• 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!

Greenwald says 'low-level' NSA workers can tap into phone, Internet records

They are statists. They no longer believe the state should be constrained by a written constitution. I would give you a Goldwater reference but it is clear you are not a reader.

You are insane.
 
1984? LOL how many times can someone quote Orwell as the basis of their psychosis?
The one who can read but does not has no advantage over the one who cannot read.

Eric Arthur Blair was a prescient guy. But then the kind of tyranny you seek has been around for a very long time.
 
So what do the defenders of the N.S.A. surveillance say about content? As in, the N.S.A. adamantly sticks to the metadata spiel. But what about content? I posted in this thread what Tom Clemente said on CNN after the Boston Marathon bombings. It has been thus ignored.
 
So what do the defenders of the N.S.A. surveillance say about content? As in, the N.S.A. adamantly sticks to the metadata spiel. But what about content? I posted in this thread what Tom Clemente said on CNN after the Boston Marathon bombings. It has been thus ignored.

It wasn't ignored; you didn't ask anything...Furthermore it wasn't clear what program Clemente was alluding to so why speculate?
 
It wasn't ignored; you didn't ask anything...Furthermore it wasn't clear what program Clemente was alluding to so why speculate?

He made it crystal clear that the government does content though.
 
His quote and the link to the transcript is in post #216.

I know where it is; am asking you if he said this content would be acquired warrantless.
 
I know where it is

If you've seen it, know where it's at and have read it, you should know the answer. At any rate, it's in post #216 if you need to re-read it.
 
No, actually Abdullah Azzam.

Google, when it is not in cahoots with my enemy, is my friend:

Abdullah Yusuf Azzam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Abdullah Yusuf Azzam
Abdullah Yusuf Azzam (Arabic: عبد الله يوسف عزام‎, ‘Abdu’llāh Yūsuf ‘Azzām; 1941 – 24 November 1989) a.k.a. Father of Global Jihad[1][2] was a highly influential Palestinian Sunni Islamic scholar and theologian, who preached in favour of both defensive jihad and offensive jihad by Muslims to help the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet invaders.[3] He raised funds, recruited and organised the international Islamic volunteer effort of Afghan Arabs through the 1980s, and emphasised the political ascension of Islam.

I have technical knowledge of the field I work in as well. In addition to that I read. I recommend it to everyone.
 
If you've seen it, know where it's at and have read it, you should know the answer. At any rate, it's in post #216 if you need to re-read it.

Way to to answer the question; ill spare you the trouble of reading it. The answer is "no he did not"...
 
I believe you to be a very honorable man. Are you telling me that you have direct knowledge of this program and the NSA is not gathering data on American citizens? If you tell me that you have direct knowledge of this program and that it is not gathering data on every one of us then I shall reconsider my stance.

1. Thank you very much - that is a powerful compliment and I want you to know that I understand and appreciate it.

2. I wish I could give you that reassurance directly, but all we are really allowed to speak as people who might have access (members of the military, intelligence community, government, etc) to is what is already in the public sphere and, in many cases, not even to that. The particulars, though, would have been pretty closely held within the NSA, even if some of the broad outlines were more publicly available, because of the scrutiny with which any intelligence on American citizens receives. If you get Intel that mentions an American person, it never (in the general community, that I have seen) gives identifying information on that person. It will just say "An American Person vacationing in UngaBungaLand was contacted by WeHateAmericaYayJihad (WHAYJ) at grid coordinates xxxxx-xxxxx....", etc. Only those who were read in would have had the kind of access that is potentially worrisome.

3. I will say that the program gives me pause. It seems that unless protected by strong safeguards it could lend itself to incredible abuse. I think that the unwillingness on the part of Congress to take a more active role than that which was basically forced upon it by the Executive is more than lamentable, it is potentially dangerous.

4. That being said, I am not convinced that this program violates the Constitution - electronically it seems to be the equivalent of you writing a "To" and a "From" address on your mail envelope. Nobody at the NSA opens your mail unless you put the electronic equivalent of "Mr Gee Had, 911 Pakistan Lane" in your "To" block, or have it in the "From" block when you receive it.


The ability to open our mail (electronic, voice, physical, you name it) could lend itself to powerful abuse in the hands of unchecked actors. So can the ability to deploy the military, or federalize the National Guard. That is why I focus in on the degree to which these programs have oversight from all three branches of government.

:shrug: and that's about the best I can do. It's not a panacea. It probably has helped save lives. It is probably also potentially dangerous - just like Government (like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master, as the man said).
 
Last edited:
The Supreme Court routinely rules that laws passed by congress are unconstitutional. The fourth amendment is not ambiguous, anyone comparing current surveillance practices with the language of the fourth amendment can see the violation. (if they are willing to be honest)

I would thank you very much if you could give me an example of the USSC ruling that a law, any law, passed by congress was unconstitutional. And even moreso if you could make the case that such things are routine.

:)
 
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH

looooooooooooooooool

Is this where you pretend that 'probable' isn't subjective, Henry? I see there's a couple more pages after you posted this. Let's see you argue that it's objective for a few pages (fingers crossed, please please please do this). No wonder you're a conspiracy theorist.

Terrific answer OWO. But don't feel like the Lone Ranger. No government official likes to be asked that question either. It makes them very uncomfortable.
 
....That being said, I am not convinced that this program violates the Constitution - electronically it seems to be the equivalent of you writing a "To" and a "From" address on your mail envelope. Nobody at the NSA opens your mail unless you put the electronic equivalent of "Mr Gee Had, 911 Pakistan Lane" in your "To" block, or have it in the "From" block when you receive it......

There is a huge difference between looking at an envelope from a letter sent by an individual compared to looking at every envelope from every letter in the country, entering the to and from data in a database, and then doing analyses of that data. The difference is that one act impinges on two people's privacy in a limited manner, the other provides extensive information on every resident of the country. If all of a person's mail or e-meil to and from information is analyzed it is possible to determine:
  • where that person banks
  • which credit cards they use
  • their political affiliations
  • their religious affiliations
  • the type of work they do
  • their friends and family
  • their hobbies
  • their shopping habits

Do we really want the government to have all of this information on all of us and and and use it to to find patterns, affiliations and trends? Can we trust them not to look at the content of selected messages without

In my view, it is more likely that that the public will be harmed by elements in the government abusing this information and power than the public being harmed by a terrorist attack because we didn't do it.
 
Last edited:
I would thank you very much if you could give me an example of the USSC ruling that a law, any law, passed by congress was unconstitutional. And even moreso if you could make the case that such things are routine.

:)

They over ruled the Defense of Marriage Act recently.

I don't have time to list more, but it seems like they modify or strike down at least a couple of federal bills nearly every year.
 
Google, when it is not in cahoots with my enemy, is my friend:

Abdullah Yusuf Azzam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Abdullah Yusuf Azzam
Abdullah Yusuf Azzam (Arabic: عبد الله يوسف عزام‎, ‘Abdu’llāh Yūsuf ‘Azzām; 1941 – 24 November 1989) a.k.a. Father of Global Jihad[1][2] was a highly influential Palestinian Sunni Islamic scholar and theologian, who preached in favour of both defensive jihad and offensive jihad by Muslims to help the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet invaders.[3] He raised funds, recruited and organised the international Islamic volunteer effort of Afghan Arabs through the 1980s, and emphasised the political ascension of Islam.

I have technical knowledge of the field I work in as well. In addition to that I read. I recommend it to everyone.

Right. But you were an MI officer and had to look him up on wiki? Are you not a student of history? Or do you consider reading Patton speeches good enough?
 
Terrific answer OWO. But don't feel like the Lone Ranger. No government official likes to be asked that question either. It makes them very uncomfortable.

Excellent, conspiracy theorists also get really uncomfortable about it.
 
Any independent experts? (people like John Woo don't count as independent.)

They are independent. You asked if there were any that weren't part of the Obama or Bush administrations (which was laughable to being with, that's like asking for a list of current excellent American football players that aren't in the NFL or NCAA). I gave you federal judges.

Or are you going to give me more qualifiers about who is and isn't independent?

Is so hard to acknowledge that people that disagree with you might also be intelligent, informed, and not 'evil'? Why do so many of you struggle with this? It's laughable at this point.
 
They are independent. You asked if there were any that weren't part of the Obama or Bush administrations (which was laughable to being with, that's like asking for a list of current excellent American football players that aren't in the NFL or NCAA). I gave you federal judges.

Or are you going to give me more qualifiers about who is and isn't independent?

Is so hard to acknowledge that people that disagree with you might also be intelligent, informed, and not 'evil'? Why do so many of you struggle with this? It's laughable at this point.

I never said that everyone who disagrees with me is evil.

Anyone who is, or was, employed as a contractor or government employee to be part of these surveillance operations (that would include FISA judges) has a financial and professional conflict of interest that makes the neutrality of their position unlikely. We know what they are going to say in advance, unless they are one of the very few who are willing to be a whistleblower.

There are many lawyers who are advocates, professors, writers, commentators etc. that you can quote to support your claim that most lawyers think these recently revealed practices are constitutional. If you can't find them, then it appears that your claim was fabricated.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom