If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   "Treason is a tough sell in Snowden case" How about sedition? Minor sedition? Jaywalking?   (politico.com) divider line 206
    More: Interesting, Jonathan Turley, Booz Allen Hamilton, electronic surveillance, treason, Benedict Arnold, Fort Meade, court martial  
•       •       •

5449 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jun 2013 at 9:29 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



206 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-13 08:28:36 AM
Not enough people are tried for being aliens in the Alien and Sedition Acts.
 
2013-06-13 08:29:05 AM
Treason is completely off the table.  This is how the Constitution defines treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Nothing that Snowden did could conceivably come close to that:  He merely leaked information a news agency about domestic surveillance programs, which isn't levying war, nor is it giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

What he *CAN* be tried and convicted for is for intentionally disclosing classified information to unauthorized personnel, and the government has a pretty open and shut case there:  He's admitted to it openly.
 
2013-06-13 08:37:26 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Not enough people are tried for being aliens xenomorphs in the Alien Xenomorph and Sedition Acts.


FTFY.  Can't call 'em "Aliens" anymore.  It's a PC thing.
 
2013-06-13 08:40:18 AM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-13 08:42:36 AM

dittybopper: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Not enough people are tried for being aliens xenomorphs in the Alien Xenomorph and Sedition Acts.

FTFY.  Can't call 'em "Aliens" anymore.  It's a PC thing.


I apologize. "Promethean Americans."
 
2013-06-13 08:53:32 AM

dittybopper: What he *CAN* be tried and convicted for is for intentionally disclosing classified information to unauthorized personnel, and the government has a pretty open and shut case there: He's admitted to it openly.


And we're done.
 
2013-06-13 08:54:38 AM

dittybopper: Nothing that Snowden did could conceivably come close to that: He merely leaked information a news agency about domestic surveillance programs, which isn't levying war, nor is it giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.


So telling the Chinese how we spy on them (read the latest news) isn't treason? Because that totally is.
 
2013-06-13 08:59:22 AM
He's got the worst farking attorneys.
 
2013-06-13 09:31:46 AM
Sedition?!?

If we bring back charging people with sedition, we're going to wind up jailing or hanging half of Congress and all of the Teabaggers.

Hmm...

We should bring it back.
 
2013-06-13 09:32:27 AM

dittybopper: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Not enough people are tried for being aliens xenomorphs in the Alien Xenomorph and Sedition Acts.

FTFY.  Can't call 'em "Aliens" anymore.  It's a PC thing.


They mostly complain about that word.

/Mostly
 
2013-06-13 09:35:11 AM

DamnYankees: He's got the worst farking attorneys.


i.picasion.com
 
2013-06-13 09:35:47 AM
He should talk to Assange and Ellsburg and they should start a magazine.  Or podcast.  Or band.
 
2013-06-13 09:36:22 AM
 He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.
 
2013-06-13 09:38:17 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: dittybopper: Nothing that Snowden did could conceivably come close to that: He merely leaked information a news agency about domestic surveillance programs, which isn't levying war, nor is it giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

So telling the Chinese how we spy on them (read the latest news) isn't treason? Because that totally is.


With the way that the Chinese have been hacking at all of our defense contractors and govt systems lately? Yeah, they already knew about it probably.
 
2013-06-13 09:38:37 AM

DamnYankees: He's got the worst farking attorneys.


Shoulda called Saul.
 
2013-06-13 09:39:40 AM
You can't charge him with treason because you can't catch him. Lulz.
 
2013-06-13 09:40:00 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: dittybopper: Nothing that Snowden did could conceivably come close to that: He merely leaked information a news agency about domestic surveillance programs, which isn't levying war, nor is it giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

So telling the Chinese how we spy on them (read the latest news) isn't treason? Because that totally is.


China is our declared enemy now? I must've slept through that.
 
2013-06-13 09:41:34 AM
I would agree with a letter or reprimand, with harsh words, and a very stern warning not to do it again.
 
2013-06-13 09:42:11 AM
Light treason!
 
2013-06-13 09:43:26 AM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: DamnYankees: He's got the worst farking attorneys.

Shoulda called Saul.


Nah, I think he would have been better off with Bob Loblaw. A well-timed law bomb lobbed from his law blog would get him off.
 
2013-06-13 09:44:06 AM

dittybopper: Treason is completely off the table.  This is how the Constitution defines treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Nothing that Snowden did could conceivably come close to that:  He merely leaked information a news agency about domestic surveillance programs, which isn't levying war, nor is it giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

What he *CAN* be tried and convicted for is for intentionally disclosing classified information to unauthorized personnel, and the government has a pretty open and shut case there:  He's admitted to it openly.


you don't know everything about what he has in those laptops and who in Hong Kong he's talking to.
 
2013-06-13 09:44:20 AM
"Disturbing the peace?  I got thrown out of a f*cking window!  What's the charge for being pushed out of a moving car?  Jaywalking?"

i3.ytimg.com
 
2013-06-13 09:44:41 AM
I would have to say "How dare he point out information that was in the newspapers in 2006" and then go after him for the several days of no-call no-show at work. That shiat's rude.
 
2013-06-13 09:44:51 AM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-13 09:44:55 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: dittybopper: Nothing that Snowden did could conceivably come close to that: He merely leaked information a news agency about domestic surveillance programs, which isn't levying war, nor is it giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

So telling the Chinese how we spy on them (read the latest news) isn't treason? Because that totally is.


Are we at war with the PRC?  Are we shooting at them, and are they shooting at us?

No?

Then treason doesn't apply.  Nor does it need to, as there are enough statutes to charge him with that a charge of treason isn't necessary.
 
2013-06-13 09:45:17 AM
Let's just make all whistleblowers illegal nonpersons. It's not like we're really fooling anyone anymore anyway.
 
2013-06-13 09:46:21 AM
How about Blowing The Whistle Like John Phillips Sousa?
 
2013-06-13 09:46:32 AM
How about "creating a nuisance?"

/father-rapin'?
 
2013-06-13 09:48:03 AM

Hobodeluxe: you don't know everything about what he has in those laptops and who in Hong Kong he's talking to.


Unless he has direct contact with Al Qaeda, treason doesn't apply

(well, maybe you could argue for North Korea, since we are still technically at war with them).

But even if he *WAS* (which seems unlikely), there is still this hurdle:

No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Find two witnesses to the same "overt Act", or get him to admit it in court, or it won't fly.
 
2013-06-13 09:48:50 AM

Serious Black: Nah, I think he would have been better off with Bob Loblaw. A well-timed law bomb lobbed from his law blog would get him off.


*He's in Hong Kong, so cash only
 
2013-06-13 09:49:48 AM

dittybopper: (well, maybe you could argue for North Korea, since we are still technically at war with them).


Nope, that was a police action. (In South Korea, YMMV.)
 
2013-06-13 09:51:15 AM
So...what's the difference between what Bradley Manning did and what Snowden did?
 
2013-06-13 09:53:27 AM

Hobodeluxe: you don't know everything about what he has in those laptops and who in Hong Kong he's talking to.


And let me guess, YOU, of all people, farking do?  Guess what, you don't know shiat.

What ditty said is right on; there's an open and shut case for revealing secrets and removal of classified documents.  No question on it.

If you have evidence of treason, I suggest calling the Feds or a reporter, because you're OBVIOUSLY some sort of psychic.  Or a lame assed fool sitting at home in his mom's basement.
 
2013-06-13 09:53:49 AM

PreMortem: PC LOAD LETTER: dittybopper: Nothing that Snowden did could conceivably come close to that: He merely leaked information a news agency about domestic surveillance programs, which isn't levying war, nor is it giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

So telling the Chinese how we spy on them (read the latest news) isn't treason? Because that totally is.

China is our declared enemy now? I must've slept through that.


Passing information to a foreign power can get you convicted for treason, it is not up to the traitor to determine whether the power is 'friendly' or not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
http://news.yahoo.com/edward-snowden-claims-nsa-documents-show-u-hac ks -215625790--abc-news-topstories.html
Snowden seems to be working on a more solid treason case for the US.
 
2013-06-13 09:53:58 AM

Vodka Zombie: Sedition?!?

If we bring back charging people with sedition, we're going to wind up jailing or hanging half of Congress and all of the Teabaggers.

Hmm...

We should bring it back.


Don't forget anyone who carried a "Bush = Hitler" sign, or had such a bumper sticker on their vehicle.  Most of the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

Pretty much all you'd be left with is bland soccer moms who don't give a crap about politics, and politically neutered males.

/Good luck with that.
 
2013-06-13 09:55:55 AM
This is BS.

Free Manning.
 
2013-06-13 09:57:48 AM

Ninja Otter: dittybopper: (well, maybe you could argue for North Korea, since we are still technically at war with them).

Nope, that was a police action. (In South Korea, YMMV.)


I don't think that matters.

No one would argue in court that during the Korean War, which was a war by all definition, that North Korea was an 'enemy' that was shooting real bullets at US troops.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me you needn't have a formal declaration of war to charge someone with treason, but you *DO* need an actual military conflict.
 
2013-06-13 09:58:57 AM

dittybopper: that North Korea was wasn't an 'enemy' that was shooting real bullets at US troops.


FTFM.
 
2013-06-13 09:59:27 AM

A Leaf in Fall: So...what's the difference between what Bradley Manning did and what Snowden did?


Very different.
 
2013-06-13 09:59:29 AM
Manning/Snowden 2016
 
2013-06-13 10:00:05 AM

Heraclitus: This is BS.

Free Manning.


is that with or without having to purchase a Snowden of equal or greater value?
 
2013-06-13 10:01:05 AM
It might help if the Republicans would pick either castigating Obama for the program or Snowden for revealing the program. Either the program is bad, or revealing the program is bad. You can't have it both ways, Republicans.
 
2013-06-13 10:03:29 AM

A Leaf in Fall: So...what's the difference between what Bradley Manning did and what Snowden did?


Manning did an indiscriminate dump of hundreds of thousands of documents to 'get back' at the military because of some perceived mistreatment.

Snowden released a relatively limited amount of classified information based upon his judgment that the programs in question were unconstitutional infringements upon the privacy of all US citizens.

There is a material difference between the two.
 
2013-06-13 10:07:08 AM

badhatharry: He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.


Good point.  I would never convict him of anything if I was on a jury.
 
2013-06-13 10:09:10 AM
I think they captured him.  There's already a video of this informer behind bars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtILxBszyf8
 
2013-06-13 10:10:48 AM

IlGreven: It might help if the Republicans would pick either castigating Obama for the program or Snowden for revealing the program. Either the program is bad, or revealing the program is bad. You can't have it both ways, Republicans.


I don't think the Republicans quite know how to approach this whole thing.  If they push too hard, you can just come back at them with, "Wait a second, weren't you guys the one who wanted to put this whole system in place anyway?  That whole PATRIOT act thing?"  And they also risk alienating a lot of their own voters who don't like RAND PAUL types and who would say to them "Why are you keeping our country from fighting terrorism?"  And there are probably, still, a lot more of those people than PAUL fans.

It's why while this could really be a scandal, they can't really sink their teeth into it the way they did with something like Benghazi or even Umbrella-gate.
 
2013-06-13 10:12:10 AM
Tax evasion?
 
2013-06-13 10:14:05 AM
Snowden aided the citizens of the United States by informing us of the programs gathering our information. For the government to declare him a traitor, they would have to admit that they consider the citizens to be an enemy.
 
2013-06-13 10:15:40 AM
"Treason is a tough sell in Snowden case" How about sedition? Minor sedition? Jaywalking?

Would you believe, "creating a public nuisance"?
 
2013-06-13 10:15:48 AM
Well, he made treason an easier sell now that he's telling China about US spying/hacking against foreign interests. That's pretty direct.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-13 10:15:59 AM

LostGuy: Snowden aided the citizens of the United States by informing us of the programs gathering our information. For the government to declare him a traitor, they would have to admit that they consider the citizens to be an enemy.


Well, listen to the blowhard Peter King... that's basically true.
 
2013-06-13 10:16:23 AM

dittybopper: A Leaf in Fall: So...what's the difference between what Bradley Manning did and what Snowden did?

Manning did an indiscriminate dump of hundreds of thousands of documents to 'get back' at the military because of some perceived mistreatment.

Snowden released a relatively limited amount of classified information based upon his judgment that the programs in question were unconstitutional infringements upon the privacy of all US citizens.

There is a material difference between the two.


If Snowden's problem was with US privacy violations He wouldn't be talking to China about the tactics we use to hack their systems and common targets. If anything he has a problem with spycraft in general, which he should have thought about before agreeing not to disclose classified data.  He clearly broke the law and disseminated classified information and should be tried.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-13 10:17:40 AM

Parmenius: Well, he made treason an easier sell now that he's telling China about US spying/hacking against foreign interests. That's pretty direct.


Do we know he actually gave them relevant information?  I mean, gessh, he's said "the U.S. is hacking China."  Duh... if you're smart you should know that already.  It's kind of like saying "the U.S. has spies in China."  Only the ignorant would think that isn't true.
 
2013-06-13 10:18:03 AM

mrshowrules: badhatharry: He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.

Good point.  I would never convict him of anything if I was on a jury.


I have to say, I'd have a hard time wrestling with it.

I used to work indirectly for the NSA, and yes, I've got some Top Secret stuff in my noggin (even if it's all over 20 years out of date).  In fact, my job was to actually intercept foreign communications.  That's what a 'ditty bopper' is, someone who is a Morse code interceptor.

I get a serious case of the creeps when SIGINT stuff is revealed, but on the other hand, back when I was in, FISA was taken *VERY* seriously, apparently much more seriously than it is now.  We were told in no uncertain terms that intercepting the communications of "United States Persons" was verboten except under some very narrow circumstances.

So I'm not really sure how I would vote on a jury deciding this case.  On the one hand, I don't want to encourage the leaking of classified information, but on the other hand, this particular program he leaked should be considered intolerable by anyone who is concerned about their privacy.
 
2013-06-13 10:18:03 AM
Charging Snowden with treason would essentially be the United States federal government admitting that they consider the American public the enemy.
 
2013-06-13 10:18:48 AM
Jesus guys, it's not like he downloaded 30 music torrents or anything.  Now THAT would be criminal.
 
2013-06-13 10:18:53 AM

dittybopper: No one would argue in court that during the Korean War, which was a war by all definition, that North Korea was an 'enemy' that was shooting real bullets at US troops.


Oh I agree, enemy is a broader term than "country we've declared war on." I think it is somewhat ill-defined, though, at least in the Constitution. Is Syria an enemy? Does it have to be a country? Is (for these purposes) Al Queda or the Taliban an enemy? You couldn't call Afghanistan an enemy.
 
2013-06-13 10:22:36 AM
I think it would be cool if he just disappeared, and the u.s. government was like "we don't know anything about that".
I would hope our government has some black ops John Clark types that take care of these situations.
 
2013-06-13 10:24:24 AM

Ninja Otter: dittybopper: No one would argue in court that during the Korean War, which was a war by all definition, that North Korea was an 'enemy' that was shooting real bullets at US troops.

Oh I agree, enemy is a broader term than "country we've declared war on." I think it is somewhat ill-defined, though, at least in the Constitution. Is Syria an enemy? Does it have to be a country? Is (for these purposes) Al Queda or the Taliban an enemy? You couldn't call Afghanistan an enemy.


It's ill-defined at the edges, but this isn't an edge case.
 
2013-06-13 10:25:17 AM

DreamSnipers: PreMortem: PC LOAD LETTER: dittybopper: Nothing that Snowden did could conceivably come close to that: He merely leaked information a news agency about domestic surveillance programs, which isn't levying war, nor is it giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

So telling the Chinese how we spy on them (read the latest news) isn't treason? Because that totally is.

China is our declared enemy now? I must've slept through that.

Passing information to a foreign power can get you convicted for treason, it is not up to the traitor to determine whether the power is 'friendly' or not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
http://news.yahoo.com/edward-snowden-claims-nsa-documents-show-u-hac ks -215625790--abc-news-topstories.html
Snowden seems to be working on a more solid treason case for the US.



You cited a case of espionage, not treason. Also, he passed information to a journalist, not a foreign gov't.
 
2013-06-13 10:26:27 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: dittybopper: Nothing that Snowden did could conceivably come close to that: He merely leaked information a news agency about domestic surveillance programs, which isn't levying war, nor is it giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

So telling the Chinese how we spy on them (read the latest news) isn't treason? Because that totally is.


Uh, no its not. You think they didn't already know? We aren't the only country in the world with the capability to spy on a cell phone call or an email.
 
2013-06-13 10:26:46 AM
I'm confused about all this China talk...I still thought Russia was our number 1 geopolitical foe
 
2013-06-13 10:29:00 AM

badhatharry: He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.


No he wasn't. He did the exact opposite. NSA actions have been backed by Congress, the executive, and the courts. He subverted democracy.
 
2013-06-13 10:29:06 AM

LostGuy: Snowden aided the citizens of the United States by informing us of the programs gathering our information. For the government to declare him a traitor, they would have to admit that they consider the citizens to be an enemy.


Well the do take an oath to protect the nation from domestic enemies. Everyone is a suspect.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-13 10:30:05 AM

velvet_fog: badhatharry: He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.

No he wasn't. He did the exact opposite. NSA actions have been backed by Congress, the executive, and the courts. He subverted democracy.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-13 10:31:19 AM

BtotheZ: I'm confused about all this China talk...I still thought Russia was our number 1 geopolitical foe


They've been neck-and-neck since the fall of the Soviet Union.  Do try to keep up.
 
2013-06-13 10:33:04 AM

ISubmittedThisYesterdayWithAMuchFunnierHeadline: Charging Snowden with treason would essentially be the United States federal government admitting that they consider the American public the enemy.


I've heard this talking point repeated over and over again, and I have no idea what it really means. Treason as set out under Article III is a different offense than those under the Espionage Act or Sedition Act. Snowden doesn't have to be a traitor to be charged with subverting U.S. interests under one or both of these acts. Both acts have much broader definitions of treason-like offenses, at least one of which Snowden almost certainly violated. This douche deserves to spend 30 years in a federal prison.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-13 10:34:11 AM
WTF?!? Is everyone from Peter King's staff posting today?
 
2013-06-13 10:34:20 AM
Snowden will soon find himself in a debriefing room in either Beijing of Moscow.It won't be his choice, and he won't find it pleasant.
 
2013-06-13 10:34:27 AM
The only people committing treason is the NSA, who is wiretapping the entire American public without ever obtaining a court warrant.

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-06-13 10:34:33 AM

ISubmittedThisYesterdayWithAMuchFunnierHeadline: Charging Snowden with treason would essentially be the United States federal government admitting that they consider the American public the enemy.


More or less this, especially so since this information was common knowledge from a leaker back in 2006 who by the way, just had charges against him dropped by the DOJ
 
2013-06-13 10:34:55 AM

badhatharry:  He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.


They already have a secret court, what makes you think that there will be an open trial?
 
2013-06-13 10:35:56 AM

DreamSnipers: PreMortem: PC LOAD LETTER: dittybopper: Nothing that Snowden did could conceivably come close to that: He merely leaked information a news agency about domestic surveillance programs, which isn't levying war, nor is it giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

So telling the Chinese how we spy on them (read the latest news) isn't treason? Because that totally is.

China is our declared enemy now? I must've slept through that.

Passing information to a foreign power can get you convicted for treason, it is not up to the traitor to determine whether the power is 'friendly' or not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
http://news.yahoo.com/edward-snowden-claims-nsa-documents-show-u-hac ks -215625790--abc-news-topstories.html
Snowden seems to be working on a more solid treason case for the US.


From the Wiki article you linked to: "Pollard was sentenced to life in prison on one count of espionage on March 4, 1987." So, espionage, not treason.
 
2013-06-13 10:36:00 AM
Holy crap..  What is going on here?

Yes, what he did IS treason.  And there are two very simple reasons that people commit such acts:

1.  I had some shiat to say
2.  After I re-read it, I decided that it doesn't matter anyway.  So I decided not to post.

As long as you can go to sleep tonight knowing that no one from the government is going to bulldoze your house and put a bullet through the head of your entire family...  All of this is nonsense.
 
2013-06-13 10:37:34 AM

PreMortem: DreamSnipers: PreMortem: PC LOAD LETTER: dittybopper: Nothing that Snowden did could conceivably come close to that: He merely leaked information a news agency about domestic surveillance programs, which isn't levying war, nor is it giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

So telling the Chinese how we spy on them (read the latest news) isn't treason? Because that totally is.

China is our declared enemy now? I must've slept through that.

Passing information to a foreign power can get you convicted for treason, it is not up to the traitor to determine whether the power is 'friendly' or not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
http://news.yahoo.com/edward-snowden-claims-nsa-documents-show-u-hac ks -215625790--abc-news-topstories.html
Snowden seems to be working on a more solid treason case for the US.


You cited a case of espionage, not treason. Also, he passed information to a journalist, not a foreign gov't.


Good to know. Now if I want to let China in on something because my loyalty is to them and not us, I can use the handy loophole of letting the press know.
 
2013-06-13 10:37:58 AM

velvet_fog: badhatharry: He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.

No he wasn't. He did the exact opposite. NSA actions have been backed by Congress, the executive, and the courts. He subverted democracy.


How is this NSA program "democratic?"  Because Americans elected the guys that use it against us?

 I feel no sympathy. I repeat, I feel no sympathy! The American people chose their fate. That may surprise some people. Don't fool yourself. We didn't force the American people. They gave us a mandate, and now their little throats are being cut!
 
2013-06-13 10:38:19 AM
Treason is tough to prove??? Are you kidding me? I would kill to be on the jury that heard his case. F the 'proceedings and evidence' he is a traitor to America. Plain and simple.

Then I would sentence him to be ass raped hourly. By that demon in This is the end. That would be justice.
 
2013-06-13 10:38:54 AM
HAVE WE FINALLY CAUGHT A COMMUNIST WITH THE WITCHHUNT?

JOSEPH MCARTHYWAS REALLY KEEN ON US FINALLY CATCHING A COMMUNIST WITH DRACONIAN SURVELENCE.


/maybe we should send americans to special internment camps to keep them from committing terror because they could be terror.
//I heard the japanese loved it. It was like camping with open air latrines and no stall dividers, and group showers.
 
2013-06-13 10:39:25 AM
After some deliberation I have reached the conclusion that no lawyers waste their time commenting on fark.
 
2013-06-13 10:40:17 AM

durbnpoisn: Holy crap..  What is going on here?

Yes, what he did IS treason.


Might want to go re-read the Constitution, Sport.  Specifically, Article III, Section 3.
 
2013-06-13 10:41:02 AM

durbnpoisn: Holy crap..  What is going on here?

Yes, what he did IS treason.  And there are two very simple reasons that people commit such acts:

1.  I had some shiat to say
2.  After I re-read it, I decided that it doesn't matter anyway.  So I decided not to post.

As long as you can go to sleep tonight knowing that no one from the government is going to bulldoze your house and put a bullet through the head of your entire family...  All of this is nonsense.


So any government that isn't murdering you right now is a good government?  You have pretty low standards.
 
2013-06-13 10:43:39 AM

Serious Black: Light treason!


drinkingcinema.com
 
2013-06-13 10:45:06 AM

vygramul: Good to know. Now if I want to let China in on something because my loyalty is to them and not us, I can use the handy loophole of letting the press know.


Why do you assume his loyalty is to a foreign power?  And if it were, couldn't he have just, you know, gave them info without going public in the first place?

You know, I kinda like this debate.  Most debates on Fark are boring ole "90% liberals vs 10% GOP shills."   This one?  It seems to bring out the statists, regardless of political affiliation.

"The horrible shiat that the government does should be kept secret, because security!  This guy should hang!"   OK, Adolf.
 
2013-06-13 10:45:53 AM
The most pathetic thing about all of this is it could have been entirely prevented.


if they had ever bothered to get a farking warrant.

/oh wait, warrants have to be specific to a place person or thing. not just "we want to wiretap everyone for everything at all times.
 
2013-06-13 10:46:46 AM

BarkingUnicorn: How about "creating a nuisance?"

/father-rapin'?


Just put him on the Group W bench for now.

/Littering?
 
2013-06-13 10:46:48 AM

darkedgefan: Treason is tough to prove??? Are you kidding me? I would kill to be on the jury that heard his case. F the 'proceedings and evidence' he is a traitor to America. Plain and simple.

Then I would sentence him to be ass raped hourly. By that demon in This is the end. That would be justice.


For airing the government's dirty laundry?  No punishment is too harsh?
 
2013-06-13 10:47:05 AM
e08595.medialib.glogster.com

You said "sedition" twice!
 
2013-06-13 10:47:18 AM

darkedgefan: Treason is tough to prove??? Are you kidding me? I would kill to be on the jury that heard his case. F the 'proceedings and evidence' he is a traitor to America. Plain and simple.

Then I would sentence him to be ass raped hourly. By that demon in This is the end. That would be justice.


Why do you hate the Constitution of the United States so much?
 
2013-06-13 10:47:58 AM
I'd say Snowden is a prime candidate for that one way mission to Mars.
 
2013-06-13 10:57:51 AM

dittybopper: No one would argue in court that during the Korean War, which was a war by all definition, that North Korea was an 'enemy' that was shooting real bullets at US troops.


SCOTUS occasionally gets literal about "war" provisions and the government's tendency to like treating things as wars without formally declaring them. They've slapped that sort of thing down before.
 
2013-06-13 11:01:13 AM

sendtodave: vygramul: Good to know. Now if I want to let China in on something because my loyalty is to them and not us, I can use the handy loophole of letting the press know.

Why do you assume his loyalty is to a foreign power?  And if it were, couldn't he have just, you know, gave them info without going public in the first place?

You know, I kinda like this debate.  Most debates on Fark are boring ole "90% liberals vs 10% GOP shills."   This one?  It seems to bring out the statists, regardless of political affiliation.

"The horrible shiat that the government does should be kept secret, because security!  This guy should hang!"   OK, Adolf.


I'm not the one making assumptions. I'm not the one who is expressing 100% confidence that what some guy I don't know said about a program I have no visibility into is true. His powerpoint slides do not confirm the extent of his claims.

If he only went to China, the case would be open and shut. This way, millions of people who distrust government will automatically take his side. Just wait until the "legal defense fund" starts.
 
2013-06-13 11:02:52 AM

sendtodave: vygramul: Good to know. Now if I want to let China in on something because my loyalty is to them and not us, I can use the handy loophole of letting the press know.

Why do you assume his loyalty is to a foreign power?  And if it were, couldn't he have just, you know, gave them info without going public in the first place?

You know, I kinda like this debate.  Most debates on Fark are boring ole "90% liberals vs 10% GOP shills."   This one?  It seems to bring out the statists, regardless of political affiliation.

"The horrible shiat that the government does should be kept secret, because security!  This guy should hang!"   OK, Adolf.


Oh, and you're confusing "what are we doing" with "what we're doing is ok". Sure, some people are saying that if everything he said is true it's still ok. But I'm not saying that. I'm saying I don't believe half of what he is saying, and the other half is being misinterpreted.
 
2013-06-13 11:07:52 AM

vygramul: If he only went to China, the case would be open and shut. This way, millions of people who distrust government will automatically take his side. Just wait until the "legal defense fund" starts.


Shouldn't "distrusting government" be the default mode?
 
2013-06-13 11:08:00 AM

This text is now purple: dittybopper: No one would argue in court that during the Korean War, which was a war by all definition, that North Korea was an 'enemy' that was shooting real bullets at US troops.

SCOTUS occasionally gets literal about "war" provisions and the government's tendency to like treating things as wars without formally declaring them. They've slapped that sort of thing down before.


Well, we've not had a case like that (treason conviction without a formally declared war) since the 19th Century, but I'm willing to bet you could get one for something like open, active rebellion against the United States.

My point, though, about his actions not supporting a treason charge still stand.
 
2013-06-13 11:13:40 AM

sendtodave: vygramul: If he only went to China, the case would be open and shut. This way, millions of people who distrust government will automatically take his side. Just wait until the "legal defense fund" starts.

Shouldn't "distrusting government" be the default mode?


It's rally a gradient, and some level of mistrust is healthy. Automatically believing a guy just because he worked for the government? Not so healthy. Transparency issues about and need to be addressed. It doesn't help that congress tends to err on the side of permissiveness, but I have plenty of reason to believe they're not doing what Snowden claims.

/When Rockefeller said he voted for war in Iraq because he didn't understand the intel and was told he couldn't ask his staff for help, my reaction was, "Fark you. You're voting to kill thousands. It's their job to convince you and your job to say no unless you're damn convinced."
 
2013-06-13 11:14:49 AM

vygramul: sendtodave: vygramul: If he only went to China, the case would be open and shut. This way, millions of people who distrust government will automatically take his side. Just wait until the "legal defense fund" starts.

Shouldn't "distrusting government" be the default mode?

It's really a gradient, and some level of mistrust is healthy. Automatically believing a guy just because he worked for the government? Not so healthy. Transparency issues abound and need to be addressed. It doesn't help that congress tends to err on the side of permissiveness, but I have plenty of reason to believe they're not doing what Snowden claims.

/When Rockefeller said he voted for war in Iraq because he didn't understand the intel and was told he couldn't ask his staff for help, my reaction was, "Fark you. You're voting to kill thousands. It's their job to convince you and your job to say no unless you're damn convinced."


Woah- drunk typing. FTFM.
 
2013-06-13 11:18:15 AM

dittybopper: Treason is completely off the table.  This is how the Constitution defines treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Nothing that Snowden did could conceivably come close to that:  He merely leaked information a news agency about domestic surveillance programs, which isn't levying war, nor is it giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

What he *CAN* be tried and convicted for is for intentionally disclosing classified information to unauthorized personnel, and the government has a pretty open and shut case there:  He's admitted to it openly.


Plea him out to mishandling classified data... they don't want this to go to trial... it'd be a damned fiasco just to get through the discovery phase..
 
2013-06-13 11:19:46 AM

vygramul: sendtodave: vygramul: If he only went to China, the case would be open and shut. This way, millions of people who distrust government will automatically take his side. Just wait until the "legal defense fund" starts.

Shouldn't "distrusting government" be the default mode?

It's rally a gradient, and some level of mistrust is healthy. Automatically believing a guy just because he worked for the government? Not so healthy. Transparency issues about and need to be addressed. It doesn't help that congress tends to err on the side of permissiveness, but I have plenty of reason to believe they're not doing what Snowden claims.

/When Rockefeller said he voted for war in Iraq because he didn't understand the intel and was told he couldn't ask his staff for help, my reaction was, "Fark you. You're voting to kill thousands. It's their job to convince you and your job to say no unless you're damn convinced."


Eh, fair enough.  "Don't trust the government, but don't trust the douche, either."

Plenty are calling for his balls to be nailed to the wall, however.  I think that's a bit, well, frightening, really..
 
2013-06-13 11:22:17 AM

badhatharry: He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.


All else being equal, I'd be willing to hear him out if I was a juror. I mean, if he believed that the government was committing an illegal act and concealing that act by miscategorizing illegal activities as classified, I'd be inclined to accept that the categorization of "classified" might have been inappropriately applied, negating the charges against him.
 
2013-06-13 11:24:34 AM

sendtodave: vygramul: sendtodave: vygramul: If he only went to China, the case would be open and shut. This way, millions of people who distrust government will automatically take his side. Just wait until the "legal defense fund" starts.

Shouldn't "distrusting government" be the default mode?

It's rally a gradient, and some level of mistrust is healthy. Automatically believing a guy just because he worked for the government? Not so healthy. Transparency issues about and need to be addressed. It doesn't help that congress tends to err on the side of permissiveness, but I have plenty of reason to believe they're not doing what Snowden claims.

/When Rockefeller said he voted for war in Iraq because he didn't understand the intel and was told he couldn't ask his staff for help, my reaction was, "Fark you. You're voting to kill thousands. It's their job to convince you and your job to say no unless you're damn convinced."

Eh, fair enough.  "Don't trust the government, but don't trust the douche, either."

Plenty are calling for his balls to be nailed to the wall, however.  I think that's a bit, well, frightening, really..


I don't trust Snowden, but from the congresspeople who have characterized classified meetings and from the general statements from the NSA Director, it sounds like the PRISM project was even bigger and more invasive than Snowden described.
 
2013-06-13 11:25:12 AM
Stop this nonsense of calling Snowden a traitor. He is a whistleblower plain and simple. If he had taken that info to a foreign government in secret, or directly passed secretes found, or gave a foreign official the heads up that we know he likes little boys and will use it to blackmail him in negotiations, then maybe. He simply used his position to add some authority to what the "conspiracy theorist" have been saying all along.

Apparently in this country reading a bill and telling others what it says makes you a conspiracy nut, and pointing out a specific case where it's applied makes you a traitor.
 
2013-06-13 11:25:20 AM
 
2013-06-13 11:29:52 AM

firefly212: badhatharry: He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.

All else being equal, I'd be willing to hear him out if I was a juror. I mean, if he believed that the government was committing an illegal act and concealing that act by miscategorizing illegal activities as classified, I'd be inclined to accept that the categorization of "classified" might have been inappropriately applied, negating the charges against him.


What he "believed" shouldn't count for anything, except possibly for some slight mitigation at his final sentencing. It's his duty to not be ignorant of the facts and the law before doing something like this - if it can't be shown that the government was doing anything illegal to begin with then he should certainly pay for his stupidity.
 
2013-06-13 11:29:56 AM

fluffy2097: The only people committing treason is the NSA, who is wiretapping the entire American public without ever obtaining a court warrant.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 400x400]


Is telling us for a second/third time that we're being watched really providing us with information? Comfort?

Your meme sucks!
 
2013-06-13 11:30:30 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: dittybopper: Nothing that Snowden did could conceivably come close to that: He merely leaked information a news agency about domestic surveillance programs, which isn't levying war, nor is it giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

So telling the Chinese how we spy on them (read the latest news) isn't treason? Because that totally is.


The bills passed in congress that are freely available for anyone to read said this already. There was no question as to our wiretapping for foreigners. He just exposed the fact that it happens domestically as well to those foolish enough to think that it wasn't already.
 
2013-06-13 11:33:48 AM

mizchief: PC LOAD LETTER: dittybopper: Nothing that Snowden did could conceivably come close to that: He merely leaked information a news agency about domestic surveillance programs, which isn't levying war, nor is it giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

So telling the Chinese how we spy on them (read the latest news) isn't treason? Because that totally is.

The bills passed in congress that are freely available for anyone to read said this already. There was no question as to our wiretapping for foreigners. He just exposed the fact that it happens domestically as well to those foolish enough to think that it wasn't already.


Why does everyone seem to think that the idea that online correspondence should be protected the same as, say, a letter, is "foolish?"
 
2013-06-13 11:36:57 AM

velvet_fog: badhatharry: He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.

No he wasn't. He did the exact opposite. NSA actions have been backed by Congress, the executive, and the courts. He subverted democracy.


I didnt vote for it-and I suspect that many millions of others did not, as well.
 
2013-06-13 11:38:55 AM

sendtodave: Why does everyone seem to think that the idea that online correspondence should be protected the same as, say, a letter, is "foolish?"


Because you're giving the information to dozens of 3rd parties who are out to make a buck?  And you have no agreement with any of those involved as to secure the data?
 
2013-06-13 11:40:36 AM

Alathea: velvet_fog: badhatharry: He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.

No he wasn't. He did the exact opposite. NSA actions have been backed by Congress, the executive, and the courts. He subverted democracy.

I didnt vote for it-and I suspect that many millions of others did not, as well.


But you voted for the guys that approve it!  You should have voted for their opponents, who would have approved it.  Or not voted.

Either way, you asked for this, citizen.  You wanted it.  You gave them them mandate.  They should have this power.

And anyone who says otherwise should be hung.
 
2013-06-13 11:42:41 AM

Alathea: velvet_fog: badhatharry: He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.

No he wasn't. He did the exact opposite. NSA actions have been backed by Congress, the executive, and the courts. He subverted democracy.

I didnt vote for it-and I suspect that many millions of others did not, as well.


Railing against the government doing something that's legal and vetted at multiple levels while making vague references to "the Constitution" and "the American people" is something I'd expect out of the Tea Party.
 
2013-06-13 11:43:09 AM

Satanic_Hamster: sendtodave: Why does everyone seem to think that the idea that online correspondence should be protected the same as, say, a letter, is "foolish?"

Because you're giving the information to dozens of 3rd parties who are out to make a buck?  And you have no agreement with any of those involved as to secure the data?


I pay the post office to send my letters.  They use my personal info to send me junk mail.

I guess they should be able to read my mail.
 
2013-06-13 11:43:12 AM

Biological Ali: firefly212: badhatharry: He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.

All else being equal, I'd be willing to hear him out if I was a juror. I mean, if he believed that the government was committing an illegal act and concealing that act by miscategorizing illegal activities as classified, I'd be inclined to accept that the categorization of "classified" might have been inappropriately applied, negating the charges against him.

What he "believed" shouldn't count for anything, except possibly for some slight mitigation at his final sentencing. It's his duty to not be ignorant of the facts and the law before doing something like this - if it can't be shown that the government was doing anything illegal to begin with then he should certainly pay for his stupidity.


It's also his duty to not participate in breaking the law the other way. If he thought that he would be committing a crime by continuing to act in his job role, he has a duty to not do that. Frankly, with this and so many other things, the government operates in that grey area, where they're violating the 4th amendment, but the PATRIOT Act seems to say that they don't really need to pay attention to the constitution anyways. The legality of the program is muddled at best and will likely take many years for trained lawyers and judges to sort out... expecting that a Technical Analyst would be able anticipate how that's gonna play out is unrealistic... I can guarantee you that if you took this program to the supreme court, knowing what we know now, at least 3 of our nations best legal minds would agree that the program violates the constitution, I can't say how the whole ruling would go, but his belief in the illegality of the program should be relevant, provided it is reasonable... and I'd say with great certainty that if nothing else, his belief that the government was asking him to participate in criminal activity is reasonable and well-founded
 
2013-06-13 11:43:20 AM

mizchief: Stop this nonsense of calling Snowden a traitor. He is a whistleblower plain and simple.


Whistleblowers point out dishonest or illegal operations. PRISM is not terribly dishonest, nor illegal. (Secretive, skectchy, etc? Sure.) Snowden is not a whistleblower.

Sorry, you don't get to rewrite what words mean to suit your politics. That doesn't help anyone.
 
2013-06-13 11:43:26 AM

firefly212: Plea him out to mishandling classified data... they don't want this to go to trial... it'd be a damned fiasco just to get through the discovery phase..


Perhaps not even that:  They might just drop the case quietly in a few years, because prosecuting it would risk revealing too much.
 
2013-06-13 11:46:27 AM

Biological Ali: All else being equal, I'd be willing to hear him out if I was a juror. I mean, if he believed that the government was committing an illegal act and concealing that act by miscategorizing illegal activities as classified, I'd be inclined to accept that the categorization of "classified" might have been inappropriately applied, negating the charges against him.

What he "believed" shouldn't count for anything, except possibly for some slight mitigation at his final sentencing. It's his duty to not be ignorant of the facts and the law before doing something like this - if it can't be shown that the government was doing anything illegal to begin with then he should certainly pay for his stupidity.


Under the law, belief need only be "reasonable", not absolute, or even correct. His primary duty is to uphold the constitution. All other considerations are secondary, and derive from that.
 
2013-06-13 11:49:01 AM

fluffy2097: The most pathetic thing about all of this is it could have been entirely prevented.


if they had ever bothered to get a farking warrant.

/oh wait, warrants have to be specific to a place person or thing. not just "we want to wiretap everyone for everything at all times.


No, you see, the whole "warrant" system is woefully inefficient. You have to collect what evidence you can and present that to a judge. Judge has to review it and decide if a warrant is justified. THEN, you still have to go serve the warrant and look for further evidence of wrongdoing that might not even be there. All that time in preparation, the judges time, and the search can all be for nothing. Is that a good use of the taxpayers' money? I don't think so.

This way, we don't bother getting a warrant until we know what we're going to find when we get there. Federal Agents don't go on wild goose-chases, Judges aren't wasting their valuable bench-time signing useless warrants, and the American People get more efficient law-enforcement. It's a Win-Win-Win, or a "Cavalcade of Winning."

Yes, this is definitely the way to go and this Snowden boy has gummed up the works.
 
2013-06-13 11:49:07 AM

This text is now purple: Under the law, belief need only be "reasonable", not absolute, or even correct. His primary duty is to uphold the constitution. All other considerations are secondary, and derive from that.


That's not even remotely true. Do you remember what happened to that birther Marine who believed he was "upholding the constitution" by refusing to carry out the Kenyan usurper's orders?
 
2013-06-13 11:49:45 AM

mat catastrophe: PRISM is not terribly dishonest,


Oh, well, if it isn't terribly dishonest, just fairly dishonest, that doesn't count.

Did most of the public know about this program before this guy made a fuss?

No?

He blew a whistle that alerted them to it.  As you say, words have meaning, and that's exactly what whistle-blowing means.

And now, hopefully, the public will NOT support this program.
 
2013-06-13 11:51:43 AM

Satanic_Hamster: sendtodave: Why does everyone seem to think that the idea that online correspondence should be protected the same as, say, a letter, is "foolish?"

Because you're giving the information to dozens of 3rd parties who are out to make a buck?  And you have no agreement with any of those involved as to secure the data?


Oddly enough, most email companies do have agreements relating to data protection and sales. But your third party standard... I mean, I give the mail to the postman, or ups, or fedex... I don't drive it to the house of the person to whom I am writing a letter. Third party carrying has never been considered an abridgement of reasonable search and seizure rights until the electronic age. Sure UPS and Fedex are out to make money, but that doesn't mean that somehow the privacy of my correspondence is affected by their business interests.
 
2013-06-13 11:52:00 AM

sendtodave: Alathea: velvet_fog: badhatharry: He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.

No he wasn't. He did the exact opposite. NSA actions have been backed by Congress, the executive, and the courts. He subverted democracy.

I didnt vote for it-and I suspect that many millions of others did not, as well.

But you voted for the guys that approve it!  You should have voted for their opponents, who would have approved it.  Or not voted.

Either way, you asked for this, citizen.  You wanted it.  You gave them them mandate.  They should have this power.

And anyone who says otherwise should be hung.


Heh, actually, no I didn't. At the time all this bullshiat was passed I was still serving and was a little pre-occupied with not getting shot at.
 
2013-06-13 11:52:58 AM
Hey, if the government's not doing anything illegal, they've got nothing to hide.
 
2013-06-13 11:53:13 AM
hacking is a federal crime
 
2013-06-13 11:53:30 AM

Biological Ali: This text is now purple: Under the law, belief need only be "reasonable", not absolute, or even correct. His primary duty is to uphold the constitution. All other considerations are secondary, and derive from that.

That's not even remotely true. Do you remember what happened to that birther Marine who believed he was "upholding the constitution" by refusing to carry out the Kenyan usurper's orders?


When Birther Marine did that, it was based on precisely zero evidence so he could (a) get out of his deployment and (2) be a loud-mouth troublemaker. It was nonsense. Snowden's got solid documentation of what the NSA is doing and the NSA admits this stuff is real. Altogether different.
 
2013-06-13 11:53:39 AM

Biological Ali: This text is now purple: Under the law, belief need only be "reasonable", not absolute, or even correct. His primary duty is to uphold the constitution. All other considerations are secondary, and derive from that.

That's not even remotely true. Do you remember what happened to that birther Marine who believed he was "upholding the constitution" by refusing to carry out the Kenyan usurper's orders?


umm... did you miss the "reasonable" part of that?
 
2013-06-13 11:54:19 AM

Biological Ali: Alathea: velvet_fog: badhatharry: He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.

No he wasn't. He did the exact opposite. NSA actions have been backed by Congress, the executive, and the courts. He subverted democracy.

I didnt vote for it-and I suspect that many millions of others did not, as well.

Railing against the government doing something that's legal and vetted at multiple levels while making vague references to "the Constitution" and "the American people" is something I'd expect out of the Tea Party.


Just because the in-club "vetted it" in response to all the derp about "turrerists" at the time doesn't make it right-or legal. I can collectively decide with my office mates to steal money from payroll. Doesn't make it legal just because we all agree on it. FISA is supposed to be extremely limited and on a case by case basis for specific information necessary for an investigation-not a sweeping broadside at all domestic communications 'just in case'.
 
2013-06-13 11:54:23 AM

aug3: hacking is a federal crime


and a federal hobby.
 
2013-06-13 11:55:41 AM

Alathea: sendtodave: Alathea: velvet_fog: badhatharry: He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.

No he wasn't. He did the exact opposite. NSA actions have been backed by Congress, the executive, and the courts. He subverted democracy.

I didnt vote for it-and I suspect that many millions of others did not, as well.

But you voted for the guys that approve it!  You should have voted for their opponents, who would have approved it.  Or not voted.

Either way, you asked for this, citizen.  You wanted it.  You gave them them mandate.  They should have this power.

And anyone who says otherwise should be hung.

Heh, actually, no I didn't. At the time all this bullshiat was passed I was still serving and was a little pre-occupied with not getting shot at.


Then you didn't not-vote for the right people while serving under them!  You still get the government you deserve.

Therefore, what they are doing is perfectly OK.
 
2013-06-13 11:56:04 AM
Geesh. What don't you guy get? The Constitution was created for the purpose of preventing a tyrannic government. (The creators had just fought one off.) The items in the Patriot Act allows for that to happen. It (The Act) has long surpassed security and is now into individual profiling.

"I will log all the information and when you do something that contests my power and authority, I will pull your data up and find in all the emotionally charged writings something to convict you on and easily quash the issue." That is someone's fact. That someone is among the authors of the Patriot Act. Someone knows everything it said long before it went to the Congress who did not read it.

Snowden is a true Patriot, and you could only wish you had a fraction of his balls to fight for the true meaning of the Constitution.
 
2013-06-13 11:56:30 AM

firefly212: I can't say how the whole ruling would go, but his belief in the illegality of the program should be relevant, provided it is reasonable


Sure, it should be relevant to the extent that he gets maybe 25 instead of 30 years (just as an example) if they really believed he had good intentions. But "I thought I was doing the right thing" has, in and of itself, never been an excuse for breaking the law.
 
2013-06-13 11:58:33 AM
I'm down with jaywalking. Fine him fifty bucks and let him get back to work.
 
2013-06-13 12:00:35 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: dittybopper: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Not enough people are tried for being aliens xenomorphs in the Alien Xenomorph and Sedition Acts.

FTFY.  Can't call 'em "Aliens" anymore.  It's a PC thing.

I apologize. "Promethean Americans."


Don't lump us all together, you need to differentiate between "Panspermian Americans" and "Necropansermian Americans".  Interestingly, some models for DNA variation indicate that the amino acids probably predates Earth.
 
2013-06-13 12:00:51 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: When Birther Marine did that, it was based on precisely zero evidence so he could (a) get out of his deployment and (2) be a loud-mouth troublemaker. It was nonsense. Snowden's got solid documentation of what the NSA is doing and the NSA admits this stuff is real. Altogether different.


The classified documents that have been leaked are indeed very real, but in terms of support for the allegation that there was something "illegal" going on, or that this guy was "upholding the Constitution" by doing what he did, he's right up there with Birther Marine. In fact, he's probably a step or two below Birther Marine, since that guy's only angle was "I don't want any part of these actions that I believe are illegal" and not "I believe it's illegal so I'm going to try and sabotage the war effort".
 
2013-06-13 12:01:20 PM

sendtodave: Alathea: sendtodave: Alathea: velvet_fog: badhatharry: He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.

No he wasn't. He did the exact opposite. NSA actions have been backed by Congress, the executive, and the courts. He subverted democracy.

I didnt vote for it-and I suspect that many millions of others did not, as well.

But you voted for the guys that approve it!  You should have voted for their opponents, who would have approved it.  Or not voted.

Either way, you asked for this, citizen.  You wanted it.  You gave them them mandate.  They should have this power.

And anyone who says otherwise should be hung.

Heh, actually, no I didn't. At the time all this bullshiat was passed I was still serving and was a little pre-occupied with not getting shot at.

Then you didn't not-vote for the right people while serving under them!  You still get the government you deserve.

Therefore, what they are doing is perfectly OK.


You really are having trouble getting this, aren't you? Ill make sure next time to vote for all the people that think women should carry dead babies to term because of their belief in a sky fairy, that way when they stack the legal deck I can say ":well, you didn't vote for the right people....."
 
2013-06-13 12:01:20 PM

Stoker: Geesh. What don't you guy get? The Constitution was created for the purpose of preventing a tyrannic government. (The creators had just fought one off.) The items in the Patriot Act allows for that to happen. It (The Act) has long surpassed security and is now into individual profiling.

"I will log all the information and when you do something that contests my power and authority, I will pull your data up and find in all the emotionally charged writings something to convict you on and easily quash the issue." That is someone's fact. That someone is among the authors of the Patriot Act. Someone knows everything it said long before it went to the Congress who did not read it.

Snowden is a true Patriot, and you could only wish you had a fraction of his balls to fight for the true meaning of the Constitution.


Good point.

Real patriots stand up to overreaching governments.  Even their own.   Especially their own.

Our founders were all traitors.  Did they do it for selfish reasons?  Sure, many did.  But it was the right thing.

And good for us that they were.

Now I understand while this doesn't spli down political lines.  It isn't about party.

Loyalists dislike Snowden.
 
2013-06-13 12:04:15 PM

Alathea: You really are having trouble getting this, aren't you?


Sorry, just being obtuse.  It's an argument I've seen come up too often recently.

"We should expect this kind of thing, we asked for it."

I don't agree with that.
 
2013-06-13 12:05:33 PM

Biological Ali: firefly212: I can't say how the whole ruling would go, but his belief in the illegality of the program should be relevant, provided it is reasonable

Sure, it should be relevant to the extent that he gets maybe 25 instead of 30 years (just as an example) if they really believed he had good intentions. But "I thought I was doing the right thing" has, in and of itself, never been an excuse for breaking the law.


I don't give a shiat what he thought was "right"... I care more about the fact that he reasonably believed the government agency he was working for was actively soliciting for him and others to break the law.
 
2013-06-13 12:06:18 PM
The fact that even one single person would defend the government on this is farking bone-chilling.
 
2013-06-13 12:07:32 PM

Alathea: Biological Ali: Alathea: velvet_fog: badhatharry: He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.

No he wasn't. He did the exact opposite. NSA actions have been backed by Congress, the executive, and the courts. He subverted democracy.

I didnt vote for it-and I suspect that many millions of others did not, as well.

Railing against the government doing something that's legal and vetted at multiple levels while making vague references to "the Constitution" and "the American people" is something I'd expect out of the Tea Party.

Just because the in-club "vetted it" in response to all the derp about "turrerists" at the time doesn't make it right-or legal. I can collectively decide with my office mates to steal money from payroll. Doesn't make it legal just because we all agree on it. FISA is supposed to be extremely limited and on a case by case basis for specific information necessary for an investigation-not a sweeping broadside at all domestic communications 'just in case'.


Make all the arguments you want about whether you think it's right or not; that's perfectly fine. When people start making claims about legality, on the other hand, they cross very quickly into "Area man passionate defender..." territory.
 
2013-06-13 12:08:04 PM

sendtodave: Stoker: Geesh. What don't you guy get? The Constitution was created for the purpose of preventing a tyrannic government. (The creators had just fought one off.) The items in the Patriot Act allows for that to happen. It (The Act) has long surpassed security and is now into individual profiling.

"I will log all the information and when you do something that contests my power and authority, I will pull your data up and find in all the emotionally charged writings something to convict you on and easily quash the issue." That is someone's fact. That someone is among the authors of the Patriot Act. Someone knows everything it said long before it went to the Congress who did not read it.

Snowden is a true Patriot, and you could only wish you had a fraction of his balls to fight for the true meaning of the Constitution.

Good point.

Real patriots stand up to overreaching governments.  Even their own.   Especially their own.

Our founders were all traitors.  Did they do it for selfish reasons?  Sure, many did.  But it was the right thing.

And good for us that they were.

Now I understand while this doesn't spli down political lines.  It isn't about party.

Loyalists dislike Snowden.


Rebel Scum!

Seriously though, to the British Crown, all the founding fathers we look up to today were just seditious traitors.
 
2013-06-13 12:10:04 PM

firefly212: Biological Ali: firefly212: I can't say how the whole ruling would go, but his belief in the illegality of the program should be relevant, provided it is reasonable

Sure, it should be relevant to the extent that he gets maybe 25 instead of 30 years (just as an example) if they really believed he had good intentions. But "I thought I was doing the right thing" has, in and of itself, never been an excuse for breaking the law.

I don't give a shiat what he thought was "right"... I care more about the fact that he reasonably believed the government agency he was working for was actively soliciting for him and others to break the law.


I think you're confusing "reasonable" with "sincere". He may well have sincerely believed it with all his heart, but (on the current evidence, anyway), the belief is still about as reasonable as as the birther Marine's.
 
2013-06-13 12:10:33 PM
First degree aggravated mopery? With special circumstances.
 
2013-06-13 12:11:05 PM

sendtodave: Alathea: You really are having trouble getting this, aren't you?

Sorry, just being obtuse.  It's an argument I've seen come up too often recently.

"We should expect this kind of thing, we asked for it."

I don't agree with that.


And Im sorry for my brashness. I usually come across a bit less combatant. Apologies. Its a touchstone issue with me-I served in the army, my dad was a spec forces Marine in Vietnam, and then an NCO in the Army in the early 80s in Central America. Im probably the most patriotic liberal you'd find. I loved my time in service-most of it, but I still think there are aspects of that service and the government that drives it that still need to be addressed and brought to light.
 
2013-06-13 12:11:38 PM

ISubmittedThisYesterdayWithAMuchFunnierHeadline: The fact that even one single person would defend the government on this is farking bone-chilling.


It is not surprising though. We've had the "all walls, no keep" castle-building mentality for a while now. I'm not even a little surprised that these people, including senators and representatives are eager to shred the constitution in the name of defending the country. Whether we're talking about crazy ass funding for our military while fighting against food stamps for the peasantry or this... we're committed to having the nicest walls and best defense for protecting our crumbling ideas of what we used to be.
 
2013-06-13 12:15:12 PM

Biological Ali: firefly212: Biological Ali: firefly212: I can't say how the whole ruling would go, but his belief in the illegality of the program should be relevant, provided it is reasonable

Sure, it should be relevant to the extent that he gets maybe 25 instead of 30 years (just as an example) if they really believed he had good intentions. But "I thought I was doing the right thing" has, in and of itself, never been an excuse for breaking the law.

I don't give a shiat what he thought was "right"... I care more about the fact that he reasonably believed the government agency he was working for was actively soliciting for him and others to break the law.

I think you're confusing "reasonable" with "sincere". He may well have sincerely believed it with all his heart, but (on the current evidence, anyway), the belief is still about as reasonable as as the birther Marine's.


I think given our current evidence, the 4th Amendment supercedes the PATRIOT Act, making all these warrant-less searches unconstitutional violations of civil rights. But like I said, I don't know how that case will turn out, it's gonna make its way through the courts, and though I'm sure 3 or 4 SCOTUS justices will find it unconstitutional, I don't know how the whole ruling itself will go. That said, I'd concede (to Mr. Snowden) that if 3 or 4 of our best and brightest judicial minds don't believe it to be constitutional, that it isn't unreasonable for a Technical Analyst to reach that same conclusion.
 
2013-06-13 12:18:32 PM

Biological Ali: Alathea: Biological Ali: Alathea: velvet_fog: badhatharry: He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.

No he wasn't. He did the exact opposite. NSA actions have been backed by Congress, the executive, and the courts. He subverted democracy.

I didnt vote for it-and I suspect that many millions of others did not, as well.

Railing against the government doing something that's legal and vetted at multiple levels while making vague references to "the Constitution" and "the American people" is something I'd expect out of the Tea Party.

Just because the in-club "vetted it" in response to all the derp about "turrerists" at the time doesn't make it right-or legal. I can collectively decide with my office mates to steal money from payroll. Doesn't make it legal just because we all agree on it. FISA is supposed to be extremely limited and on a case by case basis for specific information necessary for an investigation-not a sweeping broadside at all domestic communications 'just in case'.

Make all the arguments you want about whether you think it's right or not; that's perfectly fine. When people start making claims about legality, on the other hand, they cross very quickly into "Area man passionate defender..." territory.


It may seem that way, but I am anything but. I think that there are several laws that, while 'legal' in the sense that the boys club all agree about it, are still not legal under Constitutional scrutiny. The problem is that rarely does anyone bother to open it up to challenge.
 
2013-06-13 12:19:01 PM

sendtodave: Stoker: Geesh. What don't you guy get? The Constitution was created for the purpose of preventing a tyrannic government. (The creators had just fought one off.) The items in the Patriot Act allows for that to happen. It (The Act) has long surpassed security and is now into individual profiling.

"I will log all the information and when you do something that contests my power and authority, I will pull your data up and find in all the emotionally charged writings something to convict you on and easily quash the issue." That is someone's fact. That someone is among the authors of the Patriot Act. Someone knows everything it said long before it went to the Congress who did not read it.

Snowden is a true Patriot, and you could only wish you had a fraction of his balls to fight for the true meaning of the Constitution.

Good point.

Real patriots stand up to overreaching governments.  Even their own.   Especially their own.

Our founders were all traitors.  Did they do it for selfish reasons?  Sure, many did.  But it was the right thing.

And good for us that they were.

Now I understand while this doesn't spli down political lines.  It isn't about party.

Loyalists dislike Snowden.


Not to be an apologist for the whole warrant-less big data,  But if the US government isn't going to collect it, some company, the media, or some other government will.

I've always assumed that if you are committing crime then the government can legally collect all the information they want on you.  If you aren't then the best you can hope for is not doing anything to draw attention to yourself.

The lack of government records on Obama/Romney didn't prevent us from getting their high school photos, college transcripts, birth certificates, tax records, second hand stories from creeped out college girlfriends.  Well ok, most of that.

Don't think that what you do happens in a vacuum.  That's what bugs me about the 501(c)4 crap, is your bank transcripts (and those of your donors) can be obtained, so not having to show who your donors are is a farce.

/Fatalist Party 2014
 
2013-06-13 12:25:26 PM

ISubmittedThisYesterdayWithAMuchFunnierHeadline: The fact that even one single person would defend the government on this is farking bone-chilling.


I misread that as:
The fact that ONLY one single person would EXPOSE the government is farking bone-chilling.

/I can't recall the name for the 'phenomena' but justification for actions already taken creates an moral slippery slope where you don't realize what you are doing is wrong.  Nixon was the primary example in that. Group-think, while it applies isn't the term I'm thinking of.
 
2013-06-13 12:25:42 PM
Well, I see this "charging him with treason would be like calling the American people the enemy" talking point is out in full force. As though this  reallyneeds addressing: the "enemy" in this case is the people out there planning to do something bad to the US who now have detailed information on one of the programs we use to try to stop them. How hard is that to understand?

I'm as against this NSA stuff as the next guy, but Snowden is still a dick/AW (blabbing about our hacking China sure as hell wasn't done to defend and inform the American people) and, while he doesn't deserve to be charged with treason,  per se (it's not like he secretly passed this info directly on to a foreign government), deserves some sort of punishment for what he did. If he really believed that his cause was noble and just, he'd have found a better way to go about it.
 
2013-06-13 12:29:08 PM
This is abasic 4th amendment violation of our right to privacyand freedom from unnecessary searches.  SPEAK UP!

If you know evil is being committed and the tools for evil are only being expanded upon, as a good person, you should say something!


Terrorism can be stopped without us loosing our basic freedoms as afforded under the constitution.   The CIA knew Bin Laden's 'attack was imminent' and delivered that memo to Bush way before 9/11.  Our intelligence network is in place and works... WE DON'T NEED TO LOSE OUR BASIC FREEDOMS in exchange for PHONY SECURITY.

Contact your congressman / representative.
Call them on the phone.

Show them you're not afraid, but are a CONCERNED citizen.
Concerned for your 4th Amendment rights.
Concerned that this phony big brother system is not keeping us any safer.


http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml - Click on links on the bottom left, it takes a minute.  Call the Washington office of both your State Representative and two Congressmen.
They don't ask your name, just your zip code and message to deliver the rep/congressman.

STOP COMPLAINING
AND DO SOMETHING!
 
2013-06-13 12:30:27 PM
http://secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_prism_global/?taTMreb

If you want to vote against, share your opinion. If not, coontinue ranting.
 
2013-06-13 12:33:18 PM

firefly212: I think given our current evidence, the 4th Amendment supercedes the PATRIOT Act, making all these warrant-less searches unconstitutional violations of civil rights. But like I said, I don't know how that case will turn out, it's gonna make its way through the courts, and though I'm sure 3 or 4 SCOTUS justices will find it unconstitutional, I don't know how the whole ruling itself will go. That said, I'd concede (to Mr. Snowden) that if 3 or 4 of our best and brightest judicial minds don't believe it to be constitutional, that it isn't unreasonable for a Technical Analyst to reach that same conclusion.


All of which is entirely irrelevant to the culpability that Snowden bears. It's not his job to take vigilante action in anticipation of what he believes the Supreme Court might decide. Even if we grant your assertion that the legality is "muddled at best", it's not this guy's job to unilaterally make that decision. It's like with those local sheriffs who claim they won't enforce gun laws duly passed by legislatures because "Constitution" - even though it's true that the amendments to the Constitution are technically superior to these laws, it's not their place to make this decision, and their sincere beliefs to the contrary won't shield them from the consequences for their actions.

He broke the law, and what you're talking about is absolutely not a defense against breaking the law - like I said, it at most can be a factor in mitigating his final punishment (i.e., less severe than someone who did the same thing in exchange for money).
 
2013-06-13 12:36:25 PM

cptrios: Well, I see this "charging him with treason would be like calling the American people the enemy" talking point is out in full force. As though this  reallyneeds addressing: the "enemy" in this case is the people out there planning to do something bad to the US who now have detailed information on one of the programs we use to try to stop them. How hard is that to understand?

I'm as against this NSA stuff as the next guy, but Snowden is still a dick/AW (blabbing about our hacking China sure as hell wasn't done to defend and inform the American people) and, while he doesn't deserve to be charged with treason,  per se (it's not like he secretly passed this info directly on to a foreign government), deserves some sort of punishment for what he did. If he really believed that his cause was noble and just, he'd have found a better way to go about it.


How about charge him with distributing classified information to unauthorized personnel?  Just a thought.
 
2013-06-13 12:38:17 PM

NostroZ: Show them you're not afraid, but are a CONCERNED citizen.
Concerned for your 4th Amendment rights.
Concerned that this phony big brother system is not keeping us any safer.


Can I do something more intelligent than be a CONCERNED citizen?
Maybe a facebook page I can like or prayer service to attend?
 
2013-06-13 12:41:31 PM

Slackness: http://secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_prism_global/?taTMreb

If you want to vote against, share your opinion. If not, coontinue ranting.


Signed the petition.
Now call your congressmen / state representatives.

They have very nice staffers that will take down your message and only ask for your zip code.

USE YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
This is a Democracy still.
You have a right and a moral duty to contact your government (congressman / state rep).
 
2013-06-13 12:45:21 PM

TheGogmagog: NostroZ: Show them you're not afraid, but are a CONCERNED citizen.
Concerned for your 4th Amendment rights.
Concerned that this phony big brother system is not keeping us any safer.

Can I do something more intelligent than be a CONCERNED citizen?
Maybe a facebook page I can like or prayer service to attend?


You can be whatever you chose to be... but if you ARE concerned for your basic FREEDOM of PRIVACY, then you should SPEAK UP.

The way this is done in a Representative-Democracy as far as I know is by contacting your State Representative to the House and two Congressmen to the US Senate.  They are the people you vote for and are concerned about your VOTE in the future.  They represent you in government.

That's how our system is supposed to function.  Are you afraid to PARTICIPATE in your government, but not in Fark?
 
2013-06-13 12:46:19 PM

Biological Ali: firefly212: Biological Ali: firefly212: I can't say how the whole ruling would go, but his belief in the illegality of the program should be relevant, provided it is reasonable

Sure, it should be relevant to the extent that he gets maybe 25 instead of 30 years (just as an example) if they really believed he had good intentions. But "I thought I was doing the right thing" has, in and of itself, never been an excuse for breaking the law.

I don't give a shiat what he thought was "right"... I care more about the fact that he reasonably believed the government agency he was working for was actively soliciting for him and others to break the law.

I think you're confusing "reasonable" with "sincere". He may well have sincerely believed it with all his heart, but (on the current evidence, anyway), the belief is still about as reasonable as as the birther Marine's.


You seem to be misinformed, Biological Ali, on the potential illegality of the government's acts and on what would constitute a reasonable interpretation of those acts.  As was pointed out earlier in this thread, if the government's domestic spying programs were fully exposed and tested through the US court system, it's HIGHLY unlikely that the government was enjoy a string of unanimous victories.  Even at the supreme court level, any decision would likely be a highly contentious split decision.  In the end, regardless of what the eventual outcome would be, the simple fact that numerous federal jurists would have considered the government actions to be unconstitutional gives pretty strong evidence that a person can hold a reasonable belief that something illegal was happening.  As for your marine birther analogy, it's a completely different situation, because it's HIGHLY likely that if birther claims were ever pushed through the US court system, the birther's would likely face unanimous defeat at every significant level.

I think your problem, Biological Ali, is that you've confused your own sincere beliefs for actual reasoned analysis.
 
2013-06-13 12:46:52 PM

sendtodave: I pay the post office to send my letters. They use my personal info to send me junk mail.

I guess they should be able to read my mail.


The junk mail is sent to everyone.  Street addresses are public records.  As for personalized junk mail; you do realize that making up lists of who lives where and what their likely interests are is a massive business, right?

There's also a lot of established law over when the government can look at your physical mail and many court rulings on it.
 
2013-06-13 12:51:54 PM

dittybopper: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Not enough people are tried for being aliens xenomorphs in the Alien Xenomorph and Sedition Acts.

FTFY.  Can't call 'em "Aliens" anymore.  It's a PC thing.


Extraterrestrial Americans?
 
2013-06-13 12:54:52 PM

positronica: You seem to be misinformed, Biological Ali, on the potential illegality of the government's acts and on what would constitute a reasonable interpretation of those acts...

I think your problem, Biological Ali, is that you've confused your own sincere beliefs for actual reasoned analysis.


You've gone off on a bit of a tangent - the discussion is not about whether someone like Snowden could have a belief about how the Supreme Court might eventually rule that's "reasonable" in some abstract sense, but whether holding a belief like this is enough to completely exculpate him from the crimes he's committed. The answer to this specific question is a very clear and unambiguous "no".
 
2013-06-13 12:55:08 PM

sendtodave: mat catastrophe: PRISM is not terribly dishonest,

Oh, well, if it isn't terribly dishonest, just fairly dishonest, that doesn't count.

Did most of the public know about this program before this guy made a fuss?

No?

He blew a whistle that alerted them to it.  As you say, words have meaning, and that's exactly what whistle-blowing means.

And now, hopefully, the public will NOT support this program.


No, most of us who actually pay attention to this sort of thing - unlike most other people who have been more than happy to publicize every little detail of their lives on Facebook for years anyway (and then get *GASP* shocked when they learn the government's snooping) - have known about this for a long time. It generally hasn't been a secret. What's been secret, perhaps, is the scope and involvement of corporations.

Edward Snowden leaked classified documents. Period. There is no debate about this. You can argue all you want about the relative merits of the program, or how Snowden should be viewed (hero or villain), but you aren't getting around this.

And no, the general public is pretty much OK with PRISM and moreso with Verizon handing over call metadata. Sorry, but the "cyber-libertarians" lost when they ceded control to the capitalists and "cyber-utopians". All your data are belong to US(NSA).
 
2013-06-13 12:56:11 PM
www.quotesworthrepeating.com
Suspicion of mischief
 
2013-06-13 01:08:09 PM

mat catastrophe: And no, the general public is pretty much OK with PRISM and moreso with Verizon handing over call metadata. Sorry, but the "cyber-libertarians" lost when they ceded control to the capitalists and "cyber-utopians". All your data are belong to US(NSA).


I did not.
Did you get a say in this?

I don't have Facebook BECAUSE I don't like to waste my time worrying about how I'm viewed by snoopy strangers.

Living in a Democracy means PARTICIPATING in it.
Have your say.  Tell your Representatives in GOVERNMENT what you think so they can hear from people who are not just lobbyists.

I know complaining is easier, but in life, you have to do some work to make an impact.
 
2013-06-13 01:14:38 PM

Alathea: velvet_fog: badhatharry: He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.

No he wasn't. He did the exact opposite. NSA actions have been backed by Congress, the executive, and the courts. He subverted democracy.

I didnt vote for it-and I suspect that many millions of others did not, as well.


You didn't vote for interracial marriage, the civil rights act, nor to withdraw troops from Iraq. What kind of monster are you?
 
2013-06-13 01:21:03 PM
cptrios: ...but Snowden is still a dick/AW (blabbing about our hacking China sure as hell wasn't done to defend and inform the American people)...

Yes it was.  For more than one reason, even...

Example one: Numerous american companies and individuals have been petitioning the government, through it's power of foreign diplomacy, to engage the Chinese government on the issue of China allegedly hacking american companies' computers.  The administration has then publicly undertaken this endeavor, thus earning the support of the original petitioners.  At the same time, though, the government has been undertaking secret actions that directly undermine the efforts it was publicly claiming to make.  In such a situation, the public as an interest in knowing that they're essentially being lied to.

Example two: The government has publicly declared that cyber attacks by a foreign power will be considered hostile acts that can justifiably be met by a military response.  The government then secretly engages in those very same acts against an undeclared enemy and a major economic trading partner.  In such a situation, the public has an interest in knowing that the government is taking preemptive actions that it has already declared are the equivalent of military action, especially if those actions are against a non-enemy.
 
2013-06-13 01:32:21 PM

Biological Ali: firefly212: I think given our current evidence, the 4th Amendment supercedes the PATRIOT Act, making all these warrant-less searches unconstitutional violations of civil rights. But like I said, I don't know how that case will turn out, it's gonna make its way through the courts, and though I'm sure 3 or 4 SCOTUS justices will find it unconstitutional, I don't know how the whole ruling itself will go. That said, I'd concede (to Mr. Snowden) that if 3 or 4 of our best and brightest judicial minds don't believe it to be constitutional, that it isn't unreasonable for a Technical Analyst to reach that same conclusion.

All of which is entirely irrelevant to the culpability that Snowden bears. It's not his job to take vigilante action in anticipation of what he believes the Supreme Court might decide. Even if we grant your assertion that the legality is "muddled at best", it's not this guy's job to unilaterally make that decision. It's like with those local sheriffs who claim they won't enforce gun laws duly passed by legislatures because "Constitution" - even though it's true that the amendments to the Constitution are technically superior to these laws, it's not their place to make this decision, and their sincere beliefs to the contrary won't shield them from the consequences for their actions.

He broke the law, and what you're talking about is absolutely not a defense against breaking the law - like I said, it at most can be a factor in mitigating his final punishment (i.e., less severe than someone who did the same thing in exchange for money).


It isn't irrelevant, if the government is soliciting for people to commit illegal acts, then it's damned relevant. If the choice for him is between helping them break the law, and disclosing that they're soliciting for people to break the law, I'm a-ok with the disclosure. Classification is meant to provide national security for sensitive matters, not to hide illegal acts. I'm not going to support the government knowingly mis-classifying activities simply to hide that it is breaking the law... that'd just be silly.
 
2013-06-13 01:34:04 PM

positronica: cptrios: ...but Snowden is still a dick/AW (blabbing about our hacking China sure as hell wasn't done to defend and inform the American people)...

Yes it was.  For more than one reason, even...

Example one: Numerous american companies and individuals have been petitioning the government, through it's power of foreign diplomacy, to engage the Chinese government on the issue of China allegedly hacking american companies' computers.  The administration has then publicly undertaken this endeavor, thus earning the support of the original petitioners.  At the same time, though, the government has been undertaking secret actions that directly undermine the efforts it was publicly claiming to make.  In such a situation, the public as an interest in knowing that they're essentially being lied to.

Example two: The government has publicly declared that cyber attacks by a foreign power will be considered hostile acts that can justifiably be met by a military response.  The government then secretly engages in those very same acts against an undeclared enemy and a major economic trading partner.  In such a situation, the public has an interest in knowing that the government is taking preemptive actions that it has already declared are the equivalent of military action, especially if those actions are against a non-enemy.


You're examples would be better suited had the American public not already known that the US had cyber offensive capabilities. That is well documented and talked about in numerous articles, conferences and public hearings. What Snowden allegedly leaked to the Chinese were means and methods the US uses in their attacks; things not talked about in public because they put the US at a strategic disadvantage. Giving that information to a competing power arguably puts American interests in danger and makes the military and intelligence community less effective at  protecting US computer systems.
 
2013-06-13 01:37:00 PM
Minor sedition is what I used to do in High School.
 
2013-06-13 01:38:06 PM

firefly212: It isn't irrelevant, if the government is soliciting for people to commit illegal acts, then it's damned relevant.


There's no way for him to know that "illegal acts" were being carried out, since it's not his job to personally wade in and unilaterally render his judgment on something that is at best settled law and at worst a "controversial" issue that will be settled by the courts over the long term.

For that matter, I don't even know if he's making that claim himself. But anyway, you don't even have to take my word for it. Look at just about any informed commentary on the guy's legal prospects - TFA is a good place to start, but I'm sure there are more detailed analyses on law journals etc. Go through them, and note the complete absence of "Well maybe he really thought the Fourth Amendment was being violated!" At least to the extent of determining his culpability.
 
2013-06-13 01:41:09 PM
mat catastrophe:   And no, the general public is pretty much OK with PRISM and moreso with Verizon handing over call metadata. Sorry, but the "cyber-libertarians" lost when they ceded control to the capitalists and "cyber-utopians". All your data are belong to US(NSA).

If you run a poll that asks, "Are you in favor of the government using telephone metadata to catch terrorists?", then yeah, the public is probably going say "Ok".  On the other hand, if you ran a poll that asks, "Are you in favor of letting the government set up a perpetual database that would allow someone without a warrant to identify what medical conditions you might have, the health of your marriage, your sexual orientation, your religious beliefs, your political leanings, and your financial stability, and that furthermore there would be no public oversight of access of use of information in this database?", then I'm guessing the public would respond with a resounding "No".
 
2013-06-13 01:49:52 PM

Carth: positronica: cptrios: ...but Snowden is still a dick/AW (blabbing about our hacking China sure as hell wasn't done to defend and inform the American people)...

Yes it was.  For more than one reason, even...

Example one: Numerous american companies and individuals have been petitioning the government, through it's power of foreign diplomacy, to engage the Chinese government on the issue of China allegedly hacking american companies' computers.  The administration has then publicly undertaken this endeavor, thus earning the support of the original petitioners.  At the same time, though, the government has been undertaking secret actions that directly undermine the efforts it was publicly claiming to make.  In such a situation, the public as an interest in knowing that they're essentially being lied to.

Example two: The government has publicly declared that cyber attacks by a foreign power will be considered hostile acts that can justifiably be met by a military response.  The government then secretly engages in those very same acts against an undeclared enemy and a major economic trading partner.  In such a situation, the public has an interest in knowing that the government is taking preemptive actions that it has already declared are the equivalent of military action, especially if those actions are against a non-enemy.

You're examples would be better suited had the American public not already known that the US had cyber offensive capabilities. That is well documented and talked about in numerous articles, conferences and public hearings. What Snowden allegedly leaked to the Chinese were means and methods the US uses in their attacks; things not talked about in public because they put the US at a strategic disadvantage. Giving that information to a competing power arguably puts American interests in danger and makes the military and intelligence community less effective at  protecting US computer systems.


Oh good grief-the methods aren't secret-they are no different than what can be found an any number of internet sites devoted to security or hacking
-Almost done with a MS in InfoSec
-Getting a kick out of.........
 
2013-06-13 01:59:20 PM

Biological Ali: firefly212: It isn't irrelevant, if the government is soliciting for people to commit illegal acts, then it's damned relevant.

There's no way for him to know that "illegal acts" were being carried out, since it's not his job to personally wade in and unilaterally render his judgment on something that is at best settled law and at worst a "controversial" issue that will be settled by the courts over the long term.

For that matter, I don't even know if he's making that claim himself. But anyway, you don't even have to take my word for it. Look at just about any informed commentary on the guy's legal prospects - TFA is a good place to start, but I'm sure there are more detailed analyses on law journals etc. Go through them, and note the complete absence of "Well maybe he really thought the Fourth Amendment was being violated!" At least to the extent of determining his culpability.


It is very much your job, and every Americans job to make a judgement on the legality of what you're doing... in a million other threads, we can point and say "ignorance of the law isn't an excuse"... you can't go around committing crime for the government, then just turn around and say "I didn't know" or "but they told me to." Frankly, our government put a lot of people in very bad positions by operating right on that edge of legal/illegal... the fact that they're surprised that it bit them in the ass speaks worlds to their own lack of foresight and inability to comprehend basic behavioral patterns.
 
2013-06-13 02:06:20 PM
Not surprised that so many people don't know the definition of "treason." Am amazed, however, at how many Farkers don't understand the meaning of "wiretapping."

What the NSA is doing is not wiretapping. Nobody is listening to your calls, and they are not being recorded.

Of course, this doesn't mean it's all right. While I have no objection to phone records being used by law enforcement on a case-by-case basis (how many crimes have we seen solved by [admittedly] fictional TV detectives because of information gleaned by a suspect's phone bill?), the secrecy of the FISA court and the ease of access to the data pretty much guarantees that the system will be abused. If I were a reporter, for instance, I would be a fool to contact confidential sources with my cell phone. I would seek out the few remaining pay phones in whatever city I was working, and use them sparingly. In fact, as the revelations about the subpoenas of AP's phone records reminded us, I'm surprised that that isn't common practice already.

And what about that huge data farm the NSA is building out in the desert? That can't come cheap. There are many things I'd rather have my tax dollars spent on.
 
2013-06-13 02:08:56 PM

firefly212: It is very much your job, and every Americans job to make a judgement on the legality of what you're doing... in a million other threads, we can point and say "ignorance of the law isn't an excuse"... you can't go around committing crime for the government, then just turn around and say "I didn't know" or "but they told me to." Frankly, our government put a lot of people in very bad positions by operating right on that edge of legal/illegal... the fact that they're surprised that it bit them in the ass speaks worlds to their own lack of foresight and inability to comprehend basic behavioral patterns.


"Just following orders" isn't the same of "anyone can do whatever the fark they want."
 
2013-06-13 02:13:19 PM

Carth: positronica: cptrios: ...but Snowden is still a dick/AW (blabbing about our hacking China sure as hell wasn't done to defend and inform the American people)...

Yes it was.  For more than one reason, even...

Example one: Numerous american companies and individuals have been petitioning the government, through it's power of foreign diplomacy, to engage the Chinese government on the issue of China allegedly hacking american companies' computers.  The administration has then publicly undertaken this endeavor, thus earning the support of the original petitioners.  At the same time, though, the government has been undertaking secret actions that directly undermine the efforts it was publicly claiming to make.  In such a situation, the public as an interest in knowing that they're essentially being lied to.

Example two: The government has publicly declared that cyber attacks by a foreign power will be considered hostile acts that can justifiably be met by a military response.  The government then secretly engages in those very same acts against an undeclared enemy and a major economic trading partner.  In such a situation, the public has an interest in knowing that the government is taking preemptive actions that it has already declared are the equivalent of military action, especially if those actions are against a non-enemy.

You're examples would be better suited had the American public not already known that the US had cyber offensive capabilities. That is well documented and talked about in numerous articles, conferences and public hearings.


You've missed the point.  There's a difference between the public knowing that the government has an offensive capability, and the public knowing that the government is making use of that offensive capability.   If the government wants to take hostile actions of such nature against China, or anyone for that matter, then it needs to publicly declare that it considers China to be enough of any enemy to warrant such actions.  The government has to be willing to suffer the public's judgement, through the democratic process, concerning their actions.  Even if the government thinks it has to make such decisions in secret for national security reasons, it still HAS to present the public with a reasonably un-vague and non-misleading description of what it's doing, otherwise the government is actively subverting the democratic process, which is far more damaging to the public interest than the success of some cyber warfare OPs in China.
 
2013-06-13 02:24:28 PM

positronica: mat catastrophe:   And no, the general public is pretty much OK with PRISM and moreso with Verizon handing over call metadata. Sorry, but the "cyber-libertarians" lost when they ceded control to the capitalists and "cyber-utopians". All your data are belong to US(NSA).

If you run a poll that asks, "Are you in favor of the government using telephone metadata to catch terrorists?", then yeah, the public is probably going say "Ok".  On the other hand, if you ran a poll that asks, "Are you in favor of letting the government set up a perpetual database that would allow someone without a warrant to identify what medical conditions you might have, the health of your marriage, your sexual orientation, your religious beliefs, your political leanings, and your financial stability, and that furthermore there would be no public oversight of access of use of information in this database?", then I'm guessing the public would respond with a resounding "No".


If we're running the country on polling data, you should be advised there's a pretty slim support for basic civil rights for anyone who isn't similar to the cultural hegemony.

Again, folks. You can be for or against this ridiculous program all you want to, but you can't just magically pick and choose how or why you're against it.

For instance, you seem to think we should collectively do whatever the polls tells us to do. Fine. Two hundred years ago, the polls would have said slavery was great! One hundred years ago, they were telling us women shouldn't vote and children should work in coal mines.

Using polls for how we determine what is right and wrong in a society is dangerous. Sorry.
 
2013-06-13 02:53:08 PM

Biological Ali: This text is now purple: Under the law, belief need only be "reasonable", not absolute, or even correct. His primary duty is to uphold the constitution. All other considerations are secondary, and derive from that.

That's not even remotely true. Do you remember what happened to that birther Marine who believed he was "upholding the constitution" by refusing to carry out the Kenyan usurper's orders?


I remember what happened to soldiers who were just obeying orders.

\Although I have qualms about the conclusion of the Nuremberg trial
\\As did the chief justice, later.
 
2013-06-13 03:02:29 PM

Biological Ali: You've gone off on a bit of a tangent - the discussion is not about whether someone like Snowden could have a belief about how the Supreme Court might eventually rule that's "reasonable" in some abstract sense, but whether holding a belief like this is enough to completely exculpate him from the crimes he's committed. The answer to this specific question is a very clear and unambiguous "no".


The Constitution (Article VI, clause 3) also specifies:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Here is the current oath of an executive branch employee (1884):


"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Snowden, Constitutionally, had an explicit duty to reveal this program. A federal employee is obligated to reveal unconstitutional actions.
 
2013-06-13 03:04:29 PM

This text is now purple: Biological Ali: You've gone off on a bit of a tangent - the discussion is not about whether someone like Snowden could have a belief about how the Supreme Court might eventually rule that's "reasonable" in some abstract sense, but whether holding a belief like this is enough to completely exculpate him from the crimes he's committed. The answer to this specific question is a very clear and unambiguous "no".

The Constitution (Article VI, clause 3) also specifies:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.Here is the current oath of an executive branch employee (1884):


"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Snowden, Constitutionally, had an explicit duty to reveal this program. A federal employee is obligated to reveal unconstitutional actions.


Was he a federal employee? Do contractors take that oath?
 
2013-06-13 03:21:19 PM

This text is now purple: Biological Ali: You've gone off on a bit of a tangent - the discussion is not about whether someone like Snowden could have a belief about how the Supreme Court might eventually rule that's "reasonable" in some abstract sense, but whether holding a belief like this is enough to completely exculpate him from the crimes he's committed. The answer to this specific question is a very clear and unambiguous "no".

The Constitution (Article VI, clause 3) also specifies:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.Here is the current oath of an executive branch employee (1884):


"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Snowden, Constitutionally, had an explicit duty to reveal this program. A federal employee is obligated to reveal unconstitutional actions.


What department do you work for? I've never taken that oath.
 
2013-06-13 03:40:40 PM
He will be convicted of intentionally disclosing classified information to unauthorized personnel.  As for everything else, it's pretty useless.  If there's is the means, there is always the will.  But rather than try to stop it, I will be practical about it.

The reason I didn't pick up my wife from the mall AT THE TIME SHE SPECIFIED ON HER TEXT is because the NSA didn't remind me.  Motherfarkers.
 
2013-06-13 03:46:06 PM
I think what he needs to worry bout isn't being charged with a crime, it's being killed.  Right now, there are a ton of nutcase terror types running around who would love to make the US look bad.  If they kill this guy, the US will almost certainly get the blame.
 
2013-06-13 03:50:51 PM
I say we shorten his fingers and make him a knight.
 
2013-06-13 03:54:45 PM

This text is now purple: .Here is the current oath of an executive branch employee (1884)


Quit making stuff up.
 
2013-06-13 03:55:05 PM
If what he revealed was an unconstitutional act, then is he still guilty of something? No matter whether it was classified as "secret" or not. Consider then that if he is guilty, all a rogue government has to do is declare anything unconstitutional as "secret" and then they can go after anyone who makes it public.

THAT is more than a slippery slope.
 
2013-06-13 04:01:07 PM

SevenT: If what he revealed was an unconstitutional act, then is he still guilty of something? No matter whether it was classified as "secret" or not. Consider then that if he is guilty, all a rogue government has to do is declare anything unconstitutional as "secret" and then they can go after anyone who makes it public.

THAT is more than a slippery slope.


There is a legal whistle blower process to follow that prevents the slippery slope.    Snowden decided to forgo the process and the protections it provides.  He broke the law and it doesn't matter if what he exposed is later determined to be unconstitutional.  He still broke the law.
 
2013-06-13 04:06:19 PM

AugieDoggyDaddy: Snowden will soon find himself in a debriefing room in either Beijing of Moscow.It won't be his choice, and he won't find it pleasant.


s3.amazonaws.com
This will not be over quickly. You will not enjoy this. I'm not your lawyer...

/I am having a really hard time deciding if I rather be questioned by the Chinese or the Russians.
 
2013-06-13 04:14:10 PM

notto: There is a legal whistle blower process to follow that prevents the slippery slope.


Being shot in the head and dumped into the ocean by Seal Team Six is not exactly a good way to blow the whistle on someone.
 
2013-06-13 04:18:37 PM

fluffy2097: notto: There is a legal whistle blower process to follow that prevents the slippery slope.

Being shot in the head and dumped into the ocean by Seal Team Six is not exactly a good way to blow the whistle on someone.


[citation needed]
 
2013-06-13 04:22:19 PM

fluffy2097: notto: There is a legal whistle blower process to follow that prevents the slippery slope.

Being shot in the head and dumped into the ocean by Seal Team Six is not exactly a good way to blow the whistle on someone.


A prophylactic would be to have a sealed and detailed memorandum to be sent to the press upon your death or disappearance.
 
2013-06-13 04:38:00 PM
This text is now purple:  Snowden, Constitutionally, had an explicit duty to reveal this program. A federal employee is obligated to reveal unconstitutional actions.
-=-
(Applause.)

Let me ask you all out there...
DO YOU TAKE THAT OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION?

I'm not asking if you have someone asking you to raise your right hand and swear the oath, I'm asking if you just plainly and outright personally take the oath as a citizen in your heart? I'm not asking about your religion, but your Americanism.

If the answer is yes, then you understand Snowden was a whistleblower and not acting against but yet FOR the people of this country.
Don't you?

On a side note, I don't feel like all the Justices of the Supreme Court are protecting and honoring the Constitution, and some are selling us out.
 
2013-06-13 04:49:48 PM

Stoker: This text is now purple:  Snowden, Constitutionally, had an explicit duty to reveal this program. A federal employee is obligated to reveal unconstitutional actions.
-=-
(Applause.)

Let me ask you all out there...
DO YOU TAKE THAT OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION?

I'm not asking if you have someone asking you to raise your right hand and swear the oath, I'm asking if you just plainly and outright personally take the oath as a citizen in your heart? I'm not asking about your religion, but your Americanism.

If the answer is yes, then you understand Snowden was a whistleblower and not acting against but yet FOR the people of this country.
Don't you?

On a side note, I don't feel like all the Justices of the Supreme Court are protecting and honoring the Constitution, and some are selling us out.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-13 04:57:21 PM
Wow, what a horrible thread. I had no idea that Fark was full of apologists and authoritarians.
 
2013-06-13 05:00:01 PM

Stoker: This text is now purple:  Snowden, Constitutionally, had an explicit duty to reveal this program. A federal employee is obligated to reveal unconstitutional actions.
-=-
(Applause.)

Let me ask you all out there...
DO YOU TAKE THAT OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION?

I'm not asking if you have someone asking you to raise your right hand and swear the oath, I'm asking if you just plainly and outright personally take the oath as a citizen in your heart? I'm not asking about your religion, but your Americanism.

If the answer is yes, then you understand Snowden was a whistleblower and not acting against but yet FOR the people of this country.
Don't you?


I had to swear an oath.

I agree that a federal employee has a duty to the people of the United States to blow the whistle on unconstitutional doings.

But even beyond the U.S., there's a moral standard to which one could be held as well. Just because it's legal in your country to kill Jews doesn't mean you won't be executed for doing it.

Nevertheless, there are problems with declaring Snowden a hero.
1: There are mechanisms for blowing the whistle that do not involve trumpeting to the world
2: There are a lot of things in his story that do not add-up
3: It's not clear that what the feds are doing is actually unconstitutional

I'm not saying he needs to be strung-up yet, but I'm not willing to pat him on the shoulder, either. It has to be demonstrated that not only was this program illegal, but there was no confidential means by which he could have triggered the appropriate review.

On a side note, I don't feel like all the Justices of the Supreme Court are protecting and honoring the Constitution, and some are selling us out.

I do not find myself agreeing with all their interpretations, especially with regards to corporate law, but we're kind of stuck.
 
2013-06-13 05:07:20 PM

Rickj: I think they captured him.  There's already a video of this informer behind bars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtILxBszyf8


Informer? I thought he looked familiar!

i1159.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-13 05:55:39 PM

Cornelius Dribble: What the NSA is doing is not wiretapping. Nobody is listening to your calls, and they are not being recorded.


About that part..

(post Boston bombing)

On Wednesday night, Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the two. He quite clearly insisted that they could:

BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."

"All of that stuff" - meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on US soil, with or without a search warrant - "is being captured as we speak".
 
2013-06-13 08:00:53 PM

Evil High Priest: Cornelius Dribble: What the NSA is doing is not wiretapping. Nobody is listening to your calls, and they are not being recorded.

About that part..

(post Boston bombing)

On Wednesday night, Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the two. He quite clearly insisted that they could:

BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."

"All of that stuff" - meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on US soil, with or without a search warrant - "is being captured as we speak".


Ain't digital technology wonderful?
 
2013-06-13 08:26:02 PM

vygramul: 3: It's not clear that what the feds are doing is actually unconstitutional


W T f
 
2013-06-13 08:34:23 PM

vudukungfu: vygramul: 3: It's not clear that what the feds are doing is actually unconstitutional

W T f


Because what he SAYS they do and what actual evidence he has presented are two different things.
 
2013-06-13 09:40:04 PM
obama is the only public official in need of being charged with treason.
he is an enemy of this country, our Constitution and everything we as Americans hold dear...

too bad 'hung from the highest tree' no longer applies...


nsa/irs----suckit
 
2013-06-13 10:01:49 PM

verdigris1: obama is the only public official in need of being charged with treason.
he is an enemy of this country, our Constitution and everything we as Americans hold dear...

too bad 'hung from the highest tree' no longer applies...


nsa/irs----suckit


You forgot to toggle caps-lock.
 
2013-06-13 10:37:50 PM
If "leaking secrets" were considered treason, just about every president we've had as well as most of congress would have wound up in jail.
 
2013-06-14 12:43:20 AM
George Washington had a price of his head for Treason against the ruling government of his day ...
 
2013-06-14 01:14:55 AM

This text is now purple: Snowden, Constitutionally, had an explicit duty to reveal this program. A federal employee is obligated to reveal unconstitutional actions.


You can't be for the Constitution and against the government!  That's impossible!
 
2013-06-14 02:02:56 AM
Snowden deserves more respect than any of the clowns in our govt and media. Oh and Jeffery Toobin and his fellow media elite are a bunch of coonts.
 
2013-06-14 04:57:09 AM

dittybopper: mrshowrules: badhatharry: He was defending the Constitution and American people. He needs to come back explain it to a jury of his peers.

Good point.  I would never convict him of anything if I was on a jury.

I have to say, I'd have a hard time wrestling with it.

I used to work indirectly for the NSA, and yes, I've got some Top Secret stuff in my noggin (even if it's all over 20 years out of date).  In fact, my job was to actually intercept foreign communications.  That's what a 'ditty bopper' is, someone who is a Morse code interceptor.

I get a serious case of the creeps when SIGINT stuff is revealed, but on the other hand, back when I was in, FISA was taken *VERY* seriously, apparently much more seriously than it is now.  We were told in no uncertain terms that intercepting the communications of "United States Persons" was verboten except under some very narrow circumstances.

So I'm not really sure how I would vote on a jury deciding this case.  On the one hand, I don't want to encourage the leaking of classified information, but on the other hand, this particular program he leaked should be considered intolerable by anyone who is concerned about their privacy.


Well, it's obvious you wouldn't get picked for a jury.  You have too much intelligence for the government and worked SIGINT which would get you a preemptive strike from either side.
 
2013-06-14 06:57:34 PM

just_intonation: Well, it's obvious you wouldn't get picked for a jury.  You have too much intelligence for the government and worked SIGINT which would get you a preemptive strike from either side.


Well, DUH.

Of course, I could just act dumb.  Answer truthfully, but not volunteer anything.  Act like my mouth-breathin' huntin' buddies, that sort of thing.  I could even I was a Morse code radio operator in the Army if they ask about my military service*.   I wouldn't have to mention anything about me being a big fan of SIGINT unless they pointedly ask.  Certainly, I wouldn't have to mention that I'm familiar with how FISA worked back when it actually protected the citizens of the United States from being monitored.  Again, unless asked.


*It's even technically true, the best kind of true.
 
Displayed 206 of 206 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report