throwawayq3423

A failed and poorly executed insurrection attempt is still an insurrection attempt.

People go to prison for attempted murder every day.

> Huh? ICE is targeting illegal aliens.

Overstaying your visa is a civil offense. Kidnapping and assaulting people who haven't even committed a misdemeanor is illegal and unconstitutional.

> Protesters try to interfere ICE targeting illegal aliens

Well in that case you could declare all protests as "interfering with police operations" thereby making illegal all protests and ohhhhh ok I get it.

You're not a "both sides" guy. You actively support this admin attacking the constitution and you're trying to make it look better by creating false equivalences instead of just owning what you support.

I'd have at least a little respect for you if you just owned it.

We're done here.

> See... this is kinda how I know you have a political axe to grind.

> Allow me a quick rewrite of your breathless response in a more reasonable language.

The fact that you won't just reply point by point and want to spin up a self-important narrative tells me everything I need to know about this interaction.

> Was he targeted? Was he targeted willfully? Was he target ted willfully, while administration knew he was an American citizen? When did they know it? Did they stop their plans once they did?

I was pointing out how Trump is targeting and killing US citizens in America for peacefully protesting and your "both both sides do it!" attempt was a U.S. citizen literally fighting against the U.S. in a warzone.

>If so, ICE shooting a mother of two ( who was clearly not watching those two kids m ind you ) is just an expansion of powers Obama gave himself. Thanks Obama!

ICE had a specific mandate under Obama (and every other President) to go after only criminals. Trump perverted this mandate to form a militarized police force to attack democratic cities, killing protesters with no accountability.

We get it. You are above all this. You are too smart to think that either party is better than the other.

We get it. You can stop now.

> Targetted killing of US citizen without a trial via drone strike ( Anwar al-Awlaki )

This was in a literal war zone against a man who literally declared war on the United States.

> Signed 2012 NDAA with 'indefinite detention' provisions

Didn't answer my question. This law targeted terrorists, not mothers of two, driving home from dropping their kids off at school.

> Extended Patriot ACT in 2011 - Re-authorized FISA in 2012

Didn't answer my question.

> Defended post-Snowden NSA metadata collection

Didn't answer my question.

> Seized reporter's property in leak investigation

This appears to be an actual leak investigation done by the DOJ. I don't recall these journalists being arrested, denied a lawyer, etc. I can't find any evidence that this was a legitimate leak investigation done in accordance with the law.

> 'fast and furious'

Reminder, we are talking about domestic surveillance and illegal detainment for political purposes.

Donald Trump has over 6,000 habeas corpus violations working their way through the court system in America right now. Obama had < 10 in 8 years. He is detaining U.S. citizens without cause, without explanation, and subjecting them to torturous conditions.

Your attempt to say both sides are the same is clearly an attempt to sound intelligent like you're above the discourse. You're not.

One more try, what did Obama in terms of abusing his police state targeting American citizens that even approached what we are seeing with ICE, the FBI, etc. right now.

> If Snowden hasn't moved quickly, he wouldn't have been able to leak any of it.

How does stealings sensitive materials not related to domestic surveillance improve his odds of successfully leaking information and fleeing the country?

And please be specific.

How does that change or affect the point I'm making?

> This was of course not known at the time. The only thing that was known is that a single individual was responsible for the greatest breach of classified secrets in the nation's history, and that individual was still at large.

> On Friday, May 10, a top official with the Internal Revenue Service dropped a bombshell. IRS staffers had singled out conservative organizations with “tea party” or “patriots” in their name that were seeking tax-exempt nonprofit status, subjecting them to extra scrutiny to see if they were abusing the tax law as it relates to political activity.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/irs-tea-party-s...

You're not allowed to seek tax exempt status if you are a partisan organization. Searching for political terminology to determine that is perfectly logical.

> The federal government was found violating the constitution

This was of course not known at the time.

It's the standard we're discussing. It's what Donald Trump's DHS is doing right now and the Snowden comparisons are irrelevant and imo a bad faith attempt at trying to muddy the waters.

Stop both sides-ing everything the Trump administration does to give them more oxygen to operate.

These are uniquely awful times.

> The info was already out there when they were going after him.

This was of course not known at the time. The only thing that was known is that a single individual was responsible for the greatest breach of classified secrets in the nation's history, and that individual was still at large.

> was protecting national security

So yes, it was.

europeans are well versed in the consequences of autocratic takeover of their governments, why they pretend to not know even recent history of the 20th century, I'll never understand.

Who was imprisoned for their speech against the US president by Obama and how did Snowden stop that?

Because that is exactly what we're talking about here. And if you don't have a like-for-like comparison, then we have nothing to discuss.

Less than 1% of what Snowden took and leaked pertained to domestic surveillance programs, The rest was intelligence capabilities and sources and methods.

But that's besides the point. There is a real argument that the U.S. government, in trying to catch Snowden, was protecting national security. There is no such argument with Trump.

just to be clear trump administration is not using Patriot Act era standards. They're going far beyond what any previous administration has done and openly breaking the law.

I have a feeling they would have gotten here even if Obama didn't expand the surveillance state.

Good faith by the federal government can no longer be assumed.

Donald Trump's real legacy is not any single action, but a complete inversion of trust of the US government by its citizens.

And the world.

Edward Snowden had stolen the most sensitive classified secrets from The United States Intelligence Community and Donald Trump is looking to squash dissent of his attempts to nullify the Constitution and establish a dictatorship.

I get what you're saying, but please have some perspective. the two things are not even remotely similar.

It's the people most convinced they have certainty over the mass web of conspiracies that secretly run the world that can never get basic things right, like attributable quotes.

Honestly, that's clever.

> This quote, often phrased as "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false," is widely attributed to William J. Casey, who served as the Director of Central Intelligence (CIA) under President Ronald Reagan from 1981 to 1987.

> While frequently cited in literature and discussions about propaganda and media manipulation, the quote's authenticity is highly disputed and unverified.

Are you trying to be ironic?

Not if everything is made up on the spot for clicks and views, which is where we're heading.

I would also like to see a comparison to prove the point.

At least they let the people behind it give a farewell message.

Most cuts to government are abrupt and unceremonious.

I imagine the "what's next" is the same for replicating Coke or WD-40, you have a similar product and none of the name recognition or ad spend.

Not worth much.

> Even the Rodney King riots didn't have as many deaths (gunshots or otherwise) as the worst EU football events.

I honestly don't even know what you're referring to. There have been tragedies related collapses of stadiums and trampling due to poor crowd control.

But that is not even remotely similar to what we're talking about.

Considering Americans get shot during riots, I would say you're wrong.

Why is every fortified civilization gone and their remnants a tourist attraction then at this point?

> History seems to indicate that in the absence of law, those with the most people inside a fortified structure and position are the most likely to survive.

Source?

Ok they are "consultants" with a federally guaranteed moat.

Whistleblowers know that jail is a real possibility. That's why whistleblowers are brave, and that's why Edward Snowden is not one.