NSA Releases New Snowden Documents (vice.com) 155
An anonymous reader writes: Hundreds of internal NSA documents have been declassified and released to VICE in response to their FOIA lawsuit. They're now sharing them all online, calling it "an extraordinary behind-the-scenes look at the efforts by the NSA, the White House, and US Senator Dianne Feinstein to discredit Snowden [that] call into question aspects of the U.S. government's long-running narrative about Snowden's time at the NSA." The documents officially confirm that Snowden had also worked with the CIA, and show a vigorous internal discussion about how to respond to Snowden's leaks that apparently led the NSA to erroneously assert that Snowden hadn't voiced his objections about the surveillance of U.S. citizens within the NSA before going public.
Living in Russia now, Snowden himself refused to comment on the new releases, with his attorney saying Snowden "believes the NSA is still playing games with selective releases, and [he] therefore chooses not to participate in this effort. He doesn't trust that the intelligence community will operate in good faith."
The EFF is also marking the three-year anniversary of Snowden's leaks, saying they led directly to the first legislation curtailing the NSA's power in over 30 years and changed the way the world perceives government surveillance. Snowden was inspired in part by a desire to keep the internet free, saying in 2014 that "I remember what the Internet was like before it was being watched, and there's never been anything in the history of man that's like it."
Living in Russia now, Snowden himself refused to comment on the new releases, with his attorney saying Snowden "believes the NSA is still playing games with selective releases, and [he] therefore chooses not to participate in this effort. He doesn't trust that the intelligence community will operate in good faith."
The EFF is also marking the three-year anniversary of Snowden's leaks, saying they led directly to the first legislation curtailing the NSA's power in over 30 years and changed the way the world perceives government surveillance. Snowden was inspired in part by a desire to keep the internet free, saying in 2014 that "I remember what the Internet was like before it was being watched, and there's never been anything in the history of man that's like it."
Limited Hangout (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't know what it means, search it.
Re:Limited Hangout (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Government does what it wants; including, to you. The rules are for you. They are not for them. For them, the stand-in for rules is "because we say so." Which is not in any way guaranteed to represent any portion of the truth. All you have to do is read the laws, watch the government departments and officials write themselves out of consequences for lawbreaking, the supreme court complete make crap up that is not even CLOSE to what the constitution actually (and usually explicitly) said was required of
Re: (Score:1)
Snowden is getting smarter, best to await the C-130's dropping tons of horse and bull manure on Rothschild's estates, then he will know that the US has awakened and discovered all the rest that came with these "financial services" of theirs.
Re:Limited Hangout (Score:4, Informative)
A "Limited Hangout" is what Google makes accessible to users who aren't willing to join Google+.
Re:Limited Hangout (Score:5, Funny)
A limited hangout is what happens when your fly is only partially unzipped.
Re: (Score:2)
A limited hangout is what happens when your fly is only partially unzipped.
A limited hangout is what happens when you thought you were a commando and made an opsec blunder that resulted in having to register on the list of such people, and now are limited in where you're allowed to hang out.
Re: (Score:2)
- caught Obama lying about only collecting 'metadata'
- caught James Clapper in multiple lies - even to the Senate Intelligence Committee
- caught General Keith Alexander in lies
- caught multiple politic
Re: (Score:1)
I have no idea who is right on this, but both sides have good points which I cannot discount. Think about it for a few moments. If you
"Erroneously assert?" (Score:5, Funny)
There was absolutely nothing "erroneous" - it was all an intentional bunch of cover-your-ass lying.
I guess "erroneously assert" is the new "that statement is no longer operative". Nixon should sue for some sort of infringement.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed - if this is proven, the person who signed it off should be sacked. If the NSA won't, congress should impeach the individual. Government agencies MUST tell the truth to the public, and there must be serious consequences if they don't.
Probably (Score:2)
But if we don't recognise how it should work, they don't have to make the effort to ensure it doesn't. If a congress person submitted an impeachment bill on that basis, it would stir up the issue. But they don't, so our lords and masters don't have to make the effort to suppress it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just wanted to say, thank you for reading. Few people who can write comments can also read, and even fewer are anonymous cowards. Well done, Citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
Some on the email thread, such as Rajesh De, the NSA's general counsel, advocated for the public release of a Snowden email from April 2013 in which the former NSA contractor asked questions about the "interpretation of legal authorities" related to the agency's surveillance programs.
We know that the NSA general counsel was well aware of Snowden, and was discussing it with others. The people the general counsel discussed it with via email were also aware.
Snowden is a patriot / hero (Score:5, Insightful)
Any efforts to discredit this man are a fucking disgrace that should be called out as such. The founding fathers had a vision. It certainly didn't include anything like the FBI, CIA, or NSA spying on their own countrymen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mostly they were rich people who wanted to keep their profit instead of handing it over to the king. That was, in a nutshell, the whole reason for the declaration of independence.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing how little has changed in such a long time...
Snowden is a patriot / hero for what country? (Score:1, Insightful)
The founding fathers had a vision. It certainly didn't include anything like the FBI, CIA, or NSA spying on their own countrymen.
George Washington ran a spy ring that spied on both the British and fellow colonists. Benjamin Franklin opened other peoples mail to gather intelligence.
George Washington, Spymaster [mountvernon.org]
Washington took his role as spymaster in chief quite seriously, laying the groundwork for today’s complex intelligence community and recognizing that civilian observation, mobilization and insight was just as important as military might. Without this foresight, the outcome of the Revolutionary War might have been quite different. The war for independence from Great Britain was not just one of battles and firearms, it was one of intelligence. As one defeated British intelligence officer is often quoted as saying, “Washington did not really outfight the British. He simply out-spied us.” -
What do you think General Washington would have done with someone that stole secret war plans of the Continental Army and then fled to a foreign country as General Arnold did? What did they do with spies and traitors?
What was Snowden's real agenda? There really isn't any way to know for sure, is there?
German spies imply Snow [thelocal.de]
Re: (Score:2)
What a hero.
He is indeed a hero.
As distinct from a cowardly little snot like you.
Re: (Score:1)
You didn't by any chance get a list of cases that go to the IG and are proceed normally did you?
For example: DoD IG Semiannual Reports [dodig.mil]
No, I guess not. So the solution to a stove fire is to burn down the kitchen? Rubbish.
Probe launched into Pentagon handling of NSA whistleblower evidence [mcclatchydc.com]
By the way, you did notice that Drake was able to get the program he opposed defunded by Congress, didn't you? Nah, probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
Although the government knew that the charges were bogus, that is to say filed under false pretenses, they charged Drake with crimes that would have resulted in 35 years in prison, and large fines, and tried to get him to plea to lesser, but still false, felonies.
End result: work-within-the-system whistle blower lost his job, his entire pension, was saddled with $100,000 in legal bills, and endured 4 years of meritless prosecution and harassment by the government (oh, and he lost all of his computers, docum
In Soviet Russia... (Score:5, Funny)
Snowden releases NSA documents!
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm, did the story change? Doesn't look like it.
German spies imply Snowden leaked files for Russia [thelocal.de]
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden could have been acting under the influence of the Russian government, the heads of Germany's foreign and domestic intelligence agencies said on Friday.
Re: (Score:2)
"Could" does not mean "did". I know you have a problem with rational thought (hence your religiosity), but you can clearly do better.
Details... (Score:3, Interesting)
Reading through the Vice article it seems as if Snowden didn't exactly come out and say "I think what we're doing is illegal". It was much more along the lines of him questioning their training on oversight and the boundaries. He was asking questions about the relative priorities of Congressional Law vs Executive Orders.
The thing is, we don't know what was discussed in a couple of the verbal meetings, so he very well could have pointed out that the reason he was asking is the decision that was the foundation for some of the programs was a Classified Executive Order that went against Statute.
He implied as such when he was pointing out the training materials, including some SOPs, were out of date and referred to lapsed or repealed laws.
On the other hand, I'm thinking if he went to the IG and flat out said "Hey, I think these programs I'm working on are illegal", I'm pretty sure the response would have been something along the lines of "you're fired -- allow us to remind you of your NDA and the consequences".
Re: Details... (Score:1)
Now my memory might be a little foggy, but wasn't his initial reasoning that he saw others do that just to be intimidated and fired?
Re: (Score:1)
Thomas Drake and William Binney comes to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Now my memory might be a little foggy, but wasn't his initial reasoning that he saw others do that just to be intimidated and fired?
Yes, but that is why he didn't raise the issue internally, rather than what happened when he did. Those are different things. A lot of people are falsely claiming that he did actually attempt to raise concerns internally, eg, blow the whistle. That didn't happen. Instead, he leaked it to the international public.
IMO people should support or oppose his actions based on what he did do, rather than on what he is known to have not done.
Re: (Score:2)
What I find hilarious, in a dark humor sort of way, is that the keyboard warriors who would protect us from the dishonest gubermint are so dishonest about the (very few) known details of what happened. OK, government is imperfect, but why are these lying pundits to be preferred? At least the Gubermint is restricted in what they can do based on their need to keep it secret. The internet pundits don't respect honesty, secrecy, or laws that permit the government to do things they disapprove of, so if they were
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA?
Can't help but think you're correct.
Re: (Score:2)
You will notice that even in the Soviet Union, at least after Stalin's departure, there was no rounding up of citizens and summary executions. All they had to do was lock up dissidents and others who didn't want to fall in line. Do this a couple of times and people will start to self censor and behave just as the ruling party wants them to.
The main difference is that our rulers learned that it doesn't matter at all if people can say what they want, since they can't do what they want anyway, so let them rant
Oh, look who else is involved... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh, look who else is involved... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps they do, but I think she's just a pro-authoritarian.
Re: (Score:1)
but I think she's just a pro-authoritarian.
That's it exactly. Feinstein cut her teeth as a radical San Francisco mayor and city council member and has been a hard left politico ever since. Now, the distinguishing feature of leftists is that their world view is essentially authoritarian in nature. They don't see anything wrong with forcing people to do the "right" things, provided that they genuinely believe that it's good for them. They govern based upon emotion and what feels right to them, ignoring the law and the Constitution when those things ar
Re: (Score:1)
Jello Biafra called Feinstein "the most evil person I have come face to face with" and you can't get much further to the left than Jello.
She is not a liberal, she is a right-wing authoritarian, Trump and Cheney style. Anyone thinking differently is functionally retarded.
Re: (Score:2)
My personal opinion is that she's a right wing Republican who's a realistic opportunist, and realized that she couldn't get voter support without claiming to be a Democrat.
Re: (Score:2)
"leftists are essentially authoritarian in nature?"
If you're talking about contemporary leftists in the USA, have you ever known any who thought that the government should be smaller and have fewer powers? Do any leftists want to see decreased government budgets and lower taxes? Even when people from the political left propose cutting government spending, for example on weapons and wars, it's only so that they can increase spending elsewhere.
I don't think American leftists consider themselves authoritaria
Re:Oh, look who else is involved... (Score:4, Interesting)
"Makes me wonder if the NSA/CIA has some leverage on her, something they know about her, to get her to have such zeal in violating her oath to uphold the Constitution."
For some people it's merely about personal greed. The phrase "Knowledge is power" is true, and people like her will put morals aside in the pursuit of power and wealth. She knows that the people who can most well provide her knoweldge that she can use to achieve power and pursue money are those whom she is giving so much freedom to break the US constitution to.
She knows that even if she leaves politics she'll have a job waiting at some large global investment bank willing to pay her millions because she's built up such a great relationship with those that can provide her knowledge that gives that bank an edge over it's competitors. "Hey John, how are things at the NSA now? Listen, I was wondering if you could let me know what the real financial situation of this country is so that our bank can bet on it's collapse". In the meantime she'll just accept the dirt on her political opponents so that she can cement power against them as far as possible.
They don't need anything on her, they just need to find the politicians willing to sacrifice everything that's good and right in the pursuit of their own personal wealth and power.
This is how the world works, this is why people like ex-prime ministers of the UK get ridiculously well paying jobs. Companies don't employ them and pay them millions because of friendships, personalities, or skills. They employ them because of what they know and who their contacts are.
Redaction (Score:3)
If the docs aren't redacted 16 ways to Sunday they're part of someone's narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
If the docs aren't redacted 16 ways to Sunday they're part of someone's narrative.
That is a non-falsifiable belief. Keep the Faith, right?
I mean, if you don't know, then you already have reason to... not know what it means. I certainly don't know the meaning of documents released by agencies that typically redact a lot of stuff.
But not knowing is different than simply knowing because you can't know, which is irrational.
narrow sidelines bite back (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a bloody long article, but here's what caught my eye.
If the OGC lawyer had added "I'm not sure within the context of the training program whether the training slide attests to such a serious misrepresentation, but if it does, you need to suspend teaching this slide immediately" we might all now be in a different place.
The NSA culture in effect seemed to regard providing timely and correct training materials concerning the chain of agency authority as a "best effort" (warranting an administrative follow up) rather than "mission critical" (warranting an internal bow-shot cease and desist).
Hayden's book Playing to the Edge contains tedious chapter upon chapter about endless compliance politics played at the top level, all lawyered up six ways from Sunday, but did the organization deeply communicate the resulting values internally, as forcefully as described by John Kotter in his book Leading Change?
Think You're Communicating Enough? Think Again [forbes.com]
If the OGC lawyer had the required ten reminders from on high spilling out of her inbox, she might have gone down the cease and desist track instead, giving Snowden immediate reason to believe that someone on the other side actually gave a shit.
Robert Litt, general counsel of the ODNI:
I would argue here that the other side of "playing close to the edge" is that a single page of unclear training material, if it's the wrong page, is no laughing matter.
Narrow sidelines poorly communicated. What could possibly go wrong?
Intelligence / good faith??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is the first time I've ever seen or heard the phrases "intelligence community" and "in good faith" in the same sentence.
Pop your head outside the echo chamber more often, the world isn't the way it is because space aliens dropped our gubermint out of the sky this way.
The world is the way it is because there are people who support it being this way. This is equally true regardless of if you support [insert issue] or not.
The other great threat (Score:3)
Cockroaches despise it when the kitchen light is turned on.
Re: (Score:2)
The SCOTUS isn't that partisan. I'm pretty liberal, but I trust Chief Justice Roberts to honestly continue to vote for his own legal values, and I trust that all the members of the Court are patriotic Americans.
So it looks like (Score:2)
"In Corporate America, NSA leaks documents on Snowden"
Re:Snowden is a traitor (Score:5, Insightful)
Snowden is no more a traitor than any whistle blower who tries to get the government, their employer, etc. to live up to the law and stop breaking the Constitution. The constitution is pretty clear as to what constitutes treason. [usconstitution.net]
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Snowden has not carried on a war against the US, nor become a citizen of one of their enemies, nor given them aid and comfort. And before you start prattling on about how Russia or China or Germany has been given "aid and comfort", the US is not at war with any of them.
The CIA, on the other hand, has committed treason on numerous occasions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
for what it's worth, the french are notorious for industrial espionage. do you think they aren't trying to steal from Boeing constantly?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you think it goes both ways?
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't even attempt to argue against the threat. If both sides are trying to do it, then both sides must remain vigilant in their attempts to defend themselves, and that is going to include attempting to use surveillance to detect breaches.
Just like if there are two bears with bordering territory, and sometimes they wander into the others territory to grab some honey. They don't serve their interests by ignoring the infraction just because they did it too, then they would have to share and the other b
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth precisely nothing as two wrongs still don't make a right. Why we feel it perfectly OK to forgive such childish attitudes in governments is staggering.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they're not perfect saints who are immune from being the source of threats, accidental or intentional.
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01... [nytimes.com]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
Also, they have a history of becoming embroiled in conflicts with Russia, including various incidents during the Cold War, and they don't share information about it. So we need to spy on them just for that reason alone; to prevent WWIII from accidentally breaking out where NATO, Swedish, and Russian borders join.
Re: (Score:2)
These releases have shown that the US gov't, at the very least, considers all of it's own citizens as "potential enemies", and treats them as such. Or unindicted criminals living in the community.
Re:Snowden is a traitor (Score:4, Insightful)
The US cannot seem to exist WITHOUT ENEMIES.
IMO, this is done for control of the populace's attitudes and opinions. People are compliant and acquiescent to authority when they feel threatened.
Re: (Score:2)
No, most countries are our Frenemies. We don't keep an eye on them just because of what they might do to us, but rather what we sometimes catch them doing.
This is not controversial outside of tinfoil nut butter.
The controversial stuff is the stuff that is not even related to other countries, like domestic surveillance of disputed legality.
Re:Snowden is a traitor (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Snowden is a traitor (Score:2)
My guess is because he knows he can trust Congress ( or our Government at all for that matter ) as much as the intelligence community to do the right thing ?
Does ANYONE have any faith in our Government to do the right thing ?
You see that is the problem.
Once the Government has been caught in enough lies, no one trusts them. For anything. They only have themselves to blame.
Assume you have dangerous information that shows the Government has been illegally doing X. Your disclosure of it would put a lot of fo
Re: (Score:2)
Does ANYONE have any faith in our Government to do the right thing ?
About 50% do, and which 50% changes every few years following elections.
I'm not asking you to change your views, but please step out of the echo chamber once in awhile and realize that it is only a small closet not the majority of the nation.
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden would get a fair trial, the problem is that he is actually guilty of the offenses with which he has been charged and the defense he wants to offer isn't legally available.
Too bad he didn't go to Congress instead of the People's Republic of China and Russia with the nearly two million documents he stole,
You're more naive than you look, or sound, or our best testing indicates.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Probe launched into Pentagon handling of NSA whistleblower evidence [mcclatchydc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Please point to evidence of an unfair trial in any previous TS information leak trial.
I am sure the supreme court would love to hear about someone not getting their constitutionally mandated fair trial rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
And if the US Government gets ahold of Snowden, these three things are what they will charge, just look at how the definition of "terrorism" has evolved in the last 10 or so years. Most "judges" will accept it.
Snowden can come back and be the stand-up guy that will throw it all away for the slim chance at "justice", but chances are that means living the rest of his life in a Federal Prison. He can talk math with Ted Kaczynski who actually is a dangerous and crazy guy...
Snowden will live out his life in Russ
Re: (Score:2)
When did he got to war with the US? Never. When did he join enemies of the US? Never. When did he give aid and comfort to enemies of the US? Never.
Who are the enemies of the US right now? Al-Qaeda, ISIL, the Taliban. Snowden hasn't been involved with any of them.
Or if you look at it another way, when was the last time Congress voted to go to war? 1942 [senate.gov]. No state of war exists right now, just a lot of "military actions."
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
2002, probably more recent, but I don't feel like looking up is Syria or Libya were authorized by congress.
It isn't called a declaration of war as that is no longer the in vogue name of the declarations.
Technically, you could also claim that the US is still at war with North Korea...they seem to still believe we are at war at least...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who is apparently free. What was your point? Did he get an unfair trial in your eyes?.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
After he left the NSA in 2001, Binney was one of several people investigated as part of an inquiry into the 2005 New York Times exposé[12][13] on the agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program. Binney was cleared of wrongdoing after three interviews with FBI agents beginning in March 2007, but in July 2007, in an unannounced armed raid, the FBI confiscated a desktop computer, disks, and personal and business records. The NSA revoked his security clearance, forcing him to close a business he ran with former colleagues at a loss of a reported $300,000 in annual income. In 2012, Binney and his co-plaintiffs went to federal court to retrieve the confiscated items.[14]
So, he was investigated, and had a warrant taken out, but ultimately cleared and had his property returned.. Sounds like a pretty damn good example of a fair trial to me.
Re: (Score:2)
If you partners secretary tells you how your business partner is collecting data about you, they just gave you "aid".
Re: (Score:2)
And who is the US formally at war with? Nobody. The last formal declaration of war was in 1942.
There is no country that the US is at war with. No country that is an enemy of the US. He hasn't even helped the entities the US is taking military actions against, such as al-Qaeda, ISIL, or the Taliban. To the contrary, he gave the information to allies of the United States.
Re:Snowden (Score:2)
The Snowden effect was that as of this moment what the NSA (or another agency) is probably still doing has been publicly repudiated by most of Congress.
It might be technically legal within the drive a bus through the loopholes that Congress knowingly included to allow widespread surveillance to continue. But next time it is revealed that the NSA or another government body is still abusing its power to enable widespread dragnet government surveillance, then people will be running for cover because n
Re:Snowden is a traitor (Score:5, Insightful)
....how does it benefit the American people to disclose that the US is spying on leaders like Angela Merkel?
Because in our Republic, I have a right to know what my government is doing. Because I do not want my government doing something belligerent and when retaliated against, turn to the media and act like some innocent victim of another country's aggression and start a long expensive war that costs thousands and thousands of lives.
Much of the bullshit in the World and violence directed at us - the USA - is the karma that our leaders in the past have committed. We wouldn't be dealing with this Islamic terrorism if it weren't for the fact that our government has been shitting all over those people to secure our oil supplies. And even though new technology has allowed the US to have plenty of domestic oil (although a little pricey compared to World prices - for now), we have to still deal with the hatred towards us.
And we see how effective the propaganda is. We are told the BS story that we are over there "fighting for freedom" when the truth is we are fighting for oil. But regular Joes still believe the lies and condemn folks who understand the geo politics of oil (Carter Doctrine) as being unAmerican or some other name calling - like traitor. And the irony that a Democrat's policies wasn't pointed by conservatives just shows how the American people are gullible and easily manipulated - or choose to be blind so that it fits into their opinion that we stand for Freedom and Truth and our young people aren't dying for just oil
Re: (Score:2)
The radical Islamists want to establish a world wide caliphate where everyone either submits to their version of Islam or dies. Dialogue with these people is impossible because they absolutely refuse to renounce this goal and thus no permanent peace with them is possible. These people use peace only as a respite to prepare for their next war to expand the caliphate.
How do you know that? Have you spoken with these people? Or do you know what the media tell you? The media who support the policies of the United States government. The media who are always happy to parrot the official line. The media who sold you the Iraq war.
These days, a little epistemology goes a long way.
Snowden is a hero for all humans (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a basic right of all humans to have privacy - in their personal lives, in their communications, in every type of comportment they make be it electronic or otherwise. Edward Snowden is a great crusader for one of the most basic, fundamental human rights that belongs to all: Not just Americans. Not just those who are not foreign leaders. But all.
The surveillance apparatus is an abomination against humanity and must be immediately and permanently dismantled.
Re:Snowden is a traitor (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with exposing the spying on US citizens, how does it benefit the American people to disclose that the US is spying on leaders like Angela Merkel?
In the sense that the American people is then informed on what the fuck their government is doing. Knowledge has this funny side effect of forcing responsibility: if you know your leaders are up to no good is up to you to demand solutions. Or not. But that ball is now in your court.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure I don't recall any Western or European governments being overthrown following the revelations of European governments spying on their citizens, other EU countries, governments and people overseas, or the US.
Re:Snowden is a traitor (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need to overthrown a government to make it accountable. This is not Game of Thrones.
Re: (Score:1)
No one gives a crap what an anonymous coward thinks.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am at least willing to back my words with a recurring pseudonym. While you are so craven, you are willing to say any bullshit, and not even tolerate virtual consequences for it. Its just wasted text on Slashdot. I'm just pointing out you're too stupid to realize that.
I don't give a fuck who you think is a traitor. You're hiding under a generic alias; you're magnitudes of cowardice compared to Snowden. Its more cowardly than the Anonymous collective itself, because at least Anonymous delivers a co
Re: (Score:2)
I don't always feel butthurt, but when I do I do it anonymously so that I don't have to see the responses in a message queue and be reminded of whatever I said.
lol
Re: (Score:2)
You can beg, but its not going to change people's opinion. Just look out at a city block of beggars or PETA.
Re: (Score:2)
Appeal to authority is a common fallacy.
How is this applicable to what the anonymous coward (or I) said?
An argument should be able to stand on its own. A truth doesn't become less true just because the source is a known liar.
The problem is that people here aren't putting any effort into their arguments, and that trait is particular to "anonymous cowards". Most human beings innately desire to defend their ideological beliefs, and how they are perceived, but not anonymous cowards, because they possess no identity stake.
Anonymous cowards are not presenting the truth or "arguments". They are mostly shitposting, because they suffer no consequence at all, not even psyc
Re: (Score:2)
A truth doesn't become less true just because the source is a known liar.
True, but a statement from a known liar will often not be evaluated for truth so it won't matter and won't be a fallacy. ;)
"You didn't care what I said" isn't a fallacy.