Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

mcclatchydc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 226 posts

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#41

Post by senjmccarthy »

fixxer wrote: post #36
crististm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I see now as US is a very different place from the one I imagined only 20 years ago. In this very short time span it went from THE place to go to in terms of Freedom to "are you nuts? - it's communist Russia in disguise". I've heard there are "no-fly" secret lists which you can't challenge because, you know, they are secret. That can't be true, right? grin

They are just trying to keep us safe. ;) Personally, I'd rather be vulnerable to a few nuts than vulnerable to the system.

Amen.

Especially when the system is itself nuts and many of those who prop it up are nuts.

"Freedom", by my definition, is thinking from a place of 1. personal responsibility and 2. let's fix the problem, not from one of 1. "I am a victim, or a potential one. Protect me." or 2. "There has been an accident. Who is to blame? Find who is guilty and make them pay."

But I guess many Americans continue to believe they are the most free of all the world's citizens.

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#42

Post by bobwaycott »

hga wrote: post #35
crististm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I see now as US is a very different place from the one I imagined only 20 years ago. In this very short time span it went from THE place to go to in terms of Freedom to "are you nuts? - it's communist Russia in disguise". I've heard there are "no-fly" secret lists which you can't challenge because, you know, they are secret. That can't be true, right? grin

You can challenge them, e.g. ask the TSA or whomever to reconsider, but you won't be told why your name was put on it ... which is not at all insane if you think about it. The existence of the list(s), and their many false positives, e.g. the late Senator Teddy Kennedy, is no secret at all, just their contents and methods.

Not being told why your name is on a secret no-fly list is insane if you think about it. Either sufficient evidence of criminal activity exists--at which point the accused has protected rights to know the charges and confront the accusers thanks to the 6th Amendment--or sufficient evidence of criminal activity does not exist and the person should not be on a no-fly list.

That is not even including the insanity or illegality of having a no-fly list to begin with.

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#43

Post by hga »

spitx wrote: post #17

This is Bill Clinton speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative - whose spouse, from all accounts, will most likely be running for the office of President in 2016 - on NSA Security Leaks and Snowden. "They (NSA) have prevented a very large number of harmful actions" "I don't see any alternative to trying to track all these groups around the world who are trying to wreck the ordinary operations of life in America and p…

Clinton is the same guy who tried to press us into using key-escrowed encryption systems like the Clipper Chip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip) and his IRS was notorious for auditing anyone who committed personal, in your face lèse-majesté. You mention his wife, she of the "vast, right wing conspiracy"; these are not people who've ever been good on these subjects. For that matter, not that it wasn't largely bipartisan to begin with, but the reason the PATRIOT Act passed so quickly in such detail was it was a wish list left over from Clinton's administration, where it had been pushed without success.

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#44

Post by dfc »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #2

A bit off-topic, but related: there's also a huge increase in the number of federal agencies who are outfitting their own SWAT teams. (This type of service, if really needed, could be delivered by the FBI or local law enforcement) SWAT teams traditionally have been there to diffuse potentially violent confrontations -- to reduce violence. But in the last decade or so [correction: three decades], we've seen a change i…

As far as the DoE goes I pretty sure NNSA contracts out the majority of their security positions. I think this is a somewhat recent development because I think they used to have a highly respected security force. Who would you prefer to have guarding DoE nuclear sites?

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#45

Post by Sven7 »

mtgx wrote: post #37
venomsnake wrote: post #28

This was common in Eastern Europe and USSR during the purges - they were "Enemies with a Party Ticket". It is disturbing how easily this rhetoric comes.

While I could understand why the vast majority of the government is in favor of this, or why the mainstream media is with the government, too, however disappointing that may be, what is most saddening is that there are a lot of people out there who agree with them, too, maybe not the majority but even 40% would be a very scary number. Even in the most ruthless dictatorships there were a lot of normal people who suppo…

And how do you plan to stop the next terror attack?

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#46

Post by hga »

bobwaycott wrote: post #42
hga wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can challenge them, e.g. ask the TSA or whomever to reconsider, but you won't be told why your name was put on it ... which is not at all insane if you think about it. The existence of the list(s), and their many false positives, e.g. the late Senator Teddy Kennedy, is no secret at all, just their contents and methods.

Not being told why your name is on a secret no-fly list is insane if you think about it. Either sufficient evidence of criminal activity exists--at which point the accused has protected rights to know the charges and confront the accusers thanks to the 6th Amendment--or sufficient evidence of criminal activity does not exist and the person should not be on a no-fly list. That is not even including the insanity or ill…

I mean the purpose of the list will be defeated if the methods by which it was created are disclosed. Which says nothing about the desirably of such a list or this use of it. (For that matter, the gun grabbers keep campaigning to deny gun ownership to anyone on it, can't have guns in "terrorist hands"....)

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#47

Post by bobwaycott »

hga wrote: post #46
bobwaycott wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being told why your name is on a secret no-fly list is insane if you think about it. Either sufficient evidence of criminal activity exists--at which point the accused has protected rights to know the charges and confront the accusers thanks to the 6th Amendment--or sufficient evidence of criminal activity does not exist and the person should not be on a no-fly list. That is not even including the insanity or ill…

I mean the purpose of the list will be defeated if the methods by which it was created are disclosed. Which says nothing about the desirably of such a list or this use of it. (For that matter, the gun grabbers keep campaigning to deny gun ownership to anyone on it, can't have guns in "terrorist hands"....)

Ah, gotcha. It certainly didn't parse that way.

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#48

Post by hga »

dfc wrote: post #44
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #2

A bit off-topic, but related: there's also a huge increase in the number of federal agencies who are outfitting their own SWAT teams. (This type of service, if really needed, could be delivered by the FBI or local law enforcement) SWAT teams traditionally have been there to diffuse potentially violent confrontations -- to reduce violence. But in the last decade or so [correction: three decades], we've seen a change i…

As far as the DoE goes I pretty sure NNSA contracts out the majority of their security positions. I think this is a somewhat recent development because I think they used to have a highly respected security force. Who would you prefer to have guarding DoE nuclear sites?

That's by definition a paramilitary, but they aren't SWAT teams, e.g. their formal rules of engagement are very different.

For that matter, informal, I doubt they get off on killing dogs (if you don't know about that, search on swat puppycide, Radley Balko has written a lot on it).

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#49

Post by hga »

bobwaycott wrote: post #47
hga wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the purpose of the list will be defeated if the methods by which it was created are disclosed. Which says nothing about the desirably of such a list or this use of it. (For that matter, the gun grabbers keep campaigning to deny gun ownership to anyone on it, can't have guns in "terrorist hands"....)

Ah, gotcha. It certainly didn't parse that way.

Yeah, I guess it isn't clear, when I say "if you think about it" that generally includes "put yourself in the shoes of the people doing this".

Re: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

#50

Post by mpyne »

mtgx wrote: post #32
mpyne wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By all means, let's do that.

It would help if they wouldn't keep the guy leaking that sort of info in prison for 3 years without a charge, like he was some kind of terrorist.

Who is this referring to? It's certainly not Manning, whose trial is currently ongoing (and leaked much, much more than "bad things USA did" besides).
Post reply on HN