Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

[K. A. Pital]

Of course, that is unless he hates his former employers so much that his principles actually ask for him to do anything to destroy them, which also includes physical destruction of their clandestine networks in other nations. And yes, that means people dying.

However, are those people worth saving? After all, Snowden was in the same boat as they all were; and it is highly possible that many high-ranking CIA operatives do have access to the data mining program and thus were perfectly aware of the creation of the security state - yet they did not do shit to expose it, and continued serving the same agency whose stellar achievements include chemical and biological experimentation on unwitting, unwilling humans, drugging people with LSD and many other fun things that, technically, made the CIA nothing but a more sophisticated branch of Unit 731, minus the megadeath aspect of their activity. Targeted, but inhuman actions, are the norm for the CIA (and it would be no different for any secret service).

Having principles does not necessarily entail protecting CIA agents. Just as when you are fighting a war against the Nazis, you don't necessarily seek to save every single German soldier's life by taking all of them prisoner.

Now you can dissect my argument, of course.

[Zaune]

Stas kind of beat me to it, but my argument was going to be more along the lines of "Omelette, eggs". If the United States conducting covert surveillence of the entire population because terrorism does not set a pretty high threshold for acceptable collateral damage then I'd like to know just what the hell does.

[Simon_Jester]

Of course, that is unless he hates his former employers so much that his principles actually ask for him to do anything to destroy them, which also includes physical destruction of their clandestine networks in other nations. And yes, that means people dying.

However, are those people worth saving?

The people who could be harmed by dropping a list of spy names on Iran are overwhelmingly going to be lower-level individuals who are sincerely trying to support the country, not the security apparatus. Or on foreign agents who may well be spying on the Iranian government out of ideological opposition to their religious fanaticism. Or, hell, are doing it for the money- but Snowden has no call to doom an Iranian to death because that Iranian sold out Iran.

The heartless bastards who sit in offices around Washington might well deserve terrible fates, but they are immune to this kind of action because they don't go out and do footwork in foreign countries likely to arrest and execute them for espionage. Instead, the hammer falls on people who have done little or nothing to create the security state.

Stas kind of beat me to it, but my argument was going to be more along the lines of "Omelette, eggs". If the United States conducting covert surveillence of the entire population because terrorism does not set a pretty high threshold for acceptable collateral damage then I'd like to know just what the hell does.

The problem here is that Zaune-as-Snowden is not proposing to expose US agents in Iran to fight the surveillance state. He's proposing to expose them as revenge if Zaune-as-Snowden comes to harm, to protect his own personal private self.

That only makes sense if Zaune-as-Snowden sees himself as being "at war" with not just the security state, but with the US as a whole... in which case those treason charges would start seeming much more justified.

[Zaune]

True. But maybe if me-as-Snowden caused enough collateral damage in the process of ensuring their own physical safety, and/or out of pure spite, the US might be a little bit hesitant to drop the hammer on the next guy who catches them treating the Constitution as a sort of vague guideline.

I don't like the idea, for what that's worth. But not as much as I dislike the sight of every real left-wing political movement in the Anglosphere being reduced to an object of ridicule because they're more interested in holding the moral high ground than forcing some concessions out of the right.

[The Romulan Republic]

A counterargument to that attitude is that if you don't have the moral high ground you're no better than the other side and if you're no better than the other side, it doesn't matter that much who wins.

[Zaune]

Perhaps. But if the alternative is continuing to stand around in damp tents arguing in circles while the politicians and their financial backers laugh at us, we've already lost.

[The Romulan Republic]

But if we become like the people we are opposing, we've also lost.

[Mr Bean]

But if we become like the people we are opposing, we've also lost.

Losses are temporary in nature as are wins. We have plenty of examples of future generations settling down to rebuild what their murderous barbarian forefathers tore down.

And to Zaune, that does not work. If Snowden could somehow leak the ID of every single CIA agent he could kill thousands and set back our intelligence efforts for decades. And the only thing that would result is a more ruthless and militant America. If he fears the rise of a out of control militaristic America the only thing he would do is increase the out of control nature. And worse from Snowden's perspective, such an act would justify the vast intelligence bureaucracy. How else can we stop the next Snowden if we are not watching everyone?

Every single America would sign on to that idea or be intimidated into silence or irrelevance.

[K. A. Pital]

I never said that strategy is good. I just said if he hates the CIA, he can do whatever he wants and that would not be compromising principles.

[Simon_Jester]

I submit that if he hates the CIA enough to do that, he has no principles to begin with, other than hatred.

[Metahive]

But if we become like the people we are opposing, we've also lost.

O please spare me that chickenshit. You don't negotiate or haggle with a malignant tumor, you cut it out or else it'll do nothing but grow and fester.

I submit that if he hates the CIA enough to do that, he has no principles to begin with, other than hatred.

The CIA is a malevolent force in the world that has brought much pain and suffering over major parts of humanity. Damaging them is therefore a positive action.

[Rogue 9]

I submit that if he hates the CIA enough to do that, he has no principles to begin with, other than hatred.

The CIA is a malevolent force in the world that has brought much pain and suffering over major parts of humanity. Damaging them is therefore a positive action.

There's damaging the CIA and then there's essentially murdering hundreds of field agents to no effect on those actually responsible apart from further motivating them to get you.

[Zaune]

If Snowden could somehow leak the ID of every single CIA agent he could kill thousands and set back our intelligence efforts for decades. And the only thing that would result is a more ruthless and militant America. If he fears the rise of a out of control militaristic America the only thing he would do is increase the out of control nature. And worse from Snowden's perspective, such an act would justify the vast intelligence bureaucracy. How else can we stop the next Snowden if we are not watching everyone?

Every single America would sign on to that idea or be intimidated into silence or irrelevance.

That's a big if, and also not quite what I'm suggesting Snowden should do. That much blackmail material is the kind of weapon that works best if you don't actually use it, but merely keep at a high state of readiness as a deterrent. If I were in his position and had that kind of dirt on the CIA, I'd simply send a dozen copies to a dozen lawyers and have them deposit it somewhere very safe, with instructions to post it to every filesharing and social media website they could think of if I died from anything other than natural causes.

[The Romulan Republic]

Metahive, the people on the other side are human beings, not a tumour, no matter how reprehensible their beliefs and actions are. But I guess when you abandon morality it's easy to treat human beings as something to remove.

I did not say anything about haggling. I don't advocate compromising my principles, unlike you.

We don't have to choose between strength and morality. That is a false dichotomy, and it is used by governments to justify things like spying on everyone.

And you're basically saying that something that causes the deaths of people in the CIA is good. In other words, you've crossed the line from political opponent to advocate of violence and terrorist sympathizer.

Piss off.

[The Romulan Republic]

Losses are temporary in nature as are wins. We have plenty of examples of future generations settling down to rebuild what their murderous barbarian forefathers tore down.

And lots of examples of the victors creating a new brutal regime, which may lead to another conflict, and another brutal regime, and so on.

What's that Terry Pratchett quote? "Don't put your faith in revolutions. They always come round again."?

And even if things are rebuilt, it's only after a lot of horror is inflicted on innocent people.

And somebody still has to take the high road eventually. It might as well be us.

[Thanas]

A counterargument to that attitude is that if you don't have the moral high ground you're no better than the other side and if you're no better than the other side, it doesn't matter that much who wins.

So what is your solution? If Snowden's only chance to escape torture and imprisonment after revealing a blatantly illegal program is to threaten the CIA to stop hunting him else their data gets released, then are you going to demand of him to turn himself in to be tortured and thrown away after a sham trial?

And somebody still has to take the high road eventually. It might as well be us.

What do you mean by that?

[The Romulan Republic]

I mean that if we're ever going to have a decent world, people are going to have to do what is right rather than scrapping morality to achieve a hollow victory.

And I actually wouldn't object to Snowden using blackmail to protect himself if necessary. I would, however, object to him releasing data to endanger lives to hurt the CIA.

[Thanas]

I mean that if we're ever going to have a decent world, people are going to have to do what is right rather than scrapping morality to achieve a hollow victory.

It is kinda funny that you want people to do so now but defend Obama as the lesser if not necessary evil at every instance. Wouldn't it be right to oppose him instead of voting for him, in order to not scrap morality to achieve the hollow victory of him not being the GOP?

And I actually wouldn't object to Snowden using blackmail to protect himself if necessary. I would, however, object to him releasing data to endanger lives to hurt the CIA.

If you are suggesting that he releases data for shits and gigles then I very much would like to see evidence for that.

[The Romulan Republic]

Are you retarded Thanas, or are you dishonest? I was obviously not suggesting that he is doing that. I was responding to the topic of hypothetically releasing information to hurt the CIA that others have been discussing. Read the fucking thread, ass hat.

And I am not defending Obama's actions in this case. I think the spying is excessive and dangerous, as is charging Snowden with espionage. I do not always defend Obama. I defended him when I thought he was being misrepresented, and I voted for him on the grounds that he was the best candidate who stood a chance of winning. That said, in light of recent events, I wouldn't be particularly sorry if he was impeached, except that Biden is probably just as much of a bastard.

[Simon_Jester]

[quote="Simon_Jester]I submit that if he hates the CIA enough to do that, he has no principles to begin with, other than hatred.

The CIA is a malevolent force in the world that has brought much pain and suffering over major parts of humanity. Damaging them is therefore a positive action.[/quote]Define "damaging the CIA."

Outing a CIA agent who's reporting on the Iranian nuclear program will not do a damn thing to make the CIA less pernicious. It will not prevent the CIA from trying to do terrible things. It will not stop drone strikes, torture, or anything of the sort.

All it will do is kill that person (who may not even be an American, let alone one with authority over American policy) and inconvenience US efforts to keep tabs on Iran- which is one of the relatively few countries in the world that is genuinely hostile toward its neighbors and actively a threat to other nations.

The CIA is not an army which can be defeated by killing off its low-level 'soldiers.'

That's a big if, and also not quite what I'm suggesting Snowden should do. That much blackmail material is the kind of weapon that works best if you don't actually use it, but merely keep at a high state of readiness as a deterrent. If I were in his position and had that kind of dirt on the CIA, I'd simply send a dozen copies to a dozen lawyers and have them deposit it somewhere very safe, with instructions to post it to every filesharing and social media website they could think of if I died from anything other than natural causes.

[/quote]The problem with that is that making it known that you have such a deterrent immediately makes you an imminent threat. Who knows? You might change your mind and decide to release it because you're in a bad mood that day.

And at the same time, as noted, it makes it an immediate, urgent problem for the federal government to track down the copies. If they contain information that could kill hundreds of people, government agents might be after you even if they are good people themselves. Let alone if they are actually evil assholes who you're trying to keep intimidated by this.

If you really want blackmail material, you need things that are harmful to members of the security state- say, information suggesting a scandal in American politics that would directly affect the personal reputation of prominent politicians. But that do not cause harm that arguably does justifies a massive federal manhunt for all your associates like "this could kill hundreds and leave Iran free to develop nuclear weapons without us being able to stop them."

[Thanas]

Are you retarded Thanas, or are you dishonest? I was obviously not suggesting that he is doing that. I was responding to the topic of hypothetically releasing information to hurt the CIA that others have been discussing. Read the fucking thread, ass hat.

First, take a chill pill.

Second, your statement is pretty contradictory:

And I actually wouldn't object to Snowden using blackmail to protect himself if necessary. I would, however, object to him releasing data to endanger lives to hurt the CIA.

So...you support him blackmailing, but you don't support him going through with the threat?

[Metahive]

Metahive, the people on the other side are human beings, not a tumour, no matter how reprehensible their beliefs and actions are. But I guess when you abandon morality it's easy to treat human beings as something to remove.

Who says I abandoned morality? Maybe it's that I consider CIA operatives to be an evil big enough to be opposed with extreme measures? It's awfully arrogant of you to think that your morality is the only valid one.

I did not say anything about haggling. I don't advocate compromising my principles, unlike you.

The CIA murders people and destabilizes other countries resulting in mass-death and suffering in the name of american hegemony. It's good to know that this is A-OK with your principles which convinces me that your principles are in dire need of refinement to say it lightly.

And you're basically saying that something that causes the deaths of people in the CIA is good. In other words, you've crossed the line from political opponent to advocate of violence and terrorist sympathizer.

Riddle me this, o principled one, why should I care about the deaths of a people serving an organization that not only has monstrous crimes on its conscious but is poised to repeat the same crimes in the future? Are you discounting all the pain and suffering the CIA left in its wake simply because most of its victims were non-white people in third world countries?

I could take all your half-baked arguments and slap them on the Nazi Einsatzgruppen. In fact, why don't you tell me how they'd fit into your moral scheme?

[K. A. Pital]

The manhunt is on anyway. They will have him, dead or alive, and then if they have him, he'll be subjected to inhuman and cruel punishment, unless they just fly him to Syria-Lybia-godknowswhere and torture him to death.

He will love the Big Brother, in the end.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't know; I think you're overstating the ability of the US to grab a fugitive from another country, when that other country has no reason to cooperate.

The US is not going to work as hard to find Snowden as it did to find Osama bin Laden. Snowden isn't going to be as good at hiding, but I suspect the lack of search effort will cancel that out.

[Mr Bean]

The US is not going to work as hard to find Snowden as it did to find Osama bin Laden. Snowden isn't going to be as good at hiding, but I suspect the lack of search effort will cancel that out.

So they are going to try real hard for six months then give up for ten years?