Edward Snowden

[Guest Derek L]

It's pretty close to the line, wouldn't you agree? I don't see how someone like you can be defending this program.

Perhaps, but being "close to the line" doesn't make it illegal, and I’m hardly an Obama apologist.

[GostHacked]

Why is it legal ??

Answer - The laws where changed to make previous illegal actions, legal.

[GostHacked]

I don't believe much from the government, but I certainly don't believe everything from Snowden either. Regardless, some of you are just going to have to live with the fact that there is no such thing as absolute privacy anymore. Unless you're in your home, with windows borded up, building models or something, there is no privacy. Contacting the outside world by phone or internet, will always leave some kind of digital trail. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can start to enjoy life again.

There is no such thing I agree. That should mean we need to fight for it that much more. The foot is already in the door, and now that it is, many of you will say 'what ya gonna do'.

[Smallc]

Why is it legal ??

Answer - The laws where changed to make previous illegal actions, legal.

Exactly. It should still be illegal. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but you can bet this is going on in all western democracies, and that reality is very troubling.

[cybercoma]

Where do you see the evidence for that? He probably can't live with the idea of becoming a prisoner for exposing what is essentially an illegal government program. He hasn't in any way endorsed Russia and the way it does things.

Didn't you know that logically if you say nothing about something, you obviously support that thing? It's called argument from silence and it's a very sound and rational criticism.

[cybercoma]

There is no such thing I agree. That should mean we need to fight for it that much more. The foot is already in the door, and now that it is, many of you will say 'what ya gonna do'.

Who's we? I'll fight my government. But the US government is out of our hands.

[Guest Derek L]

Why is it legal ??

Answer - The laws where changed to make previous illegal actions, legal.

So, it was not illegal then.........The American people might be pissed off, yet starting with Carter and the signing into law of FISA, the American people elected their leadership, from both sides of the aisle……..And from both the Democrats and Republicans, the “reaction” has been mixed from both parties rank and file, one of support or disdain….

[GostHacked]

Exactly. It should still be illegal. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but you can bet this is going on in all western democracies, and that reality is very troubling.

Not a theory as it really is fact. Getting tired of the term 'conspiracy theory' ... when someone has something about the government doing illegal things, this term is tossed out for marginalization purposes. YER CRAZY !!!!! Turns out we were right all along. Who the hell is crazy NOW eh??

Laws were changed to make previous illegal actions, legal.

The warrants are provided by a secret FISA courts are not accessible to the public.

We obviously have people here who are either blind, trolling ... I really have no clue. case of Stockholm Syndrome maybe. Love your overlords and masters no matter how much they abuse you.

Transparent government? The moment light is shed on this, we see the gov go into severe damage control. The people must be transparent while the government is getting more and more closed.

It's not making me feel safe.

[Guest American Woman]

Where do you see the evidence for that? He probably can't live with the idea of becoming a prisoner for exposing what is essentially an illegal government program. He hasn't in any way endorsed Russia and the way it does things.

He's choosing to live in Russia; he hasn't in any way spoken out against the Russian government. There's the evidence. The idea that he would become a prisoner if he stayed in the U.S. is projection, nothing more. But if he wants to live in Russia, if he thinks it's more important that he outed the government by acting illegally himself, if he thinks that's more important than U.S.-Russia diplomatic ties, then he must be quite pleased with himself - as he's willing to live in Russia without the need to speak out against the Russian government at all. And you see nothing wrong with that? You think it was more important that he speak out against the American government? while keeping silent about Russia, because he fears facing a trial for breaking the law? That's some real impressive ethics, eh?

[cybercoma]

The Constitution determines what laws and legislation is legal or not. Constitutional law is interpreted by the SCOTUS. There's certainly an argument to be made that these programs and the legislation that supports them contradicts the Constitution. You can't simply say, there's a law or legislation supporting it so it must be legal. Illegal laws can be made, when they go against Americans' rights and freedoms.

[GostHacked]

So, it was not illegal then.........The American people might be pissed off, yet starting with Carter and the signing into law of FISA, the American people elected their leadership, from both sides of the aisle……..And from both the Democrats and Republicans, the “reaction” has been mixed from both parties rank and file, one of support or disdain….

People get more upset when their cell phone carrier increases the cost by a couple pennies. People do not get upset when laws were changed to allow more tyrannical action from their government.

And the thing is, it's not just the USA, all of us are getting this treatment collectively from our collective governments.

It's like saying "well rape is legal now' and be completely fine with it.

[GostHacked]

He's choosing to live in Russia; he hasn't in any way spoken out against the Russian government. There's the evidence. The idea that he would become a prisoner if he stayed in the U.S. is projection, nothing more. But if he wants to live in Russia, if he thinks it's more important that he outed the government by acting illegally himself, if he thinks that's more important than U.S.-Russia diplomatic ties, then he must be quite pleased with himself - as he's willing to live in Russia without the need to speak out against the Russian government at all. And you see nothing wrong with that? You think it was more important that he speak out against the American government? while keeping silent about Russia, because he fears facing a trial for breaking the law? That's some real impressive ethics, eh?

Russia is his only option. Not much of a choice.

[GostHacked]

The Constitution determines what laws and legislation is legal or not. Constitutional law is interpreted by the SCOTUS. There's certainly an argument to be made that these programs and the legislation that supports them contradicts the Constitution. You can't simply say, there's a law or legislation supporting it so it must be legal. Illegal laws can be made, when they go against Americans' rights and freedoms.

So why even have a constitution anymore, or a bill of rights?

[Guest Derek L]

Exactly. It should still be illegal. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but you can bet this is going on in all western democracies, and that reality is very troubling.

It most certainly is, and in most “Western” countries the extent is blatantly obvious to the public (look at the United Kingdom and the proliferation of CCTV) and the response is……meh, who’s going to win Dancing with the Stars?

[Smallc]

He's choosing to live in Russia; he hasn't in any way spoken out against the Russian government. There's the evidence. The idea that he would become a prisoner if he stayed in the U.S. is projection, nothing more. But if he wants to live in Russia, if he thinks it's more important that he outed the government by acting illegally himself, if he thinks that's more important than U.S.-Russia diplomatic ties, then he must be quite pleased with himself - as he's willing to live in Russia without the need to speak out against the Russian government at all. And you see nothing wrong with that? You think it was more important that he speak out against the American government? while keeping silent about Russia, because he fears facing a trial for breaking the law? That's some real impressive ethics, eh?

Russia is his only option. Not much of a choice.

Yeah, that's the case. He chose a lot of other places that were far better. This was his only option to avoid prison (for now).

[GostHacked]

It most certainly is, and in most “Western” countries the extent is blatantly obvious to the public (look at the United Kingdom and the proliferation of CCTV) and the response is……meh, who’s going to win Dancing with the Stars?

Television is a wonderful societal conditioning tool.

[Smallc]

It most certainly is, and in most “Western” countries the extent is blatantly obvious to the public (look at the United Kingdom and the proliferation of CCTV) and the response is……meh, who’s going to win Dancing with the Stars?

And that's a huge problem. This is why I hate most people.

[Guest American Woman]

Russia is his only option. Not much of a choice.

Yet he made the choice. You don't see that? Where is his sense of ethics when it comes to the Russian government? I see him as having done more harm than good, the way he went about disclosing the government's actions - illegally. As Binney, who is not in prison, btw, said, he crossed the line into possibly being a traitor. Binney, as I'm sure you know, is a NSA whistleblower himself - and he's been speaking quite freely about the U.S. government.

[GostHacked]

Yet he made the choice. You don't see that? Where is his sense of ethics when it comes to the Russian government? I see him as having done more harm than good, the way he went about disclosing the government's actions - illegally. As Binney, who is not in prison, btw, said, he crossed the line into possibly being a traitor. Binney, as I'm sure you know, is a NSA whistleblower himself - and he's been speaking quite freely about the U.S. government.

Where is your sense of ethics when we talk about your own government spying on you?

[Smallc]

Yet he made the choice. You don't see that?

http://www.subjectmoney.com/The%20Illusion%20of%20Free%20Choice%20democrats%20republicans.jpg

It was kind of a choice like this, I think.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Smallc

[Guest American Woman]

Where is your sense of ethics when we talk about your own government spying on you?

How do my ethics play into this? Snowden did what he did, so it's his ethics that come into play. That you make it about me tells me you've got nothing to say in response.

[Guest Derek L]

The Constitution determines what laws and legislation is legal or not. Constitutional law is interpreted by the SCOTUS. There's certainly an argument to be made that these programs and the legislation that supports them contradicts the Constitution. You can't simply say, there's a law or legislation supporting it so it must be legal. Illegal laws can be made, when they go against Americans' rights and freedoms.

That doesn’t sound plausible, why the Chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Diane “Assault Weapons Ban” Feinstein said a few days ago:

“I’m not a high-tech techie, but I’ve been told it’s not possible” ……

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-guardian-account-nsa-program-misleading-20130801,0,2395897.story

[GostHacked]

How do my ethics play into this? Snowden did what he did, so it's his ethics that come into play. That you make it about me tells me you've got nothing to say in response.

Ethics prompted Snowden to reveal the extent of the program. In a sense he did it for you AW. He did it for you, and all your fellow Americans. But instead of being treated like a hero, it's better to sh*t on him and character assassinate him WHILE going on and on about how bad Russia is. As I said, interesting transgressions.

I guess we can ignore all the other choices he had but were not options. Two diplomatic planes were grounded over Europe because Snowden was suspected to be on board. So he COULD leave, but then he'd be back in the land of the free and sharing a cell in the same wing as Manning.

I've had plenty to say about all of this. Your ongoing reading comprehension difficulties is hurting you in the end.

[GostHacked]

That doesn’t sound plausible, why the Chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Diane “Assault Weapons Ban” Feinstein said a few days ago:

“I’m not a high-tech techie, but I’ve been told it’s not possible” ……

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-guardian-account-nsa-program-misleading-20130801,0,2395897.story

It is “primarily an analysis program, not a collection program that is focused outside the United States, not on Americans,” said David Grannis, staff director for the intelligence committee. “One of the charts that was released yesterday actually has a drop-down menu that says how the analyst has to select how the person is outside the United States before you could actually use this tool.”

Since you are communicating with me, a person outside of the USA, indirectly you are also being spied upon through a technicality. You talk to another American, no problem, but with the extent of internet communications, a good deal of who you talk to are not even in the USA.

Complete naivety to think that they are not spying on you directly.

Your own quoted article is quite damning..

Many critics have expressed skepticism that those safeguards are meaningful, and they worry that the NSA is using the tool to monitor Americans when it suits intelligence analysts or that the agency could do so in the future. Former NSA officials say there is significant oversight to prevent that from happening.

The oversight is their own secret FISA courts. Not the standard courts that used to issue these warrants. You cannot have accountability or oversight in a secret program. And no oversight can be done when most of the senators and representatives do not know about the program.

You'd be surprised as to how much info can be gathered on you from a simple email address. It's not only possible, but had already been done.

Oversight on a secret program most of the government has no clue about? Sounds legit.

[Guest Derek L]

People get more upset when their cell phone carrier increases the cost by a couple pennies. People do not get upset when laws were changed to allow more tyrannical action from their government.

And the thing is, it's not just the USA, all of us are getting this treatment collectively from our collective governments.

It's like saying "well rape is legal now' and be completely fine with it.

Hey, I’m opposed to domestic surveillance on principle, but I understand that the proliferation of electronic intelligence gathering (SIGNIT, satellites, drones etc) is a direct response to the gutting of the American intelligence community’s manned portion starting under Bush 41’s administration with the passing of the Intelligence Authorization Act by the Democratic controlled House and Senate as a political reaction to the Contras, followed by the near complete gutting under the Clinton administration of the CIA……..

In essence, they near got rid of all those folks that just spent a decade in Afghanistan helping the locals bump off the Commies…….Who would have thought a decade later those very people might have been valuable…..As such, the Americans were forced to play catch-up, and what better way then doing that, then by changing laws that limit what the remaining organs of the intelligence agencies can and can’t do.