General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIntellectual Dishonesty 101: "We can't tell the U.K. what to do"
We know -- the White House has confirmed -- that the Administration had advance notice of the U.K.'s planned detention of Miranda. Had the administration raised an objection, the U.K., our closest ally, would surely have honored such an objection. To suggest otherwise is the absolute height of intellectual dishonesty. And that was the point Rachel was making.
MADem
(135,425 posts)markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)Jesus fucking Christ, get real already!
Hydra
(14,459 posts)They're defending the indefensible. Once your in that land of unreality, ANYTHING is possible.
MADem
(135,425 posts)you've got is unsubstantiated speculation and ass-umptions.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)The paper cited UK intelligence memos leaked by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden to claim that UK spies were tapping into the world's network of fibre optic cables to deliver the "biggest internet access" of any member of the Five Eyes - the name given to the espionage alliance composed of the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
That access could in theory expose a huge chunk of the world's everyday communications - including the content of people's emails, calls, and more - to scrutiny from British spies and their US allies. How much data the British are copying off the fibre optic network isn't clear, but it's likely to be enormous.
The Guardian said the information flowing across more than 200 cables was being monitored by more than 500 analysts from the NSA and its UK counterpart, GCHQ.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)threads would be about American hypocrisy.
Response to ProSense (Reply #13)
MADem This message was self-deleted by its author.
MADem
(135,425 posts)markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)The U.S. government makes its wishes known to allies and non-allies alike all the time, and nobody particularly objects. The objections arise when there is an implied threat of force or coercion that accompanies such an expression.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)and Miranda was coming back from having met - Laura Poitras. Sooo, what would make the US stop the UK from detaining someone who is very close to Greenwald AND just saw Poitras?? No doubt they were cheering them on.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)the UK or the US? I think you mean the UK but I don't want to assume.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)Search her name, you'll find the thread. Absolutely amazing. They've been relentlessly harassing her since 2005 or so. If it were me I would have sued a long long time ago.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)I definitely will research that. That seems absolutely nuts!
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)Wow, that's some Kool-Aid!
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Ugh. This place is becoming intellectually daft.
Progressive dog
(6,917 posts)I don't believe the US government is claiming to have interfered in the UK's decision to detain Miranda.
The US couldn't win this one, if they interfered, they'd be dictating; so they didn't, but they should have. They might have interfered and been rebuffed by the UK, but that can't be admitted as a possibility.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . which the government of the U.K. would have been free to reject (but likely wouldn't have), in no wise equates to "telling them what to do." Again, this is just dishonest.
Progressive dog
(6,917 posts)Do you have another position, perhaps an honest one?
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . that the U.K. would have been free to reject an objection raised by the U.S., but that, given the close relationship between the two countries, it likely would not have done so. There is no dishonesty in that whatsoever.
Progressive dog
(6,917 posts)dishonest, but you didn't.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)It is a given that the U.K. is a sovereign country, to whom the U.S. cannot dictate. It is also a reality -- one with which I assumed (perhaps mistakenly) that everyone on this board would be familiar -- that the U.S. and U.K. have an extremely close alliance and working relationship. I assumed everyone here was at least that politically literate.
Progressive dog
(6,917 posts)If you can't defend your original claims, it might be better to just stop making them.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)Oh, gee, I don't know -- out of respect for a long-standing alliance, perhaps? Look, the point is, the U.S. could have raised an objection, but did not. Maybe the U.K. would have respected such an objection and maybe it wouldn't have, but I think the most reasonably likely outcome would have been that it would have chosen to respect such an objection. If the U.S. had raised an objection, and the U.K. had declined to respect it, then we would be having a different conversation. But Rachel Maddow is spot on concerning this issue, which is all about what the U.S. did not, in fact, do but which it could have done. The question of how the U.K. would have responded is secondary in any case.
Progressive dog
(6,917 posts)but you didn't mean it. LOL
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Examples:
Snowden files 'show massive UK spying op'
http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/snowden-files-show-massive-uk-spying-op-20130622-2ooyr.html
Snowden leaks: Germany sent massive amounts of data to the NSA
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/15158208-edward-snowden-leaks-germanys-bnd-sent-massive-amounts-of-data-to-nsa
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Given that there were other copies and we could work out of America, which has better laws to protect journalists, I saw no reason not to destroy this material ourselves rather than hand it back to the government."
Rusbridger: destroying hard drives allowed us to continue NSA coverage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023498667
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)If Obama is determined to not play politics with this issue, then he needs to take a 'hands off' approach.
And for those who think he was 'secretly' cheering on the U.K., Jesus Christ, there is no secret! Is it a bad thing to want to stop the spread of national security documents?
DU needs to move on to something more intellectually challenging that this constant beating of a dead horse.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)How are we going to win the House in 2014 while revelations of NSA spying are making us look like wannabe Rethugs?
How is that for another topic? Or this. How are we going to get our base to turn out when so many in the party spends so much time insulting them? What is our sales pitch going to be? Get out and vote, if you don't the Rethugs will win and they'll spy on you?
How do we keep the Senate when a growing number of people, nearly a majority all ready, object to this stuff and consider it important?
But let's move on. I know, let's talk about Drone Strikes which create as many terrorists as they kill? No, bad topic to get the anti-war and anti-spying base to turn out. Perhaps we could run on our record of holding Wall Street accountable. Nothing there to run on. Perhaps we can campaign on how well that Employer Mandate is working out. Nope, nothing there to run on.
We have smarted our way into a corner, and the paint is on the floor, and the only question is how the hell we get out of this mess. Evolving on some of these issues is obvious, and obviously the one tactic we won't take. Fear has put us in this corner, and fear will keep us here. That leaves the field open for the Rethugs to run the table.
So what do you want to talk about? How about we campaign on Citizens United. That should really get people excited to vote Democratic.
randome
(34,845 posts)These, to me, are many times more important than what some 'lost boy' in Russia says the NSA might be doing.
Outside a few Internet bubbles, most people aren't 'up in arms' over might-be's and could-be's. It's too bad Snowden wasn't as good as he claimed or he might have shown us a smoking gun.
Drones? Even that is more important, IMO. That's real. This NSA crap is based on fear and suspicions. At some point this forum needs to return to the real world.
It's the one that matters to most people.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Economy, which you could possibly argue that the Sequester is important to, possibly by stretching a point, is number one. So what plans do we have for the economy? Nothing on the horizon.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/164057/economy-easily-important-driver-obama-approval.aspx
Next up Healthcare. Well, we shot ourselves in the foot by giving big business a year's pass on providing Healthcare to workers. So that one isn't going to be real helpful to us. Let's look at number three.
Terrorism. Not a lot we can say about that except that we're spying on everyone to try and find terrorists. A few more warnings about vague chatter on the internet probably won't help either.
Next up, the sequester issue in full force. Budget Deficit at the Federal Level. Yeah, so what do we run on with that? We could run on raising taxes, we could call it tax fairness. But running on that while we're excusing business' from providing healthcare isn't going to go over well. We could try. The Republicans are better positioned with the cutting spending argument since doom and gloom has not followed the Sequester the way it was promoted.
We are on at best neutral ground on most of the important issues, and at worst the wrong side of the others. That's where we have maneuvered ourselves too. Thankfully, the Republicans haven't figured it out, because if they do, we're toast in 2014. Our last big victory will be getting Corey Booker into the Senate.
Gun Control isn't in the top nine issues. Either is voting rights. Now again, this isn't me, this is Gallop's polling results. This is information released today. This is literally the most up to date information, and your suggestions aren't in the top three. If we start promoting those things, we're going to look stupid as hell. Most people have forgotten about the Sequester because as far as they could tell, nothing changed. Oh they might remember it, I've heard guys (and girls) in the break room at work watching the news mumble about the sequester when President Obama went on vacation. The general phrase was sequester my ass.
So let's pivot to the economy. What plan are we putting forth this time? Because so far the people don't seem to think that it's going all that swimmingly. We can't get a big stimulus package through the Congress. We don't have the votes in the House or Senate. So we'd have to have a long term plan to run on next year. What plan? Bail out Wall Street again? The people would not only vote for the Republicans, they'd lynch us for suggesting TARP II.
randome
(34,845 posts)Our posts do not occur in isolation. This is a group endeavor. A group personality, if you will. This obsession with the NSA is not healthy when there are far more important matters we could be discussing.
Polling be damned.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)To me, there is little more important than our civil rights. Each time one of them is violated it diminishes us. If we are to decide that is no longer a topic worthy of discussion, then we need to use another metric. Polling shows us what is important to others, others that we hope by our agreement to join/post here to convince to vote Democratic.
Therefor if we are not going to discuss issues that are personally motivating, then obviously we are going to pivot to other issues that are more relevant to the nation at large. That means economy.
There we are as a party, stymied. We would need to come up with a stimulus plan that would be able to get Congressional approval. On this issue, we are at direct opposites with the Republicans. Especially with the Deficit being another important issue. The Republicans will not approve tax increases on the rich, and we couldn't fund a stimulus without adding to the deficit, which would harm us with still other voters.
That graphic from the Gallup story is very interesting. Those who think the economy is the most important issue give President Obama a fairly low approval rating. Roughly 35% of the people approve of the President's handling of the Economy, which reflects on the party as a whole, but consider it a very important issue.
So what can we discuss on that issue that makes us look good as Democrats? How do we stimulate the economy to give more and better jobs? What plan can we point to? What grand national goal can we point to as the reason to pump money into the economy?
Even the ones which President Obama has better to good numbers on, are considered relatively unimportant.
We can start a discussion on Voting Rights, but nobody cares outside of this board about the issue. We can't post a number of recent articles, because the press doesn't care, nor do the pundits. We could start a discussion on Guns, but we've lost that argument, and we are unwilling to expend more political capital on it. Even if you and I came up with a good plan, all we could do here on DU is start yelling at each other because we have our share of gun nuts that essentially cancel out those in favor of common sense gun reforms.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They are a sovereign nation. However they are allies of ours and consider their interests to be similar.
Maybe they don't want our intelligence compromised either.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)for wanting to see what was in the computers/drives Miranda was carrying, as Greenwald made clear afterwards.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023491903
I am going to publish things on England, too. I have many documents on England's spy system.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . The intellectual dishonesty I am asserting is really twofold.
First, it is dishonest to equate the U.S. government voicing an objection to a government, with whom the U.S. has long-standing close relations, about a planned action by that government, to "dictating" or "telling that government what to do." The U.S. government makes its wishes known to allies and foes alike all the time, whether or not those governments respect or reject those wishes.
Second, it is dishonest to pretend that there is a serious likelihood, in light of the long-standing, very close relationship between the U.S. and the U.K, that the U.K. would disregard an express objection by the U.S. Is it possible? Sure. Likely? Hardly.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)were pissed at Blair for marching to George Bush's drum and doing whatever he was told to do. Many have apparently totally forgotten the Iraq war ever happened.
Edited to add: Or when Blair was running around building up support for new peace talks in the Middle East and Bush pretty much shut that shit down by telling him it wasn't going to happen, and Blair kind of forgot all about it.