Skip to main content

View Diary: Should Edward Snowden get the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize? (226 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Please control your cackling for a moment... (7+ / 0-)

    Since you're too lazy to type it out for the record, I'll help you out:

    Wait a minute

    are you suggesting that the vaunted Inland may have held a different opinion when there was a republican in office?

    by LaEscapee on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 10:35:12 AM PST

    That one is, indeed the one to which I answered 'yes.'

    That's hardly an accusation. That was me answering 'yes' to the comment because you decided to answer 'No' on my behalf before I got a chance to answer for myself.

    Remember, I pretty much do the opposite of whatever you do, especially when you choose to represent me without my consent.

    Given the fact I didn't technically accuse you of anything (I know how you love playing semantic games), perhaps you'd like to tell readers just how consistently you took the side of the NSA back in the Bush days, like you do now. Because comments like this tend to give a different impression:

    The illegality of the NSA program

    is, IMO, a no brainer.

    The problem is that there's nobody with standing to complain in a court, until somebody accused with illegal obtained evidence is able to get past the State Secrets trump card and test the issue. By that time, there will be a file with the name of every democrat in the White House.

    It's one of those areas that it would be nice if Congress someone gave a shit about illegality even before a court ruling, which is back to my theme.

    by Inland on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 07:42:47 AM PDT

    Or perhaps you can correct my misconception by telling me exactly how the program you considered illegal back then differs from those we've come to learn about via Snowden, in terms of real-world consequences.

    Hopefully the differences you'll cite will be significant enough to justify all the nonsensical, semantic nitpicking you've done in so many of these diaries, which have resulted in pretty much everyone else otherwise trying to converse on the topic at hand dismissing your efforts as trolling.

    Frankly, I'm surprised you've been so persistently contrarian about this, considering you at one time wanted to wait for the next president (which would be Obama), because we couldn't make any changes without knowing what exactly was done, sort of like what Snowden's actions helped reveal.

    Besides, the can was kicked down the road, wasn't it?

    There, I've given you the basis for my original question.

    Ball's in your court.




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

    by DeadHead on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 01:50:05 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Hoist by his own petard? lol. so he was against it (6+ / 0-)

      before he was for it? Priceless.

      "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." Edward R. Murrow

      by temptxan on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:05:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hmmm - (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inland

      I assume you are aware of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which was extended in late 2012 and is now scheduled to expire in 2017? I also assume you know those amendments were enacted by Congress, in large part, as a response to the exposure in 2005 of the Bush Administration's warrant-less wiretapping.

      To paraphrase, VP Biden, the difference between what the NSA was doing from 2001 - 2007 pursuant to an executive order that bypassed the FISC and what it has been doing pursuant to the FAA is a big fucking deal unless, of course, you don't consider the concept of separation of powers significant ....

       

      Out with the gloomage - in with the plumage!

      by mikidee on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 07:53:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  um (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poligirl, DeadHead

        Did you forget to sign back in as inland?

        Because I don't see how walking into a dead thread and answering in place of inland could be anything else.  It's not like the hiddens drew you here.  

        "It rubs the lotion on its skin" is not effective coalition building.

        by Nada Lemming on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 08:59:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not answering for Inland. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Inland

          What drew me here (back from yesterday) is was the implication in DeadHead's argument that there's no difference between what the NSA was doing in 2005 and what it is doing now. That's just not accurate.

          If someone is going to throw an ad hominem tu quoque at someone else it would help if there really were an inconsistency ....

          Out with the gloomage - in with the plumage!

          by mikidee on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 09:28:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  lol (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poligirl, DeadHead

            So the same behavior but multiplied x a gazillion with RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY thrown in for good measure is A-OK now?  You realize that congress de-funded and banned Total Information Awareness under Bush, but Obama changed the name and expanded it to apolyptic levels?  You do realize in order not to throw Bush in jail they needed to abuse the laws of physics, and the same people who are OK with this now were howling about it then, right?  Like inland?  Why don't you let him parse this himself, mkay?

            You kill me.  Literally.  

            "It rubs the lotion on its skin" is not effective coalition building.

            by Nada Lemming on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 10:08:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Glad I can help. nt (0+ / 0-)

              Out with the gloomage - in with the plumage!

              by mikidee on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 10:29:51 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Heh. Thought you could pull a fast one? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mikidee

              What kind of doof actually thinks the Bush admin and Obama admin programs were the same, so that criticizing one means criticizing both, equally, the same way?

              Not me.  I knew that someone would have to provide the education.  

              But I didn't know who would get so pissed off about it.

              The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014.

              by Inland on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 02:12:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So it's different? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DeadHead

                Other than changing the name of the program (and cough the president), how is it different?

                "It rubs the lotion on its skin" is not effective coalition building.

                by Nada Lemming on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 03:21:42 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  As you've been told. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mikidee

                  The difference is that Bush's programs were enacted under his supposed Article II,  Commander in Chief power.

                  Not pursuant to statute, and FISA court order.

                  If you read my diary, you can see how I discuss how the SCt's ruling in Hamden required Bush to go to congress for authorization.  That's the diary.  

                  Obama's got that authorization.

                  Amazing.  You've got a real life example of a power grab by a president to enact surveillance on his own, without congress or  courts...and you forgot.  Hm.   I guess that surveillance only leads to Skynet and a Stasi and a Police state when it's not Bush doing it pursuant to his solitary say so.

                  The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014.

                  by Inland on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 03:43:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Amazing (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    DeadHead

                    So right here I am talking about how congress forbade TIA and defunded it, and you are back to the "lets violate the space time continuum" act.  Do you do this naturally?  Or is making arguments that your opponent isn't talking about a skill you learned somewhere?

                    "It rubs the lotion on its skin" is not effective coalition building.

                    by Nada Lemming on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 03:51:25 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh. You're changing the subject. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mikidee

                      My diary, and my comments, were about Bush acting without a statute from Congress and abusing his supposed Article II power.

                      Deadhead, not knowing that and not reading the diary attached to my comment, thought that they were about something else and that I was being inconsistent.

                      And you'd  LIKE it to be about something else, namely, twhether the surveillance techniques are the same.  That wasn't really my concern then.  If you want to change the subject from DeadHead's silliness to that, write your own diary.

                      The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014.

                      by Inland on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 03:58:41 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  And if anyone read my diary (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mikidee
            The Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan that the President needs express Congressional authorization for his processes at Gitmo.  So to Congress he will go.  

            But will Congress take this opportunity to have a considered debate to consider the proper course of action in the War on Terror, defined in practice as whatever it is Bush is doing openly or secretly?
            .

            It's true that as a matter of PRINCIPLE Bush does not ask Congress for anything he can take, whether authority, or appropriations.  Any refutation of that principle is good news.

            Bush already lost on that principle when Justice O'Connor opined that "war" does not give the president a "blank check". See Breyer's concurring opinion.

            The Supreme Court reaffirms in Hamdan that the mere fact of war itself does not give the president power to ignore statutes and international law

            There's a little difference between Bush claiming authority as the War President and all three branches approving as they do now.  And a not careful reading shows my concern was just that.
             

            The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014.

            by Inland on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 03:01:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Wow, look at the accusations roll out. (0+ / 0-)

          But witch hunts are like that, I suppose.

          The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014.

          by Inland on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 02:54:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  yeah, they made it pretty much legal. so it's (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nada Lemming, DeadHead

        not that the behavior was abhorrent in the first place, it's just that it was illegal...

        sigh....

        "Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are." ~St Augustine "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." ~Charles Beard

        by poligirl on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 10:25:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bingo. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Inland
          yeah, they made it pretty much legal.
          That was my point.

          Although I'm not conceding the legality of meta-data collections.

          But yeah - and especially in the context of Inland's diary - there's a BFD between what the NSA was doing in 2005 and what it is doing today.

           

          Out with the gloomage - in with the plumage!

          by mikidee on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 10:36:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right (0+ / 0-)

            Now it's worth his incessant trolling of the discussions in other people's diaires, whereas before it wasn't.

            In other words, if Bush was president right now, he'd still be trolling everyone's diaries, correct?




            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

            by DeadHead on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 09:57:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Shhhhh...he doesn't know. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mikidee

        He's bought the hype that everything is the same.

        The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014.

        by Inland on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 02:09:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's what I hate about the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Inland

          Sux/Rox commentariat here. IMNSHO, the history behind FISA, as amended, is essential to an intellectually honest discussion of the issues implicated by Snowden's disclosure.

          The hype surrounding Snowden/NSA reminds me of 1990 and the beginning of the Persian Gulf War. I was downtown St. Paul after work in a bar with a large screen teevee tuned to CNN  showing live feed of tracers over Baghdad. A bar regular had the remote and would raise and lower the volume on the teevee apropos of absolutely nothing. When he turned the volume up the crowd hushed and became transfixed by the tracers on the teevee. When he turned the volume down the crowd resumed its bullshit pontificating about "war." AFAIK the drunk with the remote and I were the only vets in the bar ....

          That's how hype operates - it attracts attention to itself apropos of nothing but noise.

          Out with the gloomage - in with the plumage!

          by mikidee on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 03:55:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The purpose of my exchange with Inland... (0+ / 0-)

        Was to try to figure out why he feels all we've learned about the NSA via Snowden is insignificant enough in comparison as to justify his frequent disruption of NSA-related diaries.

        Since you decided to weigh-in, perhaps you can answer that part for him.




        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

        by DeadHead on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 09:52:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  :o !!!!! o. m. g. nice find! nt (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhilJD, Nada Lemming, DeadHead

      "Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are." ~St Augustine "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." ~Charles Beard

      by poligirl on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 08:25:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site