who is a terrorist?

[MadMike]

When did being a terrorist switch from what you do to what you say?

I believe it was right after 9/11, when that idiot Bush announced to the world, "You're either with us, or with the terrorists." I actually supported him up until that stupid comment, and I remember a chill ran down my spine when I heard it. I thought we had the right to disagree with anyone, even the government. But for awhile after that, anyone who dared to do so was branded a traitor, or even a terrorist.

[Hyena Dandy]

I've long felt that, had 9/11 not happened, Bush would have been, if not a GOOD president, at least not a terrible one. 9/11 surprised all of us. It's fascinating to hear how many ex-Bush officials regret how things went down. I think that without that horrible time, he would have done at least kinda alright.

[Kheldarson]

I've long felt that, had 9/11 not happened, Bush would have been, if not a GOOD president, at least not a terrible one. 9/11 surprised all of us. It's fascinating to hear how many ex-Bush officials regret how things went down. I think that without that horrible time, he would have done at least kinda alright.

He was definitely a "caretaker" president. Barring 9/11, he would've gone into the history books as a president probably only really remembered for being a relative of a previous one as his factoid. Nothing really wrong with him--hey, he got re-elected--but definitely not the leader we needed when it all went down.

[Greenday]

I've long felt that, had 9/11 not happened, Bush would have been, if not a GOOD president, at least not a terrible one. 9/11 surprised all of us. It's fascinating to hear how many ex-Bush officials regret how things went down. I think that without that horrible time, he would have done at least kinda alright.

He seemed like he just wanted so badly to do something and do something important, he didn't care what that thing was.

[s_stabeler]

I agree- most basically, the President needs to be visibly "in charge", even in peacetime ( look at Obama. No matter what criticisms you have of him, it's fairly obvious he sets the agenda. Bush, I'm not so sure.

[Andara Bledin]

He seemed like he just wanted so badly to do something and do something important, he didn't care what that thing was.

Daddy issues. He wanted to show everybody that he could do just as well, or better, than his father.

[s_stabeler]

when in fact, I'm pretty sure he did worse. ( starting the increwasing deficit we have now, plus, IIRC, it was under him that deregulation of banking really started. I may be wrong, though

[Panacea]

If you knew that a future nuclear explosion to be caused by terrorists could be stopped, but only by listening in on phone calls, which would you prefer to stop? The murders of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions or the invasion of privacy on people discussing mundane BS that no one gives a crap about?

That's pure hyperbole. Every time someone has tried to get a hold of nuclear materials, we've found out about it the good old fashioned way: through good police work. Someone drops a tip to the authorities; undercover work and investigation solves the problem.

The problem with what the NSA is doing is they are gathering so much data they can't sift through it all. The problem with all the data they are gathering is it may prove tempting for people who are not looking to punish terrorists, but someone domestically.

Don't tell me that can't happen. Nixon did it. It's one of the reasons the FISA court was created . . . to restrain abuses on wiretapping of US citizens. Unfortunately, they just became a rubber stamp.

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.

That is a statement completely unbased in fact. It is utter nonsense. The NSA can claim to have stopped terror attacks, but they can't prove it, and without proof I don't believe them.

Perhaps some people would believe that Greenwald is encouraging dissent that will lead to violence that could in turn lead to the destruction of society as we know it. People believe the news and follow them like sheep as it is regardless of which bias is shown. Fox and it's followers are slammed regularly on this forum. Why? Because people are scared of what Fox's followers might do. How is this any different?

First of all, Greenwald is not "encouraging dissent." He's a reporter. The NSA's actions are news. He has every right to report the news.

But in the United States, he has the right to report news that may cause dissent. The NSA's actions are a violation of our 4th amendment rights; the government does not have the right to know who I call or when I call them.

Greenwald even has the right to create dissent. The First Amendment allows him to air his grievances. It is not unconstitutional or illegal to dissent.

As for Fox News; they admit they're not a real reporting organization. They're "entertainment." I don't like them, but they have the right to do what they're doing as despicable as it is. Like others here, I'd like to see them go away as well. But I oppose using the legal system to do it; they have the right to do what they're doing. Rather, I'd like to see market forces make them irrelvant and see they vanish into a ratings wasteland.

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

Means matter. I oppose the idea of government shutting Fox down. I'm not even too thrilled with the idea of civil litigation. As I said, I'd rather see market forces make them irrelevant.

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.

First of all, our government is not destabilized. It's embarrassed.

What you're advocating is the silencing of free speech out of fear. That runs counter to the purpose of the First Amendment. We cannot silence speech, even dissenting speech, or rather especially dissenting speech just because we're afraid of what it might bring. That attitude justifies terrible actions, the kind of actions that led to the American Revolution in the first place.

Lives are not at stake here. Snowden hasn't released any information that has exposed foriegn operatives (unlike what Manning and Assante did). He released information about an illegal spying program of phone communications. Americans have a right know what when they're government is breaking the law. The best disinfectant is sunshine.

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.

Then you don't believe in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

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.

I've been harmed. The NSA has made logs of my phone calls when it had no right to do so. My privacy has been invaded for no other reason than "just cuz."

Daddy issues. He wanted to show everybody that he could do just as well, or better, than his father.

Which is why he invaded Iraq. He wanted to finish what Daddy started. That's why he said mission accomplished as soon as Saddam was out of power.

[lordlundar]

It's funny, you could replace the word "terrorist" with "communist" and you would have the same scenario that ran in the US from the 50's through the 80's.

Hopefully it won't take 30 years to get through this mess.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

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.

Wow... seriously? Bottom of the harbor? Where is this laundry list of semi-affluent white kids disappearing in the US? Even Manning got a trial (and wasn't convicted on all counts I might add). As for my point, obviously it went past you. Greenwald is about as oppressed and fearful as he ought to be for someone with means and visibility going against the US government. That is, not very. I swear, if the US government was half as oppressive as people make it out to be you would be able to say something and prove it beyond "they looked at my phone records." Both Greenwald and Snowden staying in foreign countries by choice and claiming persecution is disingenuous. They just don't want to take the risk. That's fine, but I'm not buying persecution as you're being flown to and fro by wealthy patrons. There are some Syrians fleeing their home country that would love that kind of persecution.

Hell, even extraordinary rendition you're talking about 100 people. That's a pretty small net. It's not right, but it's hardly an oppressive force to democracy. More people than that bitched about the government on Reddit today.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

It's funny, you could replace the word "terrorist" with "communist" and you would have the same scenario that ran in the US from the 50's through the 80's.

Hopefully it won't take 30 years to get through this mess.

Really? Did we have a McCarthy hearing I wasn't privy to? Is there a list of people who have lost jobs due to suspected ties with terrorists? Kids, we're not even close yet.

That's pure hyperbole. Every time someone has tried to get a hold of nuclear materials, we've found out about it the good old fashioned way: through good police work. Someone drops a tip to the authorities; undercover work and investigation solves the problem.

The problem with what the NSA is doing is they are gathering so much data they can't sift through it all. The problem with all the data they are gathering is it may prove tempting for people who are not looking to punish terrorists, but someone domestically.

Based primarily on the fact that the NSA won't disclose that data outside of the executive branch. Meanwhile your criticism has largely been reported in the media. Classic informational asymmetry.

That is a statement completely unbased in fact. It is utter nonsense. The NSA can claim to have stopped terror attacks, but they can't prove it, and without proof I don't believe them.

Aside from my first thought which is, "Holy Crap... the NSA is the Bible!", my next thought is, "you do realize you're holding the government to a higher standard here than critics of the government, right?"

First of all, Greenwald is not "encouraging dissent." He's a reporter. The NSA's actions are news. He has every right to report the news.

But in the United States, he has the right to report news that may cause dissent. The NSA's actions are a violation of our 4th amendment rights; the government does not have the right to know who I call or when I call them.

Except the Supreme Court signed off on wiretapping suspected terrorists a long time ago. You'd better believe this is an extension of that stance which we probably both disagree with. But unless you actually kill the law that allowed it which we'd both agree with, the government probably isn't going to leave a tool in the toolbox. Don't kvetch at the Executive Branch for a legislative and citizenry failure which this is.

Lives are not at stake here. Snowden hasn't released any information that has exposed foriegn operatives (unlike what Manning and Assante did). He released information about an illegal spying program of phone communications. Americans have a right know what when they're government is breaking the law. The best disinfectant is sunshine.

BS. Nice use of a marketing soundbite though. Counterintelligence deals with the lives of multiple people every day as well as numerous agreements with other agencies. When you destabilize that framework which happens when the public reacts (because apparently everyone just realized spying is a real thing), you risk lives period. Agreements like the commercial data agreement between the EU and the US get put in jeapordy. Companies lose a ton of cash and people get fired. Yea, people's lives are affected. You can Mr. Clean the nation all you want, but don't play the "people don't get hurt" card.

This whole idea that there's some sort of Liberatarian Utopian nation state that can exist is mind boggling to me. It's as if people have missed the last 2000 years of human history. People spied on the disciples. They won't stop because the internet pitches a fit. There are always reasons to do it.

Then you don't believe in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Then apparently neither does the Supreme Court because freedom of speech has been limited for almost as long as we've been a nation. Think freedom of speech existed during the Civil War? World War II? We tarred and feathered people for freedom of speech during the Revolutionary War.

I've been harmed. The NSA has made logs of my phone calls when it had no right to do so. My privacy has been invaded for no other reason than "just cuz."

You have no right to privacy as defined by the Constitution or legislative action. Right to Privacy was a concept of the Burger court and was entirely a judicial construct. I'd prefer an amendment myself, but it doesn't exist. It's also a reason why Roe V. Wade can still be undone. It is entirely a legal decision and not a legislative one. But while we're on the subject, under the legal definition of "harm", I fail to see where you were caused financial, legal, physical, or mental damage. You just seem pissed which is your right, but certainly not legally actionable. You're also substituting the rationale proffered by your opponents as "just cuz." Feel free to disagree with it, but you're strawmanning the hell out of it.

[s_stabeler]

Really? Did we have a McCarthy hearing I wasn't privy to? Is there a list of people who have lost jobs due to suspected ties with terrorists? Kids, we're not even close yet.

the Do-Not-Fly list. Impossible to know if you are on it, and you cannot travel by air if you are on it. All but impossible to get off of even if innocent. Has caused issues for people as harmless as babies in the past. ( and I'm talking about not being allowed on the plane due to the dumbass thinking a baby can be a terrorist)

Based primarily on the fact that the NSA won't disclose that data outside of the executive branch. Meanwhile your criticism has largely been reported in the media. Classic informational asymmetry.

Exactly. Or would you agree to someone being convicted of capital murder, on the basis of "we have proof, but we won't show it to you"- proof kept quiet is not proof.

Aside from my first thought which is, "Holy Crap... the NSA is the Bible!", my next thought is, "you do realize you're holding the government to a higher standard here than critics of the government, right?"

burden of proof. the critics in this case ave produced documents proving the government has spied on american citizens. It is the government's job to prove them wrong, or prove the necessity of spying on it's own citizens.

Except the Supreme Court signed off on wiretapping suspected terrorists a long time ago. You'd better believe this is an extension of that stance which we probably both disagree with. But unless you actually kill the law that allowed it which we'd both agree with, the government probably isn't going to leave a tool in the toolbox. Don't kvetch at the Executive Branch for a legislative and citizenry failure which this is.

actually, yes we can kvetch- wiretapping suspected terrorists is one thing- this was wiretapping everyone.

BS. Nice use of a marketing soundbite though. Counterintelligence deals with the lives of multiple people every day as well as numerous agreements with other agencies. When you destabilize that framework which happens when the public reacts (because apparently everyone just realized spying is a real thing), you risk lives period. Agreements like the commercial data agreement between the EU and the US get put in jeapordy. Companies lose a ton of cash and people get fired. Yea, people's lives are affected. You can Mr. Clean the nation all you want, but don't play the "people don't get hurt" card.

fear of the consequences is not always good reason not to release information. Snowden primarily released information on how widespread the spying was, not things like agent names. It's embarrassing, but not that dangerous. The latest information ( that the phone of a foreign Head of State was tapped) is frankly obvious. Indeed, that's why most heads of state use specially secured phones. (from further information, it looks like EVERYBODY had Merkel's phone tapped)

This whole idea that there's some sort of Liberatarian Utopian nation state that can exist is mind boggling to me. It's as if people have missed the last 2000 years of human history. People spied on the disciples. They won't stop because the internet pitches a fit. There are always reasons to do it.

but when the document that the government draws it's power from says thye should not do it, you ahve a problem.

Then apparently neither does the Supreme Court because freedom of speech has been limited for almost as long as we've been a nation. Think freedom of speech existed during the Civil War? World War II? We tarred and feathered people for freedom of speech during the Revolutionary War.

actually, yes, in the Civil War, you still had freedom of speech. The government frankly cared more about what people DID. World War Two? more or less. Revolutionary War? the Constitution hadn't been invented then

You have no right to privacy as defined by the Constitution or legislative action. Right to Privacy was a concept of the Burger court and was entirely a judicial construct. I'd prefer an amendment myself, but it doesn't exist. It's also a reason why Roe V. Wade can still be undone. It is entirely a legal decision and not a legislative one. But while we're on the subject, under the legal definition of "harm", I fail to see where you were caused financial, legal, physical, or mental damage. You just seem pissed which is your right, but certainly not legally actionable.

a) Unreasonable search. b) breach of rights is legally considered harm in and of itself.

[Gravekeeper]

Wow... seriously? Bottom of the harbor? Where is this laundry list of semi-affluent white kids disappearing in the US?

Where's the list of semi-affluent white kids responsible for the biggest intelligence leak in US history? =p

Even Manning got a trial (and wasn't convicted on all counts I might add). As for my point, obviously it went past you.

What exactly was your point? You flat out stated Greenwald should stand trial. Except he hasn't done anything illegal. He's not being charged. There is no warrant out for him. Now you're doing a 180 and saying Greenwald isn't facing anything except inconvenience?

Both Greenwald and Snowden staying in foreign countries by choice and claiming persecution is disingenuous. They just don't want to take the risk. That's fine, but I'm not buying persecution as you're being flown to and fro by wealthy patrons.

Who do you think Greenwald is exactly? He is not hiding in a foreign country claiming persecution. He LIVES in Brazil because Brazil recognizes same sex relationships for immigration. But he spends a lot of time in the US, obviously. Seeing as he's a journalist, best selling author and frequently a guest on various US TV programs.

The problem is not persecuting Greenwald. The problem is they picked up Greenwald's partner, accused him of being a terrorist and then used the excuse of that allegation to hold him for 9 hours ( the maximum legal limit under the law they were abusing ) for questioning and stole all his stuff. They confiscated every electronic device he had ( phone, laptop, etc ) and refuse to give it back. They obviously searched and took all of the data on it.

All because he's related to a journalist who essentially embarrassed them.

As for Snowden, why should he be a martyr? Snowden was sitting on the biggest intelligence leak in history. He HAD to get out of the US to even have a chance to go through with the exposure. If he had remained in the US, we never would have heard anything about it. He would have just vanished. If he was lucky his name might appear as a blip on some outlying minor news organizations on the Internet. But the government would have nailed the lid on that so tight no one would have know what he had or what he was going to do. If he was lucky they might let him live.

Or perhaps you didn't notice US politicians on both sides of the aisle wanting him tried for treason?

Hell, even extraordinary rendition you're talking about 100 people. That's a pretty small net. It's not right, but it's hardly an oppressive force to democracy. More people than that bitched about the government on Reddit today."

Hardly an oppressive force to democracy? It was a complete undermining of everything the US claimed to stand for. Or did you miss the part where they would essentially snatch people from other countries and fly them to undisclosed locations outside of US legal jurisdiction so they could torture them? But sure, kidnapping someone and flying them to Syria to be tortured while hiding them from the Red Cross ( Which is a war crime ) doesn't harm a democracy.

Or rounding up their wives and children, perfectly fine. Oh, and when all that pesky international investigation is getting too annoying, just making them disappear. ( 39 of the detainees simply vanished ). Or moving them into international waters on prison ships. While doing absolutely everything possible to hide the location and true numbers of the detainees.

I mean, its not like it wasn't the subject of investigation by 5 multinational organizations, including the UN, and 10 countries.

But sure, it was a minor thing that only affected 100 people. Good to know that you know exactly how many too! I mean, not even 5 multinational organizations and 10 countries were able to figure out how many people the US used rendition on or how many it was hiding.

But luckily, some random poster on the internet knows!

=p

[s_stabeler]

I think Esquire's point is that Manning wasn't "disappeared"- he was imprisoned, and stood trial.

As for Snowden, he probably wouldn't have been disappered- notice how people are demanding he be tried for treason- he would get a trial. (and, incidentally, I'm of the opinion that the proper response is actually simply to fire Snowden, not prosecute him. (you cannot work on classified projects if you are known to release intel)

I do agree about extraordinary rendition, though. Hell, it undermines basic international law. ( the sovereignty of nation states)

[Gravekeeper]

I think Esquire's point is that Manning wasn't "disappeared"- he was imprisoned, and stood trial.

Manning got 35 years in prison for being a whistleblower. Which begs the question what would they do to Snowden. -.-