Page 34 of 63 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 623

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

  1. #331
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,133

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    I have to bump this. I was out of the country for work for a few months and as a rule I don't discuss politics on the internet outside of Five Eye countries. It's just common sense. Anywho:



    Then why do so many Snowden supporters insist that what the NSA does is illegal? I thought it didn't matter? Or wait, it only matters when it's convenient for someone's argument? I just find it hilarious that people just can't type the words "What the NSA is doing is legal." Like it physically hurts them to admit that. If legality doesn't matter, why can't they just say that? You spent a decent sized paragraph talking about how legality doesn't matter, so you'd think it'd be a pretty easy thing to say.



    But...you just said legality doesn't matter. Whether or not something is constitutional is a legal discussion.
    The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a law is contrary to the Constitution (or, more accurately, the current interpretation of the Constitution), that law is "unconstitutional," which makes it illegal in a very strict sense. And since we are using the words legal and illegal here as codifications of right and wrong, the fact that something is cursorily legal does not mean it actually is legal, nor right (in the moral sense) for that matter.

    And to make matters worse, the USSC has ruled directly contrary to prohibitions in the Constitution many times in the past. So even the Supreme Court, who is tasked with the (contemporary) interpretation of right and wrong, are sometimes blatantly and objectively wrong!

    The issue as it was raised in this thread (if I remember correctly; it's been a while) was whether or not it mattered that the actions of the US government were legal in a technical sense or an absolute sense, and whether or not those actions were/are right or wrong. To this end, I am well within reason to make the claim that a law's technical legality does not matter if it contradicts constitutional legality, and even the interpretation of the Supreme Court on the matter is not necessarily definitive (either contemporaneously or permanently). At best, such an interpretation can only be subjectively right, and only contemporaneously at that.

    You might at this point ask how a court can be objectively wrong but only ever subjectively right. And I wouldn't blame you at all since it's quite a confusing framework to live under. But consider contemporaneous culture with English language definitions. For example, "all men are created equal" in the eyes of the law, but African American's were not deemed "full" men, by definition, in the eyes of the law once upon a time, merely 3/5ths of one. So "all men" can be subjectively met while the court's opinion is objectively, unarguably wrong that some men are not actually full men.

    Enter the FISA court, that is supposed to serve as a check but has none itself. That's like putting the police in charge of investigating police misconduct. How good can any such oversight be? The very tools the NSA has as it's disposal and regularly deploys are so secret that their confirmed existence may render them null. So how in the world does responsible oversight on something like this take place to ensure rights aren't being trampled in secret??? It is quite literally putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, because only the fox has the necessary clearance to know where the henhouse is.
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  2. #332
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    What a putz this guy is....I hope when he is caught he spends the rest of his natural life behind bars.
    The only ones who should spend the rest of their natural life behind bars are the traitorous rats in office who continue to authorize these agencies to spy on us and the scum working in these agencies who continue to spy on us.Not the guy who revealed that these traitors were wiping their diarrhea **** covered ass with the 4th amendment. Snowden should be given a medal for what he did, not scorned by people claiming to be patriotic Americans(patriotic Americans should abhor the government wiping it's ass with the constitution ).
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  3. #333
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a law is contrary to the Constitution (or, more accurately, the current interpretation of the Constitution), that law is "unconstitutional," which makes it illegal in a very strict sense. And since we are using the words legal and illegal here as codifications of right and wrong, the fact that something is cursorily legal does not mean it actually is legal, nor right (in the moral sense) for that matter.
    You said legal and illegal was irrelevant. Right here:

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    Law is society's codification of right and wrong. Asking if something is legal or not is irrelevant.
    So why are you arguing about it? Is it irrelevant or is it not? It seems as if it's only irrelevant when I point out that what the NSA does is, in fact, legal, but relevant otherwise. You can't have it both ways.

    And to make matters worse, the USSC has ruled directly contrary to prohibitions in the Constitution many times in the past. So even the Supreme Court, who is tasked with the (contemporary) interpretation of right and wrong, are sometimes blatantly and objectively wrong!
    Well, it's legal right now, isn't it? That's all I'm asking.

    The issue as it was raised in this thread (if I remember correctly; it's been a while) was whether or not it mattered that the actions of the US government were legal in a technical sense or an absolute sense, and whether or not those actions were/are right or wrong. To this end, I am well within reason to make the claim that a law's technical legality does not matter if it contradicts constitutional legality, and even the interpretation of the Supreme Court on the matter is not necessarily definitive (either contemporaneously or permanently). At best, such an interpretation can only be subjectively right, and only contemporaneously at that.
    The issue was that people want to say what the NSA is doing is illegal even though that's factually wrong. When you point that out, they scurry like roaches when you turn on the light. Then, in the next thread, we'll see someone saunter out and say NSA metadata collection is illegal and then they'll scurry off again when it's pointed out that no, it's not. I'm calling people on it.

    Enter the FISA court, that is supposed to serve as a check but has none itself.
    Okay? Add another layer of oversight and then what? Someone like you can complain that that organization doesn't have oversight. And so on and so forth.

    That's like putting the police in charge of investigating police misconduct.
    No, it's not, the FISA court isn't internal to NSA.

    How good can any such oversight be? The very tools the NSA has as it's disposal and regularly deploys are so secret that their confirmed existence may render them null. So how in the world does responsible oversight on something like this take place to ensure rights aren't being trampled in secret??? It is quite literally putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, because only the fox has the necessary clearance to know where the henhouse is.
    People outside NSA have TS/SCI clearances, so your point is moot. NSA isn't policing NSA: the judicial branch is.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  4. #334
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    The only ones who should spend the rest of their natural life behind bars are the traitorous rats in office who continue to authorize these agencies to spy on us and the scum working in these agencies who continue to spy on us.Not the guy who revealed that these traitors were wiping their diarrhea **** covered ass with the 4th amendment. Snowden should be given a medal for what he did, not scorned by people claiming to be patriotic Americans(patriotic Americans should abhor the government wiping it's ass with the constitution ).
    lol no one is spying on you, sit down.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  5. #335
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,133

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    You said legal and illegal was irrelevant. Right here:


    So why are you arguing about it? Is it irrelevant or is it not? It seems as if it's only irrelevant when I point out that what the NSA does is, in fact, legal, but relevant otherwise. You can't have it both ways.
    Dude, I explained it right in the part at the beginning you conveniently deleted from quoting. I'll write it again so you can't miss it:

    The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a law is contrary to the Constitution (or, more accurately, the current interpretation of the Constitution), that law is "unconstitutional," which makes it illegal in a very strict sense. And since we are using the words legal and illegal here as codifications of right and wrong, the fact that something is cursorily legal does not mean it actually is legal, nor right (in the moral sense) for that matter.

    And to make matters worse, the USSC has ruled directly contrary to prohibitions in the Constitution many times in the past. So even the Supreme Court, who is tasked with the (contemporary) interpretation of right and wrong, are sometimes blatantly and objectively wrong!

    In essence, if an action is proscribed by a higher authority, it doesn't really matter if a subordinate authority allows such an action. For example, if a law is passed stating "You may not pray in this country, under any circumstances", there is no interpretation under the First Amendment that makes such a law legally binding. In fact, if an authoritative body orders your arrest for praying in the forbidden location, that body would be acting illegally! But here's the real kicker, which is what I thought was going to be the real sticking point in the argument: even if the Supreme Court makes a (contemporaneous) interpretation that allows for your detention anyway, the Court would be objectively and unarguably wrong. If the Supreme Court were to review a law simply doing away with Article V and granted itself sole power to amend the Constitution, that would be in direct violation of the Constitution and as such would be illegal.

    Well, it's legal right now, isn't it? That's all I'm asking.
    As I've explained, many times now, it really doesn't matter in so far as the level of "legal" you are stuck with in this argument. The Constitution did not imbue the federal government with such power, so by one standard, no, it is very much not legal. But the Constitution did allow such wiggle room as to grow and expand over time, not only through the amendment process but also through case law and judicial review. As such, to answer the question in the modern paradigm.... we don't know if it's legal or not. But the real rub of this particular matter is that the secrecy involved makes it impossible to examine through judicial review under normal (and technically "legal") circumstances. This is why the FISA Court is often referred to as "the second Supreme Court" since it has such far reaching power.... without ever having been given a charter in the Constitution. Don't you see the problem with that? That is a very, very convenient whole punched right through the Fourth Amendment, don't you think? FISA has also abrogated such power as to have a tome of secret case law that is up for neither review nor public scrutiny, i.e. secret laws that you can't know about because they are secret. And where, exactly, does the Constitution grant any government entity the power to seize records and classify the seizure as Top Secret, holding those the order is levied against to punishments applicable to Top Secret programs?

    In laymen's terms:

    Court: Give us all your money.
    You: I don't have to.
    Court: You sure do. It's the law.
    You: Prove it.
    Court: We don't have to. It's a secret law. We know because we made it up. And if you tell anyone about this, we'll lock you up forever.

    There is literally nothing in the Constitution that allows any entity, federal or otherwise, to have ^that kind of power... and literally nothing stopping FISA from acting exactly like ^that.

    Okay? Add another layer of oversight and then what? Someone like you can complain that that organization doesn't have oversight. And so on and so forth.
    Another layer? How about a single layer. FISA judges are appointed by the USSC Chief Justice, without confirmation or oversight. Appeals are right back to the very body who issued the original order; i.e. dad said you can't have any ice cream, so go ask... dad again. Due to the secrecy of the warrants and orders, usually only government lawyers are allowed in the closed court rooms! If there was even one flimsy layer of oversight, that would be an infinite improvement over what currently exists.

    No, it's not, the FISA court isn't internal to NSA.
    The NSA brings guidelines before the Court for how and what they are going to collect, not specifically who they are going to collect it from. If the Court signs off on what the NSA wants to do, the NSA takes that back to the NSA and makes sure the NSA knows what the NSA is allowed to do. Of course, this entire process is overseen back at the NSA by.... you guessed it! The NSA! Only the NSA knows if they are complying with the Court's orders, or if the scope of collection is keeping within what was provided the Court to pass judgement on (keeping the construction project within the original bid, so to speak).
    Last edited by Gonzo Rodeo; 11-12-14 at 12:39 AM.
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  6. #336
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    Dude, I explained it right in the part at the beginning you conveniently deleted from quoting. I'll write it again so you can't miss it:

    The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a law is contrary to the Constitution (or, more accurately, the current interpretation of the Constitution), that law is "unconstitutional," which makes it illegal in a very strict sense. And since we are using the words legal and illegal here as codifications of right and wrong, the fact that something is cursorily legal does not mean it actually is legal, nor right (in the moral sense) for that matter.

    And to make matters worse, the USSC has ruled directly contrary to prohibitions in the Constitution many times in the past. So even the Supreme Court, who is tasked with the (contemporary) interpretation of right and wrong, are sometimes blatantly and objectively wrong!

    In essence, if an action is proscribed by a higher authority, it doesn't really matter if a subordinate authority allows such an action. For example, if a law is passed stating "You may not pray in this country, under any circumstances", there is no interpretation under the First Amendment that makes such a law legally binding. In fact, if an authoritative body orders your arrest for praying in the forbidden location, that body would be acting illegally! But here's the real kicker, which is what I thought was going to be the real sticking point in the argument: even if the Supreme Court makes a (contemporaneous) interpretation that allows for your detention anyway, the Court would be objectively and unarguably wrong. If the Supreme Court were to review a law simply doing away with Article V and granted itself sole power to amend the Constitution, that would be in direct violation of the Constitution and as such would be illegal.
    So you DO care about the legality. Great. Then don't say it's "irrelevant".

    You and federal judges have a different view of the law. You're just assuming yours is right? Ooookay.

    As I've explained, many times now, it really doesn't matter in so far as the level of "legal" you are stuck with in this argument. The Constitution did not imbue the federal government with such power, so by one standard, no, it is very much not legal.
    In your interpretation of the law. Not in the interpretation of those with the legal education and position to interpret the law, though.

    But the Constitution did allow such wiggle room as to grow and expand over time, not only through the amendment process but also through case law and judicial review. As such, to answer the question in the modern paradigm.... we don't know if it's legal or not. But the real rub of this particular matter is that the secrecy involved makes it impossible to examine through judicial review under normal (and technically "legal") circumstances. This is why the FISA Court is often referred to as "the second Supreme Court" since it has such far reaching power.... without ever having been given a charter in the Constitution. Don't you see the problem with that? That is a very, very convenient whole punched right through the Fourth Amendment, don't you think? FISA has also abrogated such power as to have a tome of secret case law that is up for neither review nor public scrutiny, i.e. secret laws that you can't know about because they are secret. And where, exactly, does the Constitution grant any government entity the power to seize records and classify the seizure as Top Secret, holding those the order is levied against to punishments applicable to Top Secret programs?
    I think it's in the fine print.

    In laymen's terms:

    Court: Give us all your money.
    You: I don't have to.
    Court: You sure do. It's the law.
    You: Prove it.
    Court: We don't have to. It's a secret law. We know because we made it up. And if you tell anyone about this, we'll lock you up forever.

    There is literally nothing in the Constitution that allows any entity, federal or otherwise, to have ^that kind of power... and literally nothing stopping FISA from acting exactly like ^that.
    There's nothing in the Constitution about the EPA, either. Great.

    Another layer? How about a single layer. FISA judges are appointed by the USSC Chief Justice, without confirmation or oversight. Appeals are right back to the very body who issued the original order; i.e. dad said you can't have any ice cream, so go ask... dad again. Due to the secrecy of the warrants and orders, usually only government lawyers are allowed in the closed court rooms! If there was even one flimsy layer of oversight, that would be an infinite improvement over what currently exists.
    And? You could add another layer and then complain about that, too. We could do it infinitely. "Who oversees the overseers of the overseers of the overseers!?!"

    The NSA brings guidelines before the Court for how and what they are going to collect, not specifically who they are going to collect it from. If the Court signs off on what the NSA wants to do, the NSA takes that back to the NSA and makes sure the NSA knows what the NSA is allowed to do. Of course, this entire process is overseen back at the NSA by.... you guessed it! The NSA! Only the NSA knows if they are complying with the Court's orders, or if the scope of collection is keeping within what was provided the Court to pass judgement on (keeping the construction project within the original bid, so to speak).
    lol that's not how it works, no. NSA falls under the Department of Defense. FISA falls under the Department of Justice. You can't get around that fact.


    I'm still finding it hilarious that people can't type the words "What NSA does is legal." Either they argue that legality is irrelevant, or they argue that it just shouldn't be legal, because they know constitutional law better than federal judges. Or sometimes, as we see with you, they argue both at the same time: whether it's legal or not is both irrelevant and...it's illegal and that's important. If it's irrelevant, why argue about it?
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  7. #337
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    The only ones who should spend the rest of their natural life behind bars are the traitorous rats in office who continue to authorize these agencies to spy on us and the scum working in these agencies who continue to spy on us.Not the guy who revealed that these traitors were wiping their diarrhea **** covered ass with the 4th amendment. Snowden should be given a medal for what he did, not scorned by people claiming to be patriotic Americans(patriotic Americans should abhor the government wiping it's ass with the constitution ).
    Snowden leaked a hell of a lot more crap than the NSA metadata program, including information that puts current dudes on the front lines in danger. We've already seen degraded collection on people we are engaged in combat against, meaning that more of their attacks are successful. If Snowden was such a friggin "patriot" he would have kept that crap secret. Turns out he's not. Astonishing.

  8. #338
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,038

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    lol no one is spying on you, sit down.
    Then state a direct threat by yourself to the president, and don't couch the threat in any terms that imply you're not serious. After all, if no one's spying on you, then what do you have to be afraid of?

  9. #339
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Then state a direct threat by yourself to the president, and don't couch the threat in any terms that imply you're not serious. After all, if no one's spying on you, then what do you have to be afraid of?
    What? If I publicly threaten the president that's gonna prove something about spying?
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  10. #340
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Snowden leaked a hell of a lot more crap than the NSA metadata program, including information that puts current dudes on the front lines in danger. We've already seen degraded collection on people we are engaged in combat against, meaning that more of their attacks are successful. If Snowden was such a friggin "patriot" he would have kept that crap secret. Turns out he's not. Astonishing.
    Do you have any trust worth sources saying he leaked certain intel to the enemy? Or is this goberment and those with their lips on the goberment's nutsack saying he did so you are trusting the same people who lied their ass off about spying on the American people?
    Last edited by jamesrage; 11-12-14 at 02:31 AM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

Page 34 of 63 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •