• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

donsutherland1 said:
Revealing details about intelligence gathering that is separate from the surveillance issues and has nothing to do with surveillance of U.S. citizens is not the "right thing."
Click to expand...

:confused:
 
Hard Truth said:
I think that the people, as a whole, (which includes plumbers etc.) should make our government's policy decisions through their elected representatives. Call it representational democracy. Where to draw the line when security measures conflict with our right to privacy is a decision that should be guided by the constitution and should be made openly.
Click to expand...

The people you elected made that decision. If everyone (the whole country) knew about it, it wouldn't be as effective. Which is what we're going to have to deal with now, thanks to Snowden.
 
Kal'Stang said:
It would have been worthless to go to congress since the NSA also had congressional approval for this. The only way that they (congress) would have actually examined it is if it was forced to do so. And the only way to force Congress to do an investigation of any kind is by involving the media and citizens.
Click to expand...

We'll never know since he didn't go to Congress first. The other matter, his revelations of intelligence gathering that has nothing to do with surveillance of U.S. citizens, should not have occurred. It suggests that Snowden's issues with the government extended beyond any concerns about the scale of domestic surveillance.
 
Hard Truth said:
The protections from government excesses in the Bill of Rights are at the heart of our system and have kept the USA one of the least oppressive nations for over two hundred years.
Click to expand...

Least oppressive? Are you high?

The US has been very middle of the road, no need to kid yourself. So you care more about the Constitution than you do the American people? Interesting. Not me.
 
Henry David said:
No, I'm not religious so it's not really a holy document.

But I'm biased in its favor because I took an oath to defend it, back at Fort Bragg in 1969, so I have this sentimental view in favor of it.

That there are so many like you who do not respect or understand the document and its principles is ONE of the reasons we are in such a mess today, 200+ years after it was adopted.

The rule of law in governance is important, but I'm sure you disagree with that idea. :roll:
Click to expand...

No, I get it. I took an oath to defend it in 2002- a volunteer- and I still work for Uncle Sugar to this day. But I'm not putting the Constitution in front of the American people, let's just say I crossed my fingers for that part. You...don't care, I guess. Cool.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No, its not a holy document. It is however The Highest Law of the United States of America. No law, edict, order or anything aside from an amendment passed by Congress can trump the Constitution.
Click to expand...

So? I care about the people, you care about a document. Good game.
 
Last edited:
OldWorldOrder said:
So? I care about the people, you care about a document. Good game.
Click to expand...

It is for the people that I care for that document as the laws contained with in that document protects the people from a tyrannical government. Nice try on the emotional appeal and spin though.
 
donsutherland1 said:
We'll never know since he didn't go to Congress first. The other matter, his revelations of intelligence gathering that has nothing to do with surveillance of U.S. citizens, should not have occurred. It suggests that Snowden's issues with the government extended beyond any concerns about the scale of domestic surveillance.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps he revealed it in exchange for amnesty from his own government?
 
Kal'Stang said:
It is for the people that I care for that document as the laws contained with in that document protects the people from a tyrannical government. Nice try on the emotional appeal and spin though.
Click to expand...

lol? I tried for the emotional appeal and spin? What is it you posted?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
The people you elected made that decision. If everyone (the whole country) knew about it, it wouldn't be as effective. Which is what we're going to have to deal with now, thanks to Snowden.
Click to expand...

1: You have no idea who he voted for. Just because someone was elected does not mean that everyone elected that person. Just the majority.

2: The people that made that decision did so by violating peoples right to privacy. Which is in itself breaking the law. Funny how you are defending a criminal act while at the same time claiming to "care for the people".

3: The government has no place making effective ways to spy on innocent people.
 
Kal'Stang said:
1: You have no idea who he voted for. Just because someone was elected does not mean that everyone elected that person. Just the majority.
Click to expand...

The general 'you'.

2: The people that made that decision did so by violating peoples right to privacy. Which is in itself breaking the law. Funny how you are defending a criminal act while at the same time claiming to "care for the people".
Click to expand...

No, they didn't. You think they did. I think they didn't. The law agrees with me. So...no. Apparently you don't know what 'criminal' means, and think it just means "something I think should be criminal". That's funny.

3: The government has no place making effective ways to spy on innocent people.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. And it does. So you lose. Sorry.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
lol? I tried for the emotional appeal and spin? What is it you posted?
Click to expand...

The truth. Which is why you tried to spin it into me "caring about a document more than the people" and by doing so tried to "shame" me. Sorry but it didn't work. Now why don't you try and actually address what I said instead of avoiding it? Do you deny that the Constitution has laws which protect the People from Tyrannical government? Or is what I said the truth?
 
Kal'Stang said:
The truth. Which is why you tried to spin it into me "caring about a document more than the people" and by doing so tried to "shame" me. Sorry but it didn't work. Now why don't you try and actually address what I said instead of avoiding it? Do you deny that the Constitution has laws which protect the People from Tyrannical government? Or is what I said the truth?
Click to expand...

The truth is the constitution is a means to an end, not the end in and of itself. Which apparently you forgot?

Or did you never know that at all?
 
lol prof!

prof thinks a court opinion equals law? How cute is this guy?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
No, they didn't. You think they did. I think they didn't. The law agrees with me. So...no. Apparently you don't know what 'criminal' means, and think it just means "something I think should be criminal". That's funny.
Click to expand...

No, the law does not agree with you. If you think it does then you need more education. People have a Right to not have their effects seized and examined except on proable cause. What probable cause did any part of our government have for authorizing such a huge datagrab of millions of peoples PRIVATE phone records? None. They might be able to make a case for at most a few hundred of them. But not for the millions of others. That is the law. That is fact.

OldWorldOrder said:
Sure it does. And it does. So you lose. Sorry.
Click to expand...

So if the government came along and put camera's in your home and bugged your phone with in plain sight of you and told you that if you messed with any of it or tried to disrupt any of it then it automatically means that they should be allowed to invade your privacy? You must like tyrannical governments because that is exactly what you are espousing with such an idiotic set of comments.

...Yeah, you care about the people about as much as you care about stepping on an ant under your bootheel.
 
the plumbers' perspective, ugly and unwashed

Asked if the newspapers were right or wrong to publish the information once they got it, 59 percent of respondents said The Washington Post and The Guardian were right, and 33 percent said wrong, according to a Gallup Poll on Wednesday.
Independents were the most favorable to the newspapers, with 65 percent saying they were right.

Overall, Americans disapproved of the programs described in the leak, 53 percent disapproving to 37 percent approving.

Meanwhile, a separate poll released Thursday also found the public to be generally supportive of Snowden.
A TIME poll found that 54 percent of respondents said Snowden “did a good thing” to release the information, while 30 percent disagreed.
Click to expand...

Poll: Media right to publish on NSA - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
 
Kal'Stang said:
No, the law does not agree with you. If you think it does then you need more education. People have a Right to not have their effects seized and examined except on proable cause. What probable cause did any part of our government have for authorizing such a huge datagrab of millions of peoples PRIVATE phone records? None. They might be able to make a case for at most a few hundred of them. But not for the millions of others. That is the law. That is fact.
Click to expand...

Really? Those federal judges just need more education from His Honorable Kal'Stang from www.debatepolitics.com huh? Those federal judges who oversaw this and ruled on its behalf must need to go to your Bonners Ferry law school, I guess.

So if the government came along and put camera's in your home and bugged your phone with in plain sight of you and told you that if you messed with any of it or tried to disrupt any of it then it automatically means that they should be allowed to invade your privacy? You must like tyrannical governments because that is exactly what you are espousing with such an idiotic set of comments.
Click to expand...

Ummm....sure? If a judge found it to be legal, guess what? It would be legal. Do you even know what legal means? There seems to be a huge group of you here that think "illegal" just means "I don't like it" and "legal" means "I like it". Honestly, do you know what legal and illegal mean? Christ.

...Yeah, you care about the people about as much as you care about stepping on an ant under your bootheel.
Click to expand...

Awww, do you feel like a sad little ant? I'm sorry, big guy. Chin up.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
The truth is the constitution is a means to an end, not the end in and of itself. Which apparently you forgot?

Or did you never know that at all?
Click to expand...

Nope I didn't. But apparently you forgot that the Constitution was made in order to form a more perfect union and to protect peoples rights. Not "form a more perfect union and violate peoples rights".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom