Democracy dies when ONE individual thinks he knows what's best for us all

[maxrandb]

like Mr. Snowden.

In a Democracy, neither you, or I, or Edward Snowden gets to decide what's classified and vital to National Security. We all influence that by sending the folks we elect to Congress and the White House. We decide that by living under a system of checks and balances, that although imperfect, has worked pretty damn well for over 200 years.

What you have if you support someone like Snowden, or, taking him out of the picture, ANYONE placed in a position of trust that decides to circumvent the correct procedures for dealing with sensitive info....is ANARCHY. It's not liberalism, republicanism, libertarianism, or democracy...it's ANARCHY.

If Snowden thought this info was so important to the public, he could have...and should have, used the procedures taught to every security professional. You go to the IG. You go to Congressional Staff. You go to your companies, or the governments TS Control Officer. Hell you could even go to any number of law enforcement officials like NCIS, DIS, etc.

What you don't do is illegally copy classified information and pass it to the foreign press, or share it with the Chinese News Agency! That's even worse than anarchy...that's treason!

What if every person with a security clearance took it upon themselves to decide "what's best for all of us"? What if your doctor, lawyer, banker, video store clerk, accountant, or ANYONE in a position of trust decided "what's best for us all"?

That's the crux of this entire thing. It makes no matter whether you, or I, or ANY INDIVIDUAL thinks classified info should be released to the public...it's not our right to decide "what's best for all". That's why we have a Democracy.

[Octafish]

1. Like when a president thinks it's OK for him to sick a drone on a 16-year-old citizen without trial?

Right? One guy thinking what's best for us all?

[stevenleser]

14. Even that situation is not done in a vacuum. There is congressional permission involved. nt

[Octafish]

31. No. He and the CIA guy got a Kill List. No Congress at all.

Executive Action Action kind of thing.

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/07

[MNBrewer]

62. How do you figure?

[treestar]

20. that's not alike

because the President is elected to be commander-in-chief.

It's funny the left wants him to be a dictator when it comes to health care but doesn't like his having any power as CIC.

[Hydra]

27. Oh, so the CiC can murder an american kid

Just because? And that's supposed to be OK?

[stevenleser]

29. No, not just because. But you already knew that. nt

[Hydra]

33. Oh, and what was the justification for droning him without trial?

I'm sure he was an -immanent- threat to our national security.

[stevenleser]

34. Do we have to do this again? You know the answers I am going to give, and I know your responses. nt

[Hydra]

35. No, I honestly don't know what the justification to break the law was that time

I'm losing track of the dialogue from the WH because it's not particularly convincing- we're back to killing the "Number 2 Al-Qaeda" after breaking the habit from the Bush admin for a bit.

[stevenleser]

36. I'll link to one of the many other discussions exactly like this one I have had with folks. nt

[Hydra]

37. By all means- I'll be happy to see what could possibly justify blowing an American kid to pieces

Without even requiring a jury of his peers. A week after blowing his father to pieces for speaking.

[treestar]

45. Everyone in Dresden and Hiroshima deserved a trial first too

You've illustrated the problem with the emotional left. Or proven the freepers right about the left. This is the type example they use to make us all look like idiots.

[Monkie]

49. so 2 of the worst mass murders of WWII are your justification?

although those were during a real war 70 odd years ago, not a "war" against terror that does not exists.
you know, the fact that im more likely to drown in my bathtub than be killed by a "terrorist", and always have.

but i guess its your god given right to kill anyone you dont like because you are a american?
who needs laws, international laws, until someone does the same to you and you cry about it.

[treestar]

51. Wow that's really proving my point

You would have demanded a full American trial for every person in Hiroshima and are now trying to dodge that by putting words in my mouth.

I may as well say what you most resent is that those terrorists didn't get to kill themselves in killing some of us. That would be the equivalent of the words you put in my mouth.

Which is what the right wing wants. They get to show the left is irrational and even sides with the terrorists.

[Monkie]

53. whats the point of calling yourself left wing if you love to goosestep?

if there is no difference between you and the right wing what is the point?
i might as well just vote for right wingers instead of pretend liberals and pretend democrats.

and what terrorists?
i am more likely to drown in the bath than die from a terrorist attack.
if im not killed crossing the road.

i dont demand a full trail for everyone at hiroshima, i demand that the US stop breaking international law by killing civilians in a foreign country.
its not hard, nobody hates americans for their freedom, they hate them because they kill their children.

[treestar]

54. goose step is what you are demanding

Since I cannot even question the conclusion that every person on foreign soil planning terrorism should have a full American trial before we attack them. Once you claim the US is "killing children" you will not allow for any argument before slapping names on a person.

I would assume you believe Osama bin Laden should have had a trial, too?

And what is the difference? Why was Hiroshima OK? Where is the line drawn? Not just where you want it, but with objective standards.

[Monkie]

55. the line exists, its called international law, nuremberg principles etc.

Right wingers americans, republicans, decided they had a god given right to ignore these laws.
just think how many american lives would of been spared if you DID put Osama on trail.
just think how many lives would of been spared if you had given the taliban time to hand him over, and promised a fair trail.
just think...
international law and the nuremberg principles ARE the objective standards agreed after the mass murder of millions of innocent people of jewish decent.
but 3000 americans are worth more than the millions of jewish people that were starved to death slowly in camps...

[treestar]

56. Why do you conclude the US automatically violated all those laws

without even considering them. You just throw out Nurembuerg and international law. Way too general. International law is also a body of law. It is not interpreted by a person saying they don't like a thing and therefore it must violate international law. Whether the drone strikes violate international law is a question you have not begun to consider. To do that, you'd have to look up some things about international law. Horrors could occur as you might find the issue not so simple.

[Monkie]

63. you asked me where the line was, the line where goose stepping begins and democracy ends

and you want to fudge it.
for every "suspected" terrorist killed by drones it is estimated 50 other people die.
your generals designate every adult male in the area of the strike a potential terrorist.
does that not remind you of a man with a funny mustache that loved to goose step?

do you really want me to find the legal scholars who detail why it is against international law?
the UN has investigated, it breaches the integrity of the pakistani state against their will, a violation of territory.
these are war crimes, crimes against peace, do you really want me to dig up the3 statures for you?

you cheerlead for dronestrikes, you own the baby killing, they are on you.

[Monkie]

50. nice to see your true colours shine

[treestar]

44. Now that's disingenuous, illogical and a representative of several fallacies wrapped up in one.

And fails to address the point I made.

[Octafish]

32. President has authority as detailed in the Constitution and federal law.

No where does it say he can kill who he wants.

BTW: I'm proud to be a Leftist and a Liberal. That's the kind of person who founded the country and fought to keep it free.

[treestar]

46. It says he is commander in chief and

he is in charge of foreign policy with some checks and balances. That's not "killing who he wants." Talk about an inability to rationally discuss a subject. If we treated you the way you treat us we'd say you didn't care if terrorists struck the US. In fact it sounds like you want them to. Odds are it'll be someone else who actually suffers, right? Then you can wallow in how the US brought it on themselves.

Also did not address the point about the demands on health care and other legislation.

[Octafish]

57. Splendidly asinine post.

Lots of righteous indignation and demands for compliance with unconstitutional bullshit, too. You should write a sitcom, such an imagination. They're looking for talent with the ability to entertain and divert. Let me know if you need a reference.

[treestar]

58. You still haven't answered the issue

of why the POTUS should have so much domestic power but none on foreign policy. That was a pretty good post, the ones that is asinine is yours, demanding that the constitutionality of a thing be up to you and you alone.

[Luminous Animal]

39. He wasn't elected to be commander-in-chief. I'm not in the military; he's not my commander.

overcompensating to be President of a civilian population with the responsibility of Commander-in-Chief of the MILITARY during war.

[treestar]

47. Well in that case you have nothing to do with drone attacks or anything else the military does

And you didn't answer about your demands for health care.

[Cha]

40. Of course, it's different, treestar. But, to deflect from

the validity of the OP.. they have to try to ursurp the conversation with President Obama, who was Legally Elected CIC, doing completely different.

I might listen to them if they weren't so damn disingenuous.

[treestar]

48. They can call us bots Cha

And then fail to consider that looking at their posts vs. what the President said about it, the President gave his reasons and was logical. And they wonder why that's more persuasive than their rants!

[Cha]

60. Exactly, treestar. nm

[Drale]

2. The only groudbreaking information that Snowden released

and he didn't it unintentionally, is that the NSA allows people like Snowden access to classified information. He's not a hero for transparency, he's a borderline tea bagger who release information that everyone already knew about, only because he thought it would hurt the President and the Federal Government. I'm "bashing" him but he's not important and the information that he released is not the real story. The real story is that a high school drop out was able to get access to so called classified information.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. It was known? Truly

You swear...methinks you should ask then to members of congress why this is a surprise.

[timdog44]

15. Not being argumentative

but members of congress "acting" surprised makes is look better to their constituency. When in actuality it makes them look like they are not doing their jobs and protecting us from this kind of thing, meaning the espionage.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Loretta Sanchez and wyden did not

Now, Pelosi did. We pressured her. So you are partially right

[Drale]

16. I hope your joking

Congress wouldn't know the Capital Building burned down till 6 months after it happened.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. I am not joking

You might want to ask then why General Alexander thinks this is such a big fucking deal, as well as DNI Clapper.

We have known some of these things, but not this granular. Not at all.

[HiPointDem]

3. oh for god's sake. most of michigan is being run by fucking dictators, why don't you get outraged

about THAT if you're worried about democracy dying?

'EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT'

Not to mention the control of big money over the entire electoral process and nearly all sources of public information.

what a hypocritical disingenuous OP.

[Fumesucker]

12. +1

[liberal_at_heart]

4. A rubber stamp court allowing the government to violate the 4th Amendment is our business.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. LOL. Kinda like a snitch going through prioper Mafia channels.

See Daniel Ellsberg and the NSA attempts to cover up the 2nd Tonkin Gulf Incident for how well your advice to trust the bosses works.

[treestar]

21. So you just equated the government with the Mafia

Some of us are not that deranged.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Only some parts of the government.

I'm kinda fond of the postal service.

[sibelian]

6. That sounded good in your head, didn't it?

Did you attempt any criticism of it before posting it?

[maxrandb]

8. Actually it makes perfect sense

Last edited Sat Jun 15, 2013, 05:52 PM - Edit history (1)

if you live in a reality based world. If however, you live in a paranoid delusional worl.....

Umm wait...I think I understand why my post went over your head.

Never mind!

[Laelth]

7. Well, here he is.

This is the powerful man who thinks he knows what's best for us (and, I am not criticizing him in any way--he seems to have done his job well). He's retiring next year: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/general-keith-alexander-cyberwar/all/

-Laelth

[maxrandb]

9. Nice Strawman

but even General Alexander is subject to our Constitution. Please don't put words in his mouth by saying he "thinks he knows what's best of us".

You have no idea how the classification of material is adjudicated. Most folks on DU must think that there is some mysterious man behind the curtain who gets to just "willy-nilly" stamp stuff "Top Secret" or "Unclassified".

Do you know why there are so many people with security clearances? It's because classifiying, unclassifying and protecting classified material is a "team" effort.

There's no magic person who just decides; "well, I'll hide this from the American people". Every decision to classify something is based on Security Classification Guides, and if you try to classify something and can't back it up with valid security standards, you can go to jail.

BTW-you will also go to jail if you "copy and release" classified material. That's why all the petitions in the world, and the gnashing of teeth from some on DU will not save Mr. Snowden.

Again, I'm not saying that the NSA Program is a "good" or a "bad" thing. I'm just saying there is a process to bring it to light and subject it to scrutiny, and THEN THERE IS TREASON

I guess you know what side I'm on.

[Laelth]

13. Honestly, I have no idea what "side" you are on.

And I have no interest in discussing this matter further.

Have a nice day.

-Laelth

[noise]

19. Why would you trust the classification procedures?

These procedures have been abused as classification is being utilized to conceal corruption. This is what happened with NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake. He was investigated and charged by the DOJ even though he leaked no classified info. His crime was to tell a reporter about corrupt contractor practices in regard to a program called Trailblazer. The government also retaliated against NSA whistleblower William Binney who explained how the NSA could have easily protected privacy of US citizens but chose not to.

Nation of Secrets: The Threat to Democracy and the American Way of Life by Ted Gup. This book explains how over classification has been the trend after 9/11. There is also classification after the fact whereby previously declassified documents are classified.

A Culture of Secrecy: The Government Versus the People's Right to Know by Athan Theoharis. This book explains how difficult it can be to get info on national security issues. The government has broad power to keep records classified. And this book was written before 9/11.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. It dies when a political class builds the tools of a total state

For your own good. All those votes in the face of the public opposition make sense now...truly nothing to fear from us.

[markiv]

22. no, it dies when people like you defend a police state nt

[treestar]

23. It's amazing how the critics here complain that Congress has any role - other than

having their arms twisted by an all powerful President with a "spine." Then when it comes to national security, the President having any power at all is "frightening."

The reverse of right wingers who want government to have no say in regulating the economy but would give it all power for fighting crime and foreign threats.

Trying to find the right balance gets a person called names by all sides.

[Luminous Animal]

24. He gave us information to help us decide what is best for us. You can't come to

that decision when you are only fed info from those who hold power.

[warrior1]

26. Well said nice essay

[RetroLounge]

28. You were obviously born after Watergate

RL

[WillyT]

30. No... Democracy Dies When We Continue On With The Bullshit Paternalistic Thinking...

That goes something like, "If you knew what we know, you would just let us do our jobs."

Problem is... WE DON'T TRUST YOU ANY LONGER.

And there is too much evidence that supports a different scenario, that has little to do with the people of the United States and their security and welfare.

[neverforget]

38. democracy in the US will die from a thousand

cuts because Americans aren't paying attention.

[Cha]

41. Excellent OP, maxrandb

Leaker Snowden took it upon his libertarian self to be the Dictator.

What you don't do is illegally copy classified information and pass it to the foreign press, or share it with the Chinese News Agency! That's even worse than anarchy...that's treason!

[Morning Dew]

42. I thought I heard this was all "old news" -

that we knew about this years ago.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/09/business/la-fi-court-wiretapping-20121010

U.S. Supreme Court ends suit against telecom firms for aiding NSA


Justices refuse to hear the case against the nation's telecommunications carriers for helping the National Security Agency monitor calls and email.

October 09, 2012|By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times









WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has ended a 6-year-old class-action lawsuit against the nation's telecommunications carriers for secretly helping the National Security Agency monitor phone calls and emails coming into and out of this country.

The suit was dealt a death blow in 2008 when Congress granted retroactive immunity to people or companies aiding U.S. intelligence agents.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/22/nation/na-wiretap22

Attorneys lock horns in phone privacy case

The Nation


Lawyers argue that federal attempts to block investigations overstep security act.

June 22, 2007|Henry Weinstein | Times Staff Writer









SAN FRANCISCO — A Justice Department attorney sparred with lawyers for five states in federal court here Thursday over the Bush administration's attempt to block states from investigating whether phone companies illegally shared customer information with the National Security Agency.

The case stems from a newspaper report published last year alleging that AT&T and Verizon had cooperated with the government on its Terrorist Surveillance Program. That program has spawned several major court cases because of allegations that the U.S. engaged in secret wiretapping of individuals without seeking warrants.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/22/business/fi-att22

Judge May Deny Bid to End NSA Suit

California and the West


The federal government has claimed `state secrets privilege' in seeking the dismissal of a rights group's domestic spying case against AT&T.

June 22, 2006|Joseph Menn | Times Staff Writer









SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge weighing one of the first lawsuits against the National Security Agency's domestic spying efforts has asked the government how the case should proceed if he refuses authorities' request to dismiss it.

The series of questions U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker published Tuesday implied that he was reluctant to grant the government motion to end the case under the "state secrets privilege," a powerful argument that usually succeeds in quashing litigation.

[mick063]

43. Spare me the "Democracy dies" bullshit

We all know that we bow to corporate owners.

Take your gerrymandering, voter ID, Citizens United, ALEC, right to work, pepper spray, federalized police, "too big to prosecute", filibustering, privatized, citizen spying "Democracy" lecture to some dumb shit willing to believe that one guy is putting our "Democracy" at risk.

You have anarchy concerns? Have you looked at the arms race for bullets between the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Doomsday "Patriots"? Are you shitting me?

This Snowden dude is shaking things up. Good for him.

[gulliver]

52. Well put.

None of the actual democratically elected folks pulled a Snowden.

[Overseas]

59. Democracy died somewhat when we did not impeach Bush and Cheney

When Democratic leaders decided impeachment would be too traumatic for the American people, just as Republicans hoped they would when they held impeachment hearings on the last Democratic president. They wanted to make impeachment seem too messy and disturbing to try again.

Even after Bush and Cheney started a war on false pretenses and authorized torture, our leaders did not impeach them.

That is when Democracy died some more.

And before that, when Bush was selected as our president. Democracy died some then too.

[MNBrewer]

61. Bull crap!

[kentuck]

64. Perhaps when that one person is a president or leader in a country.

One person can classify and one person can expose. It depends on which side you choose to look from.

[maxrandb]

65. That's an impossibility

for that "One" President scenario to be possible, you'd have to believe that hundreds of Congress members and their staff (many from the opposition party), thousands of military officers and enlisted (many apolitical, or from an opposite political spectrum), tens of thousands of security personnel (as varied as anarchist lefty to knuckle-dragging T-Bagger) would allow that one President or leader to get away with it.

Despite what some on DU seem to think, we are not Communist Russia.