Snowden Situation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-07-2013, 07:08 PM
RE: Snowden Situation
(27-07-2013 07:03 PM)I and I Wrote:  And he shared what classified information with whom?

Are... are you serious?

Information on NSA policy and procedure with the Guardian newspaper among others.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2013, 07:09 PM
RE: Snowden Situation
(27-07-2013 07:03 PM)I and I Wrote:  And he shared what classified information with whom?

He shared classified documents with well anyone. Sharing classified documents is illegal. How do you not grasp that?

In my opinion the guy is a hero for exposing this nsa shit.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2013, 07:14 PM
Snowden Situation
(27-07-2013 07:03 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(27-07-2013 06:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Are... are you serious?

It is illegal to share classified information.

And he shared what classified information with whom?

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2013, 07:16 PM
RE: Snowden Situation
(27-07-2013 07:14 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(27-07-2013 07:03 PM)I and I Wrote:  And he shared what classified information with whom?

Drinking Beverage

(27-07-2013 07:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-07-2013 07:03 PM)I and I Wrote:  And he shared what classified information with whom?

Are... are you serious?

Information on NSA policy and procedure with the Guardian newspaper among others.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2013, 07:18 PM
RE: Snowden Situation
(27-07-2013 06:56 PM)cjlr Wrote:  All right, elegant_atheist.

The law is a human institution.

Legality is not something you make up based on your feels, it is something a governing body (regardless of its legitimacy) determines within its jurisdiction.

You seem to be arguing law as a proxy for morality - your morality. And most of us have no substantial disagreements with that morality! But it is not law...

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.

Also, the Patriot Law goes behind US citizens' backs. They had no way to represent themselves, which is why this is so horrible. In court, a defendant could easily show the unconstitutionality of the law and be relieved of all effects of the act. This was taken away because of the secret court and the National Security Letters. That is why it is illegal and cannot be tolerated in the US, whether it is technically considered law or not. Nothing can be taken from a US citizen without proper representation.

Did I mention the UN already declared it illegal?

Also, NSA Wiretap Program Declared Illegal
Judge laments U.S. government's 'argumentative acrobatics...'
by Karl Bode

In a significant decision, a Federal Judge this week ruled that the U.S. government broke the law when they eavesdropped on the telephone conversations of two American lawyers without a warrant. The lawsuit, which was helped when U.S. lawyers accidentally sent evidence of wiretaps to the same lawyers they were wiretapping, has traveled a long and strange road with both the Bush and Obama administrations trying their best to derail it. Ultimately however, the Judge in question declared the Justice Department was engaged in "argumentative acrobatics" (pdf) and had violated federal wiretap laws. The ruling, of course, will be appealed.

http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-spied-europea...ow-1328769

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/nsa-wh...-activity/

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2013, 07:19 PM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2013 07:25 PM by JAH.)
RE: Snowden Situation
Parsing over words like legal or moral or whatever is stupid. The US government deciding that it is in its best interests to spy on basically all of its population and the rest of the worlds to the extent possible is wrong.

I am not talking about morals. Would it be moral (in my mind) to shoot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad between the eyes, or Benjamin Netanyahu, or better yet both in the groin, yes. Would that act be wrong, yes.

Spying on and trying to manipulate the world for our own (US) purposes is wrong. Not morally in any sense but wrong as a position of governance.

Those who point out that this is what we are doing and it should at least be thought about like Snowden and Bradley Manning should be honored. I would wish I had similar courage given the same circumstances.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2013, 07:24 PM
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.

Also, the Patriot Law goes behind US citizens' backs. They had no way to represent themselves, which is why this is so horrible. In court, a defendant could easily show the unconstitutionality of the law and be relieved of all effects of the act. This was taken away because of the secret court and the National Security Letters. That is why it is illegal and cannot be tolerated in the US, whether it is technically considered law or not. Nothing can be taken from a US citizen without proper representation.

Did I mention the UN already declared it illegal?

Also, NSA Wiretap Program Declared Illegal
Judge laments U.S. government's 'argumentative acrobatics...'
by Karl Bode

In a significant decision, a Federal Judge this week ruled that the U.S. government broke the law when they eavesdropped on the telephone conversations of two American lawyers without a warrant. The lawsuit, which was helped when U.S. lawyers accidentally sent evidence of wiretaps to the same lawyers they were wiretapping, has traveled a long and strange road with both the Bush and Obama administrations trying their best to derail it. Ultimately however, the Judge in question declared the Justice Department was engaged in "argumentative acrobatics" (pdf) and had violated federal wiretap laws. The ruling, of course, will be appealed.

http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-spied-europea...ow-1328769

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/nsa-wh...-activity/

In my country (side note: I cannot type that without going all Yakoff Smirnoff in my mind), parliament is sovereign, and therefore legislation is the final arbiter of legality.

The American system differs; you have a final arbiter of legality in your Supreme Court.

Except the mechanics are thus: a law stands, and is promulgated and enforced unless and until it is subsequently found to be unconstitutional (notwithstanding a constitutional amendment in the meantime).

The ONLY measure of legality is "whether it is technically considered law or not". That is a matter of definition.

What the UN says is irrelevant; contrary to what certain delightful crackpots might claim, the UN does not secretly run the world under the direction of the illuminati reptiloid antichrist.

Is it shitty?

Why - yes, I don't disagree. Nor do any here, from what I can see.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2013, 07:26 PM
Snowden Situation
(27-07-2013 07:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-07-2013 07:03 PM)I and I Wrote:  And he shared what classified information with whom?

Are... are you serious?

Information on NSA policy and procedure with the Guardian newspaper among others.

People report on suspect NSA procedure often.

You claimed he shared classified info, what was this and with whom did he share it with?

People were reporting on government spying on innocent citizens long before snowden, and saying so isn't classified info.

Do you even know what classified means? You mean to say if I say " hey China, that country that was at war with you for 50 years, is your economic competitor, and is your military equal is spying on you". Are you seriously saying that I just shared secret info?

Seriously?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2013, 07:33 PM
RE: Snowden Situation
(27-07-2013 07:24 PM)cjlr 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.

Also, the Patriot Law goes behind US citizens' backs. They had no way to represent themselves, which is why this is so horrible. In court, a defendant could easily show the unconstitutionality of the law and be relieved of all effects of the act. This was taken away because of the secret court and the National Security Letters. That is why it is illegal and cannot be tolerated in the US, whether it is technically considered law or not. Nothing can be taken from a US citizen without proper representation.

Did I mention the UN already declared it illegal?

Also, NSA Wiretap Program Declared Illegal
Judge laments U.S. government's 'argumentative acrobatics...'
by Karl Bode

In a significant decision, a Federal Judge this week ruled that the U.S. government broke the law when they eavesdropped on the telephone conversations of two American lawyers without a warrant. The lawsuit, which was helped when U.S. lawyers accidentally sent evidence of wiretaps to the same lawyers they were wiretapping, has traveled a long and strange road with both the Bush and Obama administrations trying their best to derail it. Ultimately however, the Judge in question declared the Justice Department was engaged in "argumentative acrobatics" (pdf) and had violated federal wiretap laws. The ruling, of course, will be appealed.

http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-spied-europea...ow-1328769

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/nsa-wh...-activity/

In my country (side note: I cannot type that without going all Yakoff Smirnoff in my mind), parliament is sovereign, and therefore legislation is the final arbiter of legality.

The American system differs; you have a final arbiter of legality in your Supreme Court.

Except the mechanics are thus: a law stands, and is promulgated and enforced unless and until it is subsequently found to be unconstitutional (notwithstanding a constitutional amendment in the meantime).

The ONLY measure of legality is "whether it is technically considered law or not". That is a matter of definition.

What the UN says is irrelevant; contrary to what certain delightful crackpots might claim, the UN does not secretly run the world under the direction of the illuminati reptiloid antichrist.

Is it shitty?

Why - yes, I don't disagree. Nor do any here, from what I can see.

So you are telling me that even though the courts have said it is illegal over and over, and the president says it is illegal(even though he said it in 2007 while running for the office), and most of the public says it is illegal, it is still legal?

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2013, 07:37 PM
RE: Snowden Situation
(27-07-2013 07:26 PM)I and I Wrote:  People report on suspect NSA procedure often.

You claimed he shared classified info, what was this and with whom did he share it with?

People were reporting on government spying on innocent citizens long before snowden, and saying so isn't classified info.

Do you even know what classified means? You mean to say if I say " hey China, that country that was at war with you for 50 years, is your economic competitor, and is your military equal is spying on you". Are you seriously saying that I just shared secret info?

Seriously?

Are... are you serious?

There is a difference between reporting on suspected NSA procedure and reporting on actual NSA procedure.

That there is government surveillance in place is not classified information. The details of government surveillance are, security agency produce being classified almost as a matter of definition.

I do not have access to the entire store of information Snowden claims to have released. I do know that the contents were more than "espionage happens lol". He certainly claimed to have gained access to classified information; this is corroborated by what certain media outlets have reported on (protip: learn to read).

At this point I'm not sure whether you're a sublime troll, or whether you're literally incapable of understanding what other people type. I would pity you either way.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: