3 ms·

Neat. > Defending Our Nation. Securing Our Future. ...I read that as... Defending Our Own Money. Securing Our Own Power.

readme 13y ago
NSA surveillance foiled this potential terrorist and he is now incarcerated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najibullah_Zazi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najibullah_Zazi He was going to bomb NYC subways. Please, if you're going to participate in this so called "surveillance debate", stick to facts and refrain from hyperbole.
- northwest 13y ago
  That's a good thing. But still, they let the other ones go: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23493323 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23493323 Is that part of the old "keeping the threat alive" strategy? (Considering the eternity it took them to find OBL. And the one hiccup during the hunt when Bush called the team back, when in reality they were pretty close, as I remember reading.)
- samstave 13y ago
  If you're going to participate in the "surveillance debate" don't be so stupidly myopic to argue only the ridiculous point that this keeps anyone safe from "terrorists". If the NSA can literally look into any electronic conversation between anyone, then why haven't they stopped a single drug cartel? Any premeditated murder? Why hasn't a single banister been brought to justice over their internal emails detailing deliberate mortgage fraud? Why weren't they able to prove Bernie Madoff was swindling billions for years and there were many warnings? What about all the illegal insider trading of pretty much every congress person? Oh that's right, because this system has absolutely nothing to do with bringing criminals to "justice" or keeping you safe. This is digital enslavement and every single person who approves of this bullshit is complicit. Trying to say that trillions of dollars in stolen money from people (if the funds taken from taxes are used to build a digital prison around you, those funds were stolen from you) to prevent some singular supposed attack is justified is farking insane!
  - northwest 13y ago
    You made some very good points, here.
  - andrewfong 13y ago
    The reason the NSA hasn't gone after anyone else is that it would probably be illegal to -- not that the program in general is legal, but it would be more blatantly illegal than simply focusing on groups affiliated with al-Qaeda. The AUMF and constitutional case law give the executive branch a fair amount of discretion when it comes to national security. It's pretty hard to shoehorn drug cartels, bankers, and your run-of-the-mill murderers under national security. As such, prosecuting those folks using NSA-gathered evidence would force the NSA to reveal more about the program than it's comfortable doing.
    - samstave 13y ago
      I'm pretty sure you e missed my point. I also think you fail to understand what is really going on here.
  - readme 13y ago
    >If the NSA can literally look into any electronic conversation between anyone, then why haven't they stopped a single drug cartel? See: Coast Guard. >This is digital enslavement and every single person who approves of this bullshit is complicit. And your evidence for that claim is...? Enslavement? Seriously? More hyperbole.
- revelation 13y ago
  He wanted to build a bomb from acetone peroxide and detonate it in the subway. His only success in this grand plan would have been blowing himself up in his apartment as he closes the lid on his explosives, the friction between the lid and TCAP residue instantly detonating the mixture. (As always, their stupidity is our best protection, not the NSA)
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Are they all dumb and stupid? If so then everyone who's been claiming that terrorists are already encrypting all their communications and using proper COMSEC are incorrect. If they're not all dumb and stupid then simply sitting on our hands waiting for the next massive attack is folly, and more importantly it's something the American public won't long stand for. The nation has a long history of action where their sensibilities are offended, even where it doesn't maximize the cost/benefit analysis. Guess when this was said: "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!". A President or Congressman who tells the public that their counterterrorism plan consists of simply relying on the fact that it's not like lots of people will die will be the first ones out of office. Even Rand Paul agrees with counterterroism for crying out loud, he argues that you should have specific targets and then collect instead of collect first and wait for targets as the NSA is doing now.
    - grandalf 13y ago
      It's not that they are all stupid, but a rational cost-benefit analysis would dictate that significantly less money be spent on so-called national defense and military programs than is spent today. The reason we spend money on "anti-terror" stuff is b/c terrorism is actually a highly efficient/extreme form of propaganda messaging, and propaganda is something that states care very much about. It cuts to the core of the legitimacy and efficacy of the state as an institution and so what is being protected is institutional credibility, not human life.

readme 13y ago

NSA surveillance foiled this potential terrorist and he is now incarcerated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najibullah_Zazi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najibullah_Zazi He was going to bomb NYC subways. Please, if you're going to participate in this so called "surveillance debate", stick to facts and refrain from hyperbole.

northwest 13y ago
That's a good thing. But still, they let the other ones go: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23493323 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23493323 Is that part of the old "keeping the threat alive" strategy? (Considering the eternity it took them to find OBL. And the one hiccup during the hunt when Bush called the team back, when in reality they were pretty close, as I remember reading.)
samstave 13y ago
If you're going to participate in the "surveillance debate" don't be so stupidly myopic to argue only the ridiculous point that this keeps anyone safe from "terrorists". If the NSA can literally look into any electronic conversation between anyone, then why haven't they stopped a single drug cartel? Any premeditated murder? Why hasn't a single banister been brought to justice over their internal emails detailing deliberate mortgage fraud? Why weren't they able to prove Bernie Madoff was swindling billions for years and there were many warnings? What about all the illegal insider trading of pretty much every congress person? Oh that's right, because this system has absolutely nothing to do with bringing criminals to "justice" or keeping you safe. This is digital enslavement and every single person who approves of this bullshit is complicit. Trying to say that trillions of dollars in stolen money from people (if the funds taken from taxes are used to build a digital prison around you, those funds were stolen from you) to prevent some singular supposed attack is justified is farking insane!
- northwest 13y ago
  You made some very good points, here.
- andrewfong 13y ago
  The reason the NSA hasn't gone after anyone else is that it would probably be illegal to -- not that the program in general is legal, but it would be more blatantly illegal than simply focusing on groups affiliated with al-Qaeda. The AUMF and constitutional case law give the executive branch a fair amount of discretion when it comes to national security. It's pretty hard to shoehorn drug cartels, bankers, and your run-of-the-mill murderers under national security. As such, prosecuting those folks using NSA-gathered evidence would force the NSA to reveal more about the program than it's comfortable doing.
  - samstave 13y ago
    I'm pretty sure you e missed my point. I also think you fail to understand what is really going on here.
- readme 13y ago
  >If the NSA can literally look into any electronic conversation between anyone, then why haven't they stopped a single drug cartel? See: Coast Guard. >This is digital enslavement and every single person who approves of this bullshit is complicit. And your evidence for that claim is...? Enslavement? Seriously? More hyperbole.
revelation 13y ago
He wanted to build a bomb from acetone peroxide and detonate it in the subway. His only success in this grand plan would have been blowing himself up in his apartment as he closes the lid on his explosives, the friction between the lid and TCAP residue instantly detonating the mixture. (As always, their stupidity is our best protection, not the NSA)
- mpyne 13y ago
  Are they all dumb and stupid? If so then everyone who's been claiming that terrorists are already encrypting all their communications and using proper COMSEC are incorrect. If they're not all dumb and stupid then simply sitting on our hands waiting for the next massive attack is folly, and more importantly it's something the American public won't long stand for. The nation has a long history of action where their sensibilities are offended, even where it doesn't maximize the cost/benefit analysis. Guess when this was said: "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!". A President or Congressman who tells the public that their counterterrorism plan consists of simply relying on the fact that it's not like lots of people will die will be the first ones out of office. Even Rand Paul agrees with counterterroism for crying out loud, he argues that you should have specific targets and then collect instead of collect first and wait for targets as the NSA is doing now.
  - grandalf 13y ago
    It's not that they are all stupid, but a rational cost-benefit analysis would dictate that significantly less money be spent on so-called national defense and military programs than is spent today. The reason we spend money on "anti-terror" stuff is b/c terrorism is actually a highly efficient/extreme form of propaganda messaging, and propaganda is something that states care very much about. It cuts to the core of the legitimacy and efficacy of the state as an institution and so what is being protected is institutional credibility, not human life.