Edward Snowden

[Guest American Woman]

Only if the US government had the same approach and put the Constitution before their agenda.

The U.S. government is getting plenty of criticism, including from you. Every article I quoted has said the U.S. government should uphold the Constitution. Not one person has said that WikiLeaks should be criticized and/or held accountable for their actions, including you. If WikiLeaks was, indeed, manipulating Snowden, they did him a huge injustice. Yet all WikiLeaks gets from a certain ilk is praise. All Snowden gets is praise. It's fine for him to break the law, because that fits in with their agenda.

Edited July 14, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

The U.S. government is getting plenty of criticism, including from you. Every article I quoted has said the U.S. government should uphold the Constitution. Not one person has said that WikiLeaks should be criticized and/or held accountable for their actions, including you. If WikiLeaks was, indeed, manipulating Snowden, they did him a huge injustice. Yet all WikiLeaks gets from a certain ilk is praise. All Snowden gets is praise. It's fine for him to break the law, because that fits in with their agenda.

Well I am wondering why one would ask Snowden to put the constitution before his agenda, all while the government is clearly not doing the same. By Snowden's actions he IS putting the constitution first because he knows these programs essentially violates it.

[Guest American Woman]

Well I am wondering why one would ask Snowden to put the constitution before his agenda, all while the government is clearly not doing the same. By Snowden's actions he IS putting the constitution first because he knows these programs essentially violates it.

Do I need to repeat what I said again??

Every article I quoted has said the U.S. government should uphold the Constitution.

Yet here we have more defense of Snowden. What irks me is that some seem to think as long as it serves their agenda, it's ok to immediately go outside of the law. This as they expect those who are perceived as against their agenda to be held to the law. Now you are saying it's ok if he doesn't put the Constitution before his agenda - even as he criticizes the government for that very thing??

The idea is to expect him to put the constitution first, as well as the government.

Edited July 14, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Do I need to repeat what I said again??

Maybe.

Every article I quoted has said the U.S. government should uphold the Constitution.

I agree 100%

Yet here we have more defense of Snowden. What irks me is that some seem to think as long as it serves their agenda, it's ok to immediately go outside of the law.

If the law is unconstitutional means it's null and void. If these laws violate the constitution, really what is the point in having one? Are your freedom and rights really being protected?

This as they expect those who are perceived as against their agenda to be held to the law. Now you are saying it's ok if he doesn't put the Constitution before his agenda - even as he criticizes the government for that very thing??

I stated ' By Snowden's actions he IS putting the constitution first because he knows these programs essentially violates it. '

The idea is to expect him to put the constitution first, as well as the government.

By calling out this program he did exactly that.

Edited July 14, 2013 by GostHacked

[jbg]

One does not need to be a constitutional lawyer.. or even an American to understand that indefinite detention of Americans ON US soil, without any charges being applied clearly violates unreasonable stops, searches, seizures. All you need to be is a suspect of terrorism and you can lose it all.

Both articles like the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA violate many rights of American citizens.

In wartime rights are often reduced. While this is an undeclared and asymetrical war, it is a war.

[Guest American Woman]

Maybe.

Ok, here goes. “I don’t want to put him in peril, but I am concerned about those who surround him,” Lonnie Snowden told NBC. “I think WikiLeaks, if you’ve looked at past history, you know, their focus isn’t necessarily the Constitution of the United States. It’s simply to release as much information as possible.”

That's not putting the constitution first. That's putting their agenda first. Putting the constitution first would involve trying legal avenues first. Furthermore, it's not up to him to determine if the constitution were violated or not. What a world this would be if every citizen felt is was their right to do so and to act on it, even if it means breaking the law.

[Scotty]

It doesn't take a lawyer or "experts in US constitutional law" to read the freaking Fourth Amendment and see that what the PRISM program was doing was unconstitutional. And I really don't give a crap if lawyers and judges disagree with me because it's quite clear the meaning and intent of the Fourth Amendment

Do you have any idea how unintentionally funny that statement is?

[Scotty]

I like how you're suddenly an expert in the legal challenges brought on by the PRISM revelation, yet a 10-second Google search shows you are wrong:

What I said was 'as far as I know' it hasn't happened. So I'm hardly claiming to be the expert you claim to be.

Anyway, so good, there are lawsuits. So the courts can now decide. So stop worrying.

Except, of course, you've said you don't really care what the courts decide. YOU have decided it's unconstitutional regardless...

[Scotty]

Well theres many decades of jurisprudence, and a whole shitload of caselaw and precidents that demonstrate warantless siezure of communications violations the fourth amendments. The government can monitor your communications, but they need a warrant for each person whos communcations they sieze. Are you just hearing about this now? You dont think theres a reason why the police didnt start doing mass untargeted phone taps decades ago? Its illegal...

Nor are they doing it now. This program is not tapping people's phone calls or listening to what they say.

[dre]

Nor are they doing it now. This program is not tapping people's phone calls or listening to what they say.

According to Mr Snowden he had access to actual conversations. Whether they are emails, phonecalls, or skypecalls is irrelevent.

[dre]

What I said was 'as far as I know' it hasn't happened. So I'm hardly claiming to be the expert you claim to be.

Anyway, so good, there are lawsuits. So the courts can now decide. So stop worrying.

Except, of course, you've said you don't really care what the courts decide. YOU have decided it's unconstitutional regardless...

If the courts decide the government can sieze your mail/email/phonecalls/skypecalls etc without a specific warrant for your person thats a very dangerous piece of judicial activism that clearly violates the constitution.

[dre]

Ok, here goes. “I don’t want to put him in peril, but I am concerned about those who surround him,” Lonnie Snowden told NBC. “I think WikiLeaks, if you’ve looked at past history, you know, their focus isn’t necessarily the Constitution of the United States. It’s simply to release as much information as possible.”

That's not putting the constitution first. That's putting their agenda first. Putting the constitution first would involve trying legal avenues first. Furthermore, it's not up to him to determine if the constitution were violated or not. What a world this would be if every citizen felt is was their right to do so and to act on it, even if it means breaking the law.

I already explained to you why this whole "legal avenues" thing is an idiotic red herring, and told you what happened to about a half dozen guys that tried these "legal avenues" before. They were either charged spying, or they got nowhere. One guy got out of the shower and found himself with a gun in his face.

There IS no real legal channels. And all the people that have tried these "legal channels" in the past, have said that Snowden did the smartest and safest thing possible by going to the public.

Tell me... do you have example of any intelligence whistleblowers who got anywhere with your "legal channels"?

The ONLY other option besides what Mr Snowden did, thats been brought up here that has any credibility is that he could have leaked the documents anonymously.

Edited July 14, 2013 by dre

[kimmy]

I'd like to again mention that there are 1.4 million people, including 483,000 private contractors, with Top Secret security clearance.

Surely, if this information is so vital to US security, it shouldn't be be in the hands of such a huge number of people. This article points out that the enormous growth of the US security industry has made leaks more likely, and that the cost of doing background checks alone for security clearances is over $1 billion a year.

-k

[Moonlight Graham]

What I said was 'as far as I know' it hasn't happened. So I'm hardly claiming to be the expert you claim to be.

I've never claimed to be a constitutional expert. But at least I do a bit of research before I make a statement.

I've read enough about the US Bill of Rights in my life to have basic knowledge on the intent of its amendments by its framers, enough to have an opinion.

Ultimately, my views have no bearing on these cases, yes obviously the courts will decide, but in the end a judge's decision is based on their own interpretation of the constitution and their views of its intent, as well as on judicial precedent. This means I can hear the arguments of lawyers and judges, but agree or disagree with them as I wish because their views are only...opinion, like mine. Set fire to me for having an opinion!

[Guest American Woman]

I'd like to again mention that there are 1.4 million people, including 483,000 private contractors, with Top Secret security clearance.

Surely, if this information is so vital to US security, it shouldn't be be in the hands of such a huge number of people. This article points out that the enormous growth of the US security industry has made leaks more likely, and that the cost of doing background checks alone for security clearances is over $1 billion a year.

That's still a small number considering the population, especially the number of private contractors. A large country would need a larger number of workers who would have top security clearance than other countries. Furthermore, there's nothing to indicate that they all have access to the same level of information. Having said that, I don't see what the numbers have to do with what Snowden did, unless you're concluding that he couldn't have had access to vital information based on the numbers? Which makes no sense..

[Guest American Woman]

I've never claimed to be a constitutional expert. But at least I do a bit of research before I make a statement.

I've read enough about the US Bill of Rights in my life to have basic knowledge on the intent of its amendments by its framers, enough to have an opinion.

I'm with Scotty here.

Forming an opinion is one thing; stating it as fact, as you declare yourself to be right even in the face of disagreement by the American legal system, is quite another. I can guarantee that a lot of hours goes into such determination; hours and hours, days and days, by people who spent years in higher education learning the law. "Reading about the Bill of Rights" does not put you in the category of being able to make such determinations, based only on what you read in the media, no less.

In other words, "doing a bit of research" does not qualify you to determine, especially above legal experts, what is and/or isn't constitutional. An opinion, yes, but this 'I don't care what American legal experts say, it is unconstitutional' mindset is what I see Scotty taking issue with.

[Moonlight Graham]

Do you have any idea how unintentionally funny that statement is?

If you disagree with me, that what PRISM did was unconstitutional, then back it up with facts or logic. Stop relying on this "judges and lawyers and constitutional scholars can only determine what it unconstitutional" nonsense, because you're committing the logical fallacies of "argument from authority" and "ad hominem":

'Argument from authority' - The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy).

'Ad hominem' - An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

In summary: attack the argument, not the person giving it.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm with Scotty here.

Forming an opinion is one thing; stating it as fact, as you declare yourself to be right even in the face of disagreement by the American legal system, is quite another. I can guarantee that a lot of hours goes into such determination; hours and hours, days and days, by people who spent years in higher education learning the law. "Reading about the Bill of Rights" does not put you in the category of being able to make such determinations, based only on what you read in the media, no less.

In other words, "doing a bit of research" does not qualify you to determine, especially above legal experts, what is and/or isn't constitutional. An opinion, yes, but this 'I don't care what American legal experts say, it is unconstitutional' mindset is what I see Scotty taking issue with.

1. see my responses to Scotty just above.

2. I'm willing to hear arguments from scholars, judges, lawyers, etc., but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

"Reading about the Bill of Rights" does not put you in the category of being able to make such determinations, based only on what you read in the media, no less.

I haven't simply read about the Bill of Rights in "the media". I've read, you know, actual books on the subject. I've read scholarly works on the history of the Bill of Rights, the framers own writings about it etc. Even wrote a couple of research papers about the US constitution/Bill of Rights in university. Am I an expert? Certainly not. Do I have basic knowledge enough to have an informed opinion on it? Yes.

In other words, "doing a bit of research" does not qualify you to determine, especially above legal experts, what is and/or isn't constitutional. An opinion, yes, but this 'I don't care what American legal experts say, it is unconstitutional' mindset is what I see Scotty taking issue with.

Judges interpret what is lawful and what isn't. Their decisions are an interpretation, a subjective judgement, an opinion. Their judgements are certainly not beyond disagreement or criticism, even by a laymen like me. I'm sure you (or anyone) could point to a great many constitutional judgements made by Supreme Court Justices that you disagree with. I have an opinion and so do they, and for Scotty to laugh at me and others who may have the audacity to possibly disagree with "experts" is asinine, and commits at least 2 logical fallacies as I've listed above. I guess all of us on MLW should just zip it then when we have an opinion on a matter unless we have a PhD on the subject...

[Moonlight Graham]

Forming an opinion is one thing; stating it as fact, as you declare yourself to be right even in the face of disagreement by the American legal system, is quite another.

Btw, I would never state an opinion as "fact", and never did. I'm just damn adamant that my opinion is correct lol.

[Guest American Woman]

Btw, I would never state an opinion as "fact", and never did. I'm just damn adamant that my opinion is correct lol.

Yeah, that's entirely different. But the thing is, whether you agree with the judges or not, it's their judgement that determines whether or not something is unconstitutional. You may disagree with their decision, but that won't change the reality. If they determine that something is constitutional, then it is. That power, that determination, lies with them.

Edited July 14, 2013 by American Woman

[dre]

In other words, "doing a bit of research" does not qualify you to determine, especially above legal experts, what is and/or isn't constitutional. An opinion, yes, but this 'I don't care what American legal experts say, it is unconstitutional' mindset is what I see Scotty taking issue with.

Yes... legal opinions by forum posters are clearly not the final arbitrar of whats constitutional and what isnt. THANKS TO MR SNOWDEN theres now at least two cases that will work their up to the supreme court. THANKS TO MR SNOWDEN the legal process has an opportunity to safeguard your rights. THANKS TO MR SNOWDEN your government cant keep doing this to you in secret without their actions being legally weighed against your consitution.

[dre]

Yeah, that's entirely different. But the thing is, whether you agree with the judges or not, it's their judgement that determines whether or not something is unconstitutional. You may disagree with their decision, but that won't change the reality.

Yes and those judged have ruled numerous times that the government cannot engage in the broad siezure of communications, and that they need a warrant to read your mail/email/phonecalls/etc.

But like I said... Now that Americans know whats being done to them, they can seek to remedy it via the USSC. Maybe the court will rule that the government can sieze any communications they want! But it doesnt seem very likely based on a quick read of relevant parts of your constitution which are pretty clear and unambigous. The government needs probable cause to intercept your communications, and it has to obtain a warrant from the court.

[kimmy]

That's still a small number considering the population, especially the number of private contractors. A large country would need a larger number of workers who would have top security clearance than other countries. Furthermore, there's nothing to indicate that they all have access to the same level of information. Having said that, I don't see what the numbers have to do with what Snowden did, unless you're concluding that he couldn't have had access to vital information based on the numbers? Which makes no sense..

To put that number of private contractors in perspective, GM employs 212,000 people, Ford employs 164,000, and Chrysler employs 65,000. More Americans working for private security contractors have Top Secret clearance than work for the Big 3 automakers combined. Doesn't it concern you that "security" is now apparently a bigger industry in America than building cars? I find that astounding.

But secondly, there's a reality that most of us learn in elementary school which is that the more people you tell your secrets to, the less likely they are to stay secret. If one out of every 222 Americans has Top Secret security clearance... that's an awful lot of people who have access to your secrets. It's not a surprise that Top Secret information got out; it's a surprise that it doesn't happen more often. (and who is to say it doesnt? We know about Snowden because he did it very publicly. Would we know if somebody else at Booz Allen Hamilton with access to classified information was selling it to China or wherever?)

I think the sheer scale of the security industry makes it highly optimistic to assume that these secrets will stay secret. Snowden had only worked for Booz Allen Hamilton for a few months, and he had access to information that is apparently "a threat to national security". If that's how the security industry works, isn't the security industry itself a threat to national security?

-k

[Topaz]

I read that one of the journalist for Britain's Guardian, thinks the US better hope nothing happens to Snowden because if something does, ALL information will be released.

[Guest American Woman]

To put that number of private contractors in perspective, GM employs 212,000 people, Ford employs 164,000, and Chrysler employs 65,000. More Americans working for private security contractors have Top Secret clearance than work for the Big 3 automakers combined. Doesn't it concern you that "security" is now apparently a bigger industry in America than building cars? I find that astounding.

For one thing, the auto industry for the Big 3 is down, and has been for some time. But why should I be concerned that there are more employees working in security, especially during time of war, than there are building Fords, Chryslers, and GM's?

But secondly, there's a reality that most of us learn in elementary school which is that the more people you tell your secrets to, the less likely they are to stay secret. If one out of every 222 Americans has Top Secret security clearance... that's an awful lot of people who have access to your secrets.

Did you also learn in elementary school that the larger the organization, the more people it takes to run it? Furthermore, as I already pointed out, I sincerely doubt that they are all given access to the same "secret." Last but not least, how many of those many, many people have leaked information? It only takes one.

How many have access to Canada's information? All it took was one.

It's not a surprise that Top Secret information got out; it's a surprise that it doesn't happen more often. (and who is to say it doesnt? We know about Snowden because he did it very publicly. Would we know if somebody else at Booz Allen Hamilton with access to classified information was selling it to China or wherever?)

That's been the way of it since the beginning of time. There's always going to be someone throughout time willing to give out classified information. What do you suggest we do - stop having classified information? I'm not getting your point. But when someone does knowingly give it out, we charge them accordingly. That's the point, and that's within both of our nations.

I think the sheer scale of the security industry makes it highly optimistic to assume that these secrets will stay secret. Snowden had only worked for Booz Allen Hamilton for a few months, and he had access to information that is apparently "a threat to national security". If that's how the security industry works, isn't the security industry itself a threat to national security?

Again. What do you suggest ?

I'll quote your country, though: "A person who discloses state secrets commits a grave offence whether or not actual harm has resulted or can be determined," the judge [Curran] said.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/02/08/navy-spy-jeffrey-delisle-to-be-sentenced

At any rate, Snowden broke the law and should be held accountable to it. We can't pick and choose who can break the law and who has to follow it depending on our ideologies.