Breaking per MSNBC: President Obama Has Commuted Chelsea Manning's Sentence

[PeterMP]

9 minutes ago, Larry said:

Call me silly, but I'm kinda under the impression that I have the right to make a phone call without AT&T notifying the federal government that I've made a phone call, who it was to, and the exact location where I, and the other party, were, at the time, based on no probable cause higher than "we might want that information, somewhere down the road". 

 

 

Are you under the impression you can make a phone call with AT&T selling that information to some other organization (e.g. Target)?

Does it matter if the organization is the government or Target?

 

(Just playing Devil's advocate here.)

 

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/16/technology/mobile/wireless-carrier-sell-data/

 

http://adage.com/article/datadriven-marketing/24-billion-data-business-telcos-discuss/301058/

[tshile]

Just now, Larry said:

 

But I suspect that you and I have very different opinions as to "without violating the rights of US citizens and extracting meaningful information".  

 

Call me silly, but I'm kinda under the impression that I have the right to make a phone call without AT&T notifying the federal government that I've made a phone call, who it was to, and the exact location where I, and the other party, were, at the time, based on no probable cause higher than "we might want that information, somewhere down the road".  

 

 

If the system captured the data, determined you and the number dialed weren't in any database of known associates to terrorist organizations, and instantly dropped all information related to the call, would that be violating your rights?

 

I'd be willing to be OK with that. I can see an argument against it, but I'm cool with it.

 

That's also what they they like to say they're doing, then we find out they're not doing. Trusting them to stick to those rules means trusting the people we know lie to us and fight very hard to keep as much secret as possible.

 

They're willing to send their director to testify in congress and lie under oath on their behalf.
 

"Not wittingly"

 

"The least untruthful thing I could say"

 

Which sounds potentially reassuring until you read the report about NSA employees using the system to spy on their spouses (and former spouses.)

[Larry]

23 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

If the system captured the data, determined you and the number dialed weren't in any database of known associates to terrorist organizations, and instantly dropped all information related to the call, would that be violating your rights?

 

We're getting off topic, but I'll try to summarize my position on the subject.  

 

I firmly believe that the system the Framers wanted to have in place was:  

 

1)  A crime has been committed.  

2)  They think they know who did it.  At least, they think he probably did it.  

3)  They go to a judge, 

4)  The judge rules that yes, they're right, that's enough evidence to conclude that he's probably guilty.  

5)  They get a warrant, specifying in detail exactly what kind of search they're permitted to perform.  

6)  They perform the search.  

 

Whereas, it's pretty clear that what we've got is:  

 

1)  A crime hasn't been committed, but the odds are good that there will be one, some day, some where.  

2)  When that hypothetical future crime happens, it might be useful if the government has the ability to travel back in time, and look at things that happened before the crime happened, anywhere close to the crime, and anything that might be related to something that might be related to something that might have been in the neighborhood where the crime would eventually be committed.  

3)  Therefore, we want to just go ahead and collect everything, on everybody, just in case we decide that we want it, later.  

 

Now, I'm will aware that the constitution has stretched in some ways, over the years.  But this seems like a whole lot more than a stretch.  

 

However, I also observe that the Framers weren't thinking of a world in which a single individual can destroy Boston with his carry on luggage.  

 

I think that the modern world actually does need government powers other than those the Framers designed.  including the power to do at least some things, before a "crime" happens.  

 

The solution I've proposed is:  

 

Agencies like the FBI, EPA, ATF, are classified as "law enforcement agencies".  They're required to follow the constitutional restrictions.  

 

Agencies like CIA and NSA are classified as "national security agencies".  They are empowered to perform any kinds of search or surveilance they want, subject only to their own policies or priorities.  But, they are not permitted to do anything with their information, unless that have (my proposed language) "probable cause of an imminent attack, on US soil, (not "US interests".  Too broad.) of military or paramilitary scale."  

 

The NSA is empowered to monitor any Internet traffic they want.  Maybe they will be limited by Congress, or by their budget.  Maybe they'll have to pick and choose, to prioritize their targets.  But there's no warrants or things like that required.  

 

If the NSA finds two people exchanging encrypted email, then they're allowed to record it, to crack it, to analyze it any way they feel like.  Build any kinds of database or linkages or data mining they want.  

 

If the email turns out to be one of Saddam's nuclear scientists, offering to tell al Qaeda where Saddam hid the nukes, then the CIA is empowered to send Mr. Clark (Tom Clancey reference) to make both of them disappear.  

 

If it's two guys swapping kiddie porn, then they can do nothing.  Not even an anonymous phone call to the county sheriff that maybe he should check out this guy.  

 

 

---

 

To me, that's the right balance between protecting the public, and the constitutional right to privacy.  

 

[tshile]

yeah parallel reconstruction is where it all gets really, really wonky.

[Popeman38]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

 

I'm not watching that video because I know there's nothing in it for me to learn and there's a high chance they exaggerated things, and yes the use of the word EVERY is incorrect.

 

But you might want to tone it down a bit because it appears, based on what you posted, that you don't actually know what you're talking about.

 

Trailblazer, Prism, and various other NSA programs we are unaware of (remember, there are just the ones we know about, courtesy of whistle blowers of course...) do exactly what you're trying to paint as ridiculous. They collect large swaths of information, dumping it into a database for parsing and analyzing later. They have been hollowing out mountains all around the country to turn into data centers. They have one near me, they're constantly trying to get more power run to it.

 

We know they've developed hardware devices that can be installed at the ISP level to MITM SSL encrypted traffic without you knowing. These devices are regularly sold to law enforcement around the world and aren't expensive or hard to use; you just need the ability to get a warrant to force it to be installed.

 

We know they have fake cell towers that fit inside a backpack that snag cell phones within a certain radius and intercept the data. Cheap and easily purchased by a regular person at this point.

 

Other random things you have wrong:

The government didn't need Apple to break into the iPhone. They got in just fine without them.

 

No, not everything transmits over the internet, so that's just not a correct argument.

 

Just because you have the data doesn't mean interpreting it is easy, or done. In fact, that's the hard part. Connecting the dots is something really smart people spend their lives working on with this stuff. Data analysis is a huge industry, and the NSA/CIA aren't the only ones doing it. Collecting the information is the first step, and the simplest, trying to get a good signal-to-noise ratio and turn that into quality investigative work is going to be a long process with lots of mistakes along the way.

 

Yes, saying every packet ever is being watched is a bit over the top. You're not really doing a good job discussing the topic yourself, though.

 

 

 

I don't know what I'm talking about? Bolded portion, you purport to know what programs you don't know about actually do. How on God's green earth can you state that, and then quibble about details. Large swaths =/= all. As Larry pointed out, I emphasized (used all caps because I was on my phone and using the mobile version) the word EVERY for a reason.

 

So, companies turn over email after being served a warrant. That seems to imply that the company is following a legally compelled obligation to turn over data.

 

The govt took Apple to court, before a third party provided a tool to gain access. So the govt admitted they could not access the phone alone without wiping it.

 

When you are on wi-fi, anything you do is transmitted via the internet. Since we were talking about wi-fi in this thread I was addressing that. Yes, your cell uses other means when not on wi-fi.  And again, do you know how many small "fake" cell towers would have to be deployed to capture ALL cellular activity? It would easily be double what exists today.

 

Mary very clearly said they the CIA has everything your have ever typed over wi-fi, and Snowden implied the NSA has everything you transmit over the internet. Those two statements, when put together, imply that every packet of Internet communications is in the possession of the federal government. Yet Glen Greenwald very clearly states the goal is to... That intimates that the goal has not been met.

 

My point was never that the government isn't seeking to harvest as much data as possible (i stated in my response I do not support everything Snowden revealed), but that it has not at any point cast a net large enough to accomplish that goal.

[Riggo-toni]

So, it's wrong for the government to track metadata because it's an invasion of privacy, but it was okay for Wikileaks to release hundreds of pages of private messages sent along hacked diplomatic cables?

 

Whistleblowing on Abu Ghraib and such I respect - as I said earlier, I believe Snowden should be pardoned for exposing overreaching surveillance programs. SNOWDEN CAREFULLY VETTED WHAT MATERIAL TO RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC, IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE PUBLIC GOOD.

 

MANNING DIDN'T GIVE A DAMN. HE RELEASED EVERYTHING HE COULD GET HIS HANDS ON, INCLUDING ITEMS THAT SERVED NO PUBLIC GOOD WHATSOVER BUT COULD EMBARRASS OR ENDANGER SOMEONE. He was NOT motivated by serving the greater good or protecting the public. He was like the guy who gets reprimanded by his boss, and decides to get back by hacking into his boss's private email and publishing the contents online for spite.

[Popeman38]

12 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

So, it's wrong for the government to track metadata because it's an invasion of privacy, but it was okay for Wikileaks to release hundreds of pages of private messages sent along hacked diplomatic cables?

 

Whistleblowing on Abu Ghraib and such I respect - as I said earlier, I believe Snowden should be pardoned for exposing overreaching surveillance programs. SNOWDEN CAREFULLY VETTED WHAT MATERIAL TO RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC, IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE PUBLIC GOOD.

 

MANNING DIDN'T GIVE A DAMN. HE RELEASED EVERYTHING HE COULD GET HIS HANDS ON, INCLUDING ITEMS THAT SERVED NO PUBLIC GOOD WHATSOVER BUT COULD EMBARRASS OR ENDANGER SOMEONE. He was NOT motivated by serving the greater good or protecting the public. He was like the guy who gets reprimanded by his boss, and decides to get back by hacking into his boss's private email and publishing the contents online for spite.

Snowden took 1.7 million documents. There is zero chance he vetted each one. He admits as much in the documentary, stating he hasn't read every document and trusted Greenwald to carefully release stuff.

[visionary]

 

[KLJ]

please get obama out of the whitehouse as fast as possible.

[Taylor703]

Who's Oscar Lopez Rivera? Apparently the president just did the same thing for him and people are freaking out. 

[The Evil Genius]

2 minutes ago, Taylor703 said:

Who's Oscar Lopez Rivera? Apparently the president just did the same thing for him and people are freaking out. 

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-faln-leader-sentence-commuted-0118-20170117-story.html

 

Quote

Lopez was a leader of FALN, the Spanish acronym for the Armed Forces of National Liberation. He was found guilty in U.S. District Court in Chicago in 1981 of weapons, explosives and seditious conspiracy charges, and sentenced to 55 years in prison. He received an additional 15 years in 1988 after he was convicted of plotting to escape from federal prison.

FALN's goal was a free and socialist Puerto Rico. The group was primarily active in New York and Chicago and claimed responsibility for more than 140 bombings since 1974. Authorities connected five deaths to the bomb blasts. Another 100 people were maimed by the bombings, authorities said.

The group's most notorious bombing occurred at New York's landmark Fraunces Tavern in 1975. Four people were killed and more than 60 injured. Lopez was not convicted of any role in that attack, but some still hold him responsible because of his ties to the ultranationalist group.

 

 

Quote

With Obama's commutation, Lopez, 74, will leave prison by May 17. In recent years, his cause had been taken up by pop culture figures, religious leaders and political luminaries. Former President Jimmy Carter, Pope Francis and U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois' 4th district supported his release, as did South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

Reaction to Tuesday's action by Obama, one of more than 200 commutations granted by the president on Tuesday, went well beyond Chicago. "Hamilton" creator Lin-Manuel Miranda in a tweet from London said he was "sobbing with gratitude" after learning that Obama had commuted Lopez's sentence. Miranda said he would reprise his role as Alexander Hamilton at a Chicago performance for Lopez.

"I wish I was with every Puerto Rican in Chicago right now," Miranda tweeted Tuesday.

 

[tshile]

with the preface: what @The Evil Genius quoted is the extent of what I know about this

 

why are we doing this for a guy that worked with a group responsible for bombings that hurt and killed people?

[visionary]

 

[Jumbo]

17 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

You must be pretty pissed at Trump and the entire GoP for deciding that after 20 years of investigations, millions & millions of wasted dollars, and 18 months of bloviating about she was a criminal and that they were gonna lock her up that they've suddenly decided that none of that actually mattered after all.

 

Also, don't you think the Bush family should all be in jail? If the answer is "no", can I ask why not?

 

Here's what I want you to do. Pull up the "news" sites that you use to get your "information". Take a look at them really hard. Does every single article on there give you the information all spun up the way you like? Does it all sort of fit into this same theme? If so, you need to find some new sources.

 

 

You can learn as much about some people by what they don't choose to address on a matter as by what they do choose to address (this is in general, not "at" zazz).

 

People talk about low-information voters or rigid partisanship being big obstacles to productive dialogue and policy, and most agree (even those doing it) with those observations, but what's really stood out to me is the level of hypocrisy, specifically---always a staple, but these days, holey moley--and the pervasive lack of personal integrity in construction of arguments. 

 

People can be left/right/whatever, and informed or misinformed or ill-informed, but what I see in a majority of commentary is absence (whether via incompetence or disinterest) of self-awareness and self-honesty, and that sure leads to a greater prevalence of dishonesty (knowingly or "subliminal") with others and less productive dialogue/policy. It all makes equitability, consistency, and avoidance of hypocrisy in argument even harder to maintain, and we already have the basic insecure chattering-monkey ego to manage. SAD! 

[visionary]

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Presidents commute/pardon people based on whatever, we have no idea usually. It's done, like so many things, and we can't do anything about it. 

 

We can do things like contact our representatives in Congress, state and local, and advocate for policies for actual human beings.  

[Popeman38]

2 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Presidents commute/pardon people based on whatever, we have no idea usually. It's done, like so many things, and we can't do anything about it. 

 

We can do things like contact our representatives in Congress, state and local, and advocate for policies for actual human beings.  

How does that have anything to do with commuting Manning's sentence?

 

EDIT: If you read the above link, it points out how hypocritical both sides have been in this case, and the damage this case can do to LGBT cause within the military.

[LadySkinsFan]

Just  general comment on things we can do.

 

My first sentence is germane.

[LeesburgSkinFan]

Lopez-Rivera is an admitted terrorist who has shown no remorse for playing a role is over 130 attacks on US soil from the mid 70s through the mid 80s, killing six people and wounding hundreds.  While he was in prison, Lopez-Rivera attempted to escape two times and on one of those attempts plotted to kill a guard.

Interestingly, Bill Clinton offered him and 12 of his associates clemency, in 1999. Lopez-Rivera stayed in prison because he would not agree to the terms and conditions (apologizing to the families of the victims for his crimes).

[TradeTheBeal!]

7 years is a long time.  It Trump does 7 years for his treason involving the election, I'd be fine with that.  Or even Condoleeza for lying about WMDs...7 years would be fair.

[FanboyOf91]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2012

 

Suck it, Oscar!

 

 

[USS Redskins]

Ya just when I thought BO was maybe the 2nd biggest elitist, pompous, douche ever... he does this and ascends to his rightful spot at #1. Well done!

[LD0506]

19 hours ago, Jumbo said:

 

People can be left/right/whatever, and informed or misinformed or ill-informed, but what I see in a majority of commentary is absence (whether via incompetence or disinterest) of self-awareness and self-honesty, and that sure leads to a greater prevalence of dishonesty (knowingly or "subliminal") with others and less productive dialogue/policy. It all makes equitability, consistency, and avoidance of hypocrisy in argument even harder to maintain, and we already have the basic insecure chattering-monkey ego to manage

 

Ahhh, a Jumbo sighting, we miss your commentary man

 

IMO a lot of what you address is based in very common human psychology, lack of introspection is the norm. Considering alternatives makes one doubt their cherished beliefs, incites feelings of insecurity that is handled more easily as "they lie" rather than "Could I be wrong?". Very shallow foundations (whether intellectually or emotionally or whatever) cannot stand to be rocked in the slightest lest they crumble.

 

The hardest thing anyone can ever do is look at themselves without illusion, without lies or rationalizations, to see is scary without laying the groundwork to face it.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[visionary]