3 ms·

> The former is arguably whistleblowing, but the latter is not. It's not because something is technically legal that it's moral. For instance, killing civilian

> The former is arguably whistleblowing, but the latter is not. It's not because something is technically legal that it's moral. For instance, killing civilians with drones, torturing people, or recording the whole world's communications may be legal according to some twisted laws, but it doesn't make it right. At least voters should have a clear view of such issues, and it's not coming from the US government.

hueving 11y ago
Voters pretty much do have a clear view that the nsa's job is to spy on foreign countries.
- rbanffy 11y ago
  Voters should take a look into http://m.nsa.gov/about/mission/ http://m.nsa.gov/about/mission/
onewaystreet 11y ago
And what if voters say OK to these issues (which they basically have)?
- bch 11y ago
  If that's the case: no harm, no foul ?
- DominikR 11y ago
  Because they have limited choice. In an oligarchy the marketing money tends to go to candidates who support the status quo or even better - give the oligarchs even more power.
- themeek 11y ago
  Could you unpack how you mean that voters have basically okayed torture, rendition, indiscriminate drone targeting (or use in general), and mass surveillance?
tallerholler 11y ago
> For instance, killing civilians with drones, torturing people, or recording the whole world's communications may be legal according to some twisted laws, but it doesn't make it right. Without context then sure it seems not right. In the real world, terrorism is real. Although I don't agree with anything you mentioned as a whole, if it is a consequence of the world I live in, I'm ok with that. So are plenty of others.
- yodsanklai 11y ago
  Maybe you're right and those decisions are the best compromise given the circumstances. And I'm sure plenty agree, but they are also plenty that don't agree and nobody cared to explain the situation and ask for their opinion. It reminds me one of the presidential debates. Question of national defense was briefly discussed. Both candidates agreed that it was important to "catch the bad guys". Then they disagreed on whether more ships were needed in the navy or something like that. Obama came up with a good joke, and that was it!! In that context, I find it salutary that guys like Snowden provide some additional information on what is actually going on.
- leohutson 11y ago
  Why do you believe that giving the state these powers helps reduce the risk of terrorism? Can you point to an attack that has been prevented by information gained through torture? Obviously since the number of deaths caused by terrorism thus far is tiny, for terrorism to justify these actions that you agree would otherwise be unconscionable, the only conclusion you could make is that the security apparatus must be supremely effective, and have thwarted thousands of otherwise successful attacks against the US alone. Am I correct in following that train of thought? Do you believe that a significant number of deaths have been prevented, say a number close to those killed by ATV's* in the US each year? What is the evidence for these thwarted attacks? * www.atvsafety.gov/stats.html
  - jonnybgood 11y ago
    > Do you believe that a significant number of deaths have been prevented, say a number close to those killed by ATV's* in the US each year? I never understood these kind of questions. Don't you think there's a difference between premeditated murder and accidental death? You can't prevent people from accidentally doing stupid things and mishaps, you can only minimize it. Whereas premeditated murder can be prevented.

hueving 11y ago

Voters pretty much do have a clear view that the nsa's job is to spy on foreign countries.

rbanffy 11y ago
Voters should take a look into http://m.nsa.gov/about/mission/ http://m.nsa.gov/about/mission/

onewaystreet 11y ago

And what if voters say OK to these issues (which they basically have)?

bch 11y ago
If that's the case: no harm, no foul ?
DominikR 11y ago
Because they have limited choice. In an oligarchy the marketing money tends to go to candidates who support the status quo or even better - give the oligarchs even more power.
themeek 11y ago
Could you unpack how you mean that voters have basically okayed torture, rendition, indiscriminate drone targeting (or use in general), and mass surveillance?

tallerholler 11y ago

> For instance, killing civilians with drones, torturing people, or recording the whole world's communications may be legal according to some twisted laws, but it doesn't make it right. Without context then sure it seems not right. In the real world, terrorism is real. Although I don't agree with anything you mentioned as a whole, if it is a consequence of the world I live in, I'm ok with that. So are plenty of others.

yodsanklai 11y ago
Maybe you're right and those decisions are the best compromise given the circumstances. And I'm sure plenty agree, but they are also plenty that don't agree and nobody cared to explain the situation and ask for their opinion. It reminds me one of the presidential debates. Question of national defense was briefly discussed. Both candidates agreed that it was important to "catch the bad guys". Then they disagreed on whether more ships were needed in the navy or something like that. Obama came up with a good joke, and that was it!! In that context, I find it salutary that guys like Snowden provide some additional information on what is actually going on.
leohutson 11y ago
Why do you believe that giving the state these powers helps reduce the risk of terrorism? Can you point to an attack that has been prevented by information gained through torture? Obviously since the number of deaths caused by terrorism thus far is tiny, for terrorism to justify these actions that you agree would otherwise be unconscionable, the only conclusion you could make is that the security apparatus must be supremely effective, and have thwarted thousands of otherwise successful attacks against the US alone. Am I correct in following that train of thought? Do you believe that a significant number of deaths have been prevented, say a number close to those killed by ATV's* in the US each year? What is the evidence for these thwarted attacks? * www.atvsafety.gov/stats.html
- jonnybgood 11y ago
  > Do you believe that a significant number of deaths have been prevented, say a number close to those killed by ATV's* in the US each year? I never understood these kind of questions. Don't you think there's a difference between premeditated murder and accidental death? You can't prevent people from accidentally doing stupid things and mishaps, you can only minimize it. Whereas premeditated murder can be prevented.