Should the bad behavior of one person discount the utility of an entire program?

Should the potential for abuse of government power be the only argument against it?

I'm in a tough spot here, because I feel the government oversteps all the time But intelligence, defense, and law enforcement are the only areas I see  validity for any federal government. Not education, not health care, not meddling in the economy, etc.

The "shock" from the public seems to be based on ignorance, or of the hypersimplistic characterization of this program. Hyperbole and the potential for theoretical abuse, let alone isolated examples of abuse, are not really a policy debate.

The Ricochet logic suggests that we should shut down the military too , because there was a soldier who shot 14 civilians in Afghanistan, and Hassan was was a soldier. They abused power and acted badly (I can't even say they acted criminally until they are convicted).

State secrecy is dangerous, but it shouldn't be feared on its face. The same people who want to be private shouldn't be suprised that some privacy may be useful for our protection as well.

Ah, but that's not what Snowden released. Snowden's disclosures don't address this at all. By your logic, the entire criminal justice system is unconstitutional, because there was once an action that was unconstitutional. 

Here's the rub: It DOESN'T appear to be illegal. It appears to be business as usual. You can be horrified by that as well if you want, but nothing about gathering phone records on foreigners is illegal on it's face. If there are specific examples of abuse, I haven't seen any indication of that.

There's no evidence the program was illegal, so the issue would be EO 13526, and possibly 12333.

Then 18 U.S.C. §1924, and 50 U.S.C. §783

No, because he's not disclosing a violation of policy or law through formal channels, and enforcing the law isn't retaliation.

A lot of confusion around this...

Here... is some more background on what part is routine, what requires court orders, etc.

Actually, there is a legal route, but it's not a PUBLIC route. I know this doesn't make anyone feel better, but there are a variety of statutes and policies that regulate these activities, and they are monitored and policed internally.

So my gripe with this guy is that he released information under the pretense that it violated some policy or the consititution. On the legal face of it, it seems none of that was accurate. BUT, even if it had, there are proper people to report that to, and a foreign newspaper isn't one of them, so really this is about him trying to be an internet hero. I'm looking forward to his arrest.

Maybe, but the difference would be between what actually violates the constitution and what does not. I've worked in law enforcement for a while, and I assure you that's the big line in the sand. It's not a minor issue.

To make it stranger, it's possible none of this is actually being directed against Americans... activity outside the US would be both legal and reasonable. The consititution applied to Americans, not everyone

I think the authenticity obsession is a reaction to the advent of targetted messaging and advertisement more than the fantasy of privacy.

For one person. A stint at War College takes people away from their command for longer, so... no, I don't see a problem on a systemic level.

No. What I'm saying is that lots of people don't make it.

What you seem to be saying is that women are just like men, only worse, because of pregnancy. Show me some evidence that pregnancy has a significant impact on readiness or capability.

I go back to my original question: Has there been any evidence that our military ability has been degraded? I have to assume we can call tell horror stories about the laziest, most useless person we knew in uniform. We still have an overwhelming military capability, so I am left with the conclusion that some of those "Standards" were not actually impacting military capability. When you change a variable as an input, and the output doesn't change (or it gets better), then the input variable does not have the influence we thought it did.

The ability to critically assess this situtation is exactly what students of the modern education system can not do. What we measure and how we measure it shadows the clunky press coverage. But if the purpose is to mislead the press (and the public) with simplistic fake examples of causality, then perhaps the government IS succeeding.

An actual working economy? But then we wouldn't need the government to save us...

Of course not. It was a variety of "medical conditions" brought on by behavior they chose to do. Accidents, drunkeness, weight gain, drugs... to say nothing of the criminal behavior, or disclosure of homosexuality. In comparison, pregnancy can be a temporary disruption to a servicemeber's deployability. Many of them were able to return. The men I saw wash out would never have been able to return to service.

It's obvious, but unavoidable. You will always have the problem of people being trained who can not serve their term of service. I think concentrating on women and pregnancy is inapporpriate. My experience was in the Army, primarily working with intelligence and law enforcement, where women did the exact same jobs as anyone else, and were contributing members to every unit I worked in. Sure, some got pregnant, but some men didn't last either. in every case it was a matter of discipline and dedication, over which men do not have a monopoly.

You can't imagine the problems, and you can't name them. Submarines are uncomfortable and not private for everyone... As for the training, it's common with everyone in DOD. It doesn't "add" anything. The benefits to the tax payer? How about getting the smartest people on submarines regardless of gender?