General Discussion

railsback

(1,881 posts)

56. The accusers need to prove their case

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 04:19 PM

Jun 2013

so far, the 'evidence' requires leaps and bounds of faith. So no one should be crying that their accusations aren't being taken seriously because they can't prove any crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

99 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

People who would attack the messenger to supress what they have to say... [View all] TheMadMonk Jun 2013 OP

their watchword is "legal". well lotsa stuff in the 1930's was "legal" too nt msongs Jun 2013 #1

Yeah, like when Greenwald 'reported' the NSA was stealing info directly from private servers railsback Jun 2013 #2

Can you prove that the NSA/FBI/DOJ/Whoever is not doing it? Savannahmann Jun 2013 #5

Thanks, Savannahmann ReRe Jun 2013 #7

Do you realize how paranoid that sounds? randome Jun 2013 #11

Yes, I live in a rural area, Savannahmann Jun 2013 #15

I don't think anything would satisfy you unless you were personally directing the NSA. randome Jun 2013 #24

So despite a long and documented history of the Government telling lies Savannahmann Jun 2013 #29

I usually don't second-guess the FBI, CIA, local police, Interpol, MI5, etc... randome Jun 2013 #32

And if President Obama wasn't told the truth? Savannahmann Jun 2013 #49

Read this and see if you feel the same way: ReRe Jun 2013 #92

Saying you can't trust any government agency is standard libertarian propaganda arely staircase Jun 2013 #50

It's also a standard leftist position... ljm2002 Jun 2013 #62

leftists believe in using the government to solve problems arely staircase Jun 2013 #63

"Governments lie"... ljm2002 Jun 2013 #68

well, all people lie arely staircase Jun 2013 #85

Was it the left wing that gave us the Patriot Act & Homeland Security? think Jun 2013 #79

Can you prove they were? railsback Jun 2013 #25

By circumstantial evidence sure. Savannahmann Jun 2013 #33

Well, according the Army's FM3-55 handbook, which is public railsback Jun 2013 #35

So again, you dismiss the arguments Savannahmann Jun 2013 #46

One says PRISM is a super secret spy program no one knew of railsback Jun 2013 #51

But, but,....STOP ATTACKING MESSENGER! Galraedia Jun 2013 #83

can you prove I'm not levitating right now? arely staircase Jun 2013 #41

Ha! If you were levitating, you would not be typing on a keyboard! randome Jun 2013 #44

as a matter of fact it does arely staircase Jun 2013 #47

I can assume that you're not railsback Jun 2013 #52

I'm a levitating sycophant arely staircase Jun 2013 #53

Well, who should we believe, the Corporations who have been caught lying so many times before sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #21

Oh, so now it comes down to nothing more than 'belief' railsback Jun 2013 #27

Apparently for you it does. Do you have some proof of anything you 'believe' or is it just sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #55

The accusers need to prove their case railsback Jun 2013 #56

I think you meant to say... ljm2002 Jun 2013 #60

No, Greenwald claimed they had direct access to the servers railsback Jun 2013 #61

Here is a link to the article: ljm2002 Jun 2013 #64

Yes, fully aware of the article railsback Jun 2013 #67

From the article: ljm2002 Jun 2013 #69

Lies? railsback Jun 2013 #73

The article reports what the NSA slides claim... ljm2002 Jun 2013 #76

YOU ARE ASSUMING railsback Jun 2013 #81

And when people ask legitimate questions Summer Hathaway Jun 2013 #3

If the point of contention is the message, it's still and attack on the messenger. TheMadMonk Jun 2013 #4

The messenger decides the content of his message. jeff47 Jun 2013 #14

When the messenger provides documentation the messenger no longer matters. And ONLY those sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #22

Again, the messenger decides what to leak. jeff47 Jun 2013 #86

The IRS scandal is a scandal, inside of a scandal, inside of a scandal ReRe Jun 2013 #93

Issa's just a convenient, 1-2 sentence example. jeff47 Jun 2013 #94

Si, Senor/Senorita. n/t ReRe Jun 2013 #95

When the messenger is blabbing about spying the US is doing on Russia and China, pnwmom Jun 2013 #6

old news frylock Jun 2013 #17

And an ongoing problem. Is he still in Russia or has he moved on? n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #20

idk. if you have his number i'll call and ask. frylock Jun 2013 #23

Apparently he's still there, lugging around his computers, talking to . . . whoever. pnwmom Jun 2013 #26

well, tomorrow's another day.. frylock Jun 2013 #31

What does it matter, everyone knew that already, he didn't release anything sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #34

Yes, he has. For instance, as a part of the power point, pnwmom Jun 2013 #45

So he DID release 'new' information? We were being told here that it was all 'old news'. I get sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #59

Plame's statement concerned internal surveillance only, but the issue I'm talking about here pnwmom Jun 2013 #70

Got a link to that? And I was just told again in another thread that is 'all old news'. People need sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #71

I know you're keeping up with this. You can find it yourself if you care. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #72

and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law arely staircase Jun 2013 #43

If Fox News says it is Thursday then some would argue that today can't possibly be Thursday. KurtNYC Jun 2013 #8

No truer words, TMM ReRe Jun 2013 #9

It's an old sentiment, but AFAIK the phrasing is mine. /nt TheMadMonk Jun 2013 #87

Does that include dismissing people as administration shills? Recursion Jun 2013 #10

When the messenger's credibility is suspect Bobbie Jo Jun 2013 #12

Especially when we have the documents themselves nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #16

Lol, they always forget about the documents. I guess they haven't bothered to research exactly sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #36

The "messenger" matters. Bobbie Jo Jun 2013 #39

The Verizon production order speaks for itself nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #42

And if the messenger is telling lies? baldguy Jun 2013 #13

extremists? frylock Jun 2013 #18

If the messenger producers documents, which is the case here, it doesn't matter of the sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #37

In the case here, Snowdens documents say one thing and his allegations say another. baldguy Jun 2013 #54

Try to focus. It doesn't matter what HE says, or you believe, or anything else. It matters only what sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #57

So, you're attacking the messenger if the messenger also engages geek tragedy Jun 2013 #19

Not at all, I do my bloody damndedest to debate the subject matter... TheMadMonk Jun 2013 #88

BS BOTH can be discussed treestar Jun 2013 #28

The 'victim' is not the OP. He can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he is talking about the sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #38

Why is the discussing of Eddie's faults a "smear campaign?" treestar Jun 2013 #48

Who is 'Eddie'? But let's talk about that 'data base' which we now have more information about sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #58

what about people who declare ther messenger a "hero"? arely staircase Jun 2013 #30

Please provide a list of who MAY and who MAY NOT be questioned. So we know. n/t UTUSN Jun 2013 #40

THERE IS NO FUCKING WHO! There is only that which needs to be said. /nt TheMadMonk Jun 2013 #89

Yeah, if it conforms to our prejudices. You know, like what Faux tells their audience, or what UTUSN Jun 2013 #90

I was pretty sure the NSA was collecting all our phone records... BlueCheese Jun 2013 #65

Character assassination is a huge red flag. The people that participate in it are fucking scum. backscatter712 Jun 2013 #66

It's not character assasination - it's character DESCRIPTION. baldguy Jun 2013 #75

Yes, but if the accurate picture is of less than no consequence sibelian Jun 2013 #77

. baldguy Jun 2013 #78

Its just promoting bobduca Jun 2013 #91

Happens all the time here DainBramaged Jun 2013 #74

Here's PRISM Benton D Struckcheon Jun 2013 #80

A few things. If he has 'every agent and their missions' in his hands, the real traitor is he Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #97

Well, lets look at the actual story, shall we? Benton D Struckcheon Jun 2013 #98

This message was self-deleted by its author emulatorloo Jun 2013 #82

What proof has Snowden offered to support his claim that from he could wiretap anyone... Galraedia Jun 2013 #84

So your response is to attack the messenger. Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #96

K+R sibelian Jun 2013 #99