06-11-2013, 10:13 AM
Over on This Ain't Hell, some initial analyses of Snowden's so-called military career have been done, which question certain "elements" of it. FOIA request pending.U.S. Army, Retired
06-12-2013, 04:58 AM
I know there are people on both sides of the aisle right now that want this guys head...they're saying he's no better than Bradley manning and such...but when you stop and think about it...what Snowden did was release info about the process involved in the way NSA gathers info on all of us.
He didn't release any actual info. No names transcripts of conversations or emails.
In short he did what Seymour Hersch did with his front page story about how we were tracking al-Qaeda by their bank accounts.
I haven't seen or heard of Hersch having to hide from authorities or fear for his life.
Manning on the other hand did EVERYTHING Snowden didn't. He released email...diplomatic cables...video etc. Manning put lives at risk...Snowden hasn't.
That's the difference between the two based on the info available right now.
And at this point Snowden needs to be protected under U.S. Whistleblower laws.
If it turns out he released documents then put him in a cell next to Manning.
But right now all he's guilty of is showing how the NSA collects the info.
Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid
To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
06-12-2013, 11:54 AM
I have to wonder how people would feel if you had a knock on the door and the FBI entered without a search warrant and said they were going to search, photograph and catalog everything you owned, but not to worry this was for statistical use only and would not be used personally against you unless you broke the law at a later date.
How many would say this was harmless and the price we have to pay for our national safety?How is obama working out for you?
06-12-2013, 12:09 PM
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
What the NSA is doing is wrong. What this guy did is also wrong. I learned in kindergarten that two wrongs do not create a right.Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
06-12-2013, 12:23 PMHow is obama working out for you?
06-12-2013, 01:00 PM
“[O]ur law holds the property of every man so sacred,that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour’s closewithout his leave; if he does he is a trespasser, though he does no damage at all; if he will tread upon hisneighbour’s ground, he must justify it by law.” Entick, supra, at 817.Scalia then observes:
"The text of the Fourth Amendment reflects its close connection to property, since otherwise it would have referredsimply to “the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures”; the phrase “in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” would have been superfluous."The later interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, which produced the standard of a "reasonable expectation of privacy" (United States V. Katz), does not abrogate the previous concept of invasion of privacy as a matter of trespass on private property, but adds to it. Therefore, the question becomes, does the government's action constitute a trespass on private property, and does its action violate a reasonable expectation of privacy? This is where the legal reasoning gets tricky, because the seizure of the records would have required a specific, not a general, warrant (general warrants, or Writs of Assistance, as the Crown called them, were the reason for the Fourth Amendment in the first place), unless Verizon volunteered the records without a warrant. The records are the property of Verizon, not the callers, and therefore it is up to Verizon to decide whether or not to cooperate. The government's possession of the data within those records, which is limited to information about the calls, but not the contents of the calls themselves, does not constitute a search or seizure of private property, nor is there an expectation of privacy with regard to the metadata (which, unlike the content of the calls, is logged by Verizon). The nineteenth century equivalent would be if a postmaster informed a police officer that a criminal suspect did, in fact, post a letter or package to a given address, but that the postmaster had no idea of the contents.
Now, just because the Fourth Amendment is silent on metadata does not mean that this is good policy, or that the Obama administration's breathtaking mendacity in denying the existence of the program to congress shouldn't be an issue, only that it may not be the the issue that the civil libertarians are talking about.
We have to be consistent here, and I admit to getting caught up in the outrage over the idea of the government collecting this information, especially in view of the IRS scandal and the administration's proven inclination to abuse information which it compells us to present under penalty of perjury, but we also need to know the legal and ethical issues and address them clearly. We can leave the hysterical posturing to DU.
06-12-2013, 01:08 PM“A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.” – Ayn Rand
Power Point Ranger
06-12-2013, 01:48 PM
Before you decide that this is unconstitutional, ask yourself if the US interception and code-breaking of Japanese diplomatic and military codes prior to our entry into WWII was Constitutional, or if the interception of SIGINT from the Soviets to their agents in the US (the Venona Intercepts) was Constitutional. Would it have been acceptable for someone to leak the existence of the Manhattan Project during WWII? Remember that those intercepts, like the NSA program, were not being used to prosecute American citizens, but to gain wartime intelligence against declared enemies and identify clandestine enemy combatant (i.e., terrorist) networks operating in the US. The legal standards are radically different for those two endeavors, and the blurring of the lines between criminal justice issues and national security issues creates real problems for effectively dealing with either.
Snowden held a position of trust, and he violated that trust. If he genuinely believed that the program was illegal, he had other options. He could have raised the issue internally to his superiors, or taken his information to the congressional committees charged with oversight of the executive, and which have a Constitutional mandate to investigate, but which also have the means to deal with classified without compromising them. By going outside of the chain, he acted irresponsibly and dangerously.
06-12-2013, 03:09 PM
Obama promised a transparent administration. Now he's getting one.Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown
The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
06-12-2013, 05:42 PM"Our president delivered his State of the Union message to Congress. That is one of the things his contract calls for -- to tell congress the condition of the country. This message, as I say, is to Congress. The rest of the people know the condition of the country, for they live in it, but Congress has no idea what is going on in America, so the president has to tell 'em." ~ Will Rogers
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|