111–120 of 125 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine a country where you have zero power to elect officials and have no constitution, so you could never have oversight over it. Oh wait, that’s the system (via China/Russia) that our intelligence agencies are helping protect us against.
PRC and Russia both have constitutions...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you understand these programs they have... they do a meta-analysis of huge amounts of data. So while they use your data, there isn’t somebody personally looking at your data. Whereas China/Russia has people tracking dissidents etc. Not even in the same realm. Im saying give a more nuanced legal approach so we can defend ourselves.
> Whereas China/Russia has people tracking dissidents etc. If you think the USA doesn't track dissidents you've been walking around with your eyes and ears shut.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok so we have to play by the rules to the absolute T. But our adversaries like China/Russia can play dirty and anyway they want, because you say justice is absolute and black and white. Great.
It seems that you’re implying that allowing intelligence agencies unlimited discretion in spying on their own populations is necessary in order to “win” against hostile foreign powers. This seems like a fairly extraordinary claim that you haven’t backed with either evidence or logic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok so we have to play by the rules to the absolute T. But our adversaries like China/Russia can play dirty and anyway they want, because you say justice is absolute and black and white. Great.
If these rules are not followed, then what is the difference between us, Russia, and others? The amount of propaganda coming from Washington?
If you want to die on the hill of a subjective concept of morality, fine. But I don’t and I don’t think most do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah .. but we (I'm Danish by citizenship) don't apologize because our newspaper prints satirical drawings of some prophet. The threat model is different. No terrorist attacks of serious kind were performed as of yet but plans were found for terrorist attacks in Copenhagen. Something akin to what happened in Germany. The threat seem real.
Did the police have to break the law to stop those attacks? Because the question is not if a country should have a counterintelligence service, but what legal tools it should be given, whether it should be under judicial control when using them, and how to control it so that it does not abuse the powers (both legal and physical) it is given.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If these rules are not followed, then what is the difference between us, Russia, and others? The amount of propaganda coming from Washington?
The rules are too strict. Have reasonable rules. Otherwise enemies exploit your Achilles heel. If you want to die on the hill of a subjective concept of morality, fine. But I don’t and I don’t think most do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PRC and Russia both have constitutions...
And they’re both worth the paper they’re written on, esp PRC. It’s basically a secretive ruling cabal.
My suggestion is that it's better to focus on the myths and failings of your own government, as they directly affect you.
I applaud the Danish Government and I wish other countries politicians would have the courage to respect the origins of their mandate to govern. And before this descends in to ‘what-about-isms’ I can name at least 5 countries whose over-sight bodies should pay attention. "The fact that the head of the Danish Military Intelligence Service is a willing participant in circumventing the agency tasked with holding his own…
Military Intelligence goes back to doing whatever they like with a shared understanding from those in power (yet not expressed as such).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...Russia...China... Wow their military must be much smarter than ours. Or perhaps they are held responsible for their performance? ...US budget is bloated because of these corrupt fat cat defense industry companies, huge waste, etc... So... does all of this argue for more or less civilian oversight?
Lol who holds them responsible? Not civilians, I can assure you. They’re just more nimble because they’re top-down leadership. Not as good at expressing the people’s will, but more nimble at implementing autocratic decisions.