People who fixate on the "proper way" to learn the truth

[whatchamacallit]

obviously have no real interest in it.

That's all

[Buzz Clik]

1. Are you referring to the scientific method?

[whatchamacallit]

3. I'm referring to people who

kill the messenger to kill the message. All the Snowden, Assange, Manning... character assassination. Apparently, what we learn from them is invalidated by how we learn it. Silly bullshit really.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Ah.

You have a point, but I find Manning to be something of a hero and Snowden a self-serving shit.

The assumption you are making is that Manning's information that he provided at a high cost to himself is as relevant and "true" as the information revealed by someone more interested in covering his ass. Is that the case?

[whatchamacallit]

6. I'm saying if the information is true

how we learn it shouldn't be used to diminish it.

[Buzz Clik]

13. I totally agree, but humans tend to rightfully distrust information from people acting suspiciously

[eridani]

24. Maybe Snowden acted the way he did because he didn't want to be tortured--

--and kept in solitary for a year like Manning?

[one_voice]

7. Hmmmm...

Apparently, what we learn from them is invalidated by how we learn it. Silly bullshit really.

That is a dangerous statement. Imagine how that could be used. Heads would explode here under different circumstances.

If (I say if cuz I'm not sure yet) laws were broken by Snowden it seems to be excused, don't kill the messenger the message is what matters. Does this apply to all laws or are we cherry picking what laws we're ok with being broken?

Torture, spying, outing CIA agents, leaking military intelligence on and on, what's acceptable and what isn't. It certainly would make for a fascinating study.

[whatchamacallit]

9. IMO the truth is like light pouring in through a crack in the wall

The angle of the sun is relatively unimportant. Once something is known the important thing isn't so much how it came to be known, but what we do with the information. If Snowden did in fact break the law he should be prosecuted, but the fixation on legality of the leak is telling.

[Buzz Clik]

14. +1

It's how humans are wired.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. Amen!

And everyone should get a chance to stand in their own truth - even if some people need us to get the smelling salts after we tell them some hard truths.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Just be judicious in what you believe.

Not every whistleblower is a seeker of truth. Some have an ax to grind, and you'd better be careful as you weigh what they've revealed.

[JustAnotherGen]

32. Has nothing to do with Snowden

My response that is.

[Buzz Clik]

35. I was confused by the time sequences

perceived, not real.

I thought you responded to the OP after the intent was made clear. Not so.

My error.

[FarCenter]

8. What we've actually seen is 4 slides and a warrant to Verizon

Everything else is hearsay.

Even one of the 4 slides was different in the Washington Post version than the Guardian version.

Whether we have actually learned anything depends on the veracity of a couple of newspapers, Snowden, a few reporters, and some testimony at Congressional hearings by executive branch staffers.

[whatchamacallit]

10. So why not wait for a more complete picture

before throwing the baby out with the bath water? Like I said, the day-one kill the messenger crowd don't seem all that interested in whether it's true or not.

[FarCenter]

11. OK, but the day-one hair-on-fire privacy violation crowd does't suspend belief either

[whatchamacallit]

12. Fair enough

I guess we all need to let it play out.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Repeating 'hair on fire' a thousand times does not make it into anything but a slang insult

meaning 'I don't agree with you so I mock you'. I see it dozens of times a day on DU always from people lacking in facts and information. They characterize others as if that enhances their own redundant and over used phrasebook.
Your hair is on fire, because I say so. Also, pants on fire.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. You should like point your browser towards

The Guardian.

There are more actual documents there, like the standards used to separate who gets spied on, or spying on the G-20 nations.

[FarCenter]

18. Yes, but we expect NSA to intercept communications of foreigners -- that's their job

And the one document deals with minimizing the intercept, use and storage of US person's communications that may be captured while doing that job.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. You I expect them to intercept comms from Americans too?

51% is toss a coin my dear.

At this point you either get it, or don't...welcome to the dictablanda. You are under surveillance and you like it.

[FarCenter]

25. If I make a cross-border phone call, I expect NSA to intercept it.

I've never expected that communications with people outside the US is not subject to US intercept.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Go read the verizon production order

It includes calls made domestically...as in fully inside the United States.

As in it is not leaving US borders.

Here, so you don't have to


Verizon was ordered to release phone information to the NSA. The order signed by Judge Roger Vinson includes “all call detail records or 'telephone metadata' created by Verizon for communications between the United States and abroad, or wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

Now get that pretzel ready

[FarCenter]

27. I have -- The Verizon order applies to call details and metadata, not call content.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Content, as other whistleblowers have noted,

Can be recreated later

I won't pretend anymore, we are not a free country...you can, I won't.

[FarCenter]

29. What evidence have they provided that content can be recreated later?

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. You should watch CNN's interview with a former FBI agent

on the tsarnaev case.

Regardless, there is not a small stream separating us in this view, the distance is galactic, measured in light years.

I won't be able to show you enough evidence, and you won't be able to convince me otherwise. You see, I grew up in a nation doing this shit. This is not strange or alien... the outlines are clear as day.

So sorry... if we won't see eye to eye on this. The data so far provided, confirms my worst fears in ways that are ... shall we use the correct term... Orwellian.

I wonder if writing about dystopias is worth it any more, since we live in one.

[treestar]

17. No one's fixated on it

there are times - but tell us this, it seems to come back down to that the government should never classify any information - or that it is always good to expose that information because it is true - then how do you explain being mad at whoever outed Valerie Plame - that she was an agent was true so far as it goes. Is it really possible for a modern state to be completely transparent? That is the underlying idea here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Is it possible that a modern state not spy

Use Surveillance systems on it's population and assume they are guilty? We just don't know what yet.

This is the problem.

[treestar]

21. It probably has to spy on some

I don't think it's possible they spy on all, or worth their time.

Detectives could try to solve murders by going door to door throughout the jurisdiction and questioning every person, but that would be inefficient for them to do. They'd get way behind. Better to focus.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. I love the dept of pre crime

They used to do this...with something quaint called warrants and something even more quaint called probable cause.

[whatchamacallit]

30. I don't think a single standard applies

Not all classified programs are equal. If you ask people if the government should have the right to classify certain programs and information most would answer a qualified yes. Does that mean they are down with whatever the government wants to do? Most would answer no. This is why whistleblowers are vitally important to democracy and why they need our protection.

[TheKentuckian]

22. Of course they don't. They pretend to because otherwise they would appear to be sociopaths at the

worst and idiotic little Torry loyalist at best so they have to pretend they would care under some hypothetical circumstances but that is punting because they are insulated from any interest in truth in real life application.

Should their hypothetical line be met in the future then they will fire up the motorized goalposts as that context dictates or more likely their accepted rules of disclosure of these truths will prevent them from ever coming to be common knowledge, covering up the truth and their "beautiful minds" never have to worry about anything inconvenient.

There is of course a subset that has open ears based on if their party is holding the bag or not when the information comes out. If it is the opposite folks then we had to know, if it is one of theirs their's then no amount of "right way", right messenger, or evidence will actually work. Try them again when the "greater evil" is in office and maybe we can hit them with it as long as our folks have cover, if not forget it then too, there is an election coming up.

[whatchamacallit]

34. Sometimes I imagine

But I also have no doubt that governments would try to stop some information from being exposed through any channel, in which case "proper" isn't really an option for the whistleblower.