|
Post by DannyA on Jun 11, 2013 11:26:14 GMT -5
There's a big difference between looking at phone numbers that have been in contact with suspicious people, and intercepting what law-abiding citizens do.
Yes, and I can't see why you can't make that distinction. Because that's the point -- they are intercepting what law-abiding citizens do.
|
|
|
Post by DannyA on Jun 11, 2013 11:27:17 GMT -5
and hench, to compare that violation of the fourth amendment to gun nuts' willful misinterpretation of the second amendment is a strawman argument. No it's not. It's the exact same thing. Oh. Well, I guess that settles that.
|
|
|
Post by henchman on Jun 11, 2013 21:57:57 GMT -5
I guess we should just pretend that we don't REALLY need the CIA or NSA to help keep us safe from the crazies, right?
|
|
|
Post by DannyA on Jun 11, 2013 22:03:28 GMT -5
I guess we should just pretend that we don't REALLY need the CIA or NSA to help keep us safe from the crazies, right? Yeah, that's the argument I've been making and everyone else too. We live in a pretend world. I love how you don't address real questions and just spout talking points. It's almost like being back at the Walrus Board.
|
|
|
Post by henchman on Jun 11, 2013 22:17:37 GMT -5
I guess we should just pretend that we don't REALLY need the CIA or NSA to help keep us safe from the crazies, right? Yeah, that's the argument I've been making and everyone else too. We live in a pretend world. I love how you don't address real questions and just spout talking points. It's almost like being back at the Walrus Board. You DO live in a pretend world, don't you.
|
|
|
Post by DannyA on Jun 11, 2013 22:21:38 GMT -5
Wonderful non-answer. Hats off to you, sir!
|
|
|
Post by DannyA on Jun 11, 2013 22:22:26 GMT -5
And I do really like you and the questions you bring up on every topic, but your avoidance of the issues in this thread is truly Walrus-like.
|
|
|
Post by henchman on Jun 11, 2013 22:48:25 GMT -5
im not avoiding any issues. You're the one not in step with reality.
|
|
|
Post by nycbiscuit on Jun 11, 2013 22:57:11 GMT -5
The original WaPo article detailed collection as such:
Even when the system works just as advertised, with no American singled out for targeting, the NSA routinely collects a great deal of American content. That is described as "incidental," and it is inherent in contact chaining, one of the basic tools of the trade. To collect on a suspected spy or foreign terrorist means, at minimum, that everyone in the suspect's inbox or outbox is swept in. Intelligence analysts are typically taught to chain through contacts two "hops" out from their target, which increases "incidental collection" exponentially.
In a Six Degrees Of Separation world, that's a whole lot of people whose communications they are trolling through. So when officials are saying that they are not going through millions of people's emails and phone calls, that just isn't true.
|
|
|
Post by DannyA on Jun 11, 2013 23:02:27 GMT -5
im not avoiding any issues. You're the one not in step with reality. Yeah, you're right. I pose questions, you don't answer, and I'm not in step with reality. Like I said, you and I agree on 90% of issues, which makes it so perplexing that you write such bullshit write-offs without engaging with the issue. So I guess I'll just make this my last response to you on this issue, though I respect your opinions on nearly everything else. I find this really strange. But hey, your choice.
|
|
|
Post by boots on Jun 12, 2013 12:22:54 GMT -5
Okay- right or wrong, traitor or hero aside, NPR did a piece last night on ATC wherein they interviewed members of Congress who admitted to being "briefed" about all of this and being complicit, who in turn, some admitted they didn't really read the information, listen to the briefing, or understand the content.
This was not "covert" by any stretch, our lawmakers were apprised.
|
|
|
Post by henchman on Jun 12, 2013 13:00:26 GMT -5
Okay- right or wrong, traitor or hero aside, NPR did a piece last night on ATC wherein they interviewed members of Congress who admitted to being "briefed" about all of this and being complicit, who in turn, some admitted they didn't really read the information, listen to the briefing, or understand the content. This was not "covert" by any stretch, our lawmakers were apprised. So, not leading the information, listening to the briefing or nt understanding the content, disqualifies them from having objections. If they can't do, or understand their job, they shouldn't be doing it.
|
|
|
Post by Darren on Jun 12, 2013 13:32:05 GMT -5
But where else are they gonna make that kinda money for being ignorant dumb asses?
|
|
|
Post by LongPlayer on Jun 12, 2013 14:36:21 GMT -5
And I do really like you and the questions you bring up on every topic, but your avoidance of the issues in this thread is truly Walrus-like. The correct term for this is actually "Walrussian".
|
|
|
Post by boots on Jun 12, 2013 14:38:13 GMT -5
Yeah I was pretty appalled- there are only a few coming "clean" as it were saying "yup, we knew" or "yup, we had plenty of opportunity to find out more". One ass hat went so far as to blame the "Top Secret" classification of the briefing because he "couldn't write down notes" or "discuss content with staff"- in other words- he needed it explained to him.
Unreal.
Also- whether or not you agree or disagree with what this guy did, the attempt to dis-credit him with the pole dancing girlfriend and the DUI, and the whole "failed military career" thing smacks of pandering.
System fucked, all is normal.
|
|