Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Guardian)   FISA judge orders declassification of secret court opinions justifying constitutionality of NSA surveillance programs   (theguardian.com ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, FISA, NSA, secret polices, constitutionality, declassification, Jameel Jaffer, southern district  
•       •       •

2026 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Sep 2013 at 7:39 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-15 01:15:36 PM  
http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/13/why-ladar-levison-shuttered-encrypte d -email-service-lavabit-in-the-face-of-government-pressure/

[T]here's information that I can't even share with my lawyer, let alone with the American public.
So if we're talking about secrecy, you know, it's really been taken to the extreme.
 And I think it's really being used by the current administration to cover up tactics that they may be ashamed of.
 
2013-09-15 01:18:48 PM  
Looks like the mods are having a slapfight.
 
2013-09-15 01:21:31 PM  

cman: Hero?

Judge is doing his damn job

/we attach hero to Garbagemen, so that word is about as useless as "racist"


I'm confused, I have you favorited with the tag "a Libertarian I can talk to". Isn't freedom from Government surveillance (4th amendment, common Law, third amendment) and Unreasonable search and seizure (4th amendment, common Law)  rights you are concerned about?  Are your Libertarian tenancies only concerned with the freedom of businesses to do what ever they like in the pursuit of money?

Not trying to pick a fight here, I'm just confused and would like to know why you take this stand.
 
2013-09-15 01:25:38 PM  

Zombie Butler: I'm confused, I have you favorited with the tag "a Libertarian I can talk to".


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-09-15 01:38:04 PM  

max_pooper: Serious Post on Serious Thread: vpb: Honest Bender:

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional.  That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

You have to be crazy, and maybe not so smart, to think that someone who exposes an egregious Stazi style program you ASSUME to be constitutional is AUTOMATICALLY a traitor without trial of either issue.

Nobody needs to assume consitutionality. These laws are consititional. Warrant applications have been brought before a federal court made up of judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and not once have any of the judges ruled the law under which these warrants are issued is unconstitutional.

These laws are, according to the judicial branch of United States, within the allowances set forth by the Consitition of the United States of America. These laws can be challenged infront of the final arbiter of consititutionality: the Supreme Court. But they are unlikely to disagree with the FISA court since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has yet to remove and replace a single judge on said court for erroneous rulings.

The only option is to have these laws changed. That starts with Congress.


I see your GED in Law is serving you well. Shiat tons of warranted surveillance techniques have ultimately been ruled unconstitutional. Spike taps, thermal imaging, regardless, NO the SCOTUS isn't just made up of the Chief Justice, so saying he appoints them so whatever they do is auto-ok is WRONG. Likewise that changing the law by Congressional act is the only option is WRONG. How does it feel to just be so damn WRONG.
 
2013-09-15 01:42:31 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: I see your GED in Law is serving you well. Shiat tons of warranted surveillance techniques have ultimately been ruled unconstitutional. Spike taps, thermal imaging, regardless, NO the SCOTUS isn't just made up of the Chief Justice, so saying he appoints them so whatever they do is auto-ok is WRONG. Likewise that changing the law by Congressional act is the only option is WRONG. How does it feel to just be so damn WRONG.


t0.gstatic.com

A GED in AAAIEEE!
 
2013-09-15 01:57:22 PM  

badhatharry: Amazingly, Clapper has said something that is right.


Everyone makes mistakes. Perhaps he thought he was lying?
 
2013-09-15 02:09:23 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Honest Bender: He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

[i1.kym-cdn.com image 232x223]

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

You might not be, but a LOT of people are. My list of 'chicken shiat bootlicking yellow' farkers went up a millionty % after the Snowden thing. Farkers I general found to be reasonable; from non-insane 'conservatives' to general moderates to kinda progressives to raving lefties LOST THEIR MOTHERFARKING SHIAT over this topic.

Maybe it was the perception of Snowden, a semi-hipster looking guy that triggered some visceral unconscious hate. I don't know.  But it was INSANE. The crazy list of reasons to reject anything to do with the release seemed to include:

1) But you give your info to Google/corporations so this is OK!
2) Only the bad guys will be hurt, so this is OK!
3) No one cares what you are doing so this is OK!
4) Privacy is stupid and quaint so this is OK!
5) We already should have known this was happening so this is OK!
6) The PATRIOT Act makes it legal so this is OK!
7) You're paranoid, so this is OK!
8) But Terrorism, so this is OK!
9) FISA court, so this is OK!
10) Greenwald is a hack, so this is OK
11) Snowden's girlfriend is a stripper, so this is OK!
12) Everyone else is doing it too, so this is OK!
13) Snowden should have stayed for a Kangaroo court trial to be tortured like Manning is, so this is OK!
14) Snowden isn't just like Ellsberg, so this is OK!
15) Stazi style surveillance, COINT ...


yep
 
2013-09-15 02:25:21 PM  

max_pooper: hardinparamedic: thamike: "Troll" has no purpose here.  And SIGINT wasn't the only thing the NSA was doing, which was the case only because there's a limit to how much SIGINT is necessary, which would explain the mess they are in now.  I might have rephrased that as "the NSA has created an obsolete program, or has overcast itself into redundancy" but, again, an intuitive person would have gotten the gist based on the rest of it.

I can see that being a better rephrasing.

As an interesting historical side note, didn't the CIA have a presidential directive issued to them in the 1970s not to do things to American citizens inside the United States, when they were trying to do the same thing?

thamike: Because he's an imbecile. Also, "pot, kettle" serves no purpose here.

I kind of think it does, Mike. There seems to be this prevailing "all or nothing" idea on this topic that you either have to support Snowden 100% in what he did, OR you think the NSA is perfectly OK doing what they did. There is no middle ground to be had.

I don't think you're the kind of person that does that, but there are plenty of them that DO post on FARK.

thamike: I don't know...

MurphyMurphy: the butthurt from the "Snowden is teh Satan!" people is going to be absolutely delicious.

Yeah. You got me there. :)

max_pooper: Snowden is the only one who broke the law.

The only reason the NSA didn't "break the law" is that they found a loophole to exploit. They definitely violated the spirit of the laws created to regulate their activities.

If that is the case, why hasn't congress passed a bill to close those loop holes?

For the record, I stand in that middle ground. I don't believe the NSA should be doing what they are doing but I believe they are operating under the law which is why I believe Snowden is the only one who broke the law. biatching about the NSA or the President or the FISA court doesn't address who is at fault. Congress is the only body that can change the law to specifically ma ...


If I recall correctly, some of the more broad warrants can be interpreted as Bills of Attainder which are specifically prohibited by the constitution. So even is a law says they are legal, they are illegal due to higher law. When I am biatching about big government this is why. Of course when Republicans start hearing me biatch that their anti-gay and anti-abortion laws are big government they start LALALALALAing. Not sure about the Texas Law, as I am a proponent of Evidenced Based Medicine and anti-death penalty, if a fetus that is genetically human can feel pain,there is an argument that at that point it should be illegal. But that is another debate.
 
2013-09-15 02:26:55 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Serious Post on Serious Thread: vpb: Honest Bender:

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional.  That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

You have to be crazy, and maybe not so smart, to think that someone who exposes an egregious Stazi style program you ASSUME to be constitutional is AUTOMATICALLY a traitor without trial of either issue.

Nobody needs to assume consitutionality. These laws are consititional. Warrant applications have been brought before a federal court made up of judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and not once have any of the judges ruled the law under which these warrants are issued is unconstitutional.

These laws are, according to the judicial branch of United States, within the allowances set forth by the Consitition of the United States of America. These laws can be challenged infront of the final arbiter of consititutionality: the Supreme Court. But they are unlikely to disagree with the FISA court since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has yet to remove and replace a single judge on said court for erroneous rulings.

The only option is to have these laws changed. That starts with Congress.

I see your GED in Law is serving you well. Shiat tons of warranted surveillance techniques have ultimately been ruled unconstitutional. Spike taps, thermal imaging, regardless, NO the SCOTUS isn't just made up of the Chief Justice, so saying he appoints them so whatever they do is auto-ok is WRONG. Likewise that changing the law by Congressional act is the only option is WRONG. How does it feel to just be so damn WRONG.


I am not wrong. The NSA surveillance methods are currently legal and consitituional. It does not mean that the Supreme Court could declare it so but that is unlikely due to the current make up of the court.

Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.
 
2013-09-15 02:40:38 PM  

max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.


Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.
 
2013-09-15 02:45:43 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.


This defies even a grammar school education.
 
2013-09-15 02:47:25 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.


Also Home of the Raging Dumbasses who Failed Civics.
 
2013-09-15 03:00:13 PM  

LordJiro: Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.

Also Home of the Raging Dumbasses who Failed Civics.


Apparently wanting the government to changes its policies through the means determined by the constitution is "taking it like a good biatch".

I would like to ask Serious what he believes should happen to open up the FISC to transparency and limit the capabilities of the intelligence agencies if not changes in legislation?
 
2013-09-15 03:01:09 PM  

King Something: Next week's headline: FISA judge found dead from multiple self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the back of the head from a double-action revolver and/or bolt-action rifle.


You mean they are not a rubber stamp like everyone has kept saying?
 
2013-09-15 03:11:51 PM  

thamike: Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.

This defies even a grammar school education.


LordJiro: Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.

Also Home of the Raging Dumbasses who Failed Civics.


You two get a room and lick each other's boots, m'kay.

Your points are no one should say anything about rampant abuse of power, because, apparently vague interpretations of dubious laws haven't been totally and officially struck down from the highest court in the land?

That's not how democracy works, civics boy. It's a lot more messy than that. This pusillanimous apologist rhetoric for state abuse of power by your ilk is sickening. We all know how courts and congress work. Some of us just don't think we should shrug our shoulders, condemn dissidents, and defend the status quo just because it's the status quo.

/BTW, how do you get the taste of that much shoe polish out of your mouth?
 
2013-09-15 03:18:59 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: thamike: Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.

This defies even a grammar school education.

LordJiro: Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.

Also Home of the Raging Dumbasses who Failed Civics.

You two get a room and lick each other's boots, m'kay.

Your points are no one should say anything about rampant abuse of power, because, apparently vague interpretations of dubious laws haven't been totally and officially struck down from the highest court in the land?

That's not how democracy works, civics boy. It's a lot more messy than that. This pusillanimous apologist rhetoric for state abuse of power by your ilk is sickening. We all know how courts and congress work. Some of us just don't think we should shrug our shoulders, condemn dissidents, and defend the status quo just because it's the status quo.

/BTW, how do you get the taste of that much shoe polish out of your mouth?


I do want the status quo. I want the FISC to be more transparent and I want our intelligence agencies to have their scope limited. I understand that the route for this is through legislative means. If you don't like a law you can biatch and moan about it on the Internet or you can try to get it changed.

You have not answered my question: what do you propose be done to open up the FISC to more transparency and to limit the capabilities of our intelligence agencies?
 
2013-09-15 03:23:22 PM  

mofa: Why does the article not capitalize FISA?  It's not a word.


According to The Guardian's style guide, they "use all capitals if an abbreviation is pronounced as the individual letters (an initialism): BBC, CEO, US, VAT, etc; if it is an acronym (pronounced as a word) spell out with initial capital, eg Nasa, Nato, Unicef, unless it can be considered to have entered the language as an everyday word, such as awol, laser and, more recently, asbo, pin number and sim card. Note that pdf and plc are lowercase."
 
2013-09-15 03:28:15 PM  

max_pooper: LordJiro: Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.

Also Home of the Raging Dumbasses who Failed Civics.

Apparently wanting the government to changes its policies through the means determined by the constitution is "taking it like a good biatch".

I would like to ask Serious what he believes should happen to open up the FISC to transparency and limit the capabilities of the intelligence agencies if not changes in legislation?


For starters, how about a few heroic dissidents hack the fark out of the databases and servers containing orders and protocols and dump it all into torrents and wikileaks? Oh, wait, that's already happening, which is why this is even being talked about, but you want to demonize it because it wasn't proper in your judgment, which means we'd never have had this conversation, which means no one would even be thinking of legal and legislative fixes. See how that works?
 
2013-09-15 03:32:00 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: LordJiro: Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.

Also Home of the Raging Dumbasses who Failed Civics.

Apparently wanting the government to changes its policies through the means determined by the constitution is "taking it like a good biatch".

I would like to ask Serious what he believes should happen to open up the FISC to transparency and limit the capabilities of the intelligence agencies if not changes in legislation?

For starters, how about a few heroic dissidents hack the fark out of the databases and servers containing orders and protocols and dump it all into torrents and wikileaks? Oh, wait, that's already happening, which is why this is even being talked about, but you want to demonize it because it wasn't proper in your judgment, which means we'd never have had this conversation, which means no one would even be thinking of legal and legislative fixes. See how that works?


So are you saying we need legislative changes or not?

It seems to that you are very angry and not sure why or what needs to happen to make it better.
 
2013-09-15 03:42:56 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Your points are no one should say anything about rampant abuse of power, because, apparently vague interpretations of dubious laws haven't been totally and officially struck down from the highest court in the land?


I can't speak for the other bootlicker, but my point is that if you are too unacquainted with how government works to form a valid set of solutions, extrapolating a detailed civics discussion into a bare bones philosophical debate about the nature of existence isn't going to fool anyone with an education.

I am truly sympathetic with your plight as an angry guy with a keyboard, but Knowing F*ck All about the Things that Scare You isn't somehow sage in the face of Reason, no matter how many times the angry guy on the TV keeps justifying that sort of behavior.

Having an opinion means absolutely nothing unless it is based on fact and has an actual purpose.  If you want to rant, that's fine, this is Fark.  But please, for your own sake, stop pretending that ranting is some form of valid discourse.
 
2013-09-15 03:47:05 PM  

hardinparamedic: vpb: That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

Actually, I would have thought a lot more of Snowden had he just revealed domestic spying activities. 

In that sense, I've come to the conclusion that he's something we needed. That needed to be thrown back in our faces, as I've made the point time and time again we allowed a continual slide into what we have today through our apathy and fear of "terrorism" over the last decade+.

That said, the point I stopped respecting him is the point that foreign intelligence operations and espionage operations against foreign countries also were leaked.


According to griswald he pretty much leaked everything. What is being leaked is now the decision of guardian not snowdens. That said, I would have respected him if he had just leaked a few documents that proved his case, but he didn't do that, just just dumped everything on guardian and told them to figure it out.
 
2013-09-15 03:50:37 PM  

hardinparamedic: That said, the point I stopped respecting him is the point that foreign intelligence operations and espionage operations against foreign countries also were leaked.


yeah, like the part where they handed internal us government communications to the Israeli's. Someone should lose respect, but it's not Snowden.
 
2013-09-15 03:55:37 PM  

max_pooper: The difference being that the Judicial Branch determined that the Executive Branch did not break the law written by the Legislative Branch. The only next step is for the Legislative Branch to reign in these practices with additional legislation which they have so far refused to do.

Snowden is the only one who broke the law.


Your laserlike focus on how the government doesn't break the laws that it rewrites in secrecy is, well, kind of amusing.

If our government was meant to function this way, a despot can come to power and just let you know he wasn't breaking any laws, they were all just rewritten in secret.
 
2013-09-15 04:03:19 PM  

thamike: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Your points are no one should say anything about rampant abuse of power, because, apparently vague interpretations of dubious laws haven't been totally and officially struck down from the highest court in the land?

I can't speak for the other bootlicker, but my point is that if you are too unacquainted with how government works to form a valid set of solutions, extrapolating a detailed civics discussion into a bare bones philosophical debate about the nature of existence isn't going to fool anyone with an education.

I am truly sympathetic with your plight as an angry guy with a keyboard, but Knowing F*ck All about the Things that Scare You isn't somehow sage in the face of Reason, no matter how many times the angry guy on the TV keeps justifying that sort of behavior.

Having an opinion means absolutely nothing unless it is based on fact and has an actual purpose.  If you want to rant, that's fine, this is Fark.  But please, for your own sake, stop pretending that ranting is some form of valid discourse.


Thanks for setting me straight. We live in a perfect world with no power imbalances, or corruption. To take action outside the proscribed state sanctioned methods or to voice opinions outside a court of law or a legislators office is a rash and foolish act of anger. You are so smart and right.
 
2013-09-15 04:17:21 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: thamike: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Your points are no one should say anything about rampant abuse of power, because, apparently vague interpretations of dubious laws haven't been totally and officially struck down from the highest court in the land?

I can't speak for the other bootlicker, but my point is that if you are too unacquainted with how government works to form a valid set of solutions, extrapolating a detailed civics discussion into a bare bones philosophical debate about the nature of existence isn't going to fool anyone with an education.

I am truly sympathetic with your plight as an angry guy with a keyboard, but Knowing F*ck All about the Things that Scare You isn't somehow sage in the face of Reason, no matter how many times the angry guy on the TV keeps justifying that sort of behavior.

Having an opinion means absolutely nothing unless it is based on fact and has an actual purpose.  If you want to rant, that's fine, this is Fark.  But please, for your own sake, stop pretending that ranting is some form of valid discourse.

Thanks for setting me straight. We live in a perfect world with no power imbalances, or corruption. To take action outside the proscribed state sanctioned methods or to voice opinions outside a court of law or a legislators office is a rash and foolish act of anger. You are so smart and right.


I see you have still avoided my question: what do you propose be done to open the FISC to transparency and limit the capabilities of the US intelligence agencies?
 
2013-09-15 04:22:46 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: thamike: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Your points are no one should say anything about rampant abuse of power, because, apparently vague interpretations of dubious laws haven't been totally and officially struck down from the highest court in the land?

I can't speak for the other bootlicker, but my point is that if you are too unacquainted with how government works to form a valid set of solutions, extrapolating a detailed civics discussion into a bare bones philosophical debate about the nature of existence isn't going to fool anyone with an education.

I am truly sympathetic with your plight as an angry guy with a keyboard, but Knowing F*ck All about the Things that Scare You isn't somehow sage in the face of Reason, no matter how many times the angry guy on the TV keeps justifying that sort of behavior.

Having an opinion means absolutely nothing unless it is based on fact and has an actual purpose.  If you want to rant, that's fine, this is Fark.  But please, for your own sake, stop pretending that ranting is some form of valid discourse.

Thanks for setting me straight. We live in a perfect world with no power imbalances, or corruption. To take action outside the proscribed state sanctioned methods or to voice opinions outside a court of law or a legislators office is a rash and foolish act of anger. You are so smart and right.


Continuing to do so doesn't help your case, whatever that may be.
 
2013-09-15 04:38:36 PM  

thamike: Serious Post on Serious Thread: thamike: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Your points are no one should say anything about rampant abuse of power, because, apparently vague interpretations of dubious laws haven't been totally and officially struck down from the highest court in the land?

I can't speak for the other bootlicker, but my point is that if you are too unacquainted with how government works to form a valid set of solutions, extrapolating a detailed civics discussion into a bare bones philosophical debate about the nature of existence isn't going to fool anyone with an education.

I am truly sympathetic with your plight as an angry guy with a keyboard, but Knowing F*ck All about the Things that Scare You isn't somehow sage in the face of Reason, no matter how many times the angry guy on the TV keeps justifying that sort of behavior.

Having an opinion means absolutely nothing unless it is based on fact and has an actual purpose.  If you want to rant, that's fine, this is Fark.  But please, for your own sake, stop pretending that ranting is some form of valid discourse.

Thanks for setting me straight. We live in a perfect world with no power imbalances, or corruption. To take action outside the proscribed state sanctioned methods or to voice opinions outside a court of law or a legislators office is a rash and foolish act of anger. You are so smart and right.

Continuing to do so doesn't help your case, whatever that may be.


I am reminded of the scene in Back to School where Sam Kinison is yelling in a fit of rage and Rodney Dangerfield turns and says, "He really seems to care, about what I have no idea."
 
2013-09-15 05:09:32 PM  

badhatharry: hardinparamedic: Muta: I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

[Citation needed] - who

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad- is -seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

They admit to spying on Americans. They say it is legal because they only are "targeting" people overseas. In this process they gather up all of the communications. Then they go through it and delete anything not relevant. So what's the problem, citizen?


You didn't answer my question. Who, specifically, is calling Snowden a "traitor", but ignoring the FISA court abuses and NSA spying on domestic citizens? In my experience, even the people who have a flagrant hatred for Snowden are appalled at what the NSA is doing, even if it's only just to hurt the guy in office.
 
2013-09-15 06:02:04 PM  
I wonder if Serious Post on Serious Thread is ever going to explain what he believes should be done to open the FISC to more transparency and limit the activities of the our intelligence agencies.
 
2013-09-15 06:02:58 PM  

hardinparamedic: badhatharry: hardinparamedic: Muta: I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

[Citation needed] - who

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad- is -seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

They admit to spying on Americans. They say it is legal because they only are "targeting" people overseas. In this process they gather up all of the communications. Then they go through it and delete anything not relevant. So what's the problem, citizen?

You didn't answer my question. Who, specifically, is calling Snowden a "traitor", but ignoring the FISA court abuses and NSA spying on domestic citizens? In my experience, even the people who have a flagrant hatred for Snowden are appalled at what the NSA is doing, even if it's only just to hurt the guy in office.


People forget that civil disobedience only works if you are willing to go to jail for it.
 
2013-09-15 06:03:40 PM  

thamike: Looks like the mods are having a slapfight.


where is someone to yell "DUCK SEASON"?
 
2013-09-15 06:32:26 PM  

max_pooper: I wonder if Serious Post on Serious Thread is ever going to explain what he believes should be done to open the FISC to more transparency and limit the activities of the our intelligence agencies.


Listen you pedantic twerp, I'm done being baited by your pointless questions that were never in play. What do you want to hear? "I'll write a sternly worded letter to my congressman!" "I'll start a lobbying effort dedicated to privacy legislation!" "I'll file a pro se lawsuit in Federal court!".

The point was, is, and continues to be that potentially extra-legal actions like those by Snowden are laudable when used against gov't activity that is ethically and constitutionally dubious. Period. That's the point.

You want to curl up into a little boot licking ball and cover yourself with circular semantic platitudes. Fine. Saying a law is "constitutional until SCOTUS says it isn't" accomplishes what? Giving you a warm fuzzy that all is right with the world because it seems so well ordered and just?

Before you get to the letter writing, lobbying, and lawsuit efforts people need to be aware of the issues. Sometimes that means breaking the law, or yelling, or getting pissed the fark off. And I'm fine with that because that is farking reality.

Now I'm done with you and your insincere tropes and inanities. Good day sir. I said GOOD DAY!
 
2013-09-15 07:09:55 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: boot licking


Not really helping your cause here. "Bootlicker" is right up there with "sheeple" on the List Of Words That Instantly Invalidate Any Argument Made By Those Who Speak Them.
 
2013-09-15 07:11:51 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: I wonder if Serious Post on Serious Thread is ever going to explain what he believes should be done to open the FISC to more transparency and limit the activities of the our intelligence agencies.

Listen you pedantic twerp, I'm done being baited by your pointless questions that were never in play. What do you want to hear? "I'll write a sternly worded letter to my congressman!" "I'll start a lobbying effort dedicated to privacy legislation!" "I'll file a pro se lawsuit in Federal court!".

The point was, is, and continues to be that potentially extra-legal actions like those by Snowden are laudable when used against gov't activity that is ethically and constitutionally dubious. Period. That's the point.

You want to curl up into a little boot licking ball and cover yourself with circular semantic platitudes. Fine. Saying a law is "constitutional until SCOTUS says it isn't" accomplishes what? Giving you a warm fuzzy that all is right with the world because it seems so well ordered and just?

Before you get to the letter writing, lobbying, and lawsuit efforts people need to be aware of the issues. Sometimes that means breaking the law, or yelling, or getting pissed the fark off. And I'm fine with that because that is farking reality.

Now I'm done with you and your insincere tropes and inanities. Good day sir. I said GOOD DAY!


Wow. Get a load of that guy.
 
2013-09-15 07:13:10 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: I wonder if Serious Post on Serious Thread is ever going to explain what he believes should be done to open the FISC to more transparency and limit the activities of the our intelligence agencies.

Listen you pedantic twerp, I'm done being baited by your pointless questions that were never in play. What do you want to hear? "I'll write a sternly worded letter to my congressman!" "I'll start a lobbying effort dedicated to privacy legislation!" "I'll file a pro se lawsuit in Federal court!".

The point was, is, and continues to be that potentially extra-legal actions like those by Snowden are laudable when used against gov't activity that is ethically and constitutionally dubious. Period. That's the point.

You want to curl up into a little boot licking ball and cover yourself with circular semantic platitudes. Fine. Saying a law is "constitutional until SCOTUS says it isn't" accomplishes what? Giving you a warm fuzzy that all is right with the world because it seems so well ordered and just?

Before you get to the letter writing, lobbying, and lawsuit efforts people need to be aware of the issues. Sometimes that means breaking the law, or yelling, or getting pissed the fark off. And I'm fine with that because that is farking reality.

Now I'm done with you and your insincere tropes and inanities. Good day sir. I said GOOD DAY!


So you are saying you do believe legislative changes are necessary to correct laws you believe to be wrong or you saying you are better served by people knowingly violating other laws without legislative changes?

Your angry rants don't really coelesce around any sort of recognizable hypothosis.
 
2013-09-15 07:23:42 PM  

Biological Ali: Serious Post on Serious Thread: boot licking

Not really helping your cause here. "Bootlicker" is right up there with "sheeple" on the List Of Words That Instantly Invalidate Any Argument Made By Those Who Speak Them.


That's just what a bootlicking sheeple would say.
 
2013-09-15 07:30:31 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Biological Ali: Serious Post on Serious Thread: boot licking

Not really helping your cause here. "Bootlicker" is right up there with "sheeple" on the List Of Words That Instantly Invalidate Any Argument Made By Those Who Speak Them.

That's just what a bootlicking sheeple would say.


Just to be clear, do believe that the laws as are currently written that give FISC the authority to operate in complete secrecy should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

Secondly, do you believe that the laws as are currently written that give NSA the authority to collect cell phone metadata indescrimenently to hold for future use should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?
 
2013-09-15 07:58:30 PM  

ferretman: What will be released:

[cdn.cultofmac.com image 640x520]


I never understood how that works.  A judge or senator or POTUS says that some group must release a bunch of documents, and we end up with some goddamn black bar shiat.   Protip: THEY DIDN'T RELEASE ANYTHING!

I certainly can't get away with that.  Businesses can't get away with that.  If Microsoft was ordered to release a bunch of documents, and they gave them that shiat, the judge would rake them over the coals.
 
2013-09-15 08:05:25 PM  

ghare: DrPainMD: derpderpderp

Why is it so many Republicans seem to be sociopaths?


I wouldn't know; I'm not a Republican. In 35 years of voting, I've not voted for a single Repub.
 
2013-09-15 08:22:10 PM  

MurphyMurphy: ferretman: What will be released:

[cdn.cultofmac.com image 640x520]

This is all just an elaborate plot to funnel taxpayer dollars to the BPICC (Black Printer Ink Cartridge Cartel) which grew out of the weakening BPMC (Black Permanent Marker Cartel) during the Clinton administration.


They could save a lot of money by using black paper and white ink....
 
2013-09-15 08:38:09 PM  

DrPainMD: ghare: DrPainMD: derpderpderp

Why is it so many Republicans seem to be sociopaths?

I wouldn't know; I'm not a Republican. In 35 years of voting, I've not voted for a single Repub.


So you're a Fark IndependentTM
 
2013-09-15 08:40:50 PM  

max_pooper: Just to be clear, do believe that the laws as are currently written that give FISC the authority to operate in complete secrecy should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

Secondly, do you believe that the laws as are currently written that give NSA the authority to collect cell phone metadata indescrimenently to hold for future use should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?


The funny thing is, these questions wouldn't have even been asked if the law wasn't broken in the first place.
 
2013-09-15 08:43:39 PM  

CourtroomWolf: max_pooper: Just to be clear, do believe that the laws as are currently written that give FISC the authority to operate in complete secrecy should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

Secondly, do you believe that the laws as are currently written that give NSA the authority to collect cell phone metadata indescrimenently to hold for future use should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

The funny thing is, these questions wouldn't have even been asked if the law wasn't broken in the first place.


Alright, I'll ask you since you since you chimed and Serious refuses to provide and answer.

Do believe that the laws as are currently written that give FISC the authority to operate in complete secrecy should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

Secondly, do you believe that the laws as are currently written that give NSA the authority to collect cell phone metadata indescrimenently to hold for future use should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?
 
2013-09-15 08:46:25 PM  
<ThisThreadWasAwesome.jpg>
 
2013-09-15 08:51:28 PM  

max_pooper: CourtroomWolf: max_pooper: Just to be clear, do believe that the laws as are currently written that give FISC the authority to operate in complete secrecy should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

Secondly, do you believe that the laws as are currently written that give NSA the authority to collect cell phone metadata indescrimenently to hold for future use should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

The funny thing is, these questions wouldn't have even been asked if the law wasn't broken in the first place.

Alright, I'll ask you since you since you chimed and Serious refuses to provide and answer.

Do believe that the laws as are currently written that give FISC the authority to operate in complete secrecy should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

Secondly, do you believe that the laws as are currently written that give NSA the authority to collect cell phone metadata indescrimenently to hold for future use should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?


Yes, they should be changed.
 
2013-09-15 09:03:09 PM  

max_pooper: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Biological Ali: Serious Post on Serious Thread: boot licking

Not really helping your cause here. "Bootlicker" is right up there with "sheeple" on the List Of Words That Instantly Invalidate Any Argument Made By Those Who Speak Them.

That's just what a bootlicking sheeple would say.

Just to be clear, do believe that the laws as are currently written that give FISC the authority to operate in complete secrecy should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

Secondly, do you believe that the laws as are currently written that give NSA the authority to collect cell phone metadata indescrimenently to hold for future use should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?


Huh. So in your mind, asking trite questions, with rote answers, that aren't related to the discussion, nor in any way relevant to the points being made, constitutes some flourishing coup of mental acumen, rhetorical skill, and dialectical prowess.

Huh.

You just got shifted from "Trolly Light Blue" to "Fark Special Olympics Medium Grey".

Though I did say I was done with you, and you've managed to make me a liar. So, there's that.
 
2013-09-15 09:47:55 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Biological Ali: Serious Post on Serious Thread: boot licking

Not really helping your cause here. "Bootlicker" is right up there with "sheeple" on the List Of Words That Instantly Invalidate Any Argument Made By Those Who Speak Them.

That's just what a bootlicking sheeple would say.

Just to be clear, do believe that the laws as are currently written that give FISC the authority to operate in complete secrecy should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

Secondly, do you believe that the laws as are currently written that give NSA the authority to collect cell phone metadata indescrimenently to hold for future use should remain as is or do you believe they should be changed?

Huh. So in your mind, asking trite questions, with rote answers, that aren't related to the discussion, nor in any way relevant to the points being made, constitutes some flourishing coup of mental acumen, rhetorical skill, and dialectical prowess.

Huh.

You just got shifted from "Trolly Light Blue" to "Fark Special Olympics Medium Grey".

Though I did say I was done with you, and you've managed to make me a liar. So, there's that.


Trite question? Rote answers? Not related to the discussion? What the hell is wrong with you? How are questions about methods for illuminating unjust practices not pertinent to a discussion of the very unjust practices. I noticed you still haven't answered the questions...

You seem to be angry that certain things are happening but don't want to change anything. You just want to biatch about it.

I can't comprehend how you believe that these issues with FISC and NSA are so egregious but refuse to make any changes to the law that allow them.

I can only conclude that you secretly love the intrusion of privacy and secracy in which it is carried out since you don't want to make any changes to the system that allows it.

Either that or you now understand the need for legislative changes but won't allow yourself to admit you were wrong when you chastised me for stating it.
 
2013-09-15 10:05:51 PM  
i262.photobucket.com
/hot
 
2013-09-15 10:35:00 PM  

vygramul: Muta: vpb: That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

According to whom?

Oh, yea, Snowden and confirmation bias.


Uh, FISA? They're probably the most objective source of legal opinions on this, right?
 
Displayed 50 of 166 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report