• 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

1. There was a warrant
2. There were also no searches of anyones' personal property
so
3. This is anything but a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment.

Is it one warrent or multiple? As in a warrent for every persons email and phone record?
 
As an aside.....are we entering a period where distrust in our government is reaching heights never before seen?

The NSA (this thread), IRS (targetting and intimidation), Justic Department (spying on the press, bullying specific reporters), State Department (prostitution and drug ring cover-ups, Fast & Furious, Bengazhi), Federal Reserve (printing money to float debt, multiplying the national debt), Congress (sequestration, budget and deficit inaction), and the White House administration (Obamacare fallout and fundraising, upcoming AHA taxes and penalties, class tax warfare).........

It's hard to keep track of. I honestly don't remember a time ever like this.
 
For the most part I agree, but didn't you also say this:

"I have stated my thoughts that FISA is appropriate to handle the contemporary terrorist threat..."

FISA is a secret court, with one side presented, and compromised in the essence that the government as we see under this administration will 'judge shop' until they get the answer they want. FISA is corrupted at this point.

Correct.

And, and was totally predictable, the court barely ever rejected a government request for eavesdropping. From its inception, it was the ultimate rubber-stamp court, having rejected a total of zero government applications - zero - in its first 24 years of existence, while approving many thousands. In its total 34 year history - from 1978 through 2012 - the Fisa court has rejected a grand total of 11 government applications, while approving more than 20,000.

For calender year 2012 only, here's the numbers:

fisc.png


Of 1856 applications for wiretaps, the government withdrew one, and all the rest were approved.
The bad joke called 'the FISA court' shows how a 'drone court' would work | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

What't the point ?
 
Coupled with this sudden push for gun control and the IRS and AP scandal, raises lots of questions. Anyway, this guy was a support contractor, but if he were a govt employee, he would have had to take an oath to protect the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. Loyalty and honor are one thing, but blind loyalty of going along to get along is quite another. He absolutely did break the rules of security, it appears. I doubt it was an easy decision, and he probably did it because he thought the government was going too far in surveilling Americans. I'm sure more details will be revealed.
...and if the federal government is itself the domestic enemy of the Constitution?
 
As an aside.....are we entering a period where distrust in our government is reaching heights never before seen?

The NSA (this thread), IRS (targetting and intimidation), Justic Department (spying on the press, bullying specific reporters), State Department (prostitution and drug ring cover-ups, Fast & Furious, Bengazhi), Federal Reserve (printing money to float debt, multiplying the national debt), Congress (sequestration, budget and deficit inaction), and the White House administration (Obamacare fallout and fundraising, upcoming AHA taxes and penalties, class tax warfare).........

It's hard to keep track of. I honestly don't remember a time ever like this.

Watergate
 
Read more @: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance | World news | guardian.co.uk

And he is out. The man who revealed this **** storm. A hero and a great man that was not afraid to tell the truth and reveal something he thought was wrong. Whistle blowing is not a crime! [/FONT][/COLOR]

The man is a criminal and should be prosecuted. Hero's don't hide in China.

I fully support whistle-blowers, but whistle-blowing doesn’t give someone carte blanche to reveal any secret they're morally opposed to. Would anyone support someone who published the Normandy Invasion plans because they believed it wouldn't work? Whistle-blowing should be protected to cover individuals who reveal evidence of clear government wrongdoing. Revealing something that you'd don't want the government to do isn't whistle blowing, it's part sabotage, part espionage, and part treason.

There's no clear evidence of government crime here. For better or worse, (mostly the latter) these programs are the will of the American people. You could have possibly made the case for illegality under the Bush years, when the Executive Branch operated in defiance of the FISA court. But since then these programs have been placed under supervision of all three branches of government. Furthermore, these programs shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who's followed the issue.

I didn't support the programs at the time, and I don't see any need to have them now. But they were implemented legally and with proper oversight. If you don't like the programs blame the people who didn't speak out against them when they could. Blame the partisans who should have known better. Blame the weak willed American people who convinced themselves to give up rights and privacy in the name of "freedom", and then congratulated themselves on their "bravery".

If you feel that the oversight is incompetent (and it is). Then fire your incompetent representatives.
 
As an aside.....are we entering a period where distrust in our government is reaching heights never before seen?
Nope.

Americans have always been skeptical and critical of their government.

Suspicion, discontent, and so forth were certainly much greater in the 1960s, and capped off with Watergate. Nixon was illegally dropping bombs all over SE Asia, had an enemies list, tried to jail Ellsberg, his "Plumbers" were committing crimes just to dig up dirt on political opponents. COINTELPRO, spying on Martin Luther King, disrupting the Black Panthers, the National Guard killing four students at Kent State, nationwide protests.... The list goes on.

There was also a big surge of anarchism and political discontent in the 1920s and 30s, as well as waves of populism in the 1890s, and obviously intense disruption and dissatisfaction leading up to and during the Civil War.
 
It seems like many people think there is some distinction between the NSA reading/hearing the contents of our communications and simply knowing who, how often, and for how long we make contact with specific people. It turns out that the distinction isn't as great as we might suppose. They don't need the content for someone to know what is going on in your personal life. As such, prying into this kind of information is certainly a violation of your private, personal space.

Here is the article that explains why:
Verizon and the N.S.A.: The Problem with Metadata : The New Yorker

If we really don't think that the government knowing your personal business is any big deal, then why not take it to its fullest. Why not just let them put cameras and microphones in your home, work and car. After all, I am certain this would save lives, which seems to be the only justification the government needs any more for people to just knuckle under. I am so disappointed in my fellow Americans right now, especially Obama.
I am disappointed by both as well. It's very disheartening to see how many people have responded to this information with some variation of "it's no big deal." That this kind of treatment of citizens by the government is received with such indifference is troubling. Obama's response to this entire situation was sad as well. It pretty much confirmed to me that, unlike what he has said previously, he isn't particularly concerned with what regular Americans think.
 
..........If you feel that the oversight is incompetent (and it is). Then fire your incompetent representatives.

Got to shine a bright light on the closed-door backroom cockroaches first. Snowden's bombshell has garnered at least some Congressional support over the weekend. This needed to be way out in the open.
 
Is it possible this program has saved lives? Absolutely. And once our technology advances to the point that the NSA actually CAN record and screen the contents of every phone call and email made I am sure even more lives could be saved. But it would still be wrong. Piece by piece by f-ing piece we are ceding our civil liberties in the name of security. Where does it stop? Where do we draw the line? It seems to me that the only thing keeping our government from absolute intrusion is the technology itself. As the technology improves the government WILL encroach more and more. History is proof positive of that.

So when a public servant (ok, a contractor in this case) throws away his career and possibly risks his very freedom to give the People a wakeup call, it doesn’t make him a traitor.
Yeah, the whole "it saves lives argument" isn't a sufficient justification. Plenty of things could save lives, but they aren't permissible. The thing that the government doesn't seem to understand is that they don't get to determine how much privacy I'm willing to give up for safety.
 
Got to shine a bright light on the closed-door backroom cockroaches first. Snowden's bombshell has garnered at least some Congressional support over the weekend. This needed to be way out in the open.

I think the only credible elected officals on this issue are the ones who did not vote for the patriot act or have protested againist it.

I think senators mark udall of Colorado, Jeff merkley or Oregon, and rand Paul of Kentucky are part of the small minority who think this fisa mess has gone too far.
 
Hey here is a crazy theory: maybe the revealing of this program will make it harder for terrorists to attack us?
 
...and if the federal government is itself the domestic enemy of the Constitution?

It isn't this "Federal Government" as much as it is the administration that is occupying the power at present.
 
Yeah, the whole "it saves lives argument" isn't a sufficient justification. Plenty of things could save lives, but they aren't permissible. The thing that the government doesn't seem to understand is that they don't get to determine how much privacy I'm willing to give up for safety.

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” -Benjamin Franklin
 
The man is a criminal and should be prosecuted. Hero's don't hide in China.

I fully support whistle-blowers, but whistle-blowing doesn’t give someone carte blanche to reveal any secret they're morally opposed to. Would anyone support someone who published the Normandy Invasion plans because they believed it wouldn't work? Whistle-blowing should be protected to cover individuals who reveal evidence of clear government wrongdoing. Revealing something that you'd don't want the government to do isn't whistle blowing, it's part sabotage, part espionage, and part treason.

There's no clear evidence of government crime here. For better or worse, (mostly the latter) these programs are the will of the American people. You could have possibly made the case for illegality under the Bush years, when the Executive Branch operated in defiance of the FISA court. But since then these programs have been placed under supervision of all three branches of government. Furthermore, these programs shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who's followed the issue.

I didn't support the programs at the time, and I don't see any need to have them now. But they were implemented legally and with proper oversight. If you don't like the programs blame the people who didn't speak out against them when they could. Blame the partisans who should have known better. Blame the weak willed American people who convinced themselves to give up rights and privacy in the name of "freedom", and then congratulated themselves on their "bravery".

If you feel that the oversight is incompetent (and it is). Then fire your incompetent representatives.

Excellent post! :applaud
 
I think the only credible elected officals on this issue are the ones who did not vote for the patriot act or have protested againist it.

I think senators mark udall of Colorado, Jeff merkley or Oregon, and rand Paul of Kentucky are part of the small minority who think this fisa mess has gone too far.

Agreed. Saw Udall and Paul on the Sunday shows. This case is making for strange bedfellows, both in the big political arena, and right here in DP.

Let us remind folks of a relevant quip by another American who defied his government .................

Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither
............. Ben Franklin

...... and another that rates some merit on this topic as well:

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."

I ask those who base their argument on the "fact" (alleged) that government has done nothing illegal, and that Snowden is therefore a criminal.

Just how many crimes did Parliament commit against the colonies 1765-1774 ?
 
Last edited:
Seems that whenever something like this happens, there's a statement saying that "'x' program has already thwarted x-number of plots, but we can't give details".

Well, sorry Mr Government Intelligence Community bureaucrat, but when you've already been proven to be a liar regarding whether these things are even happening, I have no reason to believe you now. Either pony up some specifics or save your breath.
 
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” -Benjamin Franklin
While I sympathize with the sentiment of that quote in this situation, it's too simplistic for me. Everyone is willing to sacrifice some freedom for security. Therefore, the question is not whether or not we are willing to sacrifice freedom for security, but to what degree we are willing to make the sacrifice.
 
Anyone else notice that most of the Congresspeople the most upset aren't upset that we are included in this, but upset that they're included in this?

A few notable exceptions, of course.
 
While we are on the subject of this whistle blower did any one notice what his job description was? He was a intellegence contractor.

Does it scare anybody that we have now created a business where company's are hired by the government with the purpouse of gathering our private information?
 
The man is a criminal and should be prosecuted. Hero's don't hide in China.

I fully support whistle-blowers, but whistle-blowing doesn’t give someone carte blanche to reveal any secret they're morally opposed to. Would anyone support someone who published the Normandy Invasion plans because they believed it wouldn't work? Whistle-blowing should be protected to cover individuals who reveal evidence of clear government wrongdoing. Revealing something that you'd don't want the government to do isn't whistle blowing, it's part sabotage, part espionage, and part treason.
"Clear government wrongdoing" in this case is subjective. I think that Snowden revealed "clear government wrongdoing." You don't. Therefore, that isn't a solid standard on which to dismiss the real or potential value of Snowden's actions.

There's no clear evidence of government crime here. For better or worse, (mostly the latter) these programs are the will of the American people. You could have possibly made the case for illegality under the Bush years, when the Executive Branch operated in defiance of the FISA court. But since then these programs have been placed under supervision of all three branches of government. Furthermore, these programs shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who's followed the issue.
Crime and illegality are not the only indication of problem. Therefore, dismissing criticism of these revelations because "no clear evidence of a crime" exists isn't legitimate. Also, I am one of the "American people." These programs are not my will. I also don't find these programs surprising nor do most of the people who are criticizing them - that's a red herring.

I didn't support the programs at the time, and I don't see any need to have them now. But they were implemented legally and with proper oversight. If you don't like the programs blame the people who didn't speak out against them when they could. Blame the partisans who should have known better. Blame the weak willed American people who convinced themselves to give up rights and privacy in the name of "freedom", and then congratulated themselves on their "bravery".

If you feel that the oversight is incompetent (and it is). Then fire your incompetent representatives.
Right, blame everybody but the people who implemented the programs. How logical.

Question: Are you American? You sound like a foreigner who has a beef with the United States.
 
While I sympathize with the sentiment of that quote in this situation, it's too simplistic for me. Everyone is willing to sacrifice some freedom for security. Therefore, the question is not whether or not we are willing to sacrifice freedom for security, but to what degree we are willing to make the sacrifice.

I think a large issue has been the lack of transparency. Obama expanded a program which he most assuredly promised that he would not do.

Otherwise, its the death of your liberty by 1000 cuts !
 
I think a large issue has been the lack of transparency. Obama expanded a program which he most assuredly promised that he would not do.

Otherwise, its the death of your liberty by 1000 cuts !
I was willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt until he came out with his dismissive response. Disappointing to say the least.
 
While I sympathize with the sentiment of that quote in this situation, it's too simplistic for me. Everyone is willing to sacrifice some freedom for security. Therefore, the question is not whether or not we are willing to sacrifice freedom for security, but to what degree we are willing to make the sacrifice.


Well, no. Franklin wasn't opposed to legal gathering of information on suspected criminals. This is the long standing delineation between freedom and security. The issue now is that we've leaped over that long standing line and now gather information on people who are not suspected of any crime.

What is really at the root of this explosion of federal intrusion is the politically correct culture that has run amok. In lieu of tracking down criminals and building a case for government intrusion into their lives, we've chosen just to gather everyone's data equally, essentially surveilling all Americans as if they are guilty of a crime.

The issue here is not whether the data mining is unfair to criminals, it is about putting too much information in the hands of government that can and will be (and undoubtedly already has been) used for purposes other than national security. In that same vein, people don't oppose a national medical database because they are afraid of the efficiency it would bring. They fear it for the kind of abuses it makes possible.
 
Back
Top Bottom