Edward Snowden

[Shady]

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

Exactly. I facepalm everytime I see someone claim that it's illegal. It's the law. How can the law be illegal?

[Guest Derek L]

Exactly. I facepalm everytime I see someone claim that it's illegal. It's the law. How can the law be illegal?

As to "Unconstitutional", well like I've said twice already, SCOTUS has ruled years ago........

[dre]

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.

I agree with what you said Derek. Im someone in the middle and I dont think I hold any extreme views.

But I think a middle ground has ALREADY been reached. The government can read your emails, listen to your phone calls, and even stretch open your arse-hole to making sure you arent hiding anything in there. There just need to get a warrant, which means they have to provide some kind of justification for infringing on your rights. This has worked pretty well for a hundred years, and its based on the idea of separated powers.

I dont see any reason to depart from this. And I worry about the precident being set... I mean... terrorism is such a remote threat that its 7 times less likely to kill you then a lightening strike. If we are willing to throw out a centurty of jurisprudence over THAT... then what are we going to do when theres a REAL threat?

[dre]

Exactly. I facepalm everytime I see someone claim that it's illegal. It's the law. How can the law be illegal?

The same way this law against panhandling was illegal....

http://wwmt.com/shared/news/features/top-stories/stories/wwmt_federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-antipanhandling-law-12744.shtml

The same way this law against medical abortion was illegal...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/15/north-dakota-abortion-ban-struck-down

The same way this law forcing employers to pay an abritratry prevailing wage was illegal...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-05/new-york-city-s-prevailing-wage-law-struck-down-by-judge.html

The same way this law defining marriage as heterosexual was illegal...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-26/defense-of-marriage-act-provision-struck-down-by-top-u-s-court.html

Its almost as if... your very first exposure to our entire legal system... was 5 minutes ago.

[dre]

As to "Unconstitutional", well like I've said twice already, SCOTUS has ruled years ago........

No it hasnt. In fact theres a series of rulings AGAINST dragnet surveillance, and hundreds of thousands of cases of evidence being thrown out because the government accessed personal information without a warrant.

Based on how the system works there needs to be a ruling on this before anyone can say if its legal or not.

[Guest Derek L]

No it hasnt. In fact theres a series of rulings AGAINST dragnet surveillance, and hundreds of thousands of cases of evidence being thrown out because the government accessed personal information without a warrant.

Based on how the system works there needs to be a ruling on this before anyone can say if its legal or not.

And I'll revert back to Smith vs Maryland ..........Google it......readers digest, when you send an email or make a cellphone call, you choose to send all this information (metadata) out into the ether………And as said above, this is not a mater of legality, but constitutional rights and freedoms……..The same arguments used to support AWB/gun control in the United States will be used in this instance….ultimately any actual decision will be left to elected legislators in Congress and the Senate…….And if the recent vote leaves any indication as to how that will go……I’m certain many Americans won’t vote for Obama for a third time….

[Guest Derek L]

I agree with what you said Derek. Im someone in the middle and I dont think I hold any extreme views.

But I think a middle ground has ALREADY been reached. The government can read your emails, listen to your phone calls, and even stretch open your arse-hole to making sure you arent hiding anything in there. There just need to get a warrant, which means they have to provide some kind of justification for infringing on your rights. This has worked pretty well for a hundred years, and its based on the idea of separated powers.

But that speaks exactly to my (larger) point…….I think we’re both reasonable, semi-intelligent folks, but I’ll revert back to my previous post/point…..How do you define an objective middle ground when the discussion is surrounded by untruths? Take Obamacare versus the NSA debate for an example. Most Americans are supportive of the idea of universal healthcare (Perhaps not exactly what Obama proposes) and would think little over various levels of Government having an individual file for each participant festooned with personal information……But boy oh boy, if the NSA records wide swaths of data that might contain a personal email or Facebook post, it’s 1984

This is the disconnect as to what I speak……..People blindly dissolve their own personal freedoms to the tune of equality (Well deriding those that don’t toe the line) and varying levels of collectivism for what they feel is self gain delivered by Government……..If I were religious, I’d call that making a deal with the devil……..And when it comes time to payback the debt, many are surprised that they’re tattooed with the mark of the beast and the price is subservience…..

Fore the Beast (Government) requires expanding the avenues of self-preservation from threats both external and internal……..If it doesn't, the entire dog and pony show comes to a screeching halt and bad things happen.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Derek L

[Shady]

The same way this law against panhandling was illegal....

http://wwmt.com/shared/news/features/top-stories/stories/wwmt_federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-antipanhandling-law-12744.shtml

The same way this law against medical abortion was illegal...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/15/north-dakota-abortion-ban-struck-down

The same way this law forcing employers to pay an abritratry prevailing wage was illegal...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-05/new-york-city-s-prevailing-wage-law-struck-down-by-judge.html

The same way this law defining marriage as heterosexual was illegal...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-26/defense-of-marriage-act-provision-struck-down-by-top-u-s-court.html

Its almost as if... your very first exposure to our entire legal system... was 5 minutes ago.

A law can't be illegal. It can be unconstitutional, but not illegal. Just like I stated earlier. /facepalm

[Shady]

Until a law is changed, or constitutionally challenged and struck down, it's completely legal.

[cybercoma]

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

Except for Snowden's. In that case, they have much more respect for his civil liberties than the US does.

[cybercoma]

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.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. All I'm saying is that the fact that both parties support it is not in itself proof that the law is not illegal. Both parties could support illegal legislation. That's often times how it gets passed in the first place.

[GostHacked]

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.

Yes I see that as it did say it was Hudon Jones. But he is partly right there, the USA is going Orwellian.

[cybercoma]

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?

So then you get people like Snowden who try to wake people up to the abuses and take matters into their own hands, but you criticize them.

[GostHacked]

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.

Ask yourself how unconstitutional laws get passed in the first place.

Also by definition of the constitution, and basic law of the USA, if a law is unconstitutional, every single person in the military and every police officer in the USA can refuse an order because it is not constitutional, regardless of what the law says.

Also my focus is on the NSA, your focus is on Saint Snowden.

[Shady]

The biggest problem is that the government wasn't traspsrent about it. And you lose trust with the public when you hide things like that.

[dre]

The biggest problem is that the government wasn't traspsrent about it. And you lose trust with the public when you hide things like that.

No the biggest problem is that a trumped up security threat is being used as an excuse to erode civil liberties. There shouldnt even BE a fisa court in the first place. If the NSA wants information about a persons phone calls then they should have to get a warrant in a regular court.

[Guest American Woman]

Except for Snowden's. In that case, they have much more respect for his civil liberties than the US does.

Yes, that's what it's all about - Russia respecting Snowden's civil liberties; because Russia has so much more respect for Americans' civil liberties than it does its own citizens' civil liberties. So kudos to Russia.

[Hudson Jones]

Youre getting some experience with the dishonest bait and switch type of argument AW is famous for.

Lets break down the various talking points...

1. Snowden should have used the "legal route".

This has been so thoroughly debunked and discredited its amazing anyone would cling to it. Intelligence whistleblowers who have tried this route have gotten absolutely NOWHERE and most of them were charged under the espionage act ANYWAYS. Three times in this thread she has been asked to name a single intelligence whistleblower that has EVERY gotten ANYWHERE using the legal route, and she has completely ignored the questions. She has also been provided with a half dozen quotes from former intelligence whistle blowers on the matter including one from one of her own sources. Not ONCE has she attempted to respond to any of it.

2. Nobody knows if Snowden would go to prison, and William Binney isnt in prison!

This set of assertions was also completely and thoroughly debunked. The last whistleblower is doing a 90 year jail term and will die in prison. The only reasons Binney didnt get prison time is because he never successfully blew the whistle on anything at all. He never went public... he tried the "legal route" and not only did he get nowhere at all, the Inspector General (who he was SUPPOSED to report this to) turned his name over to the justice department so that he could be part of a criminal investigation.

3. Snowden should have stayed in the US to "face the music"!

Another absolutely ridiculous assertion. Bradley Manning sat in jail for 3 years before there was even a trial, and then was sentenced to prison for the rest of his life.

And when challenged on these things you see the bait and switch. Quotes from Binney about a "transition to being a traitor" as if that somehow supports any of the arguments she has been making. I have never in all my years posting on internet forums seen a poster not only cling to assertions that have been so thoroughly debunked, but at the same time completely ignore every argument against their position.

She, and many others have it in for this guy. They hate him because he challenged the US government, nothing more. But at the end of the day one has to ask... Who are the traitors? Is it Snowden for revealing to Americans the extent of governement surveillance? Or the millions of authoritarian sycophants that have rounded on this guy like a pack of angry dogs, and by doing so encouraged the government to violate the rights of Americans.

I just wanted to make sure that AW didn't miss the post because she mysteriously disappeared after the post was made. But now she's back and she will have a chance to respond to it.

[jbg]

Except for Snowden's. In that case, they have much more respect for his civil liberties than the US does.

I'm sure Cuba would be quite solicitous of Paul Bernardo's rights.

[Shady]

No the biggest problem is that a trumped up security threat is being used as an excuse to erode civil liberties. There shouldnt even BE a fisa court in the first place. If the NSA wants information about a persons phone calls then they should have to get a warrant in a regular court.

Complete nonsense. The threat is absolutely real. But that doesn't mean the government should be given the latitude to encroach on civil liberties. Yes, there needs to be a FISA court. It just needs to be made accountable. No, not all NSA requests, especially pertaining to foreign phone calls etc, fall under regular court. You're misinformed.

[Hudson Jones]

Oh. The disappearing act by "American Woman" again.

[Guest Derek L]

I'm not sure what you're arguing. All I'm saying is that the fact that both parties support it is not in itself proof that the law is not illegal. Both parties could support illegal legislation. That's often times how it gets passed in the first place.

The law has to be determined to be unconstitutional, not illegal, by a Judge….Even with ex post facto laws, generally a no-no in US civil and criminal law, a (procedural and/or substantive) due-process challenge must be launched, then a Judge decide that the law is Unconstitutional….as was said prior, a law can’t be illegal if it was voted on and passed by Congress…….With that said, the NSA could be/have committed illegal actions, outside the law that Congress past, but of course, Snowden’s revelations have not indicated that….

[Guest Derek L]

So then you get people like Snowden who try to wake people up to the abuses and take matters into their own hands, but you criticize them.

I have not criticized Snowden, other then to say the way in which he tooted the whistle was stupid......and in my view, pointless.

[Guest Derek L]

…….With that said, the NSA could be/have committed illegal actions, outside the law that Congress past, but of course, Snowden’s revelations have not indicated that….

Apparently the Washington Post has:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-broke-privacy-rules-thousands-of-times-per-year-audit-finds/2013/08/15/3310e554-05ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html

The National Security Agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008, according to an internal audit and other top-secret documents.

Most of the infractions involve unauthorized surveillance of Americans or foreign intelligence targets in the United States, both of which are restricted by law and executive order. They range from significant violations of law to typographical errors that resulted in unintended interception of U.S. e-mails and telephone calls.

And like I was saying above about the FISA court:

In another case, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has authority over some NSA operations, did not learn about a new collection method until it had been in operation for many months. The court ruled it unconstitutional.

But more damning:

The Obama administration has provided almost no public information about the NSA’s compliance record. In June, after promising to explain the NSA’s record in “as transparent a way as we possibly can,” Deputy Attorney General James Cole described extensive safeguards and oversight that keep the agency in check. “Every now and then, there may be a mistake,” Cole said in congressional testimony.

The NSA audit obtained by The Post, dated May 2012, counted 2,776 incidents in the preceding 12 months of unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications. Most were unintended. Many involved failures of due diligence or violations of standard operating procedure. The most serious incidents included a violation of a court order and unauthorized use of data about more than 3,000 Americans and green-card holders.

So, a clear demonstration of legal malfeasance on the part of the Obama administration via the NSA……As I’ve been harping about, and will continue to do so, Congress “can’t pass an illegal law”, but Americans, including the Obama administration, can choose not to follow it………

This begs the question:

Edited August 16, 2013 by Derek L

[jbg]

Oh. The disappearing act by "American Woman" again.

You disappeared from July 29 to a few days ago. And some people have lives.