Are people actually pretending to be indignant and outraged by something you should've long known about or at least suspected since 9/11?
Ahah.
Ahahaha.
How very quaint, even more when one considers how conveniently many of you are able to disregard the lives said surveillance program likely saved in an age where our enemies are no longer designated by borders and the game is changing faster than the rules can keep up.
How comfortable it must be to judge when you have no such responsibilities of state and/or governance and are thus able to proclaim at the top of your lungs, "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither!" or some such tiresome platitude.
Safely behind the very security the state provides.
Given the caliber of people the national intelligence services see fit to give data access too (Manning and Snowden, the nsa officers referenced in the article) I'm really not comfortable with the idea that we can rest assured our data will sit there peacefully and not be misused, even if it never is the subject of an official NSA investigation.
That sort of risk comes with every such program, it's the sort of risk one runs from merely being a member of civil society. What of it?
You know, you could make the same points with a lot less snark. Just saying.
If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?
If the NSA collects my data, but never looks at it, was I investigated?
Also the level of snark in here is unbelievable. On both sides.
This is why the Supreme Court relies on your case having standing before they prosecute.
Which has to do with??? o_O
If you want to challenge a law to the supreme court, you have to show that the law is actually harming your constitutional rights. Not that it could be theoretically harming your constitutional rights in secret, but that it actually is.
Yes, citizen's have the right to view laws differently than the Supreme Court, especially since the Supreme Court only tackles current wrongdoings (ie, you need standing)
But, the SC in decisions, will and should consider the future applications of their ruling. Law generally tends to to be a scapulae, but a sledgehammer. You need to be sure of any possible effects upon society you law will have.
So while its doubtful this would ever be brought to the SC, ordinary citizens can still debate the merits of such programs.
One would think that perjuring one's self in front of Congress would lead to Congress doing something about that. Is it under the purview of Congress to prosecute people who perjure themselves while testifying before Congress, or is that someone else's job? I'm having trouble imaging who else's job that would be...
So, really, my question is "why isn't Congress going after such a high-profile example of perjury?" Congress certainly does not like it when they are lied to; they get indignant during hearings left and right, so one would think this must really have them riled up. Of course, this may dovetail nicely into "why hasn't Congress opened a massive investigation into the NSA's orders, execution of said orders, oversight and accountability; rather than holding a couple of random-ish, not-well-covered hearings that seem to have lost some momentum."
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."
Are people actually pretending to be indignant and outraged by something you should've long known about or at least suspected since 9/11?
Ahah.
Ahahaha.
How very quaint, even more when one considers how conveniently many of you are able to disregard the lives said surveillance program likely saved in an age where our enemies are no longer designated by borders and the game is changing faster than the rules can keep up.
How comfortable it must be to judge when you have no such responsibilities of state and/or governance and are thus able to proclaim at the top of your lungs, "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither!" or some such tiresome platitude.
Safely behind the very security the state provides.
Given the caliber of people the national intelligence services see fit to give data access too (Manning and Snowden, the nsa officers referenced in the article) I'm really not comfortable with the idea that we can rest assured our data will sit there peacefully and not be misused, even if it never is the subject of an official NSA investigation.
That sort of risk comes with every such program, it's the sort of risk one runs from merely being a member of civil society. What of it?
You know, you could make the same points with a lot less snark. Just saying.
If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?
If the NSA collects my data, but never looks at it, was I investigated?
Also the level of snark in here is unbelievable. On both sides.
This is why the Supreme Court relies on your case having standing before they prosecute.
Which has to do with??? o_O
If you want to challenge a law to the supreme court, you have to show that the law is actually harming your constitutional rights. Not that it could be theoretically harming your constitutional rights in secret, but that it actually is.
Yes, citizen's have the right to view laws differently than the Supreme Court, especially since the Supreme Court only tackles current wrongdoings (ie, you need standing)
But, the SC in decisions, will and should consider the future applications of their ruling. Law generally tends to to be a scapulae, but a sledgehammer. You need to be sure of any possible effects upon society you law will have.
So while its doubtful this would ever be brought to the SC, ordinary citizens can still debate the merits of such programs.
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.
Are people actually pretending to be indignant and outraged by something you should've long known about or at least suspected since 9/11?
Ahah.
Ahahaha.
How very quaint, even more when one considers how conveniently many of you are able to disregard the lives said surveillance program likely saved in an age where our enemies are no longer designated by borders and the game is changing faster than the rules can keep up.
How comfortable it must be to judge when you have no such responsibilities of state and/or governance and are thus able to proclaim at the top of your lungs, "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither!" or some such tiresome platitude.
Safely behind the very security the state provides.
Given the caliber of people the national intelligence services see fit to give data access too (Manning and Snowden, the nsa officers referenced in the article) I'm really not comfortable with the idea that we can rest assured our data will sit there peacefully and not be misused, even if it never is the subject of an official NSA investigation.
That sort of risk comes with every such program, it's the sort of risk one runs from merely being a member of civil society. What of it?
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
You know, you could make the same points with a lot less snark.
I could have.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
You know, you could make the same points with a lot less snark.
I could have.
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.
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?
You know, you could make the same points with a lot less snark.
I could have.
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.
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".
Posts
You know, you could make the same points with a lot less snark. Just saying.
Yes, citizen's have the right to view laws differently than the Supreme Court, especially since the Supreme Court only tackles current wrongdoings (ie, you need standing)
But, the SC in decisions, will and should consider the future applications of their ruling. Law generally tends to to be a scapulae, but a sledgehammer. You need to be sure of any possible effects upon society you law will have.
So while its doubtful this would ever be brought to the SC, ordinary citizens can still debate the merits of such programs.
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!
- John Stuart Mill
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.