Geoff Stone, Obama's Review Group

[Cari Machet]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Softy <softservant at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>  Have to say it seems more plausible to me that they did a faux-forthright
>> job of answering questions from this new review process.  I mean what else
>> could they do?  Stonewall?
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
here is his argument : i bought a gun i shot someone killed them got
arrested and convicted of the murder my trial in which i blamed the
manufacturer of the gun for the whole ordeal was overturned after i sued
the gun manufacturer and they in fact were then convicted of my murderous
rampage and i was let out of jail and everything was reversed and oh yay i
am a good person its just the gun manufacturer > they are bad - very bad
white men

and all those people in history that have been convicted of committing war
crimes they didnt do it really as they were just following orders

wonder what geoff would have said had he been purchased a steak dinner -
doesnt matter he lets clouds enter his logic like all the other good
americans do FTS


>
>
> I'll suggest a slightly different scenario.  One in which Stone is
> presenting his honest opinion, and in which what he spoke is accurate.
>
> I don't know much about him - I think I'm fairly safe in stating prior to
> his Review panel he never went close to, let alone through, the Ft. Meade
> perimeter onto NSA grounds.
>
> Doing so is awe inspiring.  Not just with heady notions of which agency,
> and its history, runs the building; but also seeing the scale of the
> operations.  It's a visceral reminder of the power of the United States -
> both of it's good and bad aspects.
>
> So, I suggest Mr. Stone was overwhelmed and genuinely convinced of what he
> saw: he wanted to see a behemoth of an organization full
> of sun-glassed covert agents running amok.  Rather he saw slightly shabbily
> dressed day workers interspersed with the occasional suit,
> all surrounded by  uniformed members of the five military branches as well
> as those of five other countries.
>
> Second, I suggest the NSA ( and any other semi-/fully- covert agency ) can
> easily "expose" all of its bookkeeping for review without exposing anything
> it doesn't want exposed.  They don't need to be secretive - the nature of
> the organization is so silo'd, looking in from any combination of
> directions would never give any indication of a compartment unless one knew
> where and how to request that compartment by name.
>
> The result is the Review panel feels they came away with a complete
> understanding of the Agency, and the individuals came away with a knew
> understanding of what Power means, and how it is applied into the world.
>  Some of that understanding is valid - some isn't.
>
> Lastly, I think taking Mr. Stone's words as only about the NSA is a
> mistake.  He was writing to, and about, the Agency employees. Namely,
> suggesting to them they might do better in the future
> to continually re-evaluate their bosses; rather than assuming "father knows
> best."  And this is the best possible oversight - the tens of thousands of
> employees are as American as anyone, they have it in their own best
> interest not to tolerate abuses by their bosses.  Sadly that type of
> oversight is insufficient, but that mindset within the majority of
> employees is crucial and what I think Mr. Stone was trying to enrich.
>
> go easy,
>
> -daniel
>
>
>


-- 
Cari Machet
NYC 646-436-7795
carimachet at gmail.com
AIM carismachet
Syria +963-099 277 3243
Amman +962 077 636 9407
Berlin +49 152 11779219
Reykjavik +354 894 8650
Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>

7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the
addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this
information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without
permission is strictly prohibited.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 6027 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20140403/29322eb2/attachment-0001.txt>