Hillary Clinton: "We Need To Talk Sensibly About Spying" 461
dryriver writes "The Guardian reports: 'Hillary Clinton has called for a "sensible adult conversation", to be held in a transparent way, about the boundaries of state surveillance highlighted by the leaking of secret NSA files by the whistleblower Edward Snowden. In a boost to Nick Clegg, the British deputy prime minister, who is planning to start conversations within government about the oversight of Britain's intelligence agencies, the former US secretary of state said it would be wrong to shut down a debate. Clinton, who is seen as a frontrunner for the 2016 US presidential election, said at Chatham House in London: "This is a very important question. On the intelligence issue, we are democracies thank goodness, both the US and the UK. We need to have a sensible adult conversation about what is necessary to be done, and how to do it, in a way that is as transparent as it can be, with as much oversight and citizens' understanding as there can be."'"
"what is necessary to be done" (Score:4, Interesting)
"with as much oversight and citizens' understanding as there can be"
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:5, Insightful)
If I understand what I believe you are trying to imply then I agree.
James Clapper can lie to Congress about the NSA's activities and there are no repercussions.
How about we start with that? If you feel that you have to lie to Congress then either you need to be fired or the program that you're lying about needs to be shut down (or both).
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:4, Insightful)
> And all of you clueless Obama-loving lberal weenies will still vote for her next election,
With alternatives like Palin and Romney one is left with little choice. One does not have to "love" Obama at all in order to realize just how TRULY BAD the alternatives are.
Obama is in office because of that fact.
I will reprhase that: Obama is in office because neocons refuse to stop drinking their own kool-aid and acknowledge that they are a minority in the electorate.
The nation has always been divided by 2 extremist minorities with a large middle that dislikes both of them.
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:4, Insightful)
The nation has always been divided by 2 extremist minorities with a large middle that dislikes both of them.
...but keeps voting for them anyway (even going so far as to defend them now and again).
So why exactly is the big stupid middle not to be reviled just like the extremes? The outcome of all three groups' actions is exactly the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Show me mathematically how my vote will not be a spoiler and I might vote third party. Otherwise I have to shore up this dam with my fingers. Third party was 1% last election, how does it get the other 32% ?
What do you mean by "won't be a spoiler." This isn't maths: If you vote 3rd party the 3rd party probably still won't get in, but that's not the point. If 5% or 10% of people were to vote 3rd party then it would send a message to the other two and start to affect the debate. The two main parties need those votes and will hopefully work to get them by ceasing to be wankers, which is the point of your 3rd party vote.
As long we continue to vote for one of the two main parties we are rewarding them for being
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Where is this extreme left wing minority? If you think that Obama is left wing, all I can say is wow, just wow. In any other western country, Obama would probably be considered moderate right-wing or perhaps centrist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever his deepest personal inclinations are, President Obama won an election, not a revolution. He has to govern within the existing structure, with another party in opposition, and conform to the existing rules. You would certainly be mistaken to think he isn't shifting things noticeably to the left within that framework. There really isn't any question about the politics of his former "green jobs czar," Van Jones [discoverthenetworks.org], is there? And an interesting comment from his former press secretary, Anita Dunn [youtube.com]. Ea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama centrist in any other western country? Maybe, if you count Israel a western country perhaps. In the UE, he would be considered right wing to very right wing. The republicans would only have counterparts in some of the more obscure fascist parties around here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That is silly, really. Tell me, since many NATO countries have military forces fighting alongside America's military forces, how do you explain that? Is all of Europe governed by the "far, far right"?
What has Obama done that the French government hasn't done recently that would make him far right as opposed to the French government?
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:4, Insightful)
The entire left wing/right wing is a bunch of horse shift false dichotomy when used in any manner outside state v. federal balance of power. It contributes nothing of value to a discussion and only serves to pull at memetic strings that serve to prevent rational discussion.
In general if you are using conservative/liberal/left/right one is saying something that involves completely talking out of ones ass as they are relying on memes instead of reasoning.
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:5, Insightful)
With alternatives like Palin and Romney one is left with little choice.
Third parties. If you vote for evil, you are naive and part of the problem. Try to give someone else a chance, if for no other reason than to send a message.
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. And 3d parties don't even have to win to affect the public debate, they just have to make some kind of decent enough showing to get TwoParty candidates worried. But as long as people keep voting for the New GOP (aka Democrats) or the Old GOP (aka Parody of Itself), nothing that these fetid parties agree on will ever change. And sadly, these parties agree on a lot of really crappy shit, like due process free execution & detention, pervasive surveillance, socializing losses and privatizing profits (Wall St.), Executive branch war making authority, that we actually do need to be policeman of the world, exporting jobs in the name of free trade agreements, prison industrial complex, etc. etc.
Any TwoParty voter who opposes these policies, policies which significantly impact major human rights, cannot in good conscience vote for "either" party because he or she then becomes a de facto supporter of those policies.
And finally, the old "but look at the opposition - you can't let that nut win" argument is just pure BS when "both" parties share about 99.99% of their DNA. What real difference is there between 99.5% batshit crazy and 99.6%? Worse than that, we end up with people like Obama, whose mightiest achievement was taking what was a radical expansion of executive power under the GWB administration, and making it the new normal. That's worse than the alternative where at least one party would pretend to care and fight back a little.
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to be assuming that Obama is also not truly bad. Remember the gun control push at the beginning of this year? Or how about the fact he is just another politician who refuses to stay out of peoples sex lives(yes he has no issues with gays, but he has yet to support polyamory and it is still legal to discriminate against those who like kinky sex). Or how about his attacks on those who embarrass the federal government by blowing the whistle on their lies? Or how about the fact he is in the pocket of Hollywood?
Saying he is better than the ass hat he ran against to win the last to elections and is thusly a okay person is crap reasoning. When the options you are presented with are which day of the week you get beaten on you are not really being presented with a option. The proper choice is to say fuck it and fight back. The beginning of this means voting for none of the above.
Re: (Score:3)
When the options you are presented with are which day of the week you get beaten on you are not really being presented with a option.
It's more like "would you rather be beaten daily or weekly? BTW if you try to choose some other option it's tantamount to choosing daily".
It's not unreasonable to say "weekly" in that case.
It's not like the poly or kinky people are going to do any better under the Republicans, so Obama being better for gays *is* substantially better in terms of reducing government intrustion into personal sex lives. If you're not gay, don't know any gay people, and have no empathy at all, then maybe it's a toss-up. But o
Re: (Score:3)
Obama is a neocon.
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:4, Insightful)
As the AC reply above points out -- of the two main party candidates, neither was a woman.
As far as the third party candidates that year, I looked at them, and didn't like any of them.
Would you expect me to vote for John McCain? Just because he was the Republican candidate, and I have more 'conservative' views than 'liberal' views? Too bad I have less 'liberal' views than McCain did, one year before the campaign. He was the perfect example of RINO. Happy to vote with the Democrats, on issue after issue. Whether he was thinking it would make them like him, or he actually agreed with their goals doesn't matter. Then, when seeking the Republican nomination, suddenly he is a 'staunch conservative'.
McCain was not worthy of my vote, or any conservative's vote. The best thing he did was bring Sarah Palin on board. Yes, she was the best part of that ticket, that's how I look at John McCain. Also, suddenly, his main selling point beyond his new-found conservatism, was that he was a war hero and POW. OK, great, what has he done lately? He's a war hero. But beyond that? He was a POW in Nam. OK, again, great. What about now? He was a POW and war hero. That's what I remember about his campaign.
Now, back to Barack Obama. You notice I said "Part of the reason was his skin color." It wasn't the only issue. It was one of several issues. And it wasn't specifically his skin color that I voted for. I felt that "it was time for America to have a president who didn't grow up white." He could have been a white guy, and still met this criteria. In fact, he is half white, in case everyone has forgotten that. But he did not grow up in typical white neighborhoods. He spent time living in Indonesia, and the rest of his childhood in Hawaii. I've lived in Hawaii. It's a beautiful place, but a "white neighborhood" it is not.
So, when I said "it was time for America to have a president who didn't grow up white," I meant it was time for someone who has other experiences in this world than all of the white candidates would have. It was time for a new perspective. This doesn't simply boil down to skin color, or I would have voted for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton years ago.
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:4, Insightful)
If you feel that you have to lie to Congress then either you need to be fired or the program that you're lying about needs to be shut down (or both).
I agree that if the director feels he has to lie, then those are appropriate responses. If he actually does lie, meaning he intentionally and knowingly deceives Congress, then he should be prosecuted for perjury.
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: "what is necessary to be done" (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. Not treason. That has a very specific definition in the constitution. It's perjury. That is a serious enough offense and appropriate for that specific level of malfeasance.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"If I understand what I believe you are trying to imply then I agree."
I agree in principle, but I don't agree with Clinton. Why?
Because SHE is wholly involved in the current web of lies. Remember Benghazi. And ask yourself how she could have announced the death of certain people at the embassy 15 minutes before it happened.
Then ask yourself why, when asked about Benghazi in a Congressional hearing, she sidestepped the questions by throwing up her hands and shouting, "What does it matter NOW?"
I have no problem with a woman President. I have a very BIG problem with Hil
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:5, Informative)
You admit that you didn't check it, so how the hell would you know?
I admit that I hadn't previously seen it, but I did check it. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1301/23/se.01.html [cnn.com]
You are wrong. Her testimony in no way indicated any wrongdoing. The quip that made it in the news was an admonition from a freshman Senator who was trying to bait her that she replied in kind to.
The biggest possible scandal that ANY potential Presidential candidate has ever been involved in, and you wonder why it matters?
Yeah, like George Bush committing treason at least twice that we know of (both material aid to the Iranians who were enemies of the US at the time). Oh no, that gets no coverage, does it?
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:5, Interesting)
That's up to congress. They could have issued a contempt citation, have the Sargent of Arms of the Senate arrest Clapper, have him tried on the floor and have him imprisoned. That's the proper procedure. They didn't care.
Re: (Score:3)
"It all depends on what your definition of is is."
Evidently politicians have a different dictionary from us peons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0 [youtube.com]
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever a politician says "We need to have a conversation" it means that they want to avoid taking a position on the issue until they know which way the wind is blowing. It is easier to bend when you have no spine.
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:5, Interesting)
In particular, Hillary Clinton said "we are democracies thank goodness, both the US and the UK". Now, what did she mean with that remark, and would it be similar to the meaning that the common person might assign to it?
From ancient Greek demos + kratos, democracy [wiktionary.org] = rule by the people.
One suspects that what the rulers and would-be rulers mean is closer to autocracy [wikipedia.org] = rule over the people, coupled with the assertion that if the people don't actively resist (via rebellion), then they tacitly accept [wikipedia.org] the whims of their rulers.
Re: (Score:3)
I seem to remember Obama saying recently in a speech that when politicians say, "we need to have a conversation," it actually means that they aren't going to do anything. The way I see it is this: If you're a public figure, the way you "have a conversation" with the public is by making public statements and seeing what the response is. You don't just say, "We need to have a conversation."
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:5, Informative)
8 years of Bush thinking he knew what was best for you is largely what got us into this mess.
And Obama is just as much of a thug for continuing these policies and, in certain cases, expanding them.
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Mistakes were made"
meanwhile
Hillary Clinton ordered U.S. diplomats to spy on UN
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333920/WikiLeaks-Hillary-Clinton-ordered-U-S-diplomats-spy-UN-leaders.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't care how transparent this is or how much oversight it has; spying on innocent people will never be okay, and neither will spying on people to find out if they're innocent or not.
Re: "what is necessary to be done" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What good is a spy agency if everyone knows what they are doing and how to avoid them?
I'd rather have no spy agency than have a disgusting organization like the NSA continue to operate; anyone who doesn't despise freedom feels the same way.
Re: (Score:3)
George Washington ran a spy ring that spied on other colonists as part of his fight to obtain and maintain freedom for the colonies. Benjamin Franklin was head of a committee that opened other colonist's mail for intelligence information for the same reason. I'm pretty certain you aren't a bigger patriot than they were, nor do you have their wisdom. Your proclamation is in fact either demagoguery, or the statement of someone that is uninformed about the history of how the US become free, and maintained i
Re:"what is necessary to be done" (Score:4, Insightful)
And there it is, you think you're holier, wiser, and more patriotic than George Washington and Benjamin Franklin.
People back then weren't exactly paragons of freedom. While not everyone owned slaves and abused women back then, it wasn't a good time to be living in if you weren't a white man, so forgive me for being unimpressed with some of their activities.
Just what I expected.
I don't expect anything from you. I just reply to you government bootlickers for laughs.
Words (Score:5, Insightful)
Just fucking words. From the mouth of a presidential hopeful. I can't think of anything more meaningless.
Re:Words (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just any words. Those are accusations. Clinton accuses us of being hysteric. Whenever a politician demands a "sensible" or "adult" debate, they're trying to discredit their opposition by implying that the debate was not sensible or adult before said politician called the opposition to order.
My spelling is horrible... (Score:2)
Do you spell bullshit with 1 L or 2? The totalitarian state will do as it pleases and have discussions to appease the masses.
Do you really think the people behind the sureillance will one day say "yea..i guess you are right we should not be doing this" to people, countries and businesses? That would be like the wall street bankers saying "yea..you are right..here is your money back"
Re:My spelling is horrible... (Score:5, Funny)
Two L's. H-i-L-L-a-r-y.
Re: (Score:2)
Similar to when Obama says, "We need to have a national conversation about X" he means, "I hope you come around to my viewpoint after talking about it."
Re: (Score:3)
They are different from totalitarian States, upside down even. Instead of the State controlling corporations, corporations control the State. Instead of politically motivating the people through youth organizations and such, they push for the population to be politically apathetic. Instead of mocking democracy, they pretend that they are the ultimate in democracy.
Exactly the opposite of most totalitarian States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism [wikipedia.org]
it's too late for that (Score:5, Insightful)
The level of abuses - both the spying itself, subsequent known abuses of the data, and countless likely unknown abuses - has already done enough damage to the fabric of the ideal of democracy, that an open and straightforward conversation is not enough. When there are very real threats that people will be tortured to preserve government secrecy about this...
It's too late for the straightforward sensible conversation. Heads need to roll. Figuritively or literally. I stopped voting when Obama broke his 1 year GITMO pledge. I thought I would make an exception if Hillary was the only female top spot on one of the two main parties. I think this slashdot troll headline will make me give up on that. It'd be nice to see a non-male president of the U.S. But Hillary Clinton is day by day demonstrably failing to live up to the kind of standard which I would use if I could muster the belief that voting could help this in the same sensible fashion she is after. Things are *messed up*.
Re:it's too late for that (Score:4, Insightful)
It'd be nice to see a non-male president of the U.S.
Why do the sexual organs or skin color of the US President matter so much to you?
Re: (Score:2)
The level of abuses - both the spying itself, subsequent known abuses of the data, and countless likely unknown abuses - has already done enough damage to the fabric of the ideal of democracy, that an open and straightforward conversation is not enough. When there are very real threats that people will be tortured to preserve government secrecy about this...
The only straightforward and sensible conversation at this point can be about shutting it down, and how quickly we can shut it down. You cannot have a democracy in this environment where the public is left completely uninformed, the programs are shrouded in secrecy, and any attempt to unravel that secrecy is met with "National Security, go fuck yourself." Snowden was straight on point when he said we building a solution for "turnkey tyranny." Communism to the extreme, or Capitalism to the extreme all lea
Re: (Score:2)
It's too late for the straightforward sensible conversation. Heads need to roll. Figuritively or literally. I stopped voting when Obama broke his 1 year GITMO pledge.
First mistake. You have many choices to choose from. There are more than two candidates on the ballot.
I thought I would make an exception if Hillary was the only female top spot on one of the two main parties.
Second mistake. One party last fall had not only one female candidate, but two. Why not show them some support?
I think this slashdot troll headline will make me give up on that. It'd be nice to see a non-male president of the U.S. But Hillary Clinton is day by day demonstrably failing to live up to the kind of standard which I would use if I could muster the belief that voting could help this in the same sensible fashion she is after. Things are *messed up*.
Both main parties are supporting this shit. Vote third party. Tell you friends you are voting third party, and why. Encourage them to vote their conscience too.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, vote third party. But don't lie to yourself and pretend that it makes a difference. The structure of the electoral system guarantees that only two parties have a chance of electing a candidate. The publicity factor guarantees that both of them will be bought ahead of time.
FWIW, I did vote thrid party last time. I usually do. But I don't pretend that it makes a difference. Do a bit of systems analysis, for gods sake.
Re:it's too late for that (Score:5, Informative)
Agreed. I've always seen myself as a progressive and have voted for Democratic candidates since the 1980s, but after the Obama experience I'm not so sure. There are a few exceptions, but otherwise it's clear to me that both of the two major parties are almost completely corrupt. For instance, do you think things would have been much different under Hillary than under Obama? I don't think so. They're both establishment figures who's real masters are the big corporations -- that's where they get most of the money for their campaigns. But that kind of cash always comes with strings attached.
If we ever want to see this kind of corruption end, our first goal must be to get money out of politics.
If that makes sense to you, I would suggest signing this petition: WOLF-PAC [wolf-pac.com]. Launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, the plan is to instead have the State Legislators propose it via an Article V Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, most notably Texas. If successful, we should see a much more respectable group of politicians emerge within one or two election cycles.
*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which grated some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.
**) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there's nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.
Hillary has no moral authority (Score:3, Interesting)
There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
Re:Hillary has no moral authority (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, I find her interest in discourse on the subject frightening because she's the official that ordered spying, including theft of credit card info, on UN officials.
Citation for the curious: Spying on United Nations leaders by United States diplomats [wikipedia.org]
Sensible Adult code words (Score:4, Interesting)
She really means that the unwashed masses have to "educated" to shut up and accept it, which will take large amount of scare stories and perhaps some *cough* carefully engineered incidents to bring home the point that the function of government is to spy and watch over all aspects of society. For "It Takes a Village" Clinton to use the term "Adult Conversation" should fool no one.
The story, is without a single suggestion from either the British authorities or Clinton, that the spying should be reined in. Rather, everyone seems to suggest simply placed under more "political oversight" is the answer. But Politicians are the LAST people we would trust with oversight. They are the ones that got us into this mess.
And, at least in the US, the Judiciary can't be trusted either. We have judges who took oaths to defend the Constitution, approving whole sale monitoring of phone metadata [arstechnica.com] of every person in the US,yet again.
Why should judges, entrusted to protect us, be above the law? Why can't they be prosecuted or sued?
Is there anyone surprised by Clinton making obscure coded statements about a spying program that she would redouble? This is a very corrupt woman, who is politically ruthless. She left her minions twisting in the wind in Egypt, and if she gains a position from which she perceives the rest of us a "her children" she will assuredly not do a single thing to remove her parental control.
Re: (Score:3)
1) How the fuck do you propose to run a government WITHOUT spying?
A government without something along the lines of the NSA could easily exist. Remember that freedom is more important than safety, and the government clearly can't be trusted to provide oversight for itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Noone is suggesting a givernment that doesn't spy. Most of us aren't even suggesting that the NSA not spy.
It WOULD be nice if it stuck to its mandate of FOREIGN Signals Intelligence Gathering, rather than extending "foreign" to mean "not
Oversight by jury (Score:3)
Here's a proposal to try on for size. All covert surveillance with any domestic component must be approved by a secret court, with the decision made not by a professional judge, but by a citizen jury in an adversarial court setting. Now clearly the jury can't just be random dudes off the street, so how do you make sure they can be trusted with government secrets? They're selected by another jury, and if they agree to serve, they consent to total surveillance for a period of time during and after their service. These juries also select a people's advocate, who acts as a defense attorney and is required to argue against whatever the state is trying to do.
And now, presenting his majesty, cold fjord... (Score:2)
Enough of this nonsense! We need these invasive spying programs so that we know what the terrorists are up to. I know you all like to live in a world of fantasy, where privacy and freedom are paramount, but this is the real world. When things like terrorism are on the table, it's time to put away the kids toys and talk like serious, mannered adults. A world where the government does not watch over our every move is unthinkable and completely unrealistic.
-- cold fjord
What is with you morons? Enough of this "privacy" talk; our very lives are at stake! How can you really expect to live in a world where the government does not know what you're doing? The government cannot possibly protect us from terrorism, or even revolution, if they do not see everything we do. Fortunately, it's only a matter of time until they can read our thoughts.
-- cold fjord
Stop! No more privacy! Privacy is a tool used by freedom fighters! Do you know what freedom fighters do? They fight against freedom! They're fuckin' terrorists! Get 'em boys!
-- cold fjord
The constitution is an enemy of the state, and should be treated like one.
-- cold fjord
I agree. Let's talk sensibly. You STOP doing it. (Score:2)
I mean seriously. Just stop. It's that simple. Free country? Life? Liberty? Constitution? Remember all that stuff?
We need spies but big databases are no use. (Score:5, Interesting)
The world is not a perfect place. The West does need spies and it does need an infrastructure to support them and gather intelligence.
However, we should remember who we actually need to be spying on. Nation states, failed states, and yes terrorist training camps and what not.
What we should not be engaging in is dragnet surveillance where everyone is entered in to some giant database. This is a really bad idea for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the databases are not really likely to be that useful. Prism didn't stop the Boston Marathon bombers. You might have every text, every phone call, every e-mail but if you can't spot the connections it doesn't help you.
Second, the massive database is a security risk in its own right. The NSA might think the Snowden leak is bad but it's child's play compared to what would happen if somebody leaks that database! You can bet your bottom dollar a shit-storm a 100% times the size would ensue. It might even threaten the agency's continued existence.
Third, the database could be hacked by a foreign governments. This in itself is a giant risk that dwarfs the one outlined in the second paragraph. China getting access to wiretaps on US businesses? Does no-one in the security community see what a giant hole they're making in the West's security?
This leads nicely to my fourth and final point. I do get the impression from the Snowden leaks that the competency of these organisations is being called in to question. It's clear they don't know what Snowden took; they don't know what he knows and what he doesn't. This is why he's catching them at so many lies. They make one statement, he leaks another document that shows them they're full of shit.
This final point is perhaps the most damning. They've built a giant system they can't audit! If they don't know what he took when he's just a fairly junior contractor, we have to assume other nation states have thoroughly penetrated the system and already stolen Western secrets!
They're clearly not competent enough to run such a system and it should be shut down on grounds of national security.
She's doesn't want to discuss real question (Score:2)
(At least the article didn't quote her saying more, but maybe she did ...)
She's not asking, 'is this spying worth the loss of liberty and should we continue?', she's just saying we should take steps to make people more comfortable with it.
The serious conversation needs to be about the trade-off: People lose privacy, and eventually someone, even if not Obama or Hillary Clinton, will abuse the power to suppress political opposition and for other selfish purposes. Are the security gains worth all that harm? On
Catch up with the USSR (Score:5, Insightful)
I would never vote for Republicans - for me they share much more with Soviets than just the red color, but when Obama (whom I voted for) calls Snowden a "traitor" (instead of a hero), I'm thinking that Putin in his place would do exactly the same. Putin, who's main enemies are Russian citizens.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe it's a coincidence that the response to 9/11 -- the Department of Homeland Security -- had essentially the same name as the KGB.
DHS+NSA == KGB (Score:3)
DHS+NSA == KGB
But honestly - I'm afraid that NSA has much superior capabilities against the citizens of the country than the KGB had. With the brand new facility some 15 miles from my home in Utah.
Just me? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it just me, or is "sensible adult conversation" rather condescending? Why is it that when a whistle blower identifies where the law has been violated, rather than a immediate and far reaching criminal investigation to identify and punish those responsible for breaking the law we see excuses and calls for "sensible adult conversation". There is no need for a negotiation. If I were to spy in this manner there would be no discussion; I would be prosecuted, imprisoned and possibly killed.
National Security is a weak cover for the abuse of power and gross violations of the highest law of the land. How can senior people get away with lying to Congress and not get thrown in jail for life? What does it say when people can lie like this, break the highest law, and face no consequences? No. Instead the whistle blowers are facing life in prison.
I didn't believe all the campaign promises of Obama, but to actually be worse than Bush takes some doing. The US is stuffed. Your 'democracy' was sacrificed many years ago; welcome to the Police State. What other country has tortured people for more than ten years - and now can only keep people alive - people who have not been charged much less given a trial - through forced feeding. The US is a grotesque parody of what it once stood for.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it just me, or is "sensible adult conversation" rather condescending?
I'm rather surprised that an experienced and savvy politician like her would let something condescending like that slip. Her staff must be cringing at that statement. That's something I would have expected to hear from Dick Cheney. I think she's showing her age and losing her shine a bit. A politician is allowed to think that they know better than the rest of us . . . but to go out and rub it in our faces is political harakiri.
Younger voters have been a traditional stronghold for the Democrats, but you
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Here goes (Score:3)
of course it needs to be an adult conversation. Children shouldn't be exposed to language strong enough to properly convey just how deeply th NSA and co. have betrayed the public trust.
Now, since it isn't sensible to talk to the frightened children in the government as if they are adults, here goes: "Calm down now, there are no terrorists under the bed. See? I know there are scary bad people out there but there aren't nearly as many as the news wants us to think there are. The fact is the people on this street are just regular people like us. No more watching the neighbors with the binoculars. We can leave the nightlight on if you like, but it's time to go to sleep like a big girl.
There.
Liar. (Score:5, Insightful)
Clinton, who is seen as a frontrunner for the 2016 US presidential election, said at Chatham House in London: "This is a very important question. On the intelligence issue, we are democracies thank goodness, both the US and the UK.
Huh, a democracy, eh? Mind showing me the public vote where consent to the spying program was established? Oh there isn't one? You professional liars just love to trot out "we're a democracy" to shift the blame. Fuck you. It's a Republic. A Democratic Republic. Anyone who's held office while this shit has been going on let it happen. We need to fire congress -- They let the NSA lie to them, knowing full well that shit was a lie. The secret courts even ruled the NSA actions as a violation of the constitution. That means the Armed forces should be storming the NSA server rooms and shutting them down because they swore to protect the Constitution. Game over. We can't trust you. If a you found out a spy was a double agent you wouldn't let them go right back to working for you. Get the fuck out of our government. We're Americans. We can and have fought off forces greater than ours who wished to snuff us out. We didn't need an Orwellian spying agency to do it either. Now we're one of the greatest countries around, and you're saying we have to "Talk Sensibly About Spying"?! Yeah! We do! The sensible thing is to route that shit out. The Flu kills more folks in a year than multiple 9/11's. I'm more scared of my bathtub than a damn terrorist. Cars kill hundreds times more folks every year than 9/11. The sensible thing to do would be to stop wasting our money on shit we don't want, if this were "democracy". Fucking moronic liars. What she means is: "We need to engage full damage control, STAT!" Bite me bitch, you're fired.
Obligatory Battlestar Galactica quote (Score:3)
-- Commander William Adama - Battlestar Galactica
BS (Score:5, Interesting)
Hillary Clinton is as dirty and corrupt as they come. I used to work for the Clintons, so I assert that with more inside-baseball knowledge than the average bear. Want an example? Bill Clinton is now in bed with the guy who started and funded the Vince Foster witchhunt against them. See, most humans with any scruples would not choose to do that. But gold rules.
Hillary will say whatever she needs to say to get enough sucke...er, voters, to vote for her. Then if successful she'll turn right around and dish out more of the same 'ole, same 'ole on Americans. Electing her to President is no solution at all.
Stop pretending it is.
The only solution seems to now be, given that neither the judiciary nor the legislative branches have put a stop to it, to have everyday Americans converge on DC and burn the place to the ground. Also, the Hamptons, and Newport, and Westchester, and every other gated community where DC's true masters sequester themselves.
Then we can all sit down at a new Constitutional Convention and figure out America 2.0 where crap like this can't happen again.
Swear on your life to completely defund the NSA... (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
This is simple (Score:3)
We have always known that the NSA has been spying us as well as everyone else. Everything was just fine until the NSA started sharing this data with the domestic agencies. THAT is where the line was crossed. It is fine if the NSA watches me jacking off to ultraporn. It is NOT okay if the FBI does so.
In other words, in the name of National Defense, I am cool with whatever spying goes on. It is when that data is used to catch mobsters, drug dealers, and other normal typical crime that it becomes a problem.
If you want to catch a State actor planting a nuclear device in New York city, fine. If you want to catch a pedophile or murderer, fuck off. I would rather a thousand people die from random murder than to give up the fourth and fifth amendments.
Now that YOU have pushed it to this level, fuck it, I am not okay with ANY domestic spying at all for ANY reason. You lost the trust. You have abused it and you WILL abuse it. Fuck off.
You should have only shared national security shit with the domestic agencies.
Agreed... (Score:2)
After all, when you drive down your street and a neighbor leaves their garage door open, you can't help but take a look, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Taking a look in an open garage, is not the same thing as breaking in "just to take a look".
The same could be said for the front door of your house or apartment, or the door at the top of the basement stairs. You open that occasionally for public view too.
Re: (Score:2)
Quit spying? What fantasy world are you living in? The problem here is that the spies are out of control. These assholes have decided they don't have to answer to anyone and are above any laws. When they lie to Congress they should go straight to fucking jail and throw the key away. This idea that the end justifies the means is the root of all sorts of evil. When people operate outside the law they are brigands and should be treated as such.
Re: (Score:2)
Quit spying? What fantasy world are you living in?
The real world, which is a world where freedom takes priority over safety.
The problem here is that the spies are out of control.
The problem is that the spies cannot be controlled. Government thugs will do whatever they please, especially in situations where it is simply not possible for the public to provide oversight. We gave the government a chance to provide oversight for itself, and it predictably failed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure we've always been at war with East Asia.
Re:Such Hubris... (Score:4, Funny)
I don't think that's what she meant. I read no promise to do better in that statement at all.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that's what she meant. I read no promise to do better in that statement at all.
Oh, I assure you, it was a promise to "do better". Not a promise to do less.
It was a promise to sit you down like a school child and tell you what the rules are.
Re: (Score:3)
We elected the current turd sandwich that we have right now because too many people felt guilty about not ever having a president with black skin.
I'd say the US elected whom they did because too many people didn't consider third party (and the second party didn't offer a credible alternative). Not to suggest that the current guy is doing a great job, but the US had a choice between him and a 72 year old with a Labrador for a running mate (the first time around). The second time around, the challenger's platform was "Don't ask about the specifics about our plans, you peasant! Just hear my rhetoric and grandstanding, and I'll say everything so just he
Re:Such Hubris... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Next time try to pay attention.
Because it was pretty obvious Obama was going to be awful, all you had to do was read the full story instead of just the headline each time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you saying sorry and then repeating what I said?
Re: (Score:3)
Option A) Don't vote for less Evil guy; more Evil guy has an increased chance of winning
Option B) Vote for less Evil guy; more Evil guy has less chance of winning.
You see. That's the problem. Everyone who has piped up and said it was obvious that Obama was a turd sandwich is the same sort that lacks the minimal cognitive capabilities to figure the above out, for example.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Such Hubris... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, we elected a black (well, sort of) president because the republicans couldn't mount a response better than either an old white guy with his batshit insane girlfriend or another old white guy who can't think his way out of a paper bag.
If the republicans keep coming up with total losers, then the democrats, with only partial losers are going to win.
Remember, the votes necessary to win are the swing voters, the ones that really don't like anybody.
Re: (Score:2)
with as much oversight and citizens' understanding as there can be
I can't think of a more condescending tone. I love how the state always knows best.
Re:Such Hubris... (Score:5, Informative)
Dude,
The state department doesn't order the NSA around. It doesn't order the CIA around. It feeds the CIA intel, partly in the form of reports from State Department staff and partly in the form of reports from the governments they're working with; and uses Intel and tools from both, but it doesn't have any control over FISA.
Re:We need proper intelligence (Score:5, Funny)
We have a surveillance program for the Brits. One if by land, two if by sea.
Re: (Score:2)
How many if by suitcase?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, them jews have been blowing up shit all over the US. We need to watch them close.
Re: (Score:2)
She is not from the "top of society", she was an activist and real estate speculator from Arkansas who hitched her wagon to an even more egregious scumbag and held on for dear life.
Her problem is that she is a liberal and a social climbing parasite, with stupid 60's hippie notions imprinted on her brain.
Brett
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand. She may have started low, but she floated to the top. Like the scum that she is.
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary will win easily if she runs in the Democratic primaries. The Democrats won't attack her like they did to Romney in the primary last year.
What are you talking about? Romney was the general election opponent, running on the Republican ticket. He was never in the Democratic primaries.
And I'm not at all sure that Hillary's path to the 2016 nomination is assured. Hillary represents establishment neoliberalism, and much of the Democratic Party base has had enough of that. Remember, primary elections ten
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to have to say that. But the UK are a Constitutional Monarchy. She didnt frequented the Geopolitical classes?
Apparently all you learned about government you learned from computer games.
As long as actual political power is held by elected officials, and basic freedoms are respected, the country is considered a democracy. Constitutional Monarchies are almost always Democracies, because if the Constitution isn't Democratic the Monarch is almost always in charge. Republics are iffy, because all a "Republic" is a country with no hereditary head of state. That could be Hitler, or it could be Obama.