stopped now, history tells us where 'a little bit pregnant' is likely to lead.

Snowden's betrayal hurts in … the undeniable economic punishment that will be inflicted on American businesses"


Do you also blame the whistle-blowers for the Catholic Church's child-abuse scandal rather than the pedophile priests?
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2014
Ive given you the evidence which shows that what the NSA is doing is legal and necessary.

Yes, the NSA claims that what it is doing is necessary, and quoted big numbers of successes to justify its dubious practices. And you fell for it, hook, line and sinker. As did at least some of the judges you refer to – parts of their decisions refer to it. And the NSA itself has now admitted that the numbers that it gave were wrong, and not by a little bit but by a factor of 25x to 50x. (And higher numbers make the terrorists more careful of the NSA, so the NSA's deception actually helped the terrorists by alerting them).

The NSA lied, and you fell for it. As for Snowden I can't say on his motives, but in contrast to the NSA he has backed up his claims with data from the NSA itself.

Failing to learn from history is bad enough, but you have failed to learn from the present.
Try opening your eyes - governments that forget that they are servants are more dangerous than terrorists!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
The NSA used it as a prominent metric – until they got caught lying about the numbers by 25 the numbers 25x to 50x.
No. The NSA is a huge agency involved in many very complex things, and working within a much larger intelligence community. The sum total of what you know is filtered through the news which does the emphasizing and omitting and spinning for you.

Anderson's and clappers testimony took many hours. Do you think that's all they talked about?
quoted big numbers of successes to justify its dubious practices. And you fell for it, hook, line and sinker.
No, actually I didn't know the specifics until this thread. I now realize how very little you know about the whole affair.
The NSA lied, and you fell for it
You still don't understand what perjury is. If they had perjured themselves they would have been charged. Right?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
Do you also blame the whistle-blowers for the Catholic Church's child-abuse scandal rather than the pedophile priests?
See this is how I know you're a shameless fashion slut. Real science plays the pedo angle.

Did federal judges, experts, and inquiry panel congressmen all decide that abuse within the Catholic Church was not only LEGAL but NECESSARY?

What an idiot you are.
RealScience
not rated yet Jan 08, 2014
See this is how I know you're a shameless fashion slut. Real science plays the pedo angle.

Did federal judges, experts, and inquiry panel congressmen all decide that abuse within the Catholic Church was not only LEGAL but NECESSARY?


No, since you are so blind in the NSA case, I used a cover-up versus whistle-blower example from another area that you might not be so blind in. Many priests, bishops, etc. decided that a coverup was necessary.

As for fashion sluts, you are the one who keeps trying to bolster your case by referring to what other people think.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2014
so blind in. Many priests, bishops, etc. decided that a coverup was necessary.
Correct. And when federal judges, experts, and inquiry panel congressmen got involved they all agreed that horrendous crimes had been committed. Yet this same type of authority concluded that the NSA activity was LEGAL and NECESSARY.

And yet you're the kind of guy who wants people to equate the NSA with pedos, for mindless spin value. You're a fashion whore.
by referring to what other people think.
You mean what federal judges, experts, and inquiry panel congressmen have CONCLUDED after exhaustive examination of the evidence. In contrast to fashion pigs like yourself who like to draw a consensus among their fellows in the sty, all feeding on the swill that starving newsrags are flinging them.

Too much metaphor for you? You're the guy who likes to invoke pedos and secret court dictatorship bullshit to create spin.
RealScience
not rated yet Jan 08, 2014
The NSA lied, and you fell for it


You still don't understand what perjury is. If they had perjured themselves they would have been charged. Right?


And how many people in the Bush administration got charged after 'misrepresenting' the evidence for Iraq's WMDs and that threat? That lead to the world's first trillion-dollar mistake and the loss of more American lives than 9/11 (and on the order of 100x the damage of 9/11 if values all human lives).

Similarly the government here will probably not acknowledge that Alexander lied. The NSA will get its wings clipped a bit, and its contractors will just by coincidence increase their contributions to the election campaigns of those who supported the NSA and opposed major reform.

That is not as good as a benevolent AI that would apply facts, logic and the law equally, but it sure beats the paranoia-based AI that the NSA would put in place, which might decide that if even its creator were liars, all humans were vermin.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2014
And when federal judges, experts, and inquiry panel congressmen got involved they all agreed that horrendous crimes had been committed. Yet this same type of authority concluded that the NSA activity was LEGAL and NECESSARY.


You are missing the point that the internal controls tried the coverup rather than the cleanup, treating the whistle blowers as the problem rather than the abusers as the problem.

It is unfortunate the Snowden had to resort to publicly showing that the NSA was deceiving its masters, but the problem stems from the deception and not the whistle-blowing.
RealScience
not rated yet Jan 08, 2014
You offered a bet:
I bet I could do a little searching and find that you expressed similar sentiments re Bradley manning.


I accepted your bet:

I'll take you bet on Manning - you find something similar, and I apologize, you find nothing similar, and you apologize. Search away!


You obviously haven't found anything, and anyone who can use a search engine can see that you were wrong.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2014
You offered a bet:
I bet I could do a little searching and find that you expressed similar sentiments re Bradley manning.


I accepted your bet:

I'll take you bet on Manning - you find something similar, and I apologize, you find nothing similar, and you apologize. Search away!


You obviously haven't found anything, and anyone who can use a search engine can see that you were wrong.
I haven't looked. I'm not so good at playing fetch fashionPudel.

If you were playing honestly you would have told me what or where and saved us both time. But I think it's a good bet you are a manning fan for the same reasons. Yes or what?
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2014
You mean what federal judges, experts, and inquiry panel congressmen have CONCLUDED after exhaustive examination of the evidence.


http://en.wikiped...uthority

Are you going to present an actual argument at some point or keep droning on about how the government agrees that the government is right...
RealScience
not rated yet Jan 09, 2014
I haven't looked. I'm not so good at playing fetch fashionPudel.

If you were playing honestly you would have told me what or where and saved us both time. But I think it's a good bet you are a manning fan for the same reasons. Yes or what?


You offered the bet, so I should say "go fetch".
But since I do play honestly, I ALREADY told you: "anyone who can us a search engine can see that you were wrong" (I didn't think I'd ever made any, but I searched to be sure and even Google could not find a single comment. As I said, I usually avoid politics). But reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong point unless the words feeds your preconceived ideas.

I accept your 'thank you' for playing honestly and saving you the time, and your admission that you lost the bet and were wrong, even if you don't bother to type them. And I accept your apology for thinking that I don't play honestly when it was you that failed to read what I wrote, even if you don't type that either.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2014
As for my opinion on Manning, if Manning had tried to clean up the army internally, and then merely revealed the videos of misconduct after getting nowhere, he might have been a hero. Such military abuses of power aid terrorism, as well as being morally wrong themselves, and the U.S. should never tolerate such behavior.

But Manning revealed himself to be a vindictive little snot with a personal vendetta. For instance, while the snide remarks in the diplomatic cables were petty and stupid, they were not dangerous, illegal or immoral, and hence revealing them did harm and not good.

From what I have seen of the evidence, Manning should have been given BOTH a medal for blowing the whistle on serious abuses, and a prison cell to wear the medal in for doing unnecessary damage afterward. But he should not have gotten a longer sentence than the perpetrators of the despicable misconduct got (and some of them even went unpunished).

So no, I am not a Manning fan.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2014
Are you going to present an actual argument at some point or keep droning on about how the government agrees that the government is right...
The US has 3 branches of govt for the purpose of providing checks and balances with each other. I provided examples above of judicial and legislative parties who are independent of the executive branch and who have nevertheless endorsed what the NSA has been doing.

But if youd prefer the endorsement of some foreign govt, Ive also shown how germany and others routinely benefit from info gleaned by the NSA and other US intelligence-gathering ops.

But if thats still not good enough for you I can offer testimony from at least one NGO who is admittedly not too pleased with US govt scrutiny:
http://www.youtub...tQftYokY
"anyone who can us a search engine can see that you were wrong"
So explain to me what is the difference between the 2 leakers. In your own words.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2014
if Manning had tried to clean up the army internally, and then merely revealed the videos of misconduct after getting nowhere, he might have been a hero
This is not very clear but it seems you are saying that it would have been honorable if manning had stayed in the army while he released his stolen stuff?

"In early 2010 she [mannings a girl now] leaked classified information to WikiLeaks and confided this to Adrian Lamo, an online acquaintance. Lamo informed Army Counterintelligence, and Manning was arrested in May that same year."

-So manning released his stuff while still employed and stuck around to defend himself. Snowden ran screaming like a bitch to a former enemy. So who was more honorable in that respect?
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2014
As far as content and indiscriminate selection:

"[Mannings junk] included videos of the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike, and the 2009 Granai airstrike in Afghanistan; 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables; and 500,000 Army reports that came to be known as the Iraq War logs and Afghan War logs."

-As for snowden:

"Director Keith Alexander estimated that Snowden had copied anywhere from 50,000 to 200,000 NSA documents. Later estimates ran as high as 1.7 million... only one percent of the documents had been published."

-I dont know what all he grabbed, and NEITHER DO YOU. It sounds like he grabbed handsful just like manning. So you cant say that manning was any more slimy for grabbing the wrong stuff.
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2014
In snowdens words:

"...these programs of dragnet mass surveillance that put entire populations under an all-seeing eye and save copies forever ... These programs were never about terrorism: they're about economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation. They're about power."

-Hmmm. He sounds a lot like you. Lets deconstruct this statement, first by isolating spin phrases:

"dragnet mass surveillance... entire populations... all-seeing eye... save-forever... never about terrorism... economic spying... social control... diplomatic manipulation... about power"

-In other words the entire statement was conceived to elicit the proper emotions while being devoid of any useful info.

Funny that you would take such screed (spin-word) verbatim, even though it is the opinion of one person and contains no factual content.

We have since learned that metadata is not mass surveillance and was always about terrorism. The rest is mindless pap.

Lies and pap for the gullible.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2014
...you are saying that it would have been honorable if manning had stayed in the army while he released his stolen stuff?


No, whether Manning was in the army or out is not a major issue.

Manning should only have blown the whistle on serious cases of misconduct, and he should have exhausted internal government channels first (army, then other government). He should only have gone public if these channels failed to do their job.

I'll repeat it for you.
He should have exhausted internal channels first, and he should never have released anything except evidence of serious misconduct.

I don't think Snowden would have run to Russia if the U.S. hadn't been threatening him. And if he gives classified material to the Russians, or turns spiteful and petty, he could easily deserve a prison cell as well as a medal - he might very well go the way of Manning.

But so far the U.S has a CHANCE to be better for what he has released, avoiding a slide into '1984' doublespeak and spying.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2014
Doublespeak may have defined metadata as not mass surveillance, but that does not make it true.
The average person makes what - ten phone calls per day? So that metadata alone is several thousand piece of information per year on every person being monitored.
And it looks as if the NSA can keep track of that data on everyone from members of congress on down, so that's potentially on the order of a trillion pieces of data per year in the U.S. alone.
So clearly metadata CAN be mass surveillance, regardless of how doublespeak defines it.

As for the difference between one database that the NSA can extract data from on anyone and a separate dossier on each person, I have written many databases and with computers that difference is largely a semantic one, with a fraction of a second difference in access time.
So so far Snowden has shown evidence to back up most of his claims and the NSA has been caught lying.

Lies and pap for the gullible = NSA statements.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2014
Manning should only have blown the whistle on serious cases of misconduct, and he should have exhausted internal government channels first (army, then other government). He should only have gone public if these channels failed to do their job
Snowden was stealing long before he was fired.

"...Snowden had downloaded sensitive NSA material in April 2012... He said he had taken a pay cut to work at Booz Allen"

-He got work specifically to steal:

"...he sought employment in order to gather data on NSA surveillance around the world so he could leak it... Snowden's employment was terminated on June 10, 2013, "for violations of the firm's code of ethics and firm policy"

-And there is no record of him ever complaining to anyone while there:

"Snowden said that he told multiple employees and two supervisors about his concerns. An NSA spokesperson responded, saying they had "not found any evidence to support Mr. Snowden's contention that he brought these matters to anyone's attention"
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2014
Doublespeak [buzzword] may have defined metadata as not mass surveillance, but that does not make it true
-or false.
The average person makes what - ten phone calls per day? So that metadata alone is several thousand
NO it doesnt.
piece of information per year on every person being monitored
WHAT makes you think that quantity makes something more dangerous?? What an idiot you are.
And it looks as if the NSA can keep track of that data on everyone from members of congress on down, so that's potentially on the order of a trillion pieces of data per year in the U.S. alone
OMG a TRILLION! Thats more than the national debt!! (or not)

The metadata that the NSA collects:

"the NSA is getting data such as originating number, terminating number and length of call for every customer of the phone companies involved in the program. What the NSA is NOT getting... is the contents of the calls."

and

"The phone companies store this data as a matter of course"

THATS IT.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2014
I don't think Snowden would have run to Russia if the U.S. hadn't been threatening him.
More bullshit.

"On May 20, 2013, Snowden flew to Hong Kong, where he was staying when the initial articles based on the leaked documents were published, beginning on June 5"

-Snowden ran BEFORE the govt found out. Youre just trolling arent you? Youre just lying to bait me arent you?
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2014
The NSA gathers that data on millions of law-abiding Americans, which is what the NSA denied doing. So far they are only a little bit pregnant on spying on ordinary citizens, but if not stopped pregnancy tends to grow, as does lying to citizens and spying on them. And the NSA has a history of overstepping the rules. It must be stopped now before it gets out of hand.

I don't think Snowden would have run to Russia if the U.S. hadn't been threatening him.


More bullshit.

"On May 20, 2013, Snowden flew to Hong Kong, where he was staying when the initial articles based on the leaked documents were published, beginning on June 5"


Surely you are aware that Hong Kong is not part of Russia?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2014
Are you going to present an actual argument at some point or keep droning on about how the government agrees that the government is right...
The US has 3 branches of govt for the purpose of providing checks and balances with each other. I provided examples above of judicial and legislative parties who are independent of the executive branch and who have nevertheless endorsed what the NSA has been doing.

But if youd prefer the endorsement of some foreign govt, Ive also shown how germany and others routinely benefit from info gleaned by the NSA and other US intelligence-gathering ops.

But if thats still not good enough for you I can offer testimony from at least one NGO who is admittedly not too pleased with US govt scrutiny:
http://www.youtub...tQftYokY


So then, IOW you're not...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2014
is what the NSA denied doing
No they didn't troll.
Surely you are aware that Hong Kong is not part of Russia?
Surely you are aware that running to avoid prosecution is running to avoid prosecution? Snowden lied to get employment in order to steal secrets. He never expressed concerns at work prior to stealing these secrets. He fled before he was detected. He went to Hong Kong with the hope of getting into china.

Any more lies you want to present?
So then, IOW you're not...
Well I did didn't I? The judicial and the legislative branches both endorsed what the executive did. READ THE THREADS.

There's nowhere else to go except The Hague or southwest Detroit. And it's ICP not IOW. Yeah I'm laughing at you.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2014
Well I did didn't I? The judicial and the legislative branches both endorsed what the executive did. READ THE THREADS.


That's not an argument, that's a regurgitation of the government saying it has the power to break its own laws. I was just wondering if you had an opinion of your own on the subject and what possible justification you might put forth. The government agreeing that the government has the power to do something though ISN'T a logical argument. It's called circular reasoning.

If yo don't have an opinion or argument of your own then I get that, most people don't. You're in "good" company....
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2014
That's not an argument, that's a regurgitation of the government saying it has the power to break its own laws
THE_GOVT. Thats one thing to you. Like I say youll have to check with another govt then to get some sort of answer youll be comfortable with.
I was just wondering if you had an opinion of your own on the subject and what possible justification you might put forth
So this is a new question? When I say I think that snowden is a liar, a traitor, and a felon, this is not clear enough for you? Again, I cant help you.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2014
THE_GOVT. Thats one thing to you. Like I say youll have to check with another govt then to get some sort of answer youll be comfortable with.


No I don't, because I have my own conscience and opinion. YOU might have to check with another government, I don't. I don't check all my value judgements and opinions on jurisprudence against what the US government says or any other government. Difficult as that seems for you to comprehend. Good thing there are people like me that don't...otherwise we'd all still be living under kings or oligarchs...

So this is a new question? When I say I think that snowden is a liar, a traitor, and a felon, this is not clear enough for you? Again, I cant help you.


No, it's the SAME question. That you can't see that is part of the problem in your inability to comprehend the concept of the formation of a valid opinion absent input from the US (or even a foreign) government. If you're capable of giving rationale for that opinion let's hear it.
RealScience
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2014
Surely you are aware that Hong Kong is not part of Russia?

...
Any more lies you want to present?


I gave an opinion specific to Russia. You tried to pretend that it was a statement of fact involving Hong Kong rather than Russia. When I pointed out that Hong Kong is not part of Russia, you call something in that discussion a lie.

Yet when the NSA states that a program help prevent over 50 potential terrorist events, and latter admits that the number was actually only one or two events, you say that that is not a lie.

You do not seem to understand what a lie is. Has your brain become so addled by confirmation bias and doublespeak that you no longer even comprehend three-letter words? Or are you deliberately misusing the word?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2014
otherwise we'd all still be living under kings or oligarchs
But you're saying that you don't trust your govts system of checks and balances. So according to you there is no difference.

You trust what you absorb in the 10 minutes it takes you to read a news article, which I show you is false. And yet you don't trust what many officials from 3 separate branches of govt, who have spent weeks analyzing ALL the facts, are telling you.
only one or two events, you say that that is not a lie
Im saying that YOU don't know if it's PERJURY or not. Is it immaterial? Did he inadvertently refer to classified incidents? Were these 2 events 2 WTC-scale events? Was NSA info used to target foreign operatives before they had the chance to plan new events but after they had already committed terrorist acts? ETC.

In short the disclosure holds NO info whatsoever. It is bait that spinguppies like yourself just can't WAIT to bite.

We DO know that Snowden lied about the scope don't we?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2014
I gave an opinion specific to Russia. You tried to pretend that it was a statement of fact involving Hong Kong rather than Russia. When I pointed out that Hong Kong is not part of Russia, you call something in that discussion a lie
Yes and I understand now that YOU think Snowden didn't feel safe sitting in Hong Kong, waiting for asylum in china, because HE may have felt that the evil US could have assassinated him there with impunity.

And that for some reason he would be safer in a hotel in Russia. It may indeed have been easier to have him arrested and extradited in Hong Kong. But Russia is full of assassins. It is a much dirtier and more dangerous place than Hong Kong.

But the circumstances surrounding his background, hiring, and blanket access are peculiar, and his actions are emboldening terrorists everywhere. A major component of defeating enemies is compelling them to act and expose themselves so they can be identified.

This looks to me like imperial subterfuge.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 11, 2014
Im saying that YOU don't know if it's PERJURY or not.

Correct. If I were on a jury, the evidence I have seen so far would not convince me beyond a reasonable doubt.
However filing charges does not require the same level of certainty. From what I have seen so far, there is enough evidence to file charges and subpoena enough evidence to get to the truth. Of course the subpoenas would probably be quashed on national security grounds anyway.

the circumstances surrounding his background, hiring, and blanket access are peculiar
...
This looks to me like imperial subterfuge.


Subterfuge, an NSA/CIA turf war as some of the tinfoil crowd says, or something else, I agree with you that there is indeed something peculiar about it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 11, 2014
However filing charges does not require the same level of certainty. From what I have seen so far, there is enough evidence to file charges and subpoena enough evidence to get to the truth
Well you need to face the fact that your judgement is in error because charges have not been filed. Perhaps you should reexamine the evidence I have presented in these threads and find your way to the right conclusion.
or something else, I agree with you that there is indeed something peculiar about it.
Conflict in this world is Engineered. People are convinced of the need to fight. That's all there is to know.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 11, 2014
Well you need to face the fact that your judgement is in error because charges have not been filed.


Are you saying that every deed that could result in charges does result in charges being filed? Yeah, right.


Perhaps you should reexamine the evidence I have presented in these threads and find your way to the right conclusion.


You only presented an argument on a statement that I hadn't called a lie, but never answered on either of the lies that I repeatedly pointed out.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 12, 2014
Are you saying that every deed that could result in charges does result in charges being filed? Yeah, right
Im saying that due to the very high profile nature of this case and the number of lawmakers whose constituents are wailing for blood like you, the fact that there are no official calls for indictment is very telling. It means that there are more than likely no grounds for indictment.
never answered on either of the lies that I repeatedly pointed out.
Because they weren't lies and they certainly weren't perjury.

They were misdirection and you took the bait. Humans are so easy.
http://youtu.be/kK62tfoCmuQ
RealScience
not rated yet Jan 12, 2014
never answered on either of the lies that I repeatedly pointed out.


Because they weren't lies


You say that you didn't answer on the lies I pointed out because they weren't lies.
But yet you took the time to present an argument on other things that I HADN'T pointed out that weren't lies...

Humans like you are so easy - you fell for the NSA's misdirection hook line and sinker. And then your tried misdirection of your own. No wonder you like the NSA.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.