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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 206 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report