I would agree with this much more if they had previously had a statement suggesting that feds from oppressive foreign regimes were not invited. As a non-US citizen, there is a sentiment of "it was OK when we thought they were just doing it to foreigners" about much of this debate.
However, this isn't about standing up to anyone, it's a PR move by DEF CON.
I have been working in the information security industry for just shy of a decade and while I have been openly accepted to attend/participate/speak at events, I have always felt that it is a US-centric industry. I had assumed that this is because of the huge amount of government money invested in to corporations and individuals that make up the community.
One of the things that I love about DEF CON is that it is big enough to make it truly international, when teamed with Black Hat it makes that week in Vegas unmissable. This stance on feds, by many people who I would call friends, gives the impression that they were happy to work/contract for the US gov while they knew they were targeting foreigners but not citizens.
It's worthwhile to note that people have often stated that the Constitution is not a "suicide pact". We are free (as a people) do what needs to be done to preserve our union. Whatever your political persuasion, it cannot be denied that bad actors are trying to coordinate and plan attacks against "soft" targets inside the United States and abroad. This is not a theoretical problem. It's real.
What is extremely unsavory about this entire affair is that the entire citizenry has somehow become a suspect. Every snippet of our communiques, interests, and associations is now considered "fair game". This has been done without ANY meaningful discussion in the public sphere. We, as a people, have been misled and our desire to understand what our government has been doing has been ignored. This is wrong.
I don't agree with Snowden's actions. I think he handled it the wrong way if what he wanted was to bring attention to this state of affairs. There are many who feel like he might have done this for personal glory or with traitorous intent. I'm not convinced one way or another, but I'm not happy with how this has unfolded.
I'm glad that there are enough people paying attention to this devils bargain we've made in the pursuit of security and I hope we get some resolution before things go back to the status quo.
We need to have a national conversation about this. The sooner the better. If there is a silver lining in Snowden's actions, I hope this is it.
Similarly, the cold war was clearly an existential threat to the union itself, the most obvious example being the hundreds of nuclear ICBM's in Cuba.
Terrorism of the Boston Marathon sort is now an unfortunate reality, but is in no way comparable to these two events, and I simply don't see how it poses any existential threat to the union at all.
It's important to put things into perspective by understanding the threats we have faced in the past, and all that has been sacrificed to bring us the freedom we have now, so that we don't throw it away due to overreacting.
It's more interesting in the context of Lincoln's suspension of Habeus corpus in the Civil War than as an unpopular dissenting opinion in a free speech case, though.
Non-state terrorism is an evolving and emergent threat that's been amplified by the interconnected global world we live in.
9/11 spawned two wars and countless societal changes.
The geopolitical landscape has changed and we would be foolish to ignore it.
What I think you're ignoring is a prolonged, persistent, and increasing series of attacks against US persons and territories. 9/11 was just one of a series of attacks against us. Every previous attack was nearly ignored and forgotten here at home. I'm talking about the first World Trade Center bombing, the Cole Attack, and others.
And, honestly, it's easy for you to criticize. I lost three friends in the aftermath when our country went to war. This isn't an armchair argument for me.
I don't think it's fair to excuse the act of UBL and AQ only to denounce our response. I have little patience for pacifists.
You are, of course, right that it's easy to criticize from an armchair, but representative democracy is all about finding a balance between the opinions of the experts with the most skin in the game and the wider populace, of which I am a part. I don't need to be a direct participant in the struggle against terrorism to be entitled to an opinion on it.
I'm very sorry about your friends.
I don't agree with you. Specifically, the threat of radicalized Islam is real and present. Downplaying that threat when it was still confined to overseas military targets led directly to 9/11. We (the US) missed several opportunities to effectively neutralize UBL and AQ in the decade before 9/11.
Where I think you're going wrong is to dismiss or de-emphasize the complete shift of military power away from large nation-states towards small non-state actors. Terrorism is winning as a strategy.
If we do not find some way to stem this threat, the world is going to get a whole lot more unstable and unsafe for everyone. And I'm not talking about just the USA. I'm talking about most of Europe and Asia as well.
I know some people look at the Arab Spring as a promising development, but history shows that there is a high likelihood of further bloodshed and tyranny taking root where there is a power vacuum. (n/b Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt)
I completely agree with you that terrorism is winning as a strategy. The goal of terrorism is to make us afraid, and we are afraid. I do think it warrants a strategic realignment. I'm not against all new strategies, just the ones that appear to me to be illegal or outside what I believe to be the spirit of the law.
I totally get your argument though. It is a dangerous world. I think we are just willing to make different trade-offs in the mitigation of that danger.