I'm sure many, if not most of you, have heard of the NSA wiretapping and now the leak about banktapping. With the president, Vice president, and republicans condemning the NYtimes calling it treasonist and left-extremist and arguing that such leaks are blows to our nations security, what is your opinion? Should the people know? Or should the media shut it? Does it make you feel any less safe when this information is leaked?
P.S: I am liberal, but I'm no moonbat -- yet.
0
Security - Do security leaks weaken the U.S.A?
Started by
Blaine
, Jun 29 2006 01:20 PM
22 replies to this topic
#2
Posted 29 June 2006 - 01:26 PM
They also triued to sue google for giving too much information the the public, that the us government didnt want the people to know..
#3
Posted 29 June 2006 - 01:35 PM
I heard a good quote from someone on the internet regarding this issue
"1984 wasnt in the past, it's in the future."
I think what the goverment is doing is ridiculous. Bush and his administration break laws, and then change them so he doesnt get "in trouble".
It's obvious he's broken by far the most laws out of any president, and the worst thing is he's justifying it all in the name of national security and terrorism. Wiretapping, bank surveillance, internet data. Thats only from the things we know, Im sure there is more to it.
Ever since 9/11 Bush has been using fear to scare people and allow him to keep doing what he wants. He should have been impeached a long time ago.
"1984 wasnt in the past, it's in the future."
I think what the goverment is doing is ridiculous. Bush and his administration break laws, and then change them so he doesnt get "in trouble".
It's obvious he's broken by far the most laws out of any president, and the worst thing is he's justifying it all in the name of national security and terrorism. Wiretapping, bank surveillance, internet data. Thats only from the things we know, Im sure there is more to it.
Ever since 9/11 Bush has been using fear to scare people and allow him to keep doing what he wants. He should have been impeached a long time ago.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell.
During the Anglo-Saxon period, carrying a weapon was a sign of being a free man, as slaves were prohibited from bearing arms.
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. ~Mark Twain
During the Anglo-Saxon period, carrying a weapon was a sign of being a free man, as slaves were prohibited from bearing arms.
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. ~Mark Twain
#4
Posted 29 June 2006 - 01:44 PM
Security leaks are only going to help the US. Once we get rid of Bush. 
Impeachment for me! I'm totally hating Bush right now. He's made every mistake possible during his term, especially lieing to the people, and he's getting away with it. It's a total piss off, what kind of government do we have if he was able to hold office for two terms. 
The world is going to go to hell if Bush attempts a coup. Lol... I want to see it happen, so he could get his ass shot. O.o
Impeachment for me! I'm totally hating Bush right now. He's made every mistake possible during his term, especially lieing to the people, and he's getting away with it. It's a total piss off, what kind of government do we have if he was able to hold office for two terms. The world is going to go to hell if Bush attempts a coup. Lol... I want to see it happen, so he could get his ass shot. O.o
Omw!
Don't have a siggy anymore. :(
#5
Posted 29 June 2006 - 01:47 PM
PR1NC3, on Jun 29 2006, 05:44 PM, said:
It's a total piss off, what kind of government do we have if he was able to hold office for two terms.
It wasnt the government that choose him over Gore, or Kerry.. It was the people who choose him..
#6
Posted 29 June 2006 - 01:50 PM
Adobe, on Jun 29 2006, 01:47 PM, said:
It wasnt the government that choose him over Gore, or Kerry.. It was the people who choose him..
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell.
During the Anglo-Saxon period, carrying a weapon was a sign of being a free man, as slaves were prohibited from bearing arms.
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. ~Mark Twain
During the Anglo-Saxon period, carrying a weapon was a sign of being a free man, as slaves were prohibited from bearing arms.
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. ~Mark Twain
#7
Posted 29 June 2006 - 02:04 PM
Oi, that's why I advocate for popular voting instead of the electoral college. By popular vote, Bush should have never been president . . . Hell in the end he actually lost Florida IIRC and he stole Ohio from Kerry. Alas politics is a corrupt game, no matter the side.
Edited by Blaine, 29 June 2006 - 02:05 PM.
"The problems of my people are not my problems."
#8
Posted 29 June 2006 - 02:06 PM
The government can only go so far, but it crosses the line.
I don't believe Bush has crossed it. Yet.
I don't believe Bush has crossed it. Yet.
#9
Posted 29 June 2006 - 02:57 PM
Frizzle, on Jun 29 2006, 03:06 PM, said:
The government can only go so far, but it crosses the line.
I don't believe Bush has crossed it. Yet.
I don't believe Bush has crossed it. Yet.
Omw!
Don't have a siggy anymore. :(
#10
Posted 29 June 2006 - 03:05 PM
To become an American citizen? I don't really care.
As you can tell, I'm British.
As you can tell, I'm British.
#11
Posted 29 June 2006 - 03:18 PM
If you don't do anything wrong...you have nothing to worry about. This is more or less the equivalent of your employer monitoring your internet surfing at work.
Freedom is freedom...but be ready to give it up for the best of the country...that's how democracy works.
That point is very mute. If it were a popular vote system, GWB would've simply campaigned more in Texas, popular estimates from even CNN showed that Bush could've easily gained another million votes in Texas...the race wouldn't have even been close. Stole Ohio? Stole Florida? Give me a break dude. Take that Michael Moore quoting bullshit somewhere else. The government is electoral based on population. If it were population, campaigns would be run differently...and the same winner would've prevailed.
Freedom is freedom...but be ready to give it up for the best of the country...that's how democracy works.
Blaine, on Jun 29 2006, 04:04 PM, said:
Oi, that's why I advocate for popular voting instead of the electoral college. By popular vote, Bush should have never been president . . . Hell in the end he actually lost Florida IIRC and he stole Ohio from Kerry. Alas politics is a corrupt game, no matter the side.
That point is very mute. If it were a popular vote system, GWB would've simply campaigned more in Texas, popular estimates from even CNN showed that Bush could've easily gained another million votes in Texas...the race wouldn't have even been close. Stole Ohio? Stole Florida? Give me a break dude. Take that Michael Moore quoting bullshit somewhere else. The government is electoral based on population. If it were population, campaigns would be run differently...and the same winner would've prevailed.
Edited by Cript, 29 June 2006 - 03:19 PM.
#12
Posted 29 June 2006 - 03:31 PM
Cript, on Jun 29 2006, 06:18 PM, said:
Freedom is freedom...but be ready to give it up for the best of the country...that's how democracy works.
Edited by Amagius, 29 June 2006 - 03:33 PM.
"Where'd you find all that time,
a place for everything in the house?
I've got a mild fascination for collectors."
Username: Amagius, Farenyth, The C-C-C-C-Conversation Killer
E-mail: amagius@gmail.com
#13
Posted 29 June 2006 - 03:34 PM
Amagius, on Jun 29 2006, 05:31 PM, said:
I fail to see how democracy and "Giving up freedom for the best of the country" are synonymous. I think you might be thinking of fascism.
Anyways, the electors choose the President based upon their own volition.
Anyways, the electors choose the President based upon their own volition.
Freedom was given up when this country was formed. Half the colonies didn't want to give powers to a federal government, but it was necessary for the good of the country. FASCISM MY ASS.
#14
Posted 29 June 2006 - 03:35 PM
Cript, on Jun 29 2006, 06:34 PM, said:
Freedom was given up when this country was formed. Half the colonies didn't want to give powers to a federal government, but it was necessary for the good of the country. FASCISM MY ASS.
"Where'd you find all that time,
a place for everything in the house?
I've got a mild fascination for collectors."
Username: Amagius, Farenyth, The C-C-C-C-Conversation Killer
E-mail: amagius@gmail.com
#15
Posted 29 June 2006 - 03:40 PM
Amagius, on Jun 29 2006, 05:35 PM, said:
THAT IS NOT HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS. That may be how our forefathers claimed America, through giving up freedom to provide and protect their country, but that is not the definition nor mechanic of democracy.
# the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
# a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
# majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
People vote their representatives in and accept their actions. They also maintain the right to recall an elected individual. So, shall I assume that your opinion is that of the minority?
Mate: I can definitely see how you and most liberals have a problem with the government doing this...but what do you expect. Our intelligence was terrible 4 years ago, and we got our asses handed to us in NYC. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm more than prepared to let the government monitor my bank activity...because I don't break the law. If I think that doing this will reduce the chance of another attack by 5%, then I'm all for it.
What is everyone afraid of?
#16
Posted 29 June 2006 - 03:47 PM
Cript, on Jun 29 2006, 03:18 PM, said:
If you don't do anything wrong...you have nothing to worry about. This is more or less the equivalent of your employer monitoring your internet surfing at work.
Freedom is freedom...but be ready to give it up for the best of the country...that's how democracy works.
Freedom is freedom...but be ready to give it up for the best of the country...that's how democracy works.
NSA Wiretapping.
Financial surveillance.
ATT Telephone eavesdropping.
Secret Prisons.
Information rendition.
Google's data stolen.
Censorship.
This is not freedom. This is not democracy. It wasnt like this before. Clinton almost got impeached for having an affair, yet the things Bush constantly does are far more light weighted
...Whats next? ID tags on humans? Government is already trying to further spy on its citizens through social websites. NY Times has been accused of TREASON by the government.
Where America headed is a state outside the Constitution. Pretty soon the people are going to be afraid of the government and not the other way arround. One can only hope that the next president is far better, and not a republican.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell.
During the Anglo-Saxon period, carrying a weapon was a sign of being a free man, as slaves were prohibited from bearing arms.
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. ~Mark Twain
During the Anglo-Saxon period, carrying a weapon was a sign of being a free man, as slaves were prohibited from bearing arms.
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. ~Mark Twain
#17
Posted 29 June 2006 - 03:50 PM
Cript, on Jun 29 2006, 05:40 PM, said:
# the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
# a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
# majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
People vote their representatives in and accept their actions. They also maintain the right to recall an elected individual. So, shall I assume that your opinion is that of the minority?
Mate: I can definitely see how you and most liberals have a problem with the government doing this...but what do you expect. Our intelligence was terrible 4 years ago, and we got our asses handed to us in NYC. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm more than prepared to let the government monitor my bank activity...because I don't break the law. If I think that doing this will reduce the chance of another attack by 5%, then I'm all for it.
What is everyone afraid of?
# a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
# majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
People vote their representatives in and accept their actions. They also maintain the right to recall an elected individual. So, shall I assume that your opinion is that of the minority?
Mate: I can definitely see how you and most liberals have a problem with the government doing this...but what do you expect. Our intelligence was terrible 4 years ago, and we got our asses handed to us in NYC. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm more than prepared to let the government monitor my bank activity...because I don't break the law. If I think that doing this will reduce the chance of another attack by 5%, then I'm all for it.
What is everyone afraid of?
Thank you for the definition of democracy. I check your version of it again, and it did not match up.
Quote
Freedom is freedom...but be ready to give it up for the best of the country...that's how democracy works.
"Where'd you find all that time,
a place for everything in the house?
I've got a mild fascination for collectors."
Username: Amagius, Farenyth, The C-C-C-C-Conversation Killer
E-mail: amagius@gmail.com
#18
Posted 29 June 2006 - 03:55 PM
Alex, on Jun 29 2006, 05:47 PM, said:
Thats ridiculous.
NSA Wiretapping.
Financial surveillance.
ATT Telephone eavesdropping.
Secret Prisons.
Information rendition.
This is not freedom. This is not democracy. It wasnt like this before. Clinton almost got impeached for having an affair, yet the things Bush constantly does are far more light weighted ...
Whats next? ID tags on humans? Government is already trying to further spy on it's citizens through social websites. NY Times has been accused of TREASON by the government.
Where America headed is a state outside the Constitution. Pretty soon the people are going to be afraid of the government and not the other way arround. One can only hope that the next president is far better, and not a republican.
NSA Wiretapping.
Financial surveillance.
ATT Telephone eavesdropping.
Secret Prisons.
Information rendition.
This is not freedom. This is not democracy. It wasnt like this before. Clinton almost got impeached for having an affair, yet the things Bush constantly does are far more light weighted
...Whats next? ID tags on humans? Government is already trying to further spy on it's citizens through social websites. NY Times has been accused of TREASON by the government.
Where America headed is a state outside the Constitution. Pretty soon the people are going to be afraid of the government and not the other way arround. One can only hope that the next president is far better, and not a republican.
Alex, what do you say on the telephone that you're afraid of being heard? There is no go between here. If you want more safety, then you have to give up freedoms. It's up to you, what sacrifices are you willing to give to ensure that WTC doesn't happen again?
I apologize if I'm not being very open in this argument you guys. I just commisorate for this administration. The worst terrorist attack to ever happen on our soil...and every demands greater inteligence and retalliation...you give them retalliation and greater intelligence, and they bite your head off...
#19
Posted 29 June 2006 - 03:56 PM
Cript, on Jun 29 2006, 03:50 PM, said:
Alex, what do you say on the telephone that you're afraid of being heard? There is no go between here. If you want more safety, then you have to give up freedoms. It's up to you, what sacrifices are you willing to give to ensure that WTC doesn't happen again?
If you're pro telephone wiretapping, you're basically saying we're guilty until proven innocent.
Cript, one thing is to have a tight grip on national security in order to prevent another WTC. Another thing is secretly invading privacies, breaking laws, going against the constitution, all in the name of "fighting terrorism", justified with fear that another might happen.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell.
During the Anglo-Saxon period, carrying a weapon was a sign of being a free man, as slaves were prohibited from bearing arms.
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. ~Mark Twain
During the Anglo-Saxon period, carrying a weapon was a sign of being a free man, as slaves were prohibited from bearing arms.
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. ~Mark Twain
#20
Posted 29 June 2006 - 03:59 PM
Alex, on Jun 29 2006, 05:56 PM, said:
Have you ever read 1984? Do you not see the various similaritites between the actions of the Bush Administration and the actions of fascism, totalitarianism, etc?
If you're pro telephone wiretapping, you're basically saying we're guilty until proven innocent.
If you're pro telephone wiretapping, you're basically saying we're guilty until proven innocent.
Alex, implying that we're guilty until proven innocent? You know that's not the case at all...that would imply they're putting us in prison before the tap...they're tapping. I do get what you're saying. GW isn't the best president, but he's had a load of horse shit thrown at him and Clinton left him with quite the pile of shit too. We can only hope the next republican president is better, hopefully McCain. You're a bit right about the fascism deal, but he's just trying to appease to the demands of his contingents. We said we wanted safety...ok, so here's what we have to do to get it.
#21 Guest_Casilla_*
Guest_Casilla_*
-
- Guests
Posted 29 June 2006 - 04:36 PM
Well, for the last time, you're all right and wrong. This ISN'T democracy, it never has been, nor ever will it be if we want it to continue to work.
Democracy never works, except in small societies. And even then, it is prone to failure.
That is why we have a republic. =P
Now, I do not think you all understand how much everyone is contradicting their own parties at this moment.
Liberals, if you were true liberals, true Democrats - should be all FOR wiretapping. It is the sort of integral thing to your politics - the government in everyone's business. 1984 is about socialism - which is what the Democratic party is leaning towards - in the extreme. 1984 is a work about extremity. You are sliding a slippery slope if you think we are anywhere near 1984.
Conversely, conservatives, Republicans - should be aghast at wiretapping, because it is fundamentally against our politics. The government should not be involved with anyone's business.
Of course, this sort of contradiction runs rampant through the parties, and makes for quite a few confused individuals.
Our government was criticized for a lack of information regarding terrorism, and rightly so. It's sad to think that in our post-Soviet days, our standards had fallen so low, but there you have it. The government rebounded to the people's desires by becoming more invasive - something that is against the very core of Republican politics. But yet those same Republicans support it, because it was their man who did it. And the Democrats are against it, because while it is a policy they would normally do, their man did not put it into effect.
You should not believe the drivel you read on the Internet, or watch on TV.
It is bias in action.
The government is not watching YOU. It doesn't give a damn about you. I don't know what delusions you harbor, but not one person has so much as glanced over any information pertaining to you. Your privacy has not been violated. It is watching individuals who need to be watched. It is through this watching that they can decide whether or not to pursue action.
So that there aren't more people down in Club Git'mo than there need to be.
Because Club Git'mo is the only other answer they have to survellience. Through survellience, they can decide whether or not to act - whether or not there is a threat and needs to be apprehended.
Without that survellience, anyone suspected may get a trip to Cuba or similar, because they do not have the evidence, but cannot trust the individual either way. You must understand the government - this is something that transcends all party lines. It is ruthless, and does what it must do.
And that is they way things need to be, for our government to take preventative action. Of course, the alternative, is to not know when your own citizens are plotting treason. The alternative is to let another event like 9/11 to happen right under our noses.
Like the London bombings, for example.
The government will do what it can to ensure nothing of the sort ever happens again, and you should be thankful.
It could do nothing, and let you die.
If you think, for even a second, there has not been a politician in office who has not broken quite a few laws - for the better or worse of the country - then you are sorely mistaken and need a wake-up call.
Getting caught in the act...that is the only true crime that has been committed here.
I'm frankly disappointed.
But there are many in the CIA who are Democrats...and as always, even when it's their own politics in question...partisan alliances always win out.
And that is what is wrong with our country.
Democracy never works, except in small societies. And even then, it is prone to failure.
That is why we have a republic. =P
Now, I do not think you all understand how much everyone is contradicting their own parties at this moment.
Liberals, if you were true liberals, true Democrats - should be all FOR wiretapping. It is the sort of integral thing to your politics - the government in everyone's business. 1984 is about socialism - which is what the Democratic party is leaning towards - in the extreme. 1984 is a work about extremity. You are sliding a slippery slope if you think we are anywhere near 1984.
Conversely, conservatives, Republicans - should be aghast at wiretapping, because it is fundamentally against our politics. The government should not be involved with anyone's business.
Of course, this sort of contradiction runs rampant through the parties, and makes for quite a few confused individuals.
Our government was criticized for a lack of information regarding terrorism, and rightly so. It's sad to think that in our post-Soviet days, our standards had fallen so low, but there you have it. The government rebounded to the people's desires by becoming more invasive - something that is against the very core of Republican politics. But yet those same Republicans support it, because it was their man who did it. And the Democrats are against it, because while it is a policy they would normally do, their man did not put it into effect.
You should not believe the drivel you read on the Internet, or watch on TV.
It is bias in action.
The government is not watching YOU. It doesn't give a damn about you. I don't know what delusions you harbor, but not one person has so much as glanced over any information pertaining to you. Your privacy has not been violated. It is watching individuals who need to be watched. It is through this watching that they can decide whether or not to pursue action.
So that there aren't more people down in Club Git'mo than there need to be.
Because Club Git'mo is the only other answer they have to survellience. Through survellience, they can decide whether or not to act - whether or not there is a threat and needs to be apprehended.
Without that survellience, anyone suspected may get a trip to Cuba or similar, because they do not have the evidence, but cannot trust the individual either way. You must understand the government - this is something that transcends all party lines. It is ruthless, and does what it must do.
And that is they way things need to be, for our government to take preventative action. Of course, the alternative, is to not know when your own citizens are plotting treason. The alternative is to let another event like 9/11 to happen right under our noses.
Like the London bombings, for example.
The government will do what it can to ensure nothing of the sort ever happens again, and you should be thankful.
It could do nothing, and let you die.
If you think, for even a second, there has not been a politician in office who has not broken quite a few laws - for the better or worse of the country - then you are sorely mistaken and need a wake-up call.
Getting caught in the act...that is the only true crime that has been committed here.
I'm frankly disappointed.
But there are many in the CIA who are Democrats...and as always, even when it's their own politics in question...partisan alliances always win out.
And that is what is wrong with our country.
Edited by Casilla, 29 June 2006 - 04:37 PM.
#22
Posted 29 June 2006 - 04:38 PM
Rather than quoting your long reply Casilla...thank you very much. You made an exteremely good point...and now I can retire from this thread.
#23 Guest_Casilla_*
Guest_Casilla_*
-
- Guests
Posted 29 June 2006 - 04:40 PM
Cript, on Jun 29 2006, 05:38 PM, said:
Rather than quoting your long reply Casilla...thank you very much. You made an exteremely good point...and now I can retire from this thread.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
