HAHA, I JUST DID, NOW WE KNOW YOU DIDN'T READ ANYTHING ABOUT LOVEINT... (because if you had, you would have realized I just explained it a second ago) I explained it before you even brought it up: I concede the fact that mistakes can happen from the NSA, but the NSA has shown evidence that when such abuses happen, they fire those individual agents and give them up to the DoJ. LOOK ABOVE.
Wasn't it the case that they all came up in polygraph tests? Basically self-admission? I'd hardly concede that as good self-regulation over the vast arsenal of snooping tools they have. But sure, if you consider this small thing a success and complete vindication, we can move on to the rest of your diatribe.
You're naivety is incredulous. Just curious, how old are you? I'm a lot older than you, we can tell by the way you can't spell naiveté.
Oooh la la. With the accents. Naivety is an alternate spelling and conveys the same meaning. And yes, I can surmise that you're probably in your teens; early 20s if I'm being generous considering that your response to my question is a (not even wholly correct) nitpicking of a spelling.
It's a lot more naivé for someone to think that congressmen vote on things they don't read.
Whoa there buddy. Slow down with the accents. Here, ï ... take that. You need that for spelling naive next time. Not é. Got that? Repeat after me. Naïve, naiveté. 3 times. If you want to be fancy, try naïveté. Go ahead. It's smooth. Silky. Absolutely demonstrative of how even more grown up you are.
I'm sorry but that's classified. You don't get to know about their failures and their successes in detail. Only that they are succeeding as professed by congressmen who are in the intelligence committee who didn't defend Snowden, but instead criticized Snowden. They could have thrown the NSA under the bus, but they didn't. They didn't because they are proud of what the NSA is doing in securing the United States.
How are you so sure they can throw the NSA under the bus? What about Senators Udall and Sensenbrenner? What about the USA FREEDOM act and its defeat? It's not all peachy and rosy up there.
The difference is the NSA is supposed to lie. It is supposed to hide the truth from other spies. It is supposed to omit facts and hide secrets. There is nothing to suggest the NSA lied about spying on innocent Americans because spying on innocent Americans doesn't serve their purpose.
It's supposed to lie against American citizens whose taxes support its very existence?
You don't get to find out. The people who get to find out are in the intelligence committees and they are defending the NSA and criticizing Snowden .That is all you need to know about that subject. That is all representative democracy is designed to let you know. You don't get to know every detail.
You may think so, but plenty of people disagree where the line is drawn. I hope you're not daft enough to understand that letting this line be drawn by those in power and those with more information without measured debate is a bad thing.
You don't have the entitlement or right to know everything on Obama's desk, but even the great Obama who taught civil liberties in Harvard, is defending the NSA. Do you not understand the significance of that?
No. Pray tell me it's significance. Why would he throw the NSA under the bus if it is giving valuable intel to him?
The NSA does not lie to anyone. When they lie about doing something bad: They get sent to the DoJ. When they lie about doing something good: that's their job. When congressmen stand up and defend the NSA while having access to many of their activities, that is significant.
How do you know they get sent to the DoJ? Just off of one report about, what, 10 people in LOVEINT? What about all the other programs that Snowden leaked? No repercussions of immoral activity under those?
Just as how, you don't get to find out what it's like to walk on the moon. Instead you ask Buzz Aldrin, and you ask scientists who might know. You trust that they are not lying to you. You need to trust the government a little. You don't have to trust the government a lot. Just a little on some things.
Oh I trust them. I just think you and I differ on our levels of trust.
You might say "how can I ever trust government, they are in power and I'm not, absolute power corrupts bla bla.." but that's not how representative democracy works. It works when people trust their government representatives and they do their job and you are secure and safe in your home and are not being attacked by terrorists. That's how you judge things in a democracy. "but what if they are making tons of personal profit from spying and are not sharing it with us." That's absurd, then Snowden would have found all the financial data about billions of taxpayer money being guzzled up by private individuals working for the NSA -- yet nothing like that even exists. Plenty of people in congress would be screaming at the top of their lungs if that was the case.
Strawmen, strawmen a plenty. I have no clue what Snowden wanted to find out and whether billions of taxpayer dollars are guzzled by individuals or whether even that's the NSA's motive.
"but what if they will create a system whereby some future power takes hold and turns us into nazi germ--" enough with the what ifs, because if you think this way, then what if tomorrow an asteroid hits, and what if tomorrow a Hitler comes to power then nothing we discussed today matters. None of the laws we discussed would matter they would change overnight with a dictator.
Nazi germany? I never said that.
And as Aristotle said: It's the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without supporting it.
You can't seem to think that there might come a time when this machinery falls into the wrong hands. Nor can you see that every discussion involves shades of grey and people have reasonable opinions and can differ on where the line is drawn (so long as they're not obtuse and dogmatic). Your rant about Snowden finding billions, or asteroids hitting the earth while I'm trying to discuss something reasonable betrays your lack of maturity.