Snowden Situation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-07-2013, 09:56 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(27-07-2013 06:24 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  
(27-07-2013 06:15 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Except you didn't argue it as purely a moral issue. You claimed it was illegal. Legality is not subjective. It is either legal or it isn't. You think the Patriot Act is immoral. I do too. You'd be a complete and utter dolt to deny that it is currently legal.


The United States is a representative democracy. The people do not directly impact the laws. We vote people in who decide on those laws. If you want to change it, vote for people who will do so. Again, you keep assuming things about my position, and it makes you look like a complete and total idiot.


I never said it shouldn't be followed. I simply said I disagreed with the morality of the law. I will obey it, but I will also vote for politicians that will hopefully repeal it. That is what your beloved constitution was built around.


No, the Supreme Court has not ruled it against the constitution. You know about the three different branches of government, their functions included, right?

Nothing that contradicts the constitution can become law in the first place sooooooooo it isn't legal OR moral in any sense. I'm not going to be politically correct and wait my term until the congressman gets reelected like they do every year to take a stance on an illegal legislation issue. You can follow it all you like but I will not.

Talking about the constitution like this, "your beloved constitution" makes me assume things about you that maybe you don't like, but I don't really care. Every US citizen should think of the constitution as the "beloved constitution" and you know why? That single document and its amendments protect our right to privacy, freedom, a trial, and most importantly right to reject unfair legislation.

P.S.- The Patriot Act is not legal, therefore it is illegal. Big Grin

A law is legal until SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional and strikes it down, your opinion notwithstanding.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 10:03 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(27-07-2013 07:18 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  How many times do I have to say that a law CANNOT be enacted and carried out by any governing body that contradicts the constitution. That's what the constitution is there for, it's not just something you come to later and realize the law isn't justified.

And how many times do we have to point out how obviously wrong you are?

Unconstitutional laws have been passed and enforced any number of times and have sometimes stood for years until the Supreme Court struck them down.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-07-2013, 10:25 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 02:14 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 02:12 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I didn't know Nixon was impeached. Could have sworn he resigned..... Big Grin

He was impeached, he resigned before they could remove him from office. Just like Clinton was impeached, but he was never removed from office.

The House never impeached Nixon. Didn't happen.

The House Judiciary Committee held hearings and voted to recommend impeachment.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-07-2013, 10:30 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 08:45 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 08:36 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  No, he resigned before they could impeach him.
Richard Milhouse Nixon

I'm sorry, I meant that the impeachment proceedings had begun.

Only in the loosest of terms had they begun.

Official impeachment proceedings involve the House voting for impeachment and the Senate holding a trial. Didn't happen.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 10:32 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 02:27 AM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 02:10 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  If they did the same things without the Patriot Act, they would be deserving of legal action. Do you know about Watergate? That was one of the biggest scandals an intelligence agency has faced in the United States. It got a president impeached.

The constitution is not the end all to be all in the United States. It is purposely written to be vague and change with the times, so one could argue multiple different points, often opposing ones, off of the same provided rights. I am not disagreeing with your disdain for the Patriot Act, I am simply explaining to you that the bill is, in fact, legal. You must obey it whether you like it or not, just like I have to. You can, however, fight to change it through legal, peaceful channels. Snowden was peaceful, but he did not challenge the NSA or the system legally. He exposed classified information.

Whether or not Snowden's intentions were really good, I don't know. The fact of the matter is that his actions have not gotten anything done about the NSA itself.

Obama should be impeached for this NSA bullshit. He lied under oath and lied before his election when he said he would do away with the "illegal wiretapping done by Bush," when it turns out he didn't do anything but expand it.

Wrong. The Constitution IS the end all and be all of the US. The constitution and Bill of Rights combined with the declaration of Independence are the documents that make America the, land of the free and home of the brave.

I will not follow the Patriot Act, even though I am not able to know I am being spied on, whether YOU like it or not bud. Don't try and tell me what I have to do.

Snowden revealed classified information about "what should be illegal" government activities, therefore, any criminal charges are void in my book, or anyone that values privacy in their lives.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document of the U.S. It has no legal standing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 10:34 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 03:03 AM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 02:57 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Him "lying" (I don't know if he lied or not) during his campaign or during his presidency about a policy he may or may not present to congress is not legal grounds for impeachment.

I have not proven your point. The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what is not. They are the ultimate authority as to the legality of something, not the constitution itself. Again, if the constitution was the ultimate authority, things like the Patriot Act would not be legal. You said you would stop being so stubborn, but I do not see that changing.

I am not saying it does contradict the constitution. I am asking that, if a person disagrees with the illegality of murder, should they be able to break the law? Does that give them the right?

He lied, just google it.

The Supreme Court decides what is unconstitutional based on the constitution because lawmakers obviously can't be trusted to regulate themselves are they? Therefore, the constitution is the final authority, the Supreme Court just regulates the adherence to that rule.

I just refuted that murder illegality argument, read the last post.

No, the SCOTUS interprets constitutionality. It is human judgment. I suggest you Google "Dred Scott decision".

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 11:27 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 08:46 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 03:21 AM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  Nothing about a president of a country lying is irrelevant.

If it went to the Supreme Court, it would be judged against the constitution therefore making it the final say. All we have to do is get it to that point.

I already said no because they are two totally different situations with totally different circumstances.

Of all things to lash out about and talk personally about it would be the state of your future country. That fascism hyperbole wasn't even really one at all, if you count that as dribble, because if this Patriot Act gets expanded even one more inch further, we would be officially living in a fascist state.

Lying is not grounds for impeachment, especially about campaign promises. Again because of the Patriot Act what they are doing is Legal so there is no crime to be impeached over. Plus even if you think the Republicans would try that again (it would be political suicide and the leadership knows it) the Senate Democrats have over a simple majority so nothing would come of it.

So I will again ask you, since you hate the Prism program so much. How would you change it, if you had the authority, keeping in mind that there are terrorists active right now.

I would get rid of it, even though it wouldn't stop any of what they are doing. Using the excuse that it is all to catch terrorists sounds stupid to me. I don't want my government spying on random people just on the off chance they are a terrorist, because I don't want my rights to become forfeit in the "race to catch terrorists." So I ask you, since terrorism will never be rid from the world why do you endorse government spying?

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 11:30 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 10:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-07-2013 07:18 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  How many times do I have to say that a law CANNOT be enacted and carried out by any governing body that contradicts the constitution. That's what the constitution is there for, it's not just something you come to later and realize the law isn't justified.

And how many times do we have to point out how obviously wrong you are?

Unconstitutional laws have been passed and enforced any number of times and have sometimes stood for years until the Supreme Court struck them down.

All I am saying is that the Supreme Court uses the constitution as the deciding factor on if the law is acceptable or not. I don't care for how long the bill stays in legislature. Is that wrong?

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 11:46 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 11:27 AM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 08:46 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Lying is not grounds for impeachment, especially about campaign promises. Again because of the Patriot Act what they are doing is Legal so there is no crime to be impeached over. Plus even if you think the Republicans would try that again (it would be political suicide and the leadership knows it) the Senate Democrats have over a simple majority so nothing would come of it.

So I will again ask you, since you hate the Prism program so much. How would you change it, if you had the authority, keeping in mind that there are terrorists active right now.

I would get rid of it, even though it wouldn't stop any of what they are doing. Using the excuse that it is all to catch terrorists sounds stupid to me. I don't want my government spying on random people just on the off chance they are a terrorist, because I don't want my rights to become forfeit in the "race to catch terrorists." So I ask you, since terrorism will never be rid from the world why do you endorse government spying?

To be completely honest I don't feel as though meta data collection is wrong in and of itself. To bury our heads in the sand completely is just foolish and since what you're doing online is not by definition private (standard rule here is the internet is a public forum) then yes activity online can be monitored. Now I do hold that communication should be privileged and require a warrant to see what was said (IE: you can see there was an email exchange between your suspected terrorists but to read said emails you must get a probable cause warrant)

This is really no different than the RICO Act statues, it is just a wider focus. No one complains about how RICO is infringing on freedom because it is used to target people seen as other and outside the law.

I much prefer softer anti-terrorist methods like Prism to ineffective shows of force like the Afghan war and TSA. Good Police work and data mining can stop terrorists before they can act shows of force are nothing more than that. So if the options are do nothing and let national security fall away, go full on police state and expand TSA, or have the information agencies trying to track terrorists through non-interventionist data mining and police work, I'm taking option 3 every time. It is not a solution in a vacuum however and our foreign policy must also be brought into play here (something that the current administration has had mixed success with thought lightyears better than the previous one)

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 12:11 PM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 11:46 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 11:27 AM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  I would get rid of it, even though it wouldn't stop any of what they are doing. Using the excuse that it is all to catch terrorists sounds stupid to me. I don't want my government spying on random people just on the off chance they are a terrorist, because I don't want my rights to become forfeit in the "race to catch terrorists." So I ask you, since terrorism will never be rid from the world why do you endorse government spying?

To be completely honest I don't feel as though meta data collection is wrong in and of itself. To bury our heads in the sand completely is just foolish and since what you're doing online is not by definition private (standard rule here is the internet is a public forum) then yes activity online can be monitored. Now I do hold that communication should be privileged and require a warrant to see what was said (IE: you can see there was an email exchange between your suspected terrorists but to read said emails you must get a probable cause warrant)

This is really no different than the RICO Act statues, it is just a wider focus. No one complains about how RICO is infringing on freedom because it is used to target people seen as other and outside the law.

I much prefer softer anti-terrorist methods like Prism to ineffective shows of force like the Afghan war and TSA. Good Police work and data mining can stop terrorists before they can act shows of force are nothing more than that. So if the options are do nothing and let national security fall away, go full on police state and expand TSA, or have the information agencies trying to track terrorists through non-interventionist data mining and police work, I'm taking option 3 every time. It is not a solution in a vacuum however and our foreign policy must also be brought into play here (something that the current administration has had mixed success with thought lightyears better than the previous one)

Quote: have the information agencies trying to track terrorists through non-interventionist data mining and police work

As long as this doesn't infringe on the civil liberties of the people in question this is fine. Warrants that are met with a good amount of evidence which can be shown in an open court at one time or another I have no problem with.

Quote:the options are do nothing and let national security fall away

This doesn't make much sense to me. Terrorists will be terrorists and there is not very much we can do to stop them, because that is just the world we live in. At no time in public could you be 100% safe from an attack, we see this is Israel all the time with the boys and the bombs strapped to their chests. Once we turn into a country that gets so paranoid about potential terrorist attacks that we give up our freedom is when I get worried, because after that we have nothing left. Once you give up your freedom there is no turning back and the future probably doesn't look to bright when that happens.

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: