| > Overall I think the burden of proof is on the group who wants to go against the status quo That attitude definitely benefits those who like the status quo. I think the "burden of proof", if such a thing exists, is on the position with the least prior evidence. That something is the status quo is pretty weak evidence in its favor; I can point to many instances in human history where the status quo was pretty awful. > if spying stopped wholesale Strawman. I never said spying should be "stopped wholesale". Never anything even remotely close to that, in fact. I'm not responsible for defending a position you completely fabricated. > I don't give a solitary care about the spying a foreign government does ... I care about what it does with that intel, but that is completely separate I don't believe the gathering of intelligence is "completely separate" from acting on that intel. I don't believe the accumulation of guns and ammunition is "completely separate" from the act of using those guns. I don't believe the enrichment of weapons-grade uranium is "completely separate" from building an atomic bomb. I don't believe building an atomic bomb is "completely separate" from using it. > No, that isn't the job of spies, they gather intelligence. You are confusing other government actions with spying. "Spies don't kill people, bullets kill people. Actually, bullets don't kill people, a rapid transfer of momentum from the bullet to the human body kills people. Actually, momentum doesn't kill people, a rapid loss of blood from the resulting tissue damage kills people. You are confusing human physiology with spying." Right: nobody is ever responsible for anything. > You have concocted a hypothetical about a Joe Shmoe, being caught in a dragnet filter. Is that actually a real problem? Or just a hypothetical about where this slippery slope goes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Histor... You don't need a security clearance to know of many instances of this happening. |
I believe literally all those things you don’t believe about having something being completely separate from using it. A car can kill people just as easily as a gun. So what? It’s who used the object who is responsible for what it does and owning something doesn’t necessarily imply using it or even imply it at all.
How do you justify that point of view? I really don’t get that perspective.
I can’t say for certain, but I doubt extraordinary rendition is only using "terrorist-detector model” and not relying on analysts/tips. Also worth noting is that it seems like it hasn’t happened in ~20 years, and was a product of 9/11 fervor.
Let me put it another way. Why should the powerful countries take weaker ones at their word and not employ fact checkers? Nations are only really beholden to their constituents and greater powers. Why would any country tell a major power who wasn’t spying the truth?