Edward Snowden

[dre]

And the FISA court is not the Supreme Court. More importantly, the FISA court approving these programs is like Wall Street executives trying their own cases of white collar crime. Or police investigating misconduct by other police. Or a Conservative committee investigating misconduct by Conservative senators. It's a joke and even President Obama has said that people have a legitimate concern that these proceedings were biased towards surveillance and not enough attention was given to liberty. So even the POTUS, who stands firm behind these programs, says the process was biased, but the programs were and still are necessary.

The real problem isnt proving that the consitution was violated. Its standing to bring the case in the first place. The governments lawyers have been pretty smart about this... in order for someone to bring a constitutional case before the courts they have to be able to show that they were under surveillance, and since its secret who is and who isnt being watched and to what extent, this is very hard to do without additional whistleblowers.

[Guest Derek L]

This suggests that there has never been bipartisan support for any law that has ever been overturned by the Supreme Court. It does not follow that there would not be bipartisan support for a law, simply because it's illegal.

Why? Politics is paramount.

[Guest Derek L]

And the FISA court is not the Supreme Court. More importantly, the FISA court approving these programs is like Wall Street executives trying their own cases of white collar crime. Or police investigating misconduct by other police. Or a Conservative committee investigating misconduct by Conservative senators. It's a joke and even President Obama has said that people have a legitimate concern that these proceedings were biased towards surveillance and not enough attention was given to liberty. So even the POTUS, who stands firm behind these programs, says the process was biased, but the programs were and still are necessary.

What are you taking about? There’s civilian oversight, of the entire Intelligence apparatus, by elected officials from both parties….

[Guest Derek L]

The real problem isnt proving that the consitution was violated. Its standing to bring the case in the first place. The governments lawyers have been pretty smart about this... in order for someone to bring a constitutional case before the courts they have to be able to show that they were under surveillance, and since its secret who is and who isnt being watched and to what extent, this is very hard to do without additional whistleblowers.

Bingo......or else, one has no leg to stand on........Running around in circles, flapping your arms shouting conspiracy doesn’t get you very far….

[Hudson Jones]

America is now on a fast track to raising up an Orwellian generation—one populated by compliant citizens accustomed to living in a police state and who march in lockstep to the dictates of the government.

[Shady]

America is now on a fast track to raising up an Orwellian generation—one populated by compliant citizens accustomed to living in a police state and who march in lockstep to the dictates of the government.

LOL. What complete nonsense and utter hyperbole.

[Guest Derek L]

America is now on a fast track to raising up an Orwellian generation—one populated by compliant citizens accustomed to living in a police state and who march in lockstep to the dictates of the government.

I don’t know about that, but I would say that the last couple of generations appear, in my view, to be marching towards plurality by the beat of the pseudo-individualistic drum…….or better put:

[jbg]

America is now on a fast track to raising up an Orwellian generation—one populated by compliant citizens accustomed to living in a police state and who march in lockstep to the dictates of the government.

LOL. What complete nonsense and utter hyperbole.

He prefers such beacons of liberty as Gaza, Syria and Muslim Brotherhood Egypt.

[dre]

Bingo......or else, one has no leg to stand on........Running around in circles, flapping your arms shouting conspiracy doesn’t get you very far….

Im not seeing much in the way of conspiracy theories here. But the general direction we are seeing is towards authoritarianism and away from Liberty. So authoritarian minded people are quite happy, but libertarian minded people are not.

[Guest Derek L]

Im not seeing much in the way of conspiracy theories here. But the general direction we are seeing is towards authoritarianism and away from Liberty. So authoritarian minded people are quite happy, but libertarian minded people are not.

And my implication wasn’t cast in your direction….far from it.

But is this “debate” over Authoritarian vs. Libertarian really apropos? I mean many understand that both extremes are bad, as such a compromise or better put, a middle ground must be reached, but I would suggest a majority of Euroamerican society doesn’t truly support individualism, but a post-modern Egalitarianism devoid of objective truths.

[cybercoma]

Why? Politics is paramount.

Because it's not logical. There could be bipartisan support for illegal laws. In fact, there has been in the past. Partisan support is not an indicator of the legality of legislation. Constitutional challenge at the SCOTUS is the only way to determine that.

[cybercoma]

What are you taking about? There’s civilian oversight, of the entire Intelligence apparatus, by elected officials from both parties….

You mean civilian overseers that didn't even know what was going on? Or the Senators that knew what was going on but were powerless to do anything about it? Edited August 14, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

America is now on a fast track to raising up an Orwellian generation—one populated by compliant citizens accustomed to living in a police state and who march in lockstep to the dictates of the government.

Kafka Generation. It's not about the surveillance and being watched. It's about data collection and what they do with it, whilst prohibiting you from knowing what information they have or how they're using it. John Doe is now Josef K. Edited August 14, 2013 by cybercoma

[Shady]

He prefers such beacons of liberty as Gaza, Syria and Muslim Brotherhood Egypt.

Exactly. The irony metre exploded.

[GostHacked]

Exactly. The irony metre exploded.

So to both you and JBG, when did Snodwen say he would prefer Gaza or Syria? Methinks a bit of projection going on here by some who prefer transgressions toward the whislteblower all while Uncle Sam is putting on those nice little blue gloves. Trust me, this won't hurt a bit.

Do you really want to know what irony is?

[jbg]

So to both you and JBG, when did Snodwen say he would prefer Gaza or Syria? Methinks a bit of projection going on here by some who prefer transgressions toward the whislteblower all while Uncle Sam is putting on those nice little blue gloves. Trust me, this won't hurt a bit.

Do you really want to know what irony is?

I'll tell you one thing about Russia; it's respect for civil liberties is far less than the U.S.

And the post inside-quoted was that of Hudson Jones, not Edward Snowden.

[Shady]

I'll tell you one thing about Russia; it's respect for civil liberties is far less than the U.S.

And the post inside-quoted was that of Hudson Jones, not Edward Snowden.

GH is quite sensitive when it comes to Eddie Snowden. If he even thinks you're criticizing Eddie, you'll get a response from him.

[Guest Derek L]

Because it's not logical. There could be bipartisan support for illegal laws. In fact, there has been in the past. Partisan support is not an indicator of the legality of legislation. Constitutional challenge at the SCOTUS is the only way to determine that.

That is a possibility, but in this case, that in and of itself doesn’t appear logical……I mean, when the “cat was let out of the bag” by Snowden (Though it’s been out of the bag for decades), if for example the Republican party knew what was going was illegal, even though they were just as supportive of it as the Democrats, they could have distanced themselves from it, hell maybe even called Snowden a hero, and let the Obama administration wear it all the way through the investigations, hearings and eventual impeachment proceedings.

As to SCOTUS, as I already said, they made a ruling decades ago on privacy and telecommunications…..and with amendment after amendment, this is where we are today……Nothing illegal.

[Guest Derek L]

You mean civilian overseers that didn't even know what was going on? Or the Senators that knew what was going on but were powerless to do anything about it?

Also, as I said prior, when members of both parties sitting on the Intelligence Committees acknowledged that they knew “what was going on”, I’m forced to cast doubt on those that claim ignorance……unless perhaps they are new members as of January and have yet to be brought up to speed…..

Edited August 14, 2013 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

Kafka Generation. It's not about the surveillance and being watched. It's about data collection and what they do with it, whilst prohibiting you from knowing what information they have or how they're using it. John Doe is now Josef K.

That’s a very interesting sidebar……..I would suggest though that the Kafka Generation (I like it) is and will be in a situation of their own creation…..If one hands their destiny to another (Or in this case Government), they shouldn’t be surprised when they discover one day that they are no longer in the drivers seat…..

“The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.”

― Oscar Wilde?

Edited August 14, 2013 by Derek L

[Hudson Jones]

He prefers such beacons of liberty as Gaza, Syria and Muslim Brotherhood Egypt.

Because when you critique someone or something, you prefer something worse?

It's like saying: "Why are you so down on the rapist?! Do you prefer that he killed the girl?!"

[kimmy]

The idea that partisan politics proves the program is legal is flawed. The idea that if it was against the law, Republicans would jump onboard as a way of taking down Obama is just wrong. Tea Party demagogues have never let legality stop them from mounting outraged attacks on Obama, yet some of the biggest supporters of these surveillance programs are Tea Party demagogues. If taking down Obama was their only goal, they'd have fired up their moral outrage regardless of the highly doubtful constitutionality of this program. Obamacare is constitutional, but they howl about it 24/7/365.

Support for, and opposition to, this program is something that transcends party boundaries. Members of both parties are on the intelligence committee and supporting it. Members of both parties are teaming up on legislation to shut it down.

Something else that transcends party boundaries: members of congress who are supporting this program receive a shit-ton of money from defense contractors, whereas those who are fighting against it are aren't on that gravy train.

-k

[Shady]

The idea that partisan politics proves the program is legal is flawed. The idea that if it was against the law, Republicans would jump onboard as a way of taking down Obama is just wrong. Tea Party demagogues have never let legality stop them from mounting outraged attacks on Obama, yet some of the biggest supporters of these surveillance programs are Tea Party demagogues. If taking down Obama was their only goal, they'd have fired up their moral outrage regardless of the highly doubtful constitutionality of this program. Obamacare is constitutional, but they howl about it 24/7/365.

Support for, and opposition to, this program is something that transcends party boundaries. Members of both parties are on the intelligence committee and supporting it. Members of both parties are teaming up on legislation to shut it down.

Something else that transcends party boundaries: members of congress who are supporting this program receive a shit-ton of money from defense contractors, whereas those who are fighting against it are aren't on that gravy train.

-k

They howl about Obamacare because it's a complete and utter train wreck. As for the NSA stuff. It's completely legal. It was passed by congress and signed into law by presidents. It's possibly unconstitutional, or completely constitutional. But that's not resolved until when and if it's challenged in the courts.

[Shady]

Also, what about the NSA demagogues? It's 1984!! It's 1984!! It's just like Big Brother!

[Guest Derek L]

They howl about Obamacare because it's a complete and utter train wreck. As for the NSA stuff. It's completely legal. It was passed by congress and signed into law by presidents. It's possibly unconstitutional, or completely constitutional. But that's not resolved until when and if it's challenged in the courts.

That's spot on......How would the maker of the laws (Legislative branch) make one illegal?