who is a terrorist?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Even Greenwald's supporters tend to think of him as an activist journalist. I think that was the focus of a recent New York Time piece (NYT certainly isn't showing a problem with him) and I don't think it's unwarranted to look at someone as tied to the leaking of classified documents as Greenwald is as primarily concerned with ethical correctness over pragmatic reality.

Hell, with all the news that has broken out the US looks ridiculous but so does Brazil, Germany, the UK and any number of other countries. Hell, Snowden's stormcausing slide came from foreign intelligence. Oddly, that was barely reported by Der Spiegel and Le Monde when those stories broke. Still, it's record now along with Brazil spying on the US. The world discovers espionage... amazing.

I won't justify the taking of his partner (although I'd be shocked if Miranda is an impartial third party in this), but Greenwald himself is grandstanding. Seriously, how many people who have this happen to them immediately have the ability to speed dial multiple Brazilian government officials in five hours? He was staying with his filmmaker buddy?

I know a lot of people get off on the the Snowden/Greenwald type, but I honestly find them both to have such a gleeful love of causing chaos that I have a hard time sympathizing with them. These documents existed for as long as Snowden fled. They were released in quick successions just as the US and EU were about to have a conference on data agreements? Well there's nothing suspect about that at all when the releases are coming from Russia...

I actually love the idea that people are actively revisiting the patriot act and oversight. I never thought the NSA should have had the kind of power it did in the first place. But the deification of these guys does more than enough to make me hate my own position. I can't pretend we don't live in a real world where full disclosure does or ever will exist. The existence of self motivated actors will always prevent it.

[Andara Bledin]

There's plenty of people who want Fox news silenced. Why do the means make a difference?

That people calling for a program that calls itself news to be disallowed from publishing known false information in the interests of scaremongering for profit can possibly be conflated with a government using it's power to secretly spy on the entire planet and cause people to be incarcerated without trial or anything even resembling due process is baffling.

[Hyena Dandy]

That people calling for a program that calls itself news to be disallowed from publishing known false information in the interests of scaremongering for profit can possibly be conflated with a government using it's power to secretly spy on the entire planet and cause people to be incarcerated without trial or anything even resembling due process is baffling.

I for one don't want Fox News silenced. I want them to go away.

I assume that Greenday doesn't like Bill Belichick (based on his previous comments) but, unless he's a sociopath, he ALSO doesn't want Belichick to be kidnapped, tortured, and beaten into a coma so he can't coach football anymore. Because THE MEANS BY WHICH SOMETHING HAPPENS MATTER.

Edit: To be fair, like I said, he might not know what freedom of speech is, which would explain thinking that the means don't matter. Freedom of Speech is the principle that the government can't punish you for expressing your thoughts and ideas, unless you are directly calling for specific action, intentionally causing panic or a direct, specific, personal insult intended to provoke violence. That can get tricky, which is why I asked if he didn't know what it means, because a lot of people seem to think those should.

Edit Edit: Slander and Libel are also not free speech.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I'll also add, that I say that knowing full well that when I say I would prefer more privacy, I absolutely believe the liklihood of more people dying in Terrorist acts goes up quite a bit.

It's why Obama was against this type of thing and then changed his mind. He's confronted with the data we don't get to see. And no sitting government or president in a democratically elected society wants to be sitting in that chair when a dirty bomb goes off in Manhattan. Think about Yellen being held up because they want more hearings about Benghazi. Benghazi was an attack where four people were killed. More than four people were killed by the Subway this year.

It's the public's bipolar reaction to terrorist events that causes this. If people could keep their emotional junk together when confronted with the works that bad men do, we wouldn't see these massive overreaches. Instead we get a bloated security apparatus designed to protect us from everything from embassy bombings to corporate espionage. It's not the Gub'ment's fault. It's ours.

[Greenday]

I assume that Greenday doesn't like Bill Belichick (based on his previous comments) but, unless he's a sociopath, he ALSO doesn't want Belichick to be kidnapped, tortured, and beaten into a coma so he can't coach football anymore. Because THE MEANS BY WHICH SOMETHING HAPPENS MATTER.

Edit: To be fair, like I said, he might not know what freedom of speech is, which would explain thinking that the means don't matter. Freedom of Speech is the principle that the government can't punish you for expressing your thoughts and ideas, unless you are directly calling for specific action, intentionally causing panic or a direct, specific, personal insult intended to provoke violence. That can get tricky, which is why I asked if he didn't know what it means, because a lot of people seem to think those should.

Belichick is a cheating dick, but I don't believe in harming him because he's a dick (Cheating, I'm fine with punishing him).

As for freedom of speech, I believe people should be able to say whatever they want as long as no one is being harmed as a result of the speech. I don't believe that destabilization of governments through speech is good nor do I believe in compromising security for feel good reasons when lives are at stake.

[s_stabeler]

Greenday, that argument can be used to justify government control of absolutely everything. I'm sorry, but there comes a point when enough is enough. The point of terrorism isn't to kill as many people as possible- that is a side goal. the goal is to make people scared to do anything. When basic liberties (6th amendment- right to counsel, this one also is also arguably close to infringing on the freedom of the press- the 1st amendment. Indeed, it also sails close to the wind of separation of powers- it allows a lot of power to the execuitve branch) are given up in the name of security, then, the terrorists win.

[Hyena Dandy]

Belichick is a cheating dick, but I don't believe in harming him because he's a dick (Cheating, I'm fine with punishing him).

But why do the means matter?

As for freedom of speech, I believe people should be able to say whatever they want as long as no one is being harmed as a result of the speech. I don't believe that destabilization of governments through speech is good nor do I believe in compromising security for feel good reasons when lives are at stake.

Saying that the government is flawed and corrupt is something that we MUST be able to do in any truly free society. You can justify any criticism as being intent on destabilizing the government. You refer to this guy as being someone who wants to overthrow governments. People who want to overthrow governments do not campaign for people going into that government. A revolutionary is a revolutionary, and someone who works within the system of government but wants to change it is not trying to destabilize the nation.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Umm... party foul. Greenwald isn't persona non grata because of his speech. He's on the list because he was part of one of the great exposures of state secrets of our time. Had he only disclosed those secrets to one foreign power for cash, he would easily been convicted of espionage. Instead, he disclosed them to every foreign power... for cash.

Make no mistake, the government's nose is bent out of shape because they don't know how to address an issue of what is an increasingly investigative press that behaves in manners much like the spies they used to arrest. They can't pass a law and the end result is their counterintelligence has to work that much harder.

BTW, people say the government is flawed and corrupt every day. Speech is still quite free. What is NOT free is absconding with state secrets. Greenwald and Snowden are a different ilk though. They had state secrets. They knew they had them. They disclosed them causing a clusterfuck on the international scene. What they don't want apparently is to be a martyr. If they did, they would have stayed and stood trial. I don't blame them, but let's not pretend these men of means are anything other than rational actors of considerable means.

[Gravekeeper]

I find myself really confused that anyone cold be defending what happened with Greenwald's partner. Or that you could seriously say with a straight face that using speech to criticize a government is somehow bad. Speech and journalism are utterly vital tools to a democratic society.

As for freedom of speech, I believe people should be able to say whatever they want as long as no one is being harmed as a result of the speech. I don't believe that destabilization of governments through speech is good nor do I believe in compromising security for feel good reasons when lives are at stake.

I hate to break this too you, but you in fact do not actually believe in freedom of speech. ;p

And quite possibly, this is due to good work by certain agencies such as the NSA. The stories you'll never here, acts of untold horror stopped by unnamed peope.

Hah! You seriously think having an intelligence organization with no oversight that does not answer to the president and has unprecedented surveillance powers is a GOOD thing? If it was such a good thing, it wouldn't have caused such a massive domestic and international shit storm. Pissing off the public at large and damaging relations with allies.

Do you seriously think there was a 50,000% uptick in terrorist attacks the moment after 9/11 that warrant years worth of constant unprecedented surveillance lest the most powerful country in the world be brought to its knees by a handful of angry men in a cave?

The chance of a being killed by a terrorist attack is so hilariously low as to be completely negligible. It was like that BEFORE 9/11 and its still like that after 9/11. All that happened was you helped them out statistically by moving viable targets into Iraq and Afghanistan so they didn't have to worry about passports anymore.

The objective of terrorism is to cause EXACTLY what the US did and is doing. The terrorists did indeed win. They changed the entire landscape of America and turned it into a paranoid conspiracy theorist with a bomb shelter. Living in constant fear of lightning striking twice on a clear sunny day.

[Gravekeeper]

If they did, they would have stayed and stood trial. I don't blame them, but let's not pretend these men of means are anything other than rational actors of considerable means.

What, exactly, would Greenwald stand trial for? He's not charged with anything and there's no warrant out for him. Hell, he's being financially backed by the founder of eBay.

As for Snowden. Can't really blame him. Look what the US did to people it even SUSPECTS had anything remotely to do with terrorism. They haven't even gotten trials yet. And that's just assuming Snowden wouldn't just vanish and end up at the bottom of a harbour somewhere. Which he most certainly would have had they caught him before he managed to go public.

At best he could hope to be locked up in a dark hole for the rest of his life, and worst, the rest of his life would be pretty damn short.

[Greenday]

I hate to break this too you, but you in fact do not actually believe in freedom of speech. ;p

I do too believe in freedom of speech. I just don't believe in saying whatever you want without repercussions.

You believe in unlimited freedom of speech. I believe in a more restricted version. There's a difference.

[protege]

Hah! You seriously think having an intelligence organization with no oversight that does not answer to the president and has unprecedented surveillance powers is a GOOD thing? If it was such a good thing, it wouldn't have caused such a massive domestic and international shit storm. Pissing off the public at large and damaging relations with allies.

There's no way in hell it's a good thing. Think about it, our NSA has reached the point that it's way out of control, and there's no way it can be put back into its box.

Do you seriously think there was a 50,000% uptick in terrorist attacks the moment after 9/11 that warrant years worth of constant unprecedented surveillance lest the most powerful country in the world be brought to its knees by a handful of angry men in a cave?

I sure as hell don't, and I know people who were killed on 9/11. There's no way that 9/11, our embassies being blown up several years prior, the Beirut barracks attack in 1983, Benghazi, etc., etc., etc. justify the massive amount of shit that the NSA is doing. All that is, is an excuse. An excuse, to needlessly spy on its citizens both here, and abroad, in the name of "terrorism."

The objective of terrorism is to cause EXACTLY what the US did and is doing. The terrorists did indeed win. They changed the entire landscape of America and turned it into a paranoid conspiracy theorist with a bomb shelter. Living in constant fear of lightning striking twice on a clear sunny day.

Granted, 9/11 seriously impacted the US. Our country forever changed on that horrible day. We had several thousand of our citizens murdered; our airlines were forced into bankruptcy; our economy was trashed. Not only that, it was used to justify two wars. It was used to justify detaining (not to mention harassing) anyone who looked "Muslim" at Gitmo.

With that said, I agree with GK. That is, the terrorists accomplished what they set out to do. They turned us on each other, all in the name of "security."

Sure, the NSA has thwarted some plots, but at what cost?

[Greenday]

Sure, the NSA has thwarted some plots, but at what cost?

Yes, let's look at the "cost". Who here has been harmed from the NSA as a result of the spying program?

I do believe the NSA has overstepped it boundaries, but I think people have completely blown out of proportion the "damage" done by it.

[protege]

Yes, let's look at the "cost". Who here has been harmed from the NSA as a result of the spying program?

I haven't been harmed, but we're not talking about me. I really doubt the German chancellor Angela Merkel really enjoyed having her phone tapped. Nor did China probably enjoy their equipment getting hacked. What about the French citizens that were tapped? All of that has damaged relations abroad.

[Gravekeeper]

I do too believe in freedom of speech. I just don't believe in saying whatever you want without repercussions.

You believe in unlimited freedom of speech. I believe in a more restricted version. There's a difference.

I find this a painful ironic accusation given that your country has the unlimited free speech and mine is the one that has the repercussions. I do not believe in unlimited free speech as you guys have it. Also, free speech does not and has never meant freedom from consequence.

However, you're saying a journalist essentially should not have free speech if it opposes the way the government is doing things. Despite the fact that a healthy free press is utterly vital to a democratic government process.

Greenwald has broken no laws and faces no charges, yet you seem to be advocating that he face some sort of repercussion. You also seem to be saying that no matter what horrible shit the government is up too, its okay as long as its in pursuit of "Security" and thus its somehow the journalists fault when that horrible shit is exposed. Rather than the government's for doing horrible shit to begin with?

Yes, let's look at the "cost". Who here has been harmed from the NSA as a result of the spying program?

Are you really going with team "Its not an invasion of privacy if they don't know their privacy is being invaded"?