The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
We became a [Surveillance State] and the world cried out "So What?"
Posts
Perjury charges isn't some charge of "gotcha" where you can ask extremely convoluted and leading questions and then say, "aha, no takebacks!" when someone says something wrong. Answering incorrectly to a bullshit question is not going to result in perjury charges.
It's like people being asked to sign a petition to end women's suffrage, and they all assume it has to do with "suffering." Or the interviewers going around asking liberals, "Do you think Obama is a Keynesian," and they all assume you mean "Kenyan." The question that people answer is different from what people most assume the question means.
Wyden's question was technically about any information at all. But he led into the question with a lot of completely unnecessary talk about dossiers. In terms of fallacies, Wyden basically moved the goal post, from "dossiers" to "any data at all," knowing that most people at home and even most journalists wouldn't notice. The question was intentionally designed for the purpose of misleading people, so that an "honest" wouldn't be heard with its honest meaning.
If the goal is to see if the NSA is doing anything illegal or unconstitutional, then why ask "do you collect any data at all?" Why not ask something more specific? For instance, "Does that NSA engage in warrantless wiretaps."
If your goal is simply to establish that the NSA collects some data, then why not establish it as a statement of fact, and move onto your actual question after? "We already know that the NSA collects at least some information on American citizens, because 'data' is a broad terms that could mean just about anything, including something as basic as a phone book listing. My question is, does the NSA...?"
If his worry is that he didn't know the definition of the word "dossier" and he didn't want the NSA to weasel out of it, why not simply ask, "Can you explain the difference between the nature of a dossier, which the NSA claims they do not have, compared to the type of information we could actually expect them to collect as part of their job?"
Perjury charges, among many other things, requires mens rea or "guilty mind." For instance, telling the judge you saw the defendant shoot the victim when you actually saw your best friend do it. If Clapper genuinely believes that he gave the least untruthful answer he could, which is perfectly justifiable considering the bullshit nature of the question, then that is not "guilty mind."
Your original question was: "If the NSA collects my data, but never looks at it, was I investigated?
The definition of investigation is: "to observe or study by close examination and systematic inquiry"
So the answer to your question is a definitive "no." If there is no one who ever observes or studies the information, then you aren't being investigated. This isn't even up for debate, really.
I could have.
And they disagree with the result. So I fail to see how we are misunderstanding their position.
...Poes Law?
So?
If it bothers you, don't argue it? You don't control what is or is not the official topic
So there are like two discussion you can have regarding the leaks
1) Should the US do this?
2) Is the program legitimate?
The first question is the one we already discussed at a public level. The answer to it, regardless of what any individual wants, is irrelevant to the second question.
The second question is fundamentally what we are concerned about with leaks. Because the first question was already asked at the congressional level and came to an answer with regards to the nation. I.E. you can disagree with it, but that doesn't make it illegal. And furthermore, while its OK to leak things that are illegal, its NOT OK to leak things that you simply disagree with
Classy.
But to address your content and not your snark, the whole Colonel Nathan R. Jessup thing is really ridiculous. People getting elected and protecting us being part of their job doesn't entitle them to not be subject to scrutiny. You know just as little as everybody else how necessary the secrecy is.
There are way more discussions possible. Such as, does the program need more scrutiny, and more information revealed to the public? Or perhaps it's a legitimate program that goes a bit too far? Etc.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
Well yes, but the 5 times we have had this discussion, not including its original inception have come to the conclusion we are in today. So like saying "oh we better have this discussion" or "well i don't agree with it" i just don't give a shit.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
Come silently warm the bench with me, friends. We can puzzle over why we read such an infuriatingly repetative thread via PMs!
So who gets to decide when and where secrecy is necessary?
Because secrets are necessary, and if the public gets to decide what should be necessary and what not, than there is no secrecy.
So who do we give the power to, if not the people we elect to lead us?
Can't you give them the power to do secret stuff but demand explanations if you have reasons to suspect something fishy is going on? Or do they have carte bianche to do whatever the hell they want because "it's secret, man, and it's all for your own good".
Geth, close the thread.