heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
LOL! As though Obama is the first American President responsible for the death of innocent people.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Snowden Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
G1. Killer
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2013
- Messages
- 174
When it happened under other Presidents there was outrage as well...
cockomonkey the fears were not irrational boogymen, they were based on real threats then, and the threats still exist today. If you don't get that part straight then you won't get the rest. Do NOT think you can go anywhere in the MiddleEast or any predominantly Muslim region, particularly where radical Islam has a hold, and think you can walk around safely. You are a target just like me, just like our servicemen/women, just like anything that can be recognized as American. Please understand that, vacation in Brazil if you like, but you shouldn't go to Indonesia or India.
As for the media, Honestly I can't remember if they were taking any sides on this one, I can't. It would be good to know tho, but I don't remember it, and truth is, I was very busy back then. My company had to send a lot of contractors to Iraq when that one started in what? 2003?. And many of the contractors didn't actually want to go to a war zone once they found out they were actually going to have to go with the troops, a bunch just quit. I had to spend 4 months in Georgia filling in there cause they were short handed.
What I do remember is that there were people challenging the Patriot Act based on privacy reasons and constitutionality reasons. The government said they were going to take great care to make sure that our rights weren't trampled by this thing. And my thoughts were "I don't know, I don't think I like this, but as long as we can fix it if it breaks, then maybe it's worth it for now".
Well it is being challenged, it's being looked at by everyone, and the question is, can the program be maintained in a manner that satisfies all concerns, or can't it? If it can't then we have new problems. If it can't then it means as soon as a bad guy get's into the US, or already is in the US when he decides to go bad, then no one is going to catch on by his phone and internet activities unless he is blatantly stupid. This doesn't just mean terrorists, this means spies like that Russian chick a few years back, and others that have been caught stealing industrial secrets, etc.
I hope when you said "us" chokomonkey, you were including me in that group, we all hold the same stake in this. Whatever weight for what was or wasn't done to stop the Patriot Act, the warrant-less wiretapping, and this bulk metadata collection program, we do bear it together, all of us who were old enough to have a say so have that burden to bear in one way or another.
chockomonkey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 8,328
All this stuff is great, but it doesn't matter. Data collection should not begin until there is a warrant. Then, and ONLY then should they start collecting data on ONLY those against whom they've obtained a warrant.
Data collected prior to a warrant hasn't ever been considered legit, so why is now so different?
Also, having this store of too much data leaves a lot of room for abuse.
chockomonkey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 8,328
Hey me too! Well not exactly.
I have a healthcare plan through my small business employer. Our coverage just went down and, while our rates remained the same, we got a tax levied against us to basically pay for people mooching off the middle class.
yay!
chockomonkey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 8,328
Of course I understand this. I chose to avoid certain parts of Thailand because I believe it wasn't wise to take a gamble with the crazy Muslims you find in certain areas. However, I find there are too many coincidences around that time. I am uncertain as to whether or not the US government had involvement with the attack itself.
I was pretty young then (sophomore in highschool), and so i couldn't really do anything. What I do remember though is that the media was just blowing this shit up and feeding fears. I know that 9/11 was a big deal, but considering my doubts about our government's involvement and having seen the affects of the media on school shootings, I'm not convinced that they're innocent.
It's simple, really. Politicians find ways to acquire votes for things they want--mind you: not things the people want, but things THEY want or are otherwise compelled to act like they want.
All concerns? More and more of late I feel that MY concerns, and the actual PEOPLE's concerns are the only ones being left out of the equation.
Of course. Us was in reference to "We the People"
I didn't have a say in the creation of the bill and while I am now old enough to vote, I feel I have no say in its future. I watched the president talk last night and saw the republican response and just... man--listening to politicians makes me want to blow my brains out. Not a fuckin word of substance, just blowing smoke up people's asses from all angles, republican and democrat alike. The people of the united states are now victims of a runaway government.
FearTheCow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,682
Are you for fucking real? How the hell is making hundreds of millions of dollars off retard liberals falling on his sword? I mean you do know that just about every action he took allowed him to become rich right.
octoberasian
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,082
Pretty much this.
Our grandchildren and greatchildren will know more about the first African-American President than Snowden.
Snowden will probably be discussed ad nauseum in international relations and political science courses, as well as history books painting him a traitor than a martyr.
What I've learned from human history is this:
Nothing lasts forever. No nation or empire.
dgz
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 5,838
Wasn't Bush nominated for one as well? The guy only started two wars/invasions. If he deserve this much for his efforts, I am entitled to a lot more than that.
Lunas
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2001
- Messages
- 10,048
And your point to prove we have advanced past skin color we have to elect a useless idiot who accomplished nothing but enacting the horrible forced healthcare act.
G1. Killer
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2013
- Messages
- 174
The problem is also the fact that no one alive today is effected in anyway by what happened in the past. My favorite time when I was in school was learning about slavery and how bad it was and how they are being effected still today... The Jews were enslaved for 1,000 years by the egyptians. They were almost killed off during WWII and I don't hear them sitting around maknig victims of themselves...
That isn't the panel that Bush had. This was a Panel that was formed under the Obama administration.
Im done with you though. If the government looking through everyones things without a warrant does not constitute a violation of the 4th amendment to you then the argument is pointless. We have to agree to disagree sadly.
Retronym
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 13,605
This thread isnt an order of operations issue, its about a peace prize.
schoolslave
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,293
Obama still doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize
In fact, his getting the Noble Prize just further proves the enormous hype train that he was riding at the time.
OlIv0rIolI
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 634
Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize is the biggest joke of all time.
He vastly expanded the drone program into a dozen more countries. killed thousands of people. Even by CIA's own estimate only 23% of the killing are of "suspected terrorist". The rest are innocent. you would be a fool if you believe there is not going to be some blowback in the future because of the actions of our government today
Even if Obama somehow deserved that prize when he got it, he certainly doesn't anymore.
He vastly expanded the drone program into a dozen more countries. killed thousands of people. Even by CIA's own estimate only 23% of the killing are of "suspected terrorist". The rest are innocent. you would be a fool if you believe there is not going to be some blowback in the future because of the actions of our government today
Even if Obama somehow deserved that prize when he got it, he certainly doesn't anymore.
temujin987
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,351
he got the prize because europeans had high hopes that he was less of a warmonger than bush. his promises were all quite noble, initially (guantanamo, iraq, afghanistan...). all he actually turned out to be was that he was much smarter, more charismatic and a better liar than his predecessor.
Even if he was just doing it because he was going to be fired (which seems really unlikely), it doesn't change the fact that the exposure has largely been a good thing. Whether or not we turn it into dramatically greater transparency and far less spying on U.S. citizens, is unknown, but for the first time in decades (perhaps in my lifetime), both the left and right are talking about this. There was a time that the right didn't give a crap about the 4th amendment. With few exceptions, I dont' think they'd care now if a Republican was in office. They certainly didn't when W was the POTUS.
Our forefathers would be run out of washington for being the elitists that they were. Jefferson couldn't get elected, because he thought most of the Bible was BS.
Besides, we don't know what they'd do. The world is very different. For all we know they'd say that the 4th amendment shouldn't apply when protecting the country against terrorists. I'd like to think they wouldn't, but unless you've got a time machine where you can bring Jefferson and Monroe to today, we'll never know.
Somethings I thought at 18 are completely unchanged today. Others have changed almost 180 degrees. I imagine if I could go 200 years in the future, I might change my mind on many things.
Upset about what, the Nobel Peace price in general, Obama getting the prize or Snowden possibly getting a nomination?
FWIW, I don't care about there selections in general. i think giving Obama the award when they did was a bad decision. The peace prize should be given after there's some track record. I'd have felt this way if they'd given it to Bush in 2001, Clinton in 93, Reagan in 81 and so on.
As for Snowden, I think he's a good candidate. I don't know if he deserves to win.
... And a sure sign of a superior intellect is using terms such as "retard" and holding everyone of a certain political affiliation in a negative light .... Well done.
G1. Killer
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2013
- Messages
- 174
Outrage over the NSA no outrage over the national database that has been formed with the Affordable Healthcare Act to keep track of everyone....
That's a novel definition. "Serious problem" = one that isn't actually happened. The planet has not "warmed" in over 15 years.
And please stop pretending that "conservatives" were claiming that lead or tobacco were not bad for you.
DDT, thought, that's a good one. No actual harm has ever been proven, yet millions die of malaria every year because it was banned due to anecdotal evidence.
Liberals, dealing the death blow to "science" while claiming conservatives are "anti-science" for decades
Indeed. That would require a Repubican was doing it, I guess. So if Obama is spying on the American public, in clear violation of the law and the constitution, that's ok ? Because... Obamacare or something ?
Spying on US citizens without express court approval is illegal and unconstitutional. It doesn't matter WHO is President.
Uh, no. First of all, you can argue whether something is or isn't constitutional, and anyone can offer that opinion. The Patriot act is being referenced as somehow allowing this, but it does not such thing. Since the NSA metadata collection program, for one, came to light, an oversight board has already ruled that it is not allowed by the Patriot Act as the gov't claims.
Regardless, protection against unlawful search and seizure and all other "rights" were inherent to man at birth, as posited in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the US Constitution. Meaning that you and I don't need Congress or anyone else to "give us" those rights. They belong to the people. PERIOD. Collecting data from private calls with no probable cause for suspicion is the very definition of unlawful search and, as such, is plainly unconstitutional on its face.
The bottomline is you cannot make something constitutional by passing a law. And the act of passing a law does not make something constitutional.
Furthermore, when the court, specifically SCOTUS, rules something "unconstitutional", that's it, its over. The law is null and void. It doesn't have to be "challenged". if the gov't continues to pursue a law already found unconstitutional, certainly the aggrieved party would still have to challenge that gov't action, but the law itself is already unconstitutional.
You seem to forget that the gov't of the US is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Nothing the gov't does is beyond the reach of the people themselves and those that makeup the gov't are not some special class that is beyond reproach. They serve US.
You are seriously confused. Whether or not something is constitutional or legal is VASTLY different than whether anyone should be worried about if it will be negatively affected by it. All you've done here is tell us "Not to worry" about an illegal, unconstitutional program of spying on US citizens without cause.
Good lord where do you people get your information ? The founding fathers were elitists ? They were mostly common business men. Over half the men that signed the Declaration of Independence were killed during the Revolution.
The constitution - again - was written to guarantee the rights of all people and was intended to forbid the federal gov't from enacting any law that wasn't specifically called out in the articles of the constitution. Originally there was not intended to be a bill of rights because it was plainly obvious, for instance, that since nowhere in the constitution did the articles give congress any license to make laws about freedom of speech or religion or the press, that clearly they could do no such thing. But some of the founders were too suspicious - RIGHTLY SO - of the potential for gov't abuse that they wanted those restrictions clearly spelled out in the bill of rights.
The people are supposed to be free. Period. And the role of government is to guarantee that freedom. Period. The founders would absolutely not be cool with spying on the citizens of the their own country, without cause, because TERRORISM.
Jarod888
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 2,939
Not only does this asshat not deserve the peace prize, someone needs to find him, torture him for whatever they can get out him, and the he needs to be publically executed for treason. His body needs to be dumped off the fantail of a destroyer just like Osama bin Laden's was. The would needs to shut the hell up about spying and snooping and just get on with their lives. The NSA has been doing this for a long time, needs to be doing it, and needs the autonomy to continue to do what they are doing.
So chokomonkey, let's put together a scenario, a foreign national who is "suspected" of being an Agent for a foreign intelligence service enters the country. Up to know he has not made or received any calls to a number in the US so at this point, if he has any help here, we don't know who they might be.
Now he is here, his Visa is good for 6 months and he get's an apartment. Now he starts showing up at tech conventions, and he has signed up for a boot camp to get COMPTIA's new Storage+ Certification. He is meeting people, he is friendly, he is making friends. Now we have people following him, checking out who he meets, who is in his boot camp class and what companies they work for. They are monitoring his calls and he calls a guy in his boot camp class. This guy in his boot camp class is his contact and facilitator here in the US. This guy works for a US Tech company and although he is not a US Citizen, he is protected and treated the same because he works for a US company, he has US Person status. The FBI is pretty sure this new guy is a bad guy, a spy, and they think he is recruiting sources inside US Businesses for the purpose of espionage, sooner or later these contacts will gravitate toward classified contracts with defense contractors. This guy knows we will be listening to his phone, watching and tracking him. He needs a guy who will facilitate his reporting back home. He needs a safe means of communication. The guy in his class is this guy. It's too easy to pass notes or files between each other in class each day, and later as their "friendship" which looks legitimate continues. This facilitator then sends the data on to several different contacts in other countries using different methods.
Now here is the question, would a Judge give the FBI/NSA a warrant for wiretapping under these circumstances when they have no means of showing the Judge the metadata from the facilitators foreign contacts overseas? Every time the spy drops off data he transmits it off to three different locations, but they have no way to know it, and nothing to Justify a wiretap.
Now we have the existing Program in place, they see the Spy's calls to his facilitator even though there is nothing important to them, they do establish a link. Then the pull up the metadata on the facilitator and see the overseas contacts and they see that no calls are made on days the class are not in session. Would the Judge issue a warrant on the facilitator now?
How can they bridge the gap between the physical world and the digital data world when the only incriminating contact between individuals is digital?
No, what I am doing is calling into light the process for change. You will not get anywhere by calling a legal program illegal, you just sound stupid. If you say the law that allows the program is unconstitutional then you are getting closer to fixing the problem.
You have to understand how things work before you can change them.
Oh, and the Terrorism, I'll say it again, Terrorism is the smallest possible part of the picture so open up your mind to the reality that there is many other threats to our country then just Terrorism. Terrorism is not the only card in the game.
The NSA and other government agencies are there to prevent something from happening, not go after them after the fact. They are doing there job they way they always have, just now it is much more encompassing and with the information of the www and the instant nature of communication there is a need for them to collect data in real time. Do I like it, no. Do I understand why they do it, yes.
When Andrew Jackson fought the British in New Orleans in 1812, the war had been over for 2 weeks already but no one knew because word hadn't yet reached them. Today's information society is unlike any that has preceded it and as more and more information is carried electronically then the need to be able to intercept and identify in real time becomes much more necessary. In the 1940's our mail was opened and went through, especially the military's and other influential members of society. Why? Because threats could be identified and stopped before they ever happened if we knew of them in advance.
Intelligence agencies all across the world operate like this, to think any other 1st or second world nations doesn't is incredibly short sighted. As long as there are proper checks and balances in place, I have to admit as much as I don't like this or the Patriot Act, then I'm for the system. It is no different than any other time or period, just newer and different technology but the underlying strategies and goals are the same.
D
Deleted member 204526
Guest
He shouldn't be president now.
They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Ben Franklin
Wait. Weren't the founders traitors of their country? Maybe Snowden wants to start his own country.
Nice quote you keep bringing up Draax so I'll run with it. Let's start with the word "temporary", "essential".
Do you believe the law that authorizes this Bulk Collection program is a temporary law? Do you beleave the NSA's Prism program is temporary in nature? I don't believe the government, the DoD, or the NSA view this program or the law that sanctions it as temporary.
In view of the NSA's Bulk Metadata Collection Program which captures phone number and the time and duration of the call and is stored in a database that is isolated from other databases and can not be cross referenced with other databases, do you believe that you are relinquishing "essential" liberty. Or do you feel that it's existence, as it is used, directly threatens your freedom?
And we might as well cover all the bases, Safety.
http://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/targeted-attacks-on-us-defense-contracto/229700229
http://www.dailytech.com/Reports+Hackers+Use+Stolen+RSA+Information+to+Hack+Lockheed+Martin/article21757.htm
So let's look and see just how little safety we risk in a situation like this that happened in 2011.
Read what some of these companies make or manage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman
That's just four out of hundreds big and small.
Like I have been saying, it's not just about terrorism.