Snowden embraces American flag in WIRED photo shoot[W:511]

Wiggen · Nov 13, 2014

jamesrage said:
This is what cracks me up about these apologists for the government spying on the people. Why would anyone in their right mind who exposed government wrong doing trust that they would get a fair trial and why would they want to be punished for doing the right thing? It would be stupid to stay in that country and would be stupid to flee to a country that will either extradite to that country you just fled or not stop that country from snatching you up.

Well, here's a whole slew of countries that don't have extradition treaties with the US. Of course, none of them would be nearly as interested in US military secrets as Vlad the Impaler's country.

Which countries have no extradition treaties with the United States

He's a traitor and he will never be allowed back in this country, unless it's in handcuffs.

Hard Truth · Nov 13, 2014

Crovax said:
I think it's odd that the Snowden apologists talk about how he is being found guilty without trial and yet they claim he exposed illegal and unconstitutional things and yet those things have not yet been fully determined in a court of law.

Because the government won't provide the information required for a trial.

"Shubert v. Obama is a class action on behalf of all Americans against the government, alleging a massive, indiscriminate, illegal National Security Agency (NSA) dragnet of the phone calls and email of tens of millions of ordinary Americans. Filed in 2006, Shubert is now the longest running case against the government seeking to stop the domestic spying program. Shubert also seeks to hold accountable the architects of the dragnet, including NSA Director General Keith B. Alexander, former NSA Director General Michael V. Hayden, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former Attorney General John Ashcroft. For seven years, the government sought to dismiss the case on state secrets grounds, arguing that federal courts are powerless to stop even illegal government action implicating national security..."

"...The Obama administration moved to dismiss Jewel in 2009, claiming that litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to disclose privileged “state secrets” and that it was immune from suit.... "
https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying

"ACLU v. NSA:...In July 2007, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, ruling the plaintiffs in the case - which included scholars, journalists, and national nonprofit organizations - had no standing to sue because they could not state with certainty that they have been wiretapped by the NSA..."
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-v-nsa-challenge-illegal-spying

OldWorldOrder · Nov 13, 2014

Gonzo Rodeo said:
Well, some abortion is illegal. And most people will fight that notion because they have a simplistic and uninformed view of why any abortion is legal in the first place. Ask any female progressive feminist and she'll likely tell you she has the right to obtain an abortion in any state she wants, under any circumstances, and that state regulation of such decisions are illegal and unconstitutional... and she'd be wrong.

The thing is, though, these matters have been discussed in the courts for a very long time now. That's how judicial review works. This is why the actions of a secret court can't be labeled "legal" necessarily, which is why the presupposed legality of any such actions this court might make is largely irrelevant.

Okay, great.

The Circuit just heard arguments last week. It could be a while before we know.

Oh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/u...-federal-judge-rules.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

U.S. can keep court orders, phone cos secret in NSA spy case | Reuters

It seems it's not nearly as cut-and-dried as you purport. It's almost like- wait for it- it's simply your opinion that it should be illegal, so you call it illegal, when that's not really your determination to make. Like I've been saying.

But isn't it fantastic that the conversation is being had finally?

No, it's kinda harmful to intelligence collection. But, ya know, people can sit on the sidelines and criticize it, because it's not their job. It's not their ass if there's attack, or someone gets kidnapped, or whatever. They can just sit there and Monday morning quarterback- it's not their responsibility and the likelihood it will affect any one person is really, really low. It's extremely easy to be critical of something when your nuts aren't on the line, isn't it?

OldWorldOrder · Nov 13, 2014

Lachean said:
I need a source to ask someone for a source for THEIR claims? :roll:

My claim that something isn't happening? Yeah, when things don't happen, there's no source for them. That's common sense. I don't have a source that Jupiter didn't smash into the Earth today. Because people don't write stories about things that don't happen.

I'm not the one claiming to know a negative, perhaps you should read your own link before you bother to prattle about logic to your superiors.

hahahahahahahaha

I can't prove Jupiter didn't smash into the Earth, friend-o. Nor can I prove Martians aren't visiting you, I can't prove Ted Kennedy isn't haunting you, and I can't prove the NSA isn't spying on you.

cpwill · Nov 13, 2014

Lachean said:
When did I make the claim that the DOD, who I work for, had infinite funds?

To be able to spy on jamesrage? that's pretty low on the list of priorities.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with our right to privacy, its just that we turn our brains off. Sorry about that, you've convinced me, ANYTHING for the sake of intelligence collection is the new game, our rights be damned!

I like how you are avoiding the point. The government is simply not competent to the suggestions that it has the ability to spy on everybody in the world.

cpwill · Nov 13, 2014

Henry David said:
Could it be that the NSA metadata program is not the only criminal actions by the US government?

Do you consider spying on al-Qa'ida to be a criminal action? How about spying on the Chinese government?

cpwill · Nov 13, 2014

jamesrage said:
1.Its a link to a forum.

In which every single release is hyperlinked and sourced.

2. Most of the links are about the US spying on allies and other non-enemies including a news agency.

Spying on other countries is why we have intelligence agencies. That is their Title 50 responsibility.

3.Drone use should only be in countries we are at war with.I could care less how many alledged terrorist leaders they killed because for every alleded terrorist killed there are many innocent civilians killed.Yes innocent civilians get killed in war,however we are not at war with those countries we are using drones in.

that's correct - we are at war with the networks in those countries, which is why those countries often work with us to destroy them. When we drone in Yemen or Pakistan, it is with those nations' agreement.

4.Its kinds of hard to care about all those things considered the betrayal by the US government.

So you admit that Snowden enables al-Qa'ida, Russia, China, and a host of bad actors, and you don't care because you think that we are the bad guy. Got it.

6.Those with their mouths on the cocks on the government don't seem to care about the government spying on the American people.Heck some of them even go as far to claim the government isn't spying on us or that snowden should have turned himself in to the one group of people ****ting on the constitution as though he should pay for his good deed.

:yawn: Circular logic in order to justify screwing over other vets? how astonishing. Snowden is no better than an Eva Montes, a Kim Philby, a Robert Hansen, or an Aldrich Ames. We have good Marines (and soldiers, and agents) who got burned because of Snowden, and you run around accusing them because that fact is inconvenient for someone with Snowden's spooge on his face.

Thoreau72 · Nov 14, 2014

cpwill said:
Do you consider spying on al-Qa'ida to be a criminal action? How about spying on the Chinese government?

That suggests superficial analysis, which is always incomplete.

For example, the case is pretty solid that AQ is a creature of our very own CIA, so "spying" on them is somehow irrelevant and misleading.

As to spying on the Chinese, no I do not consider that to be a crime.

Spying on foreign entities is just the way it goes, and I have no problem with that.

Violating the Fourth Amendment and certain federal statutes? Yes, I have a problem with that, and as soon-to-be-ex Senator Wyden has pointed out, if the American people knew what he knew (regarding illegal government actions) they would be shocked.

ReverendHellh0und · Nov 14, 2014

Wiggen said:
Administration propaqanda? He took American secrets and he fled to Russia, a country currently run by a former KGB Colonel. Those are simply facts.

You are incredibly naïve or simply prone to not liking your country very much if you don't believe he took military secrets with him and that the Russians now have those secrets.

I've been shot at for my country, have you?

I love my country, I hate my government.

Please try again.

Thoreau72 · Nov 14, 2014

ReverendHellh0und said:
I've been shot at for my country, have you?

I love my country, I hate my government.

Please try again.

Amen Brother!

Wiggen · Nov 14, 2014

ReverendHellh0und said:
I've been shot at for my country, have you?

I love my country, I hate my government.

Please try again.

In answer to your question,Yes. And this 'I love my country but hate my government' is just so much bull****. If you don't consider Snowden a traitor for taking millions of classified NSA files with him to Russia, then you sure as hell don't love your country.

OldWorldOrder · Nov 14, 2014

Henry David said:
That suggests superficial analysis, which is always incomplete.

For example, the case is pretty solid that AQ is a creature of our very own CIA, so "spying" on them is somehow irrelevant and misleading.

As to spying on the Chinese, no I do not consider that to be a crime.

Spying on foreign entities is just the way it goes, and I have no problem with that.

Violating the Fourth Amendment and certain federal statutes? Yes, I have a problem with that, and as soon-to-be-ex Senator Wyden has pointed out, if the American people knew what he knew (regarding illegal government actions) they would be shocked.

This is a real thread, Henry, not a conspiracy thread. We really don't need that "CIA created al Qaeda" nonsense here.

ReverendHellh0und · Nov 14, 2014

Wiggen said:
In answer to your question,Yes.

Really?....

And this 'I love my country but hate my government' is just so much bull****. If you don't consider Snowden a traitor for taking millions of classified NSA files with him to Russia, then you sure as hell don't love your country.

What a bunch of jingoist bullplop. I mean this whole #murica #loveitorleaveit nonsense is just that. This government ****s, on your, ****s on the constitution, and is comprised of a political elite who's only love is thier own love of power.

bg85 · Nov 14, 2014

OldWorldOrder said:
Well, some people consider the FISA courts to be meaningful restraints. Certainly legal restraint. I mean according to those federal judges, anyway. And near blanket coverage is simply not true, period. Unless you have a very liberal definition of "near".

Do you wonder why, of the 40,000+ folks who work at NSA, the vast, vast majority of them have no problem with what it does? They who know much more of it than normal folks? Is it because they're all bad people? Dumb? Or could it be something else?

there are far, far more than 40,000 people in this country who would have no problem whatsoever with the government spying on literally every citizen.

OldWorldOrder · Nov 14, 2014

Okay.

bg85 · Nov 14, 2014

OldWorldOrder said:
Okay.

maybe my point wasn't clear: i'm saying that using the fact that there are 40,000 people who work there as evidence that the organization as a whole doesn't have possible moral shortcomings isn't valid.

i didn't notice that the post was from 3 months ago until after i posted. i was actually about to delete it for that reason but i guess i'll just leave it now.

jamesrage · Nov 14, 2014

Wiggen said:
Another lover of the freedoms enjoyed in Russia.

I think anyone would take being in Russia instead of being imprisoned or dead in the US.

OldWorldOrder · Nov 14, 2014

bg85 said:
maybe my point wasn't clear: i'm saying that using the fact that there are 40,000 people who work there as evidence that the organization as a whole doesn't have possible moral shortcomings isn't valid.

i didn't notice that the post was from 3 months ago until after i posted. i was actually about to delete it for that reason but i guess i'll just leave it now.

Yeah, they probably just found 40,000 Americans that hate America and other Americans to work there.

That or maybe their detractors don't know as much about a secret spy agency as they think they do.

I wonder which is more likely?

Wiggen · Nov 14, 2014

ReverendHellh0und said:
Really?....

What a bunch of jingoist bullplop. I mean this whole #murica #loveitorleaveit nonsense is just that. This government ****s, on your, ****s on the constitution, and is comprised of a political elite who's only love is thier own love of power.

Spoken like a true 'to hell with my country Libertarian'. Don't you have an old Ayn Rand book to re-read? You hate your country and for some reason love the fact that Putin now has access to American military secrets.

And yes, I've been shot at for my country. Are you calling me a liar?

Wiggen · Nov 14, 2014

jamesrage said:
I think anyone would take being in Russia instead of being imprisoned or dead in the US.

Well, there were lots of places he could have gone other than Russia. And of course, that supposes that you are perfectly OK with him taking American military secrets in the first place. I just don't get it. People get their panties in a wad because the NSA listened to telephone conversations or emails or whatever, yet the fact that our enemy who is rapidly rebuilding his military forces now has all of the NSA secrets doesn't concern them at all. In fact, they rejoice in it.

jamesrage · Nov 14, 2014

Wiggen said:
Well, here's a whole slew of countries that don't have extradition treaties with the US. .

Do any of them have the means of physically telling the US no?

Of course, none of them would be nearly as interested in US military secrets as Vlad the Impaler's country.

Isn't the area Vlad the Impaler rule now Romania?

He's a traitor and he will never be allowed back in this country, unless it's in handcuffs

The only people who should be in handcuffs are the traitors who wiped their ass with the 4th amendment.

OldWorldOrder · Nov 14, 2014

Wiggen said:
Well, there were lots of places he could have gone other than Russia. And of course, that supposes that you are perfectly OK with him taking American military secrets in the first place. I just don't get it. People get their panties in a wad because the NSA listened to telephone conversations or emails or whatever, yet the fact that our enemy who is rapidly rebuilding his military forces now has all of the NSA secrets doesn't concern them at all. In fact, they rejoice in it.

The problem is the NSA doesn't listen to their phone calls, they just mistakenly think it does. So they're not even right on that front. Shocking ignorance on their part.

Wiggen · Nov 14, 2014

jamesrage said:
Do any of them have the means of physically telling the US no?

Isn't the area Vlad the Impaler rule now Romania?

The only people who should be in handcuffs are the traitors who wiped their ass with the 4th amendment.

Spoken like a man who doesn't give a damn how many American soldiers die because the traitor Snowden provided your boy Putin with military secrets. The only thing that concerns you is your little corner of the world.

Wiggen · Nov 14, 2014

OldWorldOrder said:
The problem is the NSA doesn't Kirsten to their phone calls, they just mistakenly think it does. So they're not even right on that front. Shocking ignorance on their part.

Indeed. They've made this traitor some kind of poster boy, when he ought to be doing life in Leavenworth.

ReverendHellh0und · Nov 14, 2014

Wiggen said:
Spoken like a true 'to hell with my country Libertarian'.

To hell with the ****hole of a country you want to turn this great nation into.

Don't you have an old Ayn Rand book to re-read?

u mad, bro?

You hate your country and for some reason love the fact that Putin now has access to American military secrets.

idiotic statement is idiotic.

your government is ****ing your without any lube, and all you can say is "I love my government!".

And yes, I've been shot at for my country. Are you calling me a liar?

I'm not calling you anything. *shrug*

Snowden embraces American flag in WIRED photo shoot[W:511]

Wiggen

Hard Truth

OldWorldOrder

OldWorldOrder

cpwill

cpwill

cpwill

Thoreau72

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

Thoreau72

Wiggen

OldWorldOrder

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

bg85

OldWorldOrder

bg85

jamesrage

OldWorldOrder

Wiggen

Wiggen

jamesrage

OldWorldOrder

Wiggen

Wiggen

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.