4 ms·

I'd argue that you could lump the NSA debacle into that media hype alternate universe that has little to do with any real issues. For the past year and a half I

I'd argue that you could lump the NSA debacle into that media hype alternate universe that has little to do with any real issues. For the past year and a half I've heard a lot about all of the awful things that the NSA could be doing with the information collected (e.g. arrests, blackmail, theft, etc.) but I have yet to actually see any evidence of an American citizen actually being subjected to any of them. My guess is that it's because when the newspapers don't have the evidence to back it up, they rely on narrative that brings in the advertising dollars.

nitrogen 12y ago
How about the US citizen who was killed by drone?
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  The two (non-violent) US citizens that we know about killed by drones, knowingly targetted and killed without a trial.
  - csandreasen 12y ago
    I'm assuming that two you're referring to Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son, Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, since they seem to be the most famous. Just to get some facts straight, to date there's only been one US citizen targeted and killed by US drones: Anwar Al-Awlaki. As of last year, three other Americans are known to have been killed by drone strikes outside the US: Samir Khan, Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki and Jude Kenan Mohammed. None were specifically targeted - Samir Khan was killed during the strike against the elder Al-Awlaki, the younger Al-Awlaki was killed during a strike targeting Ibrahim al-Banna in Yemen, and Jude Kenan Mohammed was killed during a strike against a compound in Pakistan. All were killed by CIA drones, not DOD drones (NSA is part of the DOD; CIA is not). The Attorney General declassified the reasoning for targeting the elder Al-Awlaki[1], which was ultimately decided at the Presidential level - not by the NSA. That said, this is beside the point - when the media is stirring up a frenzy about the NSA and civil liberties, they're not talking about CIA drone strikes in Yemen. It's a little disingenuous to lump the two together. It also doesn't go very far in answering my question regarding evidence of harm to US citizens. Maybe I'm out of touch with the rest of America, but I don't see the USA Freedom Act gaining much traction based on public outrage that 3 people over the last decade were accidentally killed by drones while hanging out with members of a militant group that had declared war against the US, especially when the purpose of said bill is to limit FISA warrants and FBI use of NSLs[2]. [1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/703181/ag-letter-5-22-13.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/7031... [2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2685 https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/268...
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      Yes Al-Awlaki and his son were the civilians I was referring to. It was my understanding that Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki was a targeted kill; I seem to be in error. I was not aware of Samir Khan nor Jude Kenan Mohammed. Regarding [1]: the justification was 'immediate threat', however it appears there was no immediate threat in the common sense usage of the term and the justification is askew with the prior drone strike that attempted but failed to kill him (he did nothing after the strike worthy of the label 'immediate' or 'threat'). Furthermore squaring 'immediate threat' with constitutionally garunteed rights is something that the administration has not done (can not do?). US citizens are guaranteed a trial. Principles are worth a lot less if the administration gets to decide when to apply them. Regarding NSA v. CIA, I admit coming into the conversation without having read the thread. I merely sought to add information to the leaf. Thank you very much for the high quality comment and information. Regarding damage to US citizens, one reason is that we do know that NSA contractors and employees stalked lovers and rivals and used these capabilities for personal means. There were also reports of nude photo sharing. There were also several prominent Muslim community leaders with no connection to any terrorists or extreme ideas inside the United States who were targeted by the surveillance apparatus merely for their religious expression. I don't think I need to argue why profiling individuals based on their creed or color causes harm to these classes of people. Extending this analysis - we do not know how these systems will be used in the future. In particular Nixon left office for spying on a handful of people. What would a Hoover or a Nixon do with the NSA capabilities? The broader point here is that the calculus of damage should not merely be about singular instances of damage today. It's a bad idea to build a nuclear reactor on a fault line. Not because it has already done damage. But because of the magnitude and the likelihood of what it may contrasted with alternatives. Another example of damage to US citizens is the use of purposefully backdoored services and infrastructure. It is not theoretical or speculative to suggest that these weaknesses may be used by maligned actors: there are several examples today of intercept systems being compromised by interested parties for geopolitical and economic reasons. Finally, we adhere to principles of civil liberties not just because they are good things on individual bases but also because adopting them as policies gives a net benefit to society (see historical evolutions of Utilitarianism and arguments against forced organ donation). That is one could argue as Bentham did, that rights are nonsense on stilts, except that societies that don't guarantee these rights suffer the pychological consequences of living in a state where no rights are garunteed. To presuppose that all damage must be physical in nature is to be ignorant of the history of the organization of men.

nitrogen 12y ago

How about the US citizen who was killed by drone?

xnull2guest 12y ago
The two (non-violent) US citizens that we know about killed by drones, knowingly targetted and killed without a trial.
- csandreasen 12y ago
  I'm assuming that two you're referring to Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son, Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, since they seem to be the most famous. Just to get some facts straight, to date there's only been one US citizen targeted and killed by US drones: Anwar Al-Awlaki. As of last year, three other Americans are known to have been killed by drone strikes outside the US: Samir Khan, Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki and Jude Kenan Mohammed. None were specifically targeted - Samir Khan was killed during the strike against the elder Al-Awlaki, the younger Al-Awlaki was killed during a strike targeting Ibrahim al-Banna in Yemen, and Jude Kenan Mohammed was killed during a strike against a compound in Pakistan. All were killed by CIA drones, not DOD drones (NSA is part of the DOD; CIA is not). The Attorney General declassified the reasoning for targeting the elder Al-Awlaki[1], which was ultimately decided at the Presidential level - not by the NSA. That said, this is beside the point - when the media is stirring up a frenzy about the NSA and civil liberties, they're not talking about CIA drone strikes in Yemen. It's a little disingenuous to lump the two together. It also doesn't go very far in answering my question regarding evidence of harm to US citizens. Maybe I'm out of touch with the rest of America, but I don't see the USA Freedom Act gaining much traction based on public outrage that 3 people over the last decade were accidentally killed by drones while hanging out with members of a militant group that had declared war against the US, especially when the purpose of said bill is to limit FISA warrants and FBI use of NSLs[2]. [1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/703181/ag-letter-5-22-13.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/7031... [2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2685 https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/268...
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    Yes Al-Awlaki and his son were the civilians I was referring to. It was my understanding that Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki was a targeted kill; I seem to be in error. I was not aware of Samir Khan nor Jude Kenan Mohammed. Regarding [1]: the justification was 'immediate threat', however it appears there was no immediate threat in the common sense usage of the term and the justification is askew with the prior drone strike that attempted but failed to kill him (he did nothing after the strike worthy of the label 'immediate' or 'threat'). Furthermore squaring 'immediate threat' with constitutionally garunteed rights is something that the administration has not done (can not do?). US citizens are guaranteed a trial. Principles are worth a lot less if the administration gets to decide when to apply them. Regarding NSA v. CIA, I admit coming into the conversation without having read the thread. I merely sought to add information to the leaf. Thank you very much for the high quality comment and information. Regarding damage to US citizens, one reason is that we do know that NSA contractors and employees stalked lovers and rivals and used these capabilities for personal means. There were also reports of nude photo sharing. There were also several prominent Muslim community leaders with no connection to any terrorists or extreme ideas inside the United States who were targeted by the surveillance apparatus merely for their religious expression. I don't think I need to argue why profiling individuals based on their creed or color causes harm to these classes of people. Extending this analysis - we do not know how these systems will be used in the future. In particular Nixon left office for spying on a handful of people. What would a Hoover or a Nixon do with the NSA capabilities? The broader point here is that the calculus of damage should not merely be about singular instances of damage today. It's a bad idea to build a nuclear reactor on a fault line. Not because it has already done damage. But because of the magnitude and the likelihood of what it may contrasted with alternatives. Another example of damage to US citizens is the use of purposefully backdoored services and infrastructure. It is not theoretical or speculative to suggest that these weaknesses may be used by maligned actors: there are several examples today of intercept systems being compromised by interested parties for geopolitical and economic reasons. Finally, we adhere to principles of civil liberties not just because they are good things on individual bases but also because adopting them as policies gives a net benefit to society (see historical evolutions of Utilitarianism and arguments against forced organ donation). That is one could argue as Bentham did, that rights are nonsense on stilts, except that societies that don't guarantee these rights suffer the pychological consequences of living in a state where no rights are garunteed. To presuppose that all damage must be physical in nature is to be ignorant of the history of the organization of men.