Page 36 of 63 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 623

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

  1. #351
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,081

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    The Germans are our enemies?
    Not currently, but al-Qa'ida's leadership is. Do you approve of Snowden releasing how we try to spy on them?

  2. #352
    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
    So.... if people from the military or the IC say things like "yeah, we are watching the Taliban change their patterns in order to avoid collection", you're going to discredit that because they work for the government? I can tell you for a fact that the man did incredible damage to our overseas collection posture. But, then, after all, I work for the military, which is part of that evil Goberment, and so why should we let evidence interfere with circular logic?

    The vast majority of the data released by Snowden had nothing to do with the NSA's metadata program. I have yet to see any of his defenders even attempt to justify it.
    The government lied about spying on the American people.So why would anyone with a brain trust a word that comes out of the government's mouth?
    "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. #353
    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]

    Again, no one is spying on you, James. Calm 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

  4. #354
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,888

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    Again, no one is spying on you, James. Calm down.
    Source for that ignorant claim?
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  5. #355
    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 Lachean View Post
    Source for that ignorant claim?
    A source for something that isn't happening?

    Negative proof - RationalWiki

    Do you have a source for your ignorant post, though? Did it actually just come from your brain or what?
    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

  6. #356
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,081

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    The government lied about spying on the American people.So why would anyone with a brain trust a word that comes out of the government's mouth?
    Damn military servicemen and women. Bunch of lying, satanic, dictatorial, freedom-hating little Hitlers, am I right?



    However, so, no. You are not willing to try to defend Snowden's releases that have nothing to do whatsoever with the NSA metadata program. Noted.
    Last edited by cpwill; 11-12-14 at 11:26 PM.

  7. #357
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,081

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    Source for that ignorant claim?
    National Defense Budget Estimates for 2015.

    Do you see how the funds allocated to the agencies within DOD are not "infinite"?





    Really. It amazes me how libertarians can be so quick to grasp the fundamentals of public choice theory, of the institutional and deep reasons behind government failure, of how the incentives and structures of government keep it from ever being effective and efficient, but somehow maintain the ability to just turn off that part of their brain when discussing the parts of the government responsible for intelligence collection. THEN apparently government runs every bit as perfectly, omnisciently, and omnicompetently as the most radical marxist would insist it does.

  8. #358
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,590
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    I hope he had that particular flag laundered, since he has repeatedly crapped all over it.

  9. #359
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,130

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    Wait wait wait: you're honestly saying that something's legality is irrelevant if it doesn't adhere to your own personal interpretation of the constitution?
    Not at all. I really wish you'd quit trying to intentionally mischaracterize my argument and read what I'm actually writing. Here is what I wrote all the way back on page 30:

    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. Is a person or agency doing something wrong? Slavery was legal, and it was wrong. The problem with this case is the very nature of secrecy involved. The USSC is the final arbiter in this country of right and wrong from a legal standpoint, and only comtemporarily at that (the court can and does overturn it's own decisions). If this information had never leaked, there would be no review. Do you get that? Legal and illegal are merely temporary distinctions of glorified right and punishable wrong. To ask if something is temporarily in one column or another on a ledger is completely arbitrary and worthless in the grand scheme.

    The real question is: does the nature of collection performed by the NSA satisfy the requirement for specific oversight as outlined by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?

    Snowden asked that question. It might actually get answered now.
    The entire purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to forbid the practice of general warrants.

    "The right of the people to be in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    I was looking up some relevant court opinion and case law associated with the Fourth and stumbled upon this blurb on the wikipedia article (if you have any problems with the source, feel free to follow the well documented links and present an argument):

    Applicability
    The Bill of Rights originally only restricted the federal government, and went through a long initial phase of "judicial dormancy";[24] in the words of historian Gordon S. Wood, "After ratification, most Americans promptly forgot about the first ten amendments to the Constitution."[25] Federal jurisdiction regarding criminal law was narrow until the late 19th century when the Interstate Commerce Act and Sherman Antitrust Act were passed. As federal criminal jurisdiction expanded to include other areas such as narcotics, more questions about the Fourth Amendment came to the Supreme Court.[26] The U.S. Supreme Court responded to these questions by outlining the fundamental purpose of the amendment as guaranteeing "the privacy, dignity and security of persons against certain arbitrary and invasive acts by officers of the Government, without regard to whether the government actor is investigating crime or performing another function."[27] In Mapp v. Ohio (1961),[28] the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[29]

    Fourth Amendment case law deals with three central issues: what government activities constitute "search" and "seizure"; what constitutes probable cause for these actions; how violations of Fourth Amendment rights should be addressed.[30]

    The Fourth Amendment typically requires "a neutral and detached authority interposed between the police and the public," and it is offended by "general warrants" and laws that allows searches to be conducted "indiscriminately and without regard to their connection with [a] crime under investigation.",[31] for the "basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment, which is enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth, through its prohibition of "unreasonable" searches and seizures is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials."[32]

    The Fourth Amendment has been held to mean that a search or an arrest generally requires a judicially sanctioned warrant, because the basic rule under the Fourth Amendment is that arrests and "searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable."[33] In order for such a warrant to be considered reasonable, it must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a law enforcement officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court. The Supreme Court further held in Chandler v. Miller (1997): "To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. But particularized exceptions to the main rule are sometimes warranted based on 'special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement.' ... When such 'special needs' are alleged, courts must undertake a context-specific inquiry, examining closely the competing private and public interests advanced by the parties."[34] The amendment applies to governmental searches and seizures, but not those done by private citizens or organizations who are not acting on behalf of a government.[35] In Ontario v. Quon (2010), the Court held the amendment to also apply to the government when acting as an employer, ruling that a government could search a police officer's text messages that were sent over that government's pager.[27][36]

    Search

    One threshold question in the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is whether a "search" has occurred. Initial Fourth Amendment case law hinged on a citizen's property rights—that is, when the government physically intrudes on "persons, houses, papers, or effects" for the purpose of obtaining information, a "search" within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment has occurred. Early 20th-century Court decisions, such as Olmstead v. United States (1928), held that Fourth Amendment rights applied in cases of physical intrusion, but not to other forms of police surveillance (e.g., wiretaps).[37] In Silverman v. United States (1961), the Court stated of the amendment that "at the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion."[38]

    continued...
    "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

  10. #360
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,130

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

    ...continued

    Fourth Amendment protections expanded significantly with Katz v. United States (1967).[37][39] In Katz, the Supreme Court expanded that focus to embrace an individual's right to privacy, and ruled that a search had occurred when the government wiretapped a telephone booth using a microphone attached to the outside of the glass. While there was no physical intrusion into the booth, the Court reasoned that: 1) Katz, by entering the booth and shutting the door behind him, had exhibited his expectation that "the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world"; and 2) society believes that his expectation was reasonable. Justice Potter Stewart wrote in the majority opinion that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places".[40] A "search" occurs for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when the government violates a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy."[41] Katz's reasonable expectation of privacy thus provided the basis to rule that the government's intrusion, though electronic rather than physical, was a search covered by the Fourth Amendment, and thus necessitated a warrant.[37][42] The Court said that it was not recognizing any general right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment,[43] and that this wiretap could have been authorized if proper procedures had been followed.[42]

    This decision in Katz was later developed into the now commonly used two-prong test, adopted in Smith v. Maryland (1979),[44] for determining whether the Fourth Amendment is applicable in a given circumstance:[45][46]

    a person "has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy"; and
    society is prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable.




    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post

    It does when it comes to any and all collection on US persons, as you should well know. Is that not the topic of the conversation here?
    No, it's not. Saying "the government watches the government" absolutely does not satisfy the requirements of checks and balances.

    The Executive has appointment powers, but Congress has confirmation powers over those appointments; Congress has legislative powers, but the Judiciary has review powers over that legislation; lower courts are subject to review by higher courts through the appellate process; higher courts are filled by Executive appointment, which is subject to confirmation.... You see?

    The FISA court judge is appointed by the USSC Chief Justice, with no confirmation hearing; FISA court decisions placing citizens under orders are not open to judicial review (there is no appellate process); court opinion and case law is secret by nature, which precludes citizens who desire redress from seeking further legal remedy, which means there is no review of anything the FISA court does by a higher court... which means it's building it's own system of secret case law. There is a review panel, but it works to offer the government clarification and review on warrants that are rejected. So, the government gets to appeal the decisions of the court that hold it back from doing what it wants to do, but not the people it may be doing it against.

    Which is supervision and guidance.
    No, it's not. Supervision implies the court watches the NSA and measures its performance. No court performs this job.

    Guidance, in this case, is referring to the building of a legal case. The FISA court will authorize certain methods and objects for collection, but it doesn't actively tell the NSA what to do and what not to do like you seem to be implying with "guidance". If the NSA wants to build a case against someone to turn over to the Justice Department, there are certain things they can't do when collecting evidence, and the purpose of the court is to 1) grant warrants, and 2) provide guidance in the obtaining of those warrants (i.e. "if you want to tap that guy's phone, you're going to have to bring me some evidence he's up to no good"... that kind of guidance).

    There is neither supervision nor guidance (in the way you were using the word) of the NSA being performed by any court.

    What agency should provide SIGINT auditors?
    If said SIGINT is being applied against US citizens? That sounds like the purview of the Justice Department, I'd wager. Law enforcement is who would use any such information, and they would want any information they get to be constitutionally and legally obtained, or else the Judiciary will check that **** right on outta their courtroom. And, of course, the constitutionality of any such evidence would have to filter up through the normal court system, ultimately arriving at the Supreme Court for actual judicial review.

    You realize the Supreme Court actually has clearances, right?
    You realize Top Secret gag orders prevent people from appealing to the Supreme Court, right? The Supreme Court can't review what it can't hear.

    Tell that to the people who scream until they're blue in the face about Snowden uncovering "illegal" NSA practices. When it's pointed out it's not actually illegal, they go real quiet.
    You keep ignoring the fact that review is required to prove constitutionality (and, thus, true legality), and the way the court is set up there can be no review. But with the actions of Snowden, these practices may finally have their day in court, so to speak. Open court, that is, not the rubber-stamp "secret court" that has thus far been removed from all scrutiny.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/us...anted=all&_r=0
    “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary’ invasion than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval,” Judge Leon wrote in a 68-page ruling. “Surely, such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment,” which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

    .....

    The case is the first in which a federal judge who is not on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which authorized the once-secret program, has examined the bulk data collection on behalf of someone who is not a criminal defendant.

    .....

    It also marks the first successful legal challenge brought against the program since it was revealed in June after leaks by the former N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden.

    Then you should understand how retarded this whole thing is. He didn't like something that he didn't at all understand, so he ruined his life over it and made things more difficult for people who are actually trying to collect intelligence. A moron of the highest order. I hope he was indeed paid by either the Chinese or the Russians (or both), because at least then he got something out of the deal instead of just misguided idealism leading him into being a Putin pawn.
    If the government is trying to collect data against constitutionally protected US citizens who are not the subjects of criminal investigations, then I'm glad their job is more difficult. Again, I really didn't like the foreign collection aspect of his whistleblowing, but I get why he did it. He also reported a massive collusion between the US and our allies that basically negates the constitution altogether by spying on each others citizens and simply trading the information. The fact that we have the capability and intent to spy on our allies? Yeah, that's politically damaging. But the reason why we do it? THAT'S unconstitutional!
    Last edited by Gonzo Rodeo; 11-13-14 at 12:02 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

Page 36 of 63 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... 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
  •