4 ms·

There are plenty of kneejerk reactions to what has been put out in the news lately, but actions like this equally bypass a necessary public debate. Without suf

There are plenty of kneejerk reactions to what has been put out in the news lately, but actions like this equally bypass a necessary public debate. Without sufficient knowledge of what is actually transpiring, the American public isn't in the position to say "this is right", or "this is wrong" about what the NSA _actually_ does versus what people conjecture it does. If you're saying, "I know what the NSA does because Snowden, some slides, and people on the internet told me so", then you're still in the group of heavily misinformed. I would definitely like to see information brought to light from the government's side in a constructive way, and help frame a national debate over these programs. Discussing the legality of foreign and domestic surveillance and constructing a (public) legal rationale will, hopefully, provide a solid foundation for future generations. Regardless of what is or isn't going on, it's pretty obvious to the common citizen that the rationale for current actions are derived from equivocating legalese.

insuffi 13y ago
While your approach seems to be the rational way to go about it, it's simply impractical. Officials constantly lie under oath(legalese and national security), and admit to wrongdoings only when they are exposed, and there's absolutely nowhere for them to go. When it is established beyond reasonable doubt, only then they come forward. Following this kind of pattern, there is no way to have constructive debate. Besides, the government releasing information themselves is a political dead-end.(hint: there's a difference between suspecting(conspiracy theories, tin foil hats etc) and knowing.)
rhizome 13y ago
I would definitely like to see information brought to light from the government's side in a constructive way How do you propose to gauge "constructive" when the basis of the government's position is that those they are surveilling deserve to be surveilled? Your desire requires a conflict of interest on their part (the continued employment and non-prosecution of James Clapper and Keith Alexander testify to this). Furthermore, your attempt to marginalize Snowden is unseemly.

insuffi 13y ago

While your approach seems to be the rational way to go about it, it's simply impractical. Officials constantly lie under oath(legalese and national security), and admit to wrongdoings only when they are exposed, and there's absolutely nowhere for them to go. When it is established beyond reasonable doubt, only then they come forward. Following this kind of pattern, there is no way to have constructive debate. Besides, the government releasing information themselves is a political dead-end.(hint: there's a difference between suspecting(conspiracy theories, tin foil hats etc) and knowing.)

rhizome 13y ago

I would definitely like to see information brought to light from the government's side in a constructive way How do you propose to gauge "constructive" when the basis of the government's position is that those they are surveilling deserve to be surveilled? Your desire requires a conflict of interest on their part (the continued employment and non-prosecution of James Clapper and Keith Alexander testify to this). Furthermore, your attempt to marginalize Snowden is unseemly.