Identity of Whistleblower Behind NSA Leak Revealed

"Jeremy Scahill on Democracy Now! - Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWqQNG03MhU

Excellent interview by Amy Goodman.

I've been waiting to see his "Dirty Wars" documentary that just came out in some theaters June 7. Jeremy Scahill is from what I know and currently see trying to fight the good fight.

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Said by many people

Originally Posted by heatlesssun
Imperial Japan wasn't exactly the most peace loving nation. Just ask their neighbors at the time.

Didn't say they were. However they were absolutely nothing like the USA is now. The USA is on Mars compared to other nations with our GOV's covert wars and overthrowing governments we don't like shit. The strongest nation on Earth should be setting a great example instead of being the bully to way too many nations on the planet (If it wasn't seeking global dominance that is). Outside of the US 'bully' seems to be a common viewpoint of the USA GOV IMO.

Originally Posted by heatlesssun
I would agree that more diplomacy is needed in the world.

Our GOV has used that word to do a lot of damage. We might need a new go to word.

Originally Posted by heatlesssun
That said it's not simply a matter of just laying down ones arms and expecting others to reciprocate. The Department of War was one of the original Cabinet departments created in spite of those warnings of government tyranny.

True but our GOV is going the whole other way on it. Making more and more enemies to keep the military industrial complex busy is good for business but bad for humanity.
 
The two are in direct contradiction to each other and that's why the issue of the balance or security and freedom is intractable.
That's really a false choice. There are plenty of examples which break this theory. In Afghanistan women are forced to wear burqas. Their freedom is next to zero. Are they safer than women in the US?? NO.

When people talk about having to choose one over the other it really is because they are holding your freedom hostage.
 
That's really a false choice. There are plenty of examples which break this theory. In Afghanistan women are forced to wear burqas. Their freedom is next to zero. Are they safer than women in the US?? NO.

Huh? Like you're saying I think women on average in the US have both more freedom and security than in Afghanistan. In a place like Afghanistan were bombs go off and people die violently every day the conditions simply do not exist for much freedom. A society cannot be free and full of violence because there's too much fear and fear is the greatest enemy of freedom.
 
Huh? Like you're saying I think women on average in the US have both more freedom and security than in Afghanistan. In a place like Afghanistan were bombs go off and people die violently every day the conditions simply do not exist for much freedom. A society cannot be free and full of violence because there's too much fear and fear is the greatest enemy of freedom.

No I'm telling you they are not mutually exclusive. One has virtually nothing to do with the other. There are TONS of countries with more privacy and more security.
 
No I'm telling you they are not mutually exclusive. One has virtually nothing to do with the other. There are TONS of countries with more privacy and more security.

I'm not arguing this. I'm saying that you can't have more freedom/privacy and more death and violence.
 
LCHUpEV.jpg



(Stolen from Reddit)
 
This is impossible. A society cannot be more dangerous, meaning more personal death and injury caused by war, terror, famine, what have you and be more free simultaneously. The two are in direct contradiction to each other and that's why the issue of the balance or security and freedom is intractable.

I disagree.
 
ya we are gonna nuke ourselves, good call bro.

the comparisons to nazi fucking germany are ridiculous hyperbole. Hitler was a despot that siezed power, no matter how many times you guys pretend he was elected like our presidents are elected, it's never gonna be true.
 
the comparisons to nazi fucking germany are ridiculous hyperbole


not really Hitler was a sociopath backed by an expansionist corporate oligarchy
fascism is a damn good description of our current political landscape
when Nader and Ron Paul agree on something you might want to pay closer attention
 
not really Hitler was a sociopath backed by an expansionist corporate oligarchy
fascism is a damn good description of our current political landscape
when Nader and Ron Paul agree on something you might want to pay closer attention

Both of them might be upset that they ran for the president thing and didn't get elected. They'll say stuff like "I could have gotten us better vending machines for the school cafeteria and new playground equipment if you guys would have voted for me, but you didn't so now we have Hitler in ur base taking all ur rites away! LOL! Told ya so!" They're politicians and since no one ever believes anything a politician says is truthful...well, you know. :p
 
not really Hitler was a sociopath backed by an expansionist corporate oligarchy
fascism is a damn good description of our current political landscape
when Nader and Ron Paul agree on something you might want to pay closer attention

no, ya really.
 
true true
but umberto eco isnt running for office

and had some direct experience
there is cosiderable validity in the assertion we have a fascist state

its glossed over and current soft fascism but...
 
Nazis had a Homeland security. They used it as a way to take away rights slowly just like how US is telling everyone its for "security."
 
if by slowly you mean over about 3-5 years, ya they were slow.

the comparisons are nonexistent and foolish.
 
if by slowly you mean over about 3-5 years, ya they were slow.

the comparisons are nonexistent and foolish.

"Adolf Hitler staged an attack as well and blamed it on communist terrorists. Shortly after, he passed the Enabling Act, which completely eradicated the the German constitution, destroying people’s liberties. He then led a series of preemptive wars that were justified to the German people as necessary to maintaining HOMELAND SECURITY."
 
I disagree.

I was home sick on 9/11, I was still in bed when my wife called me from work right after the first plane had hit the first on the Twin Towers and I turned on the TV and to this day I don't think anything has quite struck me like seeing live the first of the Towers collapse. And it was obvious that life was going to be different, but it would weeks and years to fully know just how much.
 
Nazis had a Homeland security. They used it as a way to take away rights slowly just like how US is telling everyone its for "security."

They also helped start the deadliest conflict in human history and gassed Jews. I don't think comparisons to Nazis ever prove to make much of a point because few regimes have ever existed that were as powerful and as truly evil.
 
9/11 wasn't shit compared to what the US did before and after that day to others on a global front. I get that it shocked the people (never paying attention) that have no clue what evil deeds their own government is committing using their tax dollars but blowback is as real as the sun people.

Also, Iraq casualties since then (Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 remember) is a fucking atrocity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Sanctions kill more people every year than those killed on 9/11. I'm not justifying terrorism, I'm just not justifying terrorism for either side.

Originally Posted by heatlesssun
They also helped start the deadliest conflict in human history and gassed Jews (and offed everyone else they rounded up). I don't think comparisons to Nazis ever prove to make much of a point because few regimes have ever existed that were as powerful and as truly evil.

Might be the first time I agree with you (although I do see some similarities) but hitler took it to a whole other place. He was worse than nukes which is damn near impossible to do! So that being true I can't equate anything to that man and his reign of terror right now. He was the worst dude that had a military besides genghis khan (genhgis wins that IMO).

Problem is we need to stop the next one or it could happen, again!
 
They also helped start the deadliest conflict in human history and gassed Jews. I don't think comparisons to Nazis ever prove to make much of a point because few regimes have ever existed that were as powerful and as truly evil.

what kind of history do they teach these days?

if there is one thing history teaches its that atrocity is relatively the norm in war
nor where the Nazis particularly powerful, merely audacious and inventive
even their scapegoat ideology wasn't particularly unique

Tamerlane, Khmer Rouge, Ottomans, Manifest Destiny, Genghis Kahn, the ferocity of suppressing the peasant revolts, Nanking, Spanish Civil War, Stalin's Purges, Reconquista, Mongol Conquest, Muslim conquest of India the list is damn near endless

"Then, when they took the captives, spoil and booty to Moses..., Moses was enraged.... 'why have you spared the life of all the women...? So kill all the male children. Kill also all the women who have slept with a man. Spare the lives only of the young girls who have not slept with a man, and take them for yourselves"
 
Problem is we need to stop the next one or it could happen, again!

I agree but when I've ever said that we need to be vigilant against something like the following there's a lot of push back around here:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Straight out of the Constitution and on level of the evil of Nazism and infinitely more worse than any digital communication archival and retrieval of communications of which 99.99999% no one would give two shits about.

I grew up and live in a reality where privacy is not a concern nor much of an option. Just maintaining basic freedoms based on how I look is what I'm concerned about, especially when there are plenty of folks out there very willing and happy to destroy my life that aren't even from the government. You learn to pick the lesser of two evils.
 
Man people trip too much over this shit. They are not even listening to your calls, seriously it is just your meta data, and this whole thing is super blown out of proportion. Microsoft and Google are both begging the government to allow them to release more info on the process behind all this and how often it is requested, so they can prove that they don't allow a back door access to the government.

It is amazing to me that when there is a big terrorist attack then over 50% of Americans are more than willing to give up their phone records and shit and even allow them to listen in and crap and when there hasn't been a major attack people bitch about when the government actually collects info. Really why the fuck does it take a tragedy like 9/11 for people to say, "please protect me by any means necessary", it seems like 9/11 has faded now, and it takes a major attack for people to actually realize the stakes.

I guess I would rather be safe and government can track my calls all the want, if I am not doing anything wrong I don't have shit to worry about.

Its amazing people only bitch about privacy when the same government has not allowed any major terrorist attacks for almost a decade. When something bad happens then the same public is the first one to say," Oh I will be okay to give up little privacy"
 
I was home sick on 9/11, I was still in bed when my wife called me from work right after the first plane had hit the first on the Twin Towers and I turned on the TV and to this day I don't think anything has quite struck me like seeing live the first of the Towers collapse. And it was obvious that life was going to be different, but it would weeks and years to fully know just how much.

So True, when my brother woke me up and he said look at the tv bro, and I was like oh shit what movie is that. He was like this shit is real, and as I am watching the tv, another plane hits the second tower. I don't normally get emotional, but I know exactly where I was and what I was doing and where was laying down. I remember the whole setting and it was just that day I will never forget. I think I knew I didn't ever wanna see such a tragedy again. Only thing that bothers me that we contradict ourselves, a big terrorist attack and we were all for increased security and willing to give up some privacy. Fast forward a decade and no terrorist attacks and we are all outraged by something we were ok with begin with.
 
Really why the fuck does it take a tragedy like 9/11 for people to say, "please protect me by any means necessary", it seems like 9/11 has faded now, and it takes a major attack for people to actually realize the stakes.

Exactly. I understand why people get upset about this stuff, it can be used against us. But that still doesn't absolve a government from its first and most important duty of all, to prevent the death of its citizens which render Constitutional or any rights meaningless. I wonder how many of the nearly 3,000 victims of 9/11 would trade this program for their lives. But in fairness, we seem to have known a lot about 9/11 and didn't connect the dots even without this program.
 
You're making some sweeping generalizations for a whole lot of people and doing so is confusing you...not the people you're trying to figure out.

It's not that everyone wants the government to tap their lines and cull their info to keep them safe when an attack occurs and then forgets about it years later getting pissed off about it.

There are two groups of people: those of us who don't want the government intruding into our lives *even if* it means that we might get blown up in a terrorist attack *or* the other group that doesn't seem to care what the government does if it means that it will reduce the chances of being blown up by a terrorist attack no matter how slim that threat may be.

once you realize that there are at a minimum two groups of people with different views on what the government should and should not do based on certain principles and that people will view threats against their lives with varying levels of thinking those concerns are likely or merited then you will be less "amazed" by some people's responses.
 
I wonder how many of the nearly 3,000 victims of 9/11 would trade this program for their lives.
There isn't any reason to believe they would think or feel any differently from the rest of the population: some of them would be against it and some would be fine with it.
 
So True, when my brother woke me up and he said look at the tv bro, and I was like oh shit what movie is that. He was like this shit is real, and as I am watching the tv, another plane hits the second tower. I don't normally get emotional, but I know exactly where I was and what I was doing and where was laying down. I remember the whole setting and it was just that day I will never forget. I think I knew I didn't ever wanna see such a tragedy again. Only thing that bothers me that we contradict ourselves, a big terrorist attack and we were all for increased security and willing to give up some privacy. Fast forward a decade and no terrorist attacks and we are all outraged by something we were ok with begin with.

+1. The things is that if the Constitution really did provide a guarantee of privacy I would be much more inclined to be against these programs. There's just no guarantee of privacy of privacy in the Constitution. The 4th Amendment only mentions probable cause and a judge.

The kind of privacy that many mention here requires a new Amendment. I give you the 28th Amendment, which would be more controversial to more Republicans than Roe vs. Wade:

"The communications, documents, knowledge and information of an entity in any form, physical or digital or unforeseen at this time, shall not be subject to any form of search or archival by an outside party, private or public, without direct consent of the creator of the aforementioned artifacts or probable cause of an executive branch and consent of judge in an publicly open court at any level of the two branches."

Done. Solved. Pass it if you think your meaningless data is meaningful while getting the most resistance from your political allies.
 
You're making some sweeping generalizations for a whole lot of people and doing so is confusing you...not the people you're trying to figure out.

It's not that everyone wants the government to tap their lines and cull their info to keep them safe when an attack occurs and then forgets about it years later getting pissed off about it.

There are two groups of people: those of us who don't want the government intruding into our lives *even if* it means that we might get blown up in a terrorist attack *or* the other group that doesn't seem to care what the government does if it means that it will reduce the chances of being blown up by a terrorist attack no matter how slim that threat may be.

once you realize that there are at a minimum two groups of people with different views on what the government should and should not do based on certain principles and that people will view threats against their lives with varying levels of thinking those concerns are likely or merited then you will be less "amazed" by some people's responses.

It's far more complicated than this. The concept, the very achievement of freedom for various people, depending on race, religion or sexual orientation has never been solely battle of good versus evil or government against the people but of those who do not like certain things and those who do not. It's not that I want to be spied on but I do understand that my particular path to freedom really isn't in this battle. Fight it if you wish, there are much more important things that are of concern to me, like viability as a human, not totally stupid, and yeah, someone that doesn't pray to Obama. Government spying at this point in history is just WAY down the list for me and my freedom.
 
+1. The things is that if the Constitution really did provide a guarantee of privacy I would be much more inclined to be against these programs. There's just no guarantee of privacy of privacy in the Constitution. The 4th Amendment only mentions probable cause and a judge.

The kind of privacy that many mention here requires a new Amendment. I give you the 28th Amendment, which would be more controversial to more Republicans than Roe vs. Wade:



Done. Solved. Pass it if you think your meaningless data is meaningful while getting the most resistance from your political allies.
You need to take a Con Law class.

First of all, there exists numerous protections against government intrusion into private spheres.

Secondly, if the Constitutions doesn't say something then it's protected by default...not the other way around.

The Constitution doesn't *grant* rights, it limits government's intrusions upon rights that the people possess by default.
 
It's far more complicated than this.
Sure, if you want to overcomplicate things.

NKD said he was confused and amazed that people used to be all for government spying on everyone and now those people are pissed off that the government is spying on everyone.

I said he's conflating two different groups of people into one group.

I don't really know what you're on about but it doesn't seem relevant to what he wrote and my response to his confusion.
 
Straight out of the Constitution and on level of the evil of Nazism and infinitely more worse than any digital communication archival and retrieval of communications of which 99.99999% no one would give two shits about.
You do know where the 3/5th thing comes from right?

Essentially the southern slave owning states were using the slaves to puff up the state populations so they could have more representatives in Congress to block anti-slavery measures. Even though they were depriving voting rights in those states.

The downweighting of slaves was a compromise measure with non-slave states who didn't want the voting deprived slaves to count towards enlarging slave state's presence in Congress.
 
Hmm can't view the link:

Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/tornado/web.py", line 1042, in _execute
getattr(self, self.request.method.lower())(*args, **kwargs)
File "/mnt/vol/project/rewrite.py", line 156, in get
merchant_info, full, top_level = get_merchant_info(raw_url)
File "/mnt/vol/project/rewrite.py", line 75, in get_merchant_info
merchant_info = r.hgetall(top_level)
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/redis/client.py", line 1249, in hgetall
return self.execute_command('HGETALL', name)
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/redis/client.py", line 365, in execute_command
connection.send_command(*args)
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/redis/connection.py", line 301, in send_command
self.send_packed_command(self.pack_command(*args))
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/redis/connection.py", line 283, in send_packed_command
self.connect()
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/redis/connection.py", line 231, in connect
raise ConnectionError(self._error_message(e))
ConnectionError: Error 111 connecting 10.212.130.185:6379. Connection refused.
 
Man people trip too much over this shit.
People who like being controlled always say this crap. Everything from cell phones to always online games that don't work are no big deal until it becomes apparent it IS a big deal.

They are not even listening to your calls, seriously it is just your meta data, and this whole thing is super blown out of proportion.
Oh you think it's just about your phone calls? LOL It's your email too. And that isn't about metadata they are storing the whole damn email.

Microsoft and Google are both begging the government to allow them to release more info on the process behind all this and how often it is requested, so they can prove that they don't allow a back door access to the government.
No that's not what they said. They said they wanted to let people know when a request of their data was issued. Both Google and Microsoft denied it was even happening when the story first broke.

It is amazing to me that when there is a big terrorist attack then over 50% of Americans are more than willing to give up their phone records and shit and even allow them to listen in and crap and when there hasn't been a major attack people bitch about when the government actually collects info. Really why the fuck does it take a tragedy like 9/11 for people to say, "please protect me by any means necessary", it seems like 9/11 has faded now, and it takes a major attack for people to actually realize the stakes.
Good grief you are going to make me sound like a Libertarian. Do you even realize that 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with intelligence? The then President received a briefing that said, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US". Or how about this: "On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track."

Does that sounds like there is a lack of information? 9/11 had nothing to do with a lack of information and had everything to do with weak leadership.

So even when it's obvious that information gathering isn't the problem here you are talking about how everyone needs to give their information away because it's no big deal. That thought process it what causes dictatorships. Every time something bad happens it's time to run away and give the government all of your freedoms.


I guess I would rather be safe and government can track my calls all the want, if I am not doing anything wrong I don't have shit to worry about.

Translation: Just as long as I keep my head down and don't aggravate the government I will be.... baaahhh baaaah baaah.

Our government is the same government mind you that told kids that in case of a nuclear attack to duck and cover and HIDE UNDER THEIR DAMN DESKS!!!!

So this is you:

tumblr_mjfyeaBg5S1s7fctio1_500.gif


duck-and-cover-drill.jpg
 
OMG, you guys were talking about this all night! o_O This is almost as big of a deal as Windows 8's user interface or the Office 2007 Ribbon if I were gonna judge by the number of angry posts. :eek: I guess monitoring people is similar to (but thankfully not as bad as) changing the UI in a software product since they both upset peoples' sense of entitlement.
 
This is impossible. A society cannot be more dangerous, meaning more personal death and injury caused by war, terror, famine, what have you and be more free simultaneously. The two are in direct contradiction to each other and that's why the issue of the balance or security and freedom is intractable.

Bullshit. I'd rather die standing sovereign than live under a boot. How the hell did we segway to the subnect of famine, I thought we are talking about national security?
 
You need to take a Con Law class.

First of all, there exists numerous protections against government intrusion into private spheres.

Secondly, if the Constitutions doesn't say something then it's protected by default...not the other way around.

The Constitution doesn't *grant* rights, it limits government's intrusions upon rights that the people possess by default.

Thank you. Finally somebody that understands what the framers of the constitution intended. The Constitution is simply a way to keep government in check because ALL government s have a tendency want to control its population and encroach on hard fought freedoms.

Even the 2nd amendment was not about just giving people the right to bear arms. It was to keep the government honest. A government should fear its people, not the other way around. Government should be accountable to its people.

Unfortunately we live in a post-constitutional era where politicians are wiping their asses with our most precious founding document. In the end I do not blame the politicians but the low information voters that put them in power.

I cannot understand how these useless politicians on both parties keep getting elected. Have you taken a moment to really watch some of these people talk? These people serve multiple terms and are paid six figures (plus hefty pension) and are just complete morons.

In the end any politician and their constituents that support NSA warrant less wiretapping is a traitor to freedom and what made this country great. If this is accepted we have lost the war on terrorism.
 
+1. The things is that if the Constitution really did provide a guarantee of privacy I would be much more inclined to be against these programs. There's just no guarantee of privacy of privacy in the Constitution. The 4th Amendment only mentions probable cause and a judge.

The kind of privacy that many mention here requires a new Amendment. I give you the 28th Amendment, which would be more controversial to more Republicans than Roe vs. Wade:



Done. Solved. Pass it if you think your meaningless data is meaningful while getting the most resistance from your political allies.

There is legal precedent on the expectation of privacy that would apply today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States

I honestly hope the ACLU blows the lid off this whole thing in their lawsuit and perform deep, body cavity search discovery so we can see exactly whats going on.

PS: Please just stick to the Windows 8 forums. I like to avoid your posts whenever possible so I don't click on the operating systems sub forum unless i'm bored.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Core

Main Core is the code name of a database maintained since the 1980s by the federal government of the United States. Main Core contains personal and financial data of millions of U.S. citizens believed to be threats to national security.[1] The data, which comes from the NSA, FBI, CIA, and other sources,[1] is collected and stored without warrants or court orders.[1] The database's name derives from the fact that it contains "copies of the 'main core' or essence of each item of intelligence information on Americans produced by the FBI and the other agencies of the U.S. intelligence community."[1]

The Main Core database is believed to have originated with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1982, following Ronald Reagan's Continuity of Operations plan outlined in the National Security Directive (NSD) 69 / National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 55, entitled "Enduring National Leadership," implemented on September 14, 1982.[1][2]

As of 2008 there are reportedly eight million Americans listed in the database as possible threats, often for trivial reasons, whom the government may choose to track, question, or detain in a time of crisis.[3]

so a no fly list of 8 million half a decade ago
wonder if its grown
 
Back
Top