reddogblitz Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 You got me, I'm not a paranoid person. Would you still be on board with this whole thing if Rubio or Christie wins the 2016 election and decides to double down on it for your safety? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Would you still be on board with this whole thing if Rubio or Christie wins the 2016 election and decides to double down on it for your safety? Give me specifics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) The program as intended doesn't specifically target anyone that is without cause. If it is leveraged against someone without justification then that isn't an indictment on the program but rather a corrupt official abusing his power. In which then you throw his ass in jail. You are conflating the two. No one is saying the US shouldn't be in the spying business. There are absolute real world needs for a strong and pro-active intelligence apparatus, no one denies that. The issue, 215 and other elements of the Patriot Act which are up for renewal next month, is about the lack of accountability and transparency when it comes to meta data collection inside the United States against US citizens. There is little to no accountability in place right now, and none of it is transparent. There's also very little (I'd argue zero) proof that the bulk (and illegal) collection of meta data from US citizens has done anything to prevent terrorist attacks since 2000. The only thing it's done is expand the scope and power of the government's ability to spy on its own citizens. The only justification needed to get a "warrant" is suspicion, the threshold to prove said suspicion is a moving target, and accountability is non existent. That's a cluster!@#$ waiting to happen. If you don't think this is a serious encroachment on our fourth amendment rights then I'd suggest your love for Marco Rubio is clouding your view on this issue. I think we all say that and feel that until a baby gets blow up in Boston. There's no question many people, even you, would rather throw the dice than give up data, but once body parts are thrown around, people want answers and the answer can't be "We didn't see it coming because we respect you privacy." I know we want it to be. But it can't be. And yet this program did nothing to stop the Boston bombing, the attack in Ft. Hood or more recently in Texas. This program has been in existence since 2000, pre-9/11. Its scope wasn't expanded until after 9/11 and in that time the mass collection of US citizens' data has resulted in exactly one arrest... for a cabbie who donated $8,500 to a terrorist group. That's it. Had there been more successes from this program, especially since 2013 when Snowden leaked the documents and woke people up to this reality, the government would be highlighting it just to get the pressure off and prove their program works. They haven't done that. The idea that these programs (the mass collection of meta data specifically) is keeping us safe is a fraud that's been pulled on the American public. Fear mongering is always the best way to get the public to shut up and take whatever measure the government wishes to cram down our throats to make us "safe". Abuse happens, but I'm not paranoid enough to think that they are going to target me. I believe that the program does more good than harm, I also believe that it wasn't created with nefarious intentions and that the intent is to save lives, which I also believe has happened. So, I support it. You support Rubio. Who is wrong on this issue -- and continues to show why he's going to lose. Edited May 14, 2015 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 No one is saying the US shouldn't be in the spying business. There are absolute real world needs for a strong and pro-active intelligence apparatus, no one denies that. The issue, 215 and other elements of the Patriot Act which are up for renewal next month, is about the lack of accountability and transparency when it comes to meta data collection inside the United States against US citizens. There is little to no accountability in place right now, and none of it is transparent. There's also very little (I'd argue zero) proof that the bulk (and illegal) collection of meta data from US citizens has done nothing to prevent terrorist attacks since 2000. The only thing it's done is expand the scope and power of the government's ability to spy on its own citizens. The only justification needed to get a "warrant" is suspicion, the threshold to prove said suspicion is a moving target, and accountability is non existent. That's a cluster!@#$ waiting to happen. If you don't think this is a serious encroachment on our fourth amendment rights then I'd suggest your love for Marco Rubio is clouding your view on this issue. And yet this program did nothing to stop the Boston bombing, the attack in Ft. Hood or more recently in Texas. This program has been in existence since 2000, pre-9/11. It's scope wasn't expanded until after 9/11 and in that time the mass collection of US citizens' data has resulted in exactly one arrest... for a cabbie who donated $8,500 to a terrorist group. That's it. Had there been more successes from this program, especially since 2013 when Snowden leaked the documents and woke people up to this reality, the government would be highlighting it just to get the pressure off and prove their program works. They haven't done that. The idea that these programs (the mass collection of meta data specifically) is keeping us safe is a fraud that's been pulled on the American public. Fear mongering is always the best way to get the public to shut up and take whatever measure the government wishes to cram down our throats to make us "safe". You support Rubio. Who is wrong on this issue -- and continues to show why he's going to lose. You couldn't be further off. It has absolutely nothing to do with Rubio and the fact that you state that shows how little you know how my thought process works. If you are looking for a candidate that doesn't support the NSA, then you can support Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders, because those are the only two that don't. In regards to reforming the program, who said I wasn't for that? Oh, I know, it was the little voice in your head that assumed that to be the case. *Note to the voice in your head, stop making baseless assumptions* In regards to not having assisted in any attempted terrorist attacks. How the !@#$ do you know? Oooooh ooooh, I know the answer, You don't know! So, since it hasn't thwarted every single attempted terrorist attack, the program isn't without merit. Well, that's good to know, considering that's your threshold of success, I know that there was a robbery that just occurred in uhhhh , just about every damn city so let's just call the police force an abysmal failure. Hell, let's just lump every other single law enforcement agency, because they aren't batting nearly 1000% on rooting out their suspects. I'll tell you what's a fraud, are the lacking in substance proclamations that the NSA achieves one single purpose, which is the nefarious intent to spy on it's citizens. That's what's fraudulent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) No where does the program state that they would target anyone that is without justifiable suspicion. Your argument is predicated on a hypothetical situation that the program is without merit because some bad apple abuses the power that is possibly granted under the program. Under your scenario and thinking, if you were to remain consistent with that thought, we should just abolish the police force as well. I mean, they have the power to infringe on people's civil liberties, and since they have that capability the police force should cease to exist. There will always be bad apples, but the actions of a few shouldn't discredit the intent and the results of the program. So the police have the legal ability to go through my mail and phone calls without a warrant? What freedom are you giving up? The freedom of privacy but you knew that seeing you've gone around and around on that. Edited May 14, 2015 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 In regards to reforming the program, who said I wasn't for that? Rubio is against reforming the NSA, he wants to strengthen it. So, considering the thread and your support, that's where it's coming from. If you support reforming the NSA then we're on the same page. In regards to not having assisted in any attempted terrorist attacks. How the !@#$ do you know? Oooooh ooooh, I know the answer, You don't know! So, since it hasn't thwarted every single attempted terrorist attack, the program isn't without merit. Well, that's good to know, considering that's your threshold of success, I know that there was a robbery that just occurred in uhhhh , just about every damn city so let's just call the police force an abysmal failure. Hell, let's just lump every other single law enforcement agency, because they aren't batting nearly 1000% on rooting out their suspects. I'll tell you what's a fraud, are the lacking in substance proclamations that the NSA achieves one single purpose, which is the nefarious intent to spy on it's citizens. That's what's fraudulent. All of this... is just a bunch of noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Rubio is against reforming the NSA, he wants to strengthen it. So, considering the thread and your support, that's where it's coming from. If you support reforming the NSA then we're on the same page. All of this... is just a bunch of noise. I love how the justification for these programs are "you can't prove it doesn't help!!!!" What I can't prove could fill several libraries, none of which merit government programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) There's also very little (I'd argue zero) proof that the bulk (and illegal) collection of meta data from US citizens has done anything to prevent terrorist attacks since 2000. The only thing it's done is expand the scope and power of the government's ability to spy on its own citizens. The only justification needed to get a "warrant" is suspicion, the threshold to prove said suspicion is a moving target, and accountability is non existent. That's a cluster!@#$ waiting to happen. If you don't think this is a serious encroachment on our fourth amendment rights then I'd suggest your love for Marco Rubio is clouding your view on this issue. And yet this program did nothing to stop the Boston bombing, the attack in Ft. Hood or more recently in Texas. This program has been in existence since 2000, pre-9/11. Its scope wasn't expanded until after 9/11 and in that time the mass collection of US citizens' data has resulted in exactly one arrest... for a cabbie who donated $8,500 to a terrorist group. That's it. Had there been more successes from this program, especially since 2013 when Snowden leaked the documents and woke people up to this reality, the government would be highlighting it just to get the pressure off and prove their program works. They haven't done that. The idea that these programs (the mass collection of meta data specifically) is keeping us safe is a fraud that's been pulled on the American public. Fear mongering is always the best way to get the public to shut up and take whatever measure the government wishes to cram down our throats to make us "safe". You support Rubio. Who is wrong on this issue -- and continues to show why he's going to lose. No, THIS is a bunch of noise. I love how the justification for these programs are "you can't prove it doesn't help!!!!" What I can't prove could fill several libraries, none of which merit government programs. It goes against any semblance of logic to believe that if you have access to this meta data and that you have a suspect that you believe is intent to do harm to the citizens of this country, that looking into that data can not or has not been of any help in thwarting that attempt. If that's what you are saying, then your thought process needs some rejiggering. Edited May 14, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 one arrest... I believe they take credit for this one also. http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog/item/portland_terror_attack_foiled_20101127/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 No, THIS is a bunch of noise. It goes against any semblance of logic to believe that if you have access to this meta data and that you have a suspect that you believe is intent to do harm to the citizens of this country, that looking into that data can not or has not been of any help in thwarting that attempt. If that's what you are saying, then your thought process needs some rejiggering. Prove to me how it's helped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I believe they take credit for this one also. http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog/item/portland_terror_attack_foiled_20101127/ http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/10/mohamed_mohamud_sentenced_for.html Well the FBI are certainly good at foiling terrorist plots that they create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I believe they take credit for this one also. http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog/item/portland_terror_attack_foiled_20101127/ That's part of the ongoing issues with these kinds of programs. The difference between entrapment and a righteous arrest is pretty thin. And will only become thinner with the continuation of this type of program. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/10/mohamed_mohamud_sentenced_for.html Well the FBI are certainly good at foiling terrorist plots that they create. Beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) Prove to me how it's helped. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/politics/nsa-chief-says-surveillance-has-stopped-dozens-of-plots.html?_r=0 WASHINGTON — Top national security officials on Tuesday promoted two newly declassified examples of what they portrayed as “potential terrorist events” disrupted by government surveillance. The cases were made public as Congress and the Obama administration stepped up a campaign to explain and defend programs unveiled by recent leaks from a former intelligence contractor. One case involved a group of men in San Diego convicted of sending money to an extremist group in Somalia. The other was presented as a nascent plan to bomb the New York Stock Exchange, although its participants were not charged with any such plot. Both were described by Sean Joyce, deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, at a rare public oversight hearing by the House Intelligence Committee. At the same hearing, Gen. Keith B. Alexander, the head of the National Security Agency, said that American surveillance had helped prevent “potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11,” including at least 10 “homeland-based threats.” But he said that a vast majority of the others must remain secret. Now that we've proven that you YET again make baseless assumptions without doing your due diligence, please, I implore you to stop making posts that do nothing other than make you appear to be ill-informed. I love how the justification for these programs are "you can't prove it doesn't help!!!!" What I can't prove could fill several libraries, none of which merit government programs. That goes for you as well. Edited May 14, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/politics/nsa-chief-says-surveillance-has-stopped-dozens-of-plots.html?_r=0 Now that we've proven that you YET again make baseless assumptions without doing your due diligence, please, I implore you to stop making posts that do nothing other than make you appear to be ill-informed. That goes for you as well. Try citing sources that weren't exposed to be "misleading"... Pressed by the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at an oversight hearing, Gen. Keith B. Alexander admitted that the number of terrorist plots foiled by the NSA’s huge database of every phone call made in or to America was only one or perhaps two — far smaller than the 54 originally claimed by the administration. “There is no evidence that [bulk] phone records collection helped to thwart dozens or even several terrorist plots,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and committee chairman, told Gen. Alexander of the 54 cases that administration officials — including the general himself — have cited as the fruit of the NSA’s domestic snooping. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/2/nsa-chief-figures-foiled-terror-plots-misleading/?page=all Again, I'll state, if this program (again specifically talking about the warrant less collection and storage of meta-data of US citizens) had shown to be an effective tool for fighting or preventing terrorism, this government -- the most public image conscious in history -- would be trumpeting every success they could. But they aren't. And when they try to, they're exposed for being "misleading". Think on that. And while you think on that, imagine this. In this thread the only person agreeing with you is Gator. Let that sink in. Your love for Rubio is clouding your head, it's pretty clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) Try citing sources that weren't exposed to be "misleading"... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/2/nsa-chief-figures-foiled-terror-plots-misleading/?page=all Again, I'll state, if this program (again specifically talking about the warrant less collection and storage of meta-data of US citizens) had shown to be an effective tool for fighting or preventing terrorism, this government -- the most public image conscious in history -- would be trumpeting every success they could. But they aren't. And when they try to, they're exposed for being "misleading". Think on that. And while you think on that, imagine this. In this thread the only person agreeing with you is Gator. Let that sink in. Your love for Rubio is clouding your head, it's pretty clear. In other words, you admit that it has helped. Now that we've proven that it has helped and that your statement There's also very little (I'd argue zero) proof that the bulk (and illegal) collection of meta data from US citizens has done anything to prevent terrorist attacks since 2000. is unequivocally false thanks to the link you provided. Again, I recommend for you to not post about things that make you appear to be ill-informed. All it does is water down anything else you say moving forward, simply because it is a hit on your credibility. Edited May 14, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I think one salient point that's being overlooked here is that according to the article in the OP, Rubio supports removing the sunsets from the Patriot Act and making it permanent. Is that really what we want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 In other words, you admit that it has helped. Now that we've proven that it has helped and that your statement is unequivocally false thanks to the link you provided. Again, I recommend for you to not post about things that make appear to be ill-informed. All it does is water down anything else you say moving forward, simply because it is a hit on your credibility. You can keep running but you'll still be wrong. The source you cited, Alexander's numbers, was proven to be misleading and false. Clapper gave false testimony to the same panel -- do you believe his excuse he merely forgot? Of course not. You're smarter than that. This issue isn't whether or not it can help, it's how does it help and at what cost. The cost is every american surrendering their right to due process and privacy -- in exchange for a tool that might work but has yet to show any real impact on the fight on terror. Your man Rubio doesn't feel there is any need to reform the NSA -- which was the point of the OP. You disagreed and claimed any reasonable politician would be supporting the same. So you're either blindly schilling for your man Rubio, or you're a walking contradiction. Which is it? What do you support? Keeping 215 and the Patriot Act in tact as is? Or do you believe reforms are necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 You can keep running but you'll still be wrong. The source you cited, Alexander's numbers, was proven to be misleading and false. Clapper gave false testimony to the same panel -- do you believe his excuse he merely forgot? Of course not. You're smarter than that. This issue isn't whether or not it can help, it's how does it help and at what cost. The cost is every american surrendering their right to due process and privacy -- in exchange for a tool that might work but has yet to show any real impact on the fight on terror. Your man Rubio doesn't feel there is any need to reform the NSA -- which was the point of the OP. You disagreed and claimed any reasonable politician would be supporting the same. So you're either blindly schilling for your man Rubio, or you're a walking contradiction. Which is it? What do you support? Keeping 215 and the Patriot Act in tact as is? Or do you believe reforms are necessary? The only thing that is running here are your inaccuracies. Your credibility continues to go down the drain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 The only thing that is running here are your inaccuracies. Your credibility continues to go down the drain. And you still won't answer the question. That drains your credibility. You're becoming Gator. Where do you stand on this issue? Do you agree with Rubio that 215 and the Patriot act should become permanent without reform? Or do you feel that there is an issue that should be examined? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 If you're not in a movement or hold and forcefully espouse positions that are in opposition of a established monied interest you are probably not going to be spied on. So since Magox is about 99.99999% inline with the corporate elite he of course is all in favor of these spying programs in fact he probably thinks it's a damn good thing to spy on and disrupt- peace protestors, occupy movement, abolish the fed movements, environmental groups, sovereign citizen movement, anti- TPP and T-TIP voices, etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts