Your argument seems to be that the most important and the overriding concern is the political. What happens if we don't do this? Yet polling coming out since this started seems to indicate that the majority are concerned with the moral, and the ethical. Apparently the one political aspect that the experts didn't consider is what happens when the sheeple learn that they are being watched constantly by Big Brother ala 1984?
They should have. Eisenhower let the lie that Gary Powers was just doing a weather research flight go out because he was assured by the CIA that there was no way that the Soviets would ever capture him alive, and even if they did, there was no way that the plane would survive because of the self destruct devices. After all they gave Powers a suicide pill with his parachute.
In 1961, the CIA promised Kennedy that the Navy would not be needed, because their plan was perfect, and the bay of pigs invasion would go off without a hitch. Then the CIA was furious when amazingly, JFK actually refused to send the Navy in to rescue/support the bay of pigs invasion.
The intelligence agencies have a long history of making promises and assurances that they can't possibly keep. So the first question, the absolute first question you should ask is what will the people think when they learn of this? If someone was able to convince President Obama that the people would be fine with it, after President Obama saw his popularity and support soar during the primary when promising to shut it down then there were at least two fools in that conversation.
But they decided the political was the way to go. Keep the programs, and that way if there was a terrorist attack, they could shunt some of the blame and keep clear of the defecation that was going through the rotary oscillator. Meanwhile, the people are pissed, because for nearly twelve years, we've been hearing about this war on terror, and watching excessive programs, immoral actions, and unethical people get away with abominations all in the name of the war on terror.
My Father told me many times, never do something that I could not explain as moral, or ethical. When I had to start parsing, and explaining how this wasn't exactly prohibited by some vague language or ill written rule, I was already down two strikes. The first doing the thing, the second, being unable to defend the thing. The example he used was breaking a window on a car. I'd better have a real good reason, like a baby or an animal inside that needed rescue, before I broke it. If I had a good reason, I would almost certainly get out without any trouble, but if I just broke it because I felt like it, I would have no such defense.
In other words, the ethical and moral grounds would trump the political. Doubt me? Imagine if Zimmerman had shot Travon Martin as he was breaking into a home. Zimmerman could have been the most racist son of a bitch on the planet, and gotten away with it no problem, because he had an ethical excuse for the action as opposed to the current situation, where he has no such fallback position.
What about when people find out? The first question, the first position, the first thing you should consider. What do I tell people when it is found out? Am I doing the wrong thing for the right reasons?
The answers given by the Administration, and the people involved clearly show that nobody has asked themselves that simple question at any point of this debacle. Nobody wondered what they would say if people found out, because it was Top Secret, and they were prohibited from finding out. So now President Obama and the administration are floundering, screaming that Snowden is a criminal, and looking even more incompetent because they can't convince Governments that they were spying on that they should cough up the traitor for the sake of amiable relations, amiable relations that ain't gonna exist for years now anyway.
If they had considered the inevitable question of what to say when people found out, the administration would be in much better condition than they are now. The younger voters, the ones who turned out in droves to support Candidate Obama, are dumping him, they're the tech gen right? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/13/poll-obama-nsa-leaks-trust
We keep making the same mistake. All the way through this administration, we keep trying to be kinder gentler Republicans, instead of the party of the smart. We trumpet our smart power, and then accept a slightly less odorous version of a program that stinks to high heaven. Our defense seems to be just as ill conceived. Well, we're doing something wrong, but we're doing it less wrong than the last guy. Let's say that stupid sentiment is true, what does that say about the next guy? Will he be more or less evil than this one?
The political should be considered, but the first consideration should always be what do we say to the people when we get caught. Can we defend our actions? Can we justify our positions? If you can't, then the political ramifications of not doing it, are far outweighed by doing it in the first place, and getting caught.
= new reply since forum marked as read
