Ricardo Camilo López -> -Mona-: Aug. 7 2016, 7:20 p.m.
I know you are not stupid or insensitive, so you very well understood my very basic and simple question:
Have NSA employees, USG asked every citizen of the world for permission to indiscriminately “monitor” and “surveille” them 24×7?
-Mona- -> Ricardo Camilo López: Aug. 8 2016, 2:12 a.m.
… self-evident … reasonable …
I knew people like you would never answer that very simple, basic (Yes or No + optionally substantiate) question and start instead tossing adjectives around.
They are not the decision-makers; they are the worker bees and some of what they do is benign. These are not public figures who make policy.
Wait, are you now trying to recycle that kind of “they are ‘only’ following orders” Nazi defense?
“Some” of what Nazis did was not only “benign”, but good. They baned tobacco (must probably would have junk food and soda, as well), they were very open and explicit about their b#llsh!t (even about the number of “terrorists” (10) they would kill if those would kill one of their own), they were “democratically elected” through a direct vote, they were not primarily abusive or as you would say they were “irresponsible”, not “free”, not “brave” … while “spreading democracy” (instead of invading Afghanistan, Haiti and Iraq they went head on against Britain, Russia and France), their genocidal ratio during WWII was (1/8) compared to the U.S. military’s and their allies’ in their current freedom-loving WMD wars, they didn’t have an NSA spying on the whole world …
Even funny mustache, braune Scheiße guy had “some” not only “benign”, but good qualities. He loved his dog to the point of wondering why it would go away when his wife appeared in his room.
Mona, how different are the “responsible” “gentlemen agreements” of Snowden and Greenwald to those of corrupt bankers and politicians “legally” protecting each other? I know, I know as a “targeted individual” I am “mentally damaged” so I can’t understand “this is not the same” …
There are also documents in the archive that we do not believe should be published because of the severe harm they would cause innocent people (e.g., private communications intercepted by NSA, the disclosure of which would destroy privacy rights; and documents containing government speculation about bad acts committed by private individuals (typically from marginalized communities), the disclosure of which would permanently destroy reputations).
Why is Glenn Greenwald (whatever he means) protecting bad “private” individuals in “marginalized communities”? What exactly makes him believe he has the right to stand in the way of truth? Why is Glenn Greenwald using his rhetorical prowess to twist things around so that people, due to “privacy protections”, don’t have the right to know how their illusions about their privacy is routinely abused? Do you see Glenn is not only protecting “innocent” individuals, but pontificating about such matters in very general, philosophical ways so that it is virtually impossible to connect the dots leading to the “innocent” perpetrators and collaborators of those actions?
When the yes men have crashed and organized meetings posing as officials of U.S. agencies (even within their own premises!), they have been accused of, ready?: “lying”, not respecting “privacy”, of being “unmoral”, of “breaking the law”, of not being respectful of the sentiments of people affected by U.S. corporations/USG, … The Yes men are definitely not “ethical journalists” ((tm) Glenn Greenwald). Heck! They aren’t even journos, but just two comedians and they have been way more successful at not only getting corrupt politicians in jail, but also at making them stop lying and b#llsh!tti!ng around and change their own policies. There is not so much of an art to it, but integrity and truly believing in your sh!t. The yes men squarely get on their faces and their b#llsh!t in very personal ways! They are not into “redacting” the truth, adjective fencing matches and argumentative elitist b@llsh!t. Even dirt poor, “marginalized” people in remote places in India are elated about the Yes men.
Now, ask the parents of children who fear playing outside, have nightmares about and draw drones as “natural” part of their childhood and all those apparently not “innocent” people being “freedom-lovingly” killed with the help of the NSA if they understand Glenn’s “innocence”, “ethical journalism” or his legalistic linguistic carpentry (supposedly defending some high sounding concepts presumably relating to liberté, égalité, fraternité), or if they find “ethical” that the names of the agents behind those actions should be protected because Snowden had a couple beers with their buddies (I very much doubt he had more than two, since he kept his own thoughts and feelings to himself not even sharing them with his own live-in girlfriend); when, as John Oliver masterfully tried to explain to them, people’s minds are so brainwashed and fenced by Western media that they had no idea who Snowden was, and, those who didv parroted the “official” USG propaganda portraying it as an ethical breach thing!?! Even congress reps publicly admitted that they didn’t even know what “N-S-A” stood for!
Here NSA employees are even boastfully talking about torture as part of a “job description”:
yet, theintercept chooses to “redact” the name of that not so “low ranking”, “innocent” Lt. Col.
Thenintercept’s “ethical journalists” as part of their own self-serving philosophies, ironically indeed, criticizes USG, APA, … for double moral standards and profusely participates in smear campaigns against Assange.
Give Assange and all of us a break, pleeze!
truth and peace and love,