Subj : Re: Clandestine activity is a holy cow of democracy To : Lee Lofaso From : alexander koryagin Date : Sat Aug 03 2013 22:09:28 Hi, Lee Lofaso! I read your message from 01.08.2013 20:00 about Clandestine activity is a holy cow of democracy. ak>>> Anyway, Snowden did his best. LL>>> Snowden swore a national security oath. Snowden violated that LL>>> oath by leaking information to others, ovbiously without LL>>> authorization from his superiors. That is called treason, LL>>> punishable by death. However, our president, being a nice guy, LL>>> has promised the Russians, as well as the rest of the world, that LL>>> Uncle Sam has a soft heart, and promised not execute the traitor. AK>> Freedom has never been archived without treason of the oppressive AK>> regime. Because, when fighters for freedom overthrow a legitimate, AK>> but oppressive power they commit an act of high treason. LL> Jeffersonian violence is acceptable if, and only if, a regime LL> becomes so oppressive that it has lost its legitimacy to govern. By LL> that way of thinking, it is not an act of treason but rather an act LL> of patriotism. Who is a person who decides that the current regime is becoming oppressive and totalitarian? Everybody decides it for himself and then decided to fight with such a regime or do nothing. Snowden did the same. LL> It is treason only if the parties are not successful in LL> overthrowing the evil regime... Yes, a victor as a rule is always right. That's why now Mursi in Egipt is acáused in state treason, spying etc. ;-) And a year before, Mursi himself accused Mubarak of the same things. AK>> Another matter is - who are those people for whom the treason is AK>> done? LL> People who commit acts of high treason do it because they have LL> something to gain. Of course, they have much to lose if things do LL> not turn out the way they had planned... Do you think Snowden wanted much? AK>> If the treason is made for the world it is great; LL> Nobody commits acts of high treason for altruistic reasons. Unless LL> they are stupid or retarded. Do you think that Assange, Manning are stupid or retarded? LL> officials have now been forced to acknowledge that public debate on LL> this subject has begun. LL> Suppose Snowden had kept quiet. He would still have his job, making LL> good money, with a warm bed to sleep in after work, in the USA. LL> Would Americans (or the world) know about the NSA's database of all LL> our phone calls? The idea of a call phone base itself is simple and obvious, but people usually don't think about such things. NSA made a base where all contacts are stored. When they want to arrest a person they have all addresses where he can be. And every address connected with the man has its own connection, which can be in use if NSA wants to launch a more wide manhunt. LL> Do you like the idea that the government gets the authority to keep LL> track of our private communications? Doesn't matter that we are not LL> terrorists, or suspected of terrorist activity. Where did the NSA LL> get the authority to snoop on us? From secret judicial orders LL> issued by a secret court based on secret interpretations of the LL> law. Sound familiar? Yes, I've read George Orwell's "1984"... Actually, terrorist attacks in this case is a good thing for those who wants to impose a total control over society. LL> Yes, my friend, Edward Snowden has performed a valuable public LL> service. It's too bad he will be spending the rest of his natural LL> life in prison. If he ever makes it back to the USA, that is. I think Snowden was prepared to leave the US. In the wake of Manning trial Snowden knew possible consequences he could meet. AK>> Snowden defends Holy cow of democracy - freedom, the possibility AK>> not to be traced everywhere and every time. LL> "Freedom is having nothing left to lose." - Kris Kristofferson ;) It is not saying for an American. AK>> Without such a freedom, freedom can come to an end at some pretty AK>> day. LL> Freedom can exist inside, and outside, of prison. We create our own LL> prisons, every day, in the way we live. Well, probably it is possible that inside a person can be a Universe. But we spoke about freedom in a particular country. AK>> People don't understand that a free society must imply possibility AK>> of resistance. LL> Resistance? What kind of resistance? For instance, "Occupy Wall Street" is resistance. While such things are possible that country can be called free. But can this kind of things repeat itself in the US in the future? I am not sure. All details and photos of the participants are stored in secret bases. Next time, these people can be intimidated even before they go to do something. AK>> Well, abstractly, I retell my story in other words, of a movie AK>> script: AK>> The US state security organization has made a robot-terminator who AK>> has to kill all the underground opposition and criminals. But in AK>> some time oligarchs and moneybags pay some money to elect their LL> On a serious note - Gerry Spence wrote the book on the subject LL> above. Corporations own everything, including the lawyers and LL> politicians. With every year passing technology makes the scenario more and more probable. Then they invent flies that will sting rebels making them happy, phlegmatic, law-abiding people. AK>> Terrorism can be killed only the same way how it was born! The US AK>> people must understand why Arabs that were so far from terrorism AK>> until WWII became so close to terrorism after the war. The reason AK>> is simple -- great injustice. So, the remedy against Arab AK>> terrorism is justice, not spying on all the people around the AK>> world. LL> A war on international criminals can be fought. But never a "war on LL> terror" or a "war on terrorism." International criminals know no LL> political borders or boundaries. International criminals do what LL> they do because that is who they are. International criminals do LL> not believe in justice (except their own kind of "justice"). As LL> such, we owe them NOTHING! Our job is to hunt them down and make LL> sure they are no longer in a position to harm others. If there are thousands of people who fight for their causes they cannot be all terrorists. It is something wrong in the definition itself. Actually, it is called a popular resistance. The weaker resistance is the more important role plays faith, fanaticism, cruelty, extremism. And those people who had borne these outrages thousands are more guilty than militants themselves. AK>> So, calling it an instrument against terror attacks is a foolish AK>> idea. LL> Violence begets violence. More violence begets more violence. This LL> has always been the case, ever since the beginning of time, or at LL> least since man has walked this earth. However, every state does LL> have the right to protect itself. Including harming those who try LL> to harm us. There is a rule - the weakest party doesn't start war. If militants belong to the weakest party they fight for their just causes, and the cause of the violence (the splinter in the Earth's ass) should be searched in some other place. AK>> If Al Qaeda has a nuclear bomb it will blow it up despite the fact AK>> that that Americans are kept under surveillance. The possibility AK>> to be tracked after the attack scares them not. LL> If al-Qaeda has a nuclear bomb it will take over Mecca and threaten LL> to blow up the black rock. And then, when the Saudis think al-Qaeda LL> is bluffing, the bomb will be detonated. And Israel will be blamed. Al-Qaeda bombs Caaba with a nuclear bomb? I am afraid you don't live in the real world. ;-) Bye, Lee! Alexander Koryagin fido7.debate 2013 --- FIDOGATE 5.1.7ds * Origin: Pushkin's BBS (2:5020/2140.2) .