NSA Wiretapping and Snowden on the run

[TrueEpic08]

I'm about to be labeled an "Obama supporter again" (if you haven't noticed that what happens around here when you make any contrary or legal arguments while still supporting the same goal...which is why I barely post...shyt look in this very thread), but I can't agree with your line of thought. There are infinite reasons why someone who is a spy would act contrary to what we would believe. History is riddled with examples of the public catching onto the motivations of individuals until files are declassified like 30 years later. Personally, I don't know is motivations, and I doubt he's a spy but I won't pretend that there's a definitive line of reasoning that makes it entirely improbable. We don't know everything about what he had access to and what his value would be overall. But I doubt he's a spy, but they're just that. I think you're missing the contradiction in you and TUH (especially) him claiming that his character doesn't matter and that people trying to tear down his character are speculating and trying to divert from the main issues, while defending a portion of his character based on the same unsubstantiated conjecture.

I see your point.

Though I will say that I'm not attempting to defend his character, just trying to analyze his actions. Going on that, it's highly (HIGHLY) improbable that he's a Chinese spy, but as you say, there are things that we don't know that could be deeply influencing what he's been doing. But I will say that saying definitively that Snowden's a spy based on what we know is still deeply stupid.

 

[No1]

I see your point.

But I will say that saying definitively that Snowden's a spy based on what we know is still deeply stupid.

Agreed. On another point, I don't know if I emphasized enough (I don't what it is, that we've reached a point where nuanced arguments = defense of status quo), but I've been trying to point out that just because this policy might be legal like TWISM and others are asserting, it does not mean that it is constitutional. It has completely subverted from it's initial intentions and limitations. This FISA is nothing like what it was supposed to be and supposed to be a response to. Ironically, it was supposed to limit the means by which the government intercepted information. So the whole "but the three branches are in agreement" argument fails when we don't get get to see the judicial opinions substantiating the activity and when they've literally only ever turned down to two requests. Congress can edit provisions of the bill to make it superior and to have it protect rights. I'm not quite sure what they're all afraid of.

 

[DeuceZ]

I remember when Bush and them were pushing for more powers and in a 'brilliant' (devious would be a more appropriate option) they named it PATRIOT ACT...all those opposed to it were deemed unpatriotic and now more or less the same ppl are saying oh look how the govt abusing their powers...shudnt have given them the power in the first place if u are going to base issues of national security/individual privacy (pronounced pree-vacy ) off emotion.... :jojo:

 

[theworldismine13]

Agreed. On another point, I don't know if I emphasized enough (I don't what it is, that we've reached a point where nuanced arguments = defense of status quo), but I've been trying to point out that just because this policy might be legal like TWISM and others are asserting, it does not mean that it is constitutional. It has completely subverted from it's initial intentions and limitations. This FISA is nothing like what it was supposed to be and supposed to be a response to. Ironically, it was supposed to limit the means by which the government intercepted information. So the whole "but the three branches are in agreement" argument fails when we don't get get to see the judicial opinions substantiating the activity and when they've literally only ever turned down to two requests. Congress can edit provisions of the bill to make it superior and to have it protect rights. I'm not quite sure what they're all afraid of.

it went through all the checks and balances, so essentially you are saying we need a new system of government

but seriously, if snowden had come up with a specific instance of abuse there would be a push to change the procedure, but there isnt any reason to think anything malicious was going on, the process is mostly done by mid-level bureaucrats , they have no real agenda to push, it is just the potential of abuse that is the issue

 

[ltheghost]

This in and of itself is not a full argument. I don't know how many times I can say this, and you'll probably give me some "rah rah rah" Obama apologist spiel for just telling the truth but just referring to the Constitution when we're having a legal discussion is never enough. It's barely a starting point. You know better than that. You know that you have to look at reigning judicial opinions and case law. Which is why, I said this guy going on trial would probably force us to look further at the justifications and legal arguments made by the FISA courts and government attorneys. As we are now, we can barely mount a legal challenge. @ltheghost or any of the students in the legal discussion thread will tell you the same. Policy is only one part, and often an unconvincing part of legal arguments. To quote Marshall,




@superunknown23 is right, we need more. We need to see the basis of the government's definition of "reasonable" and if it's anything we will ever support (which I doubt).

The most interesting thing is whether someone can actually prove that the government is spying on them. How would you go about proving that facebook is taking your data and giving it to the NSA? Not just "data" but your personal information? Would you be able to gain access to those documents through a FOIA? Probably not. I think of this as an invisible peeping tom case. You know someone is out there looking at you, but you can't identify who it is. And Snowden could be a witness but he is on the run. So you can't call him as a witness or his statements because he is going to be charged for espionage. This is the entire government vs You. Even the legal system will be against you because you are trying to request documents from a "Secret" program that is protected by the highest levels of the government against the Constitution. So it all comes down to hearsay...."Someone said I was being searched..but I can't prove it." Messed up huh? You guys need to remember. When the government feels like doing something they will...

We are the only country in the world that has used Nuclear Weapons against another country...What makes you think they will worry about your 4th Amendment Rights when they are trying to search for terrorists?

 

[No1]

The most interesting thing is whether someone can actually prove that the government is spying on them. How would you go about proving that facebook is taking your data and giving it to the NSA? Not just "data" but your personal information? Would you be able to gain access to those documents through a FOIA? Probably not. I think of this as an invisible peeping tom case. You know someone is out there looking at you, but you can't identify who it is. And Snowden could be a witness but he is on the run. So you can't call him as a witness or his statements because he is going to be charged for espionage. This is the entire government vs You. Even the legal system will be against you because you are trying to request documents from a "Secret" program that is protected by the highest levels of the government against the Constitution. So it all comes down to hearsay...."Someone said I was being searched..but I can't prove it." Messed up huh? You guys need to remember. When the government feels like doing something they will...

We are the only country in the world that has used Nuclear Weapons against another country...What makes you think they will worry about your 4th Amendment Rights when they are trying to search for terrorists?

I hadn't thought about the standard of proof. You're right, it would be hard for someone to prove that they have standing. It would have to be very creative. I think one of the phone companies getting involved could make it work though. They could identify whose information they had to hand over.

On your nuclear weapons point, I was going to make that thread but Obama has been getting the cold shoulder globally on nuclear reductions. Places like Russia say that we have powerful enough weapons now to do the same shyt without nuclear technology.

 

[ltheghost]

I hadn't thought about the standard of proof. You're right, it would be hard for someone to prove that they have standing. It would have to be very creative. I think one of the phone companies getting involved could make it work though. They could identify whose information they had to hand over.

On your nuclear weapons point, I was going to make that thread but Obama has been getting the cold shoulder globally on nuclear reductions. Places like Russia say that we have powerful enough weapons now to do the same shyt without nuclear technology.

You know the government is going to pull "classified information" or the "National Security" card every time someone tries to challenge this program that doesn't exist. LOL The phone companies could help but the government is going to deny every receiving said information. lol

Nuclear weapons now a days is considered old technology. I have heard from people about weapons that target only human beings (Think lasers and melting human beings). Like what good is it to go to war with someone when you can't get their resources after the battles. So a rumor was out about this weapon that was used in Iraq that heated the air. One shot a beam that basically lowered the oxygen level. Sort of like the idea for a flash grenade but kills humans. But that's all DARPA type stuff. It is also cheaper to let two forces fight it out while you support one side minimally. (Syria).

 

[newworldafro]

1) NSA Snooping Was Only the Beginning. Meet the Spy Chief Leading Us Into Cyberwar | Threat Level | Wired.com

2) [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDNEJdSTFOU&feature=c4-overview&list=UUDGv5lznlcbgOeH5-pqo5MQ"]Jeff Rense & Jonathan Emord - NSA, PRISM, & Our Loss of Privacy - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PHamm]

As for hero I disagree. I admire the whistle blowing but running to China. He is probably a Chinese spy. If he wanted to be a hero and take part in civil disobedience, he would have stayed in America. The aclu would have hooked him up with some lawyers and he could have defended his position.

 

[theworldismine13]

NSA Snooping Was Only the Beginning. Meet the Spy Chief Leading Us Into Cyberwar | Threat Level | Wired.com

great article , the world of Neuromancer is coming to life Neuromancer: William Gibson: 9780441569595: Amazon.com: Books


Neuromacer movie is in the works btw to who may care First Concept Art for the Neuromancer Movie!

 

[88m3]

kid must really want a bullet

 

[Serious]

kid must really want a bullet

watch ol boy show up dead from a "self-inflicted" gun wound...

 

[theworldismine13]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/w...-made-call-to-let-leaker-depart.html?hp&_r=1&

Two Western intelligence experts, who worked for major government spy agencies, said they believed that the Chinese government had managed to drain the contents of the four laptops that Mr. Snowden said he brought to Hong Kong, and that he said were with him during his stay at a Hong Kong hotel.

Old "I'm a freedom fighter so ima go to Hong Kong with 4 laptops full of secret information" motherfuker

 

[RAX 010]

Edward Snowden threw away a good life no matter how temporary to warn a nation of cowardly sheep that the government was spying on them !

 

[KeysT]

Edward Snowden threw away a good life no matter how temporary to warn a nation of cowardly sheep that the government was spying on them !

True. Imagine never being able to set foot in the United States or any of its main allies ever again! There are literally places in this world that you can't go too, for fear of being arrested..