Page 39 of 63 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 623

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

  1. #381
    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]

    1.Its a link to a forum.
    2.Most of the links are about the US spying on allies and other non-enemies including a news agency.
    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.
    4.Its kinds of hard to care about all those things considered the betrayal by the US government.
    5.Those things on that list from that forum pale in comparison to the betrayal by the US government.
    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.
    "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

  2. #382
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,133

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    Oh, I forgot: your legal education trumps theirs. But no, there's others. And you know this. You want it to be illegal. In your interpretation, it is. That doesn't mean it actually is, though. Your response to that minor point? "That's irrelevant".
    An untested law cannot ever said to be legal or illegal, neither definitively nor contemporaneously. The actions of the FISC were beyond testing by the inherently secret nature of the subject matter. This is all in the very well thought out rebuttals that you keep ignoring.

    Take indefinite detention, for example. There is a law that says "indefinite detention (of terror suspects) is legal." But there are several proscriptions of such an action in superior legal documents, and those proscriptions need to be examined against currently defined groups and practices, such as "who/what is a terrorist?", and "can US citizens be declared terrorists and voided of their due process in spite of the lack of open rebellion and/or invasion?" So in order to actually rule whether or not indefinite detention is actually legal, and considered so right now, it must be tested and subjected to judicial review (which it is currently undergoing). So please understand that when you spike the "WELL, IT'S LEGAL!" football, I am not being inconsistent or judgmental or acting like a superior legal authority than the entire Judicial System when I say it's current status of legality has not been tested and would not have had a chance to have been tested without Snowden. As of right now, how YOU see the law (and, in fact, how one small sliver of the judiciary has commented on it) is completely irrelevant, because the secret actions of the NSA and FISC were beyond the scope of review.

    Even a passing study of the Constitution reveals a document that is charged with protecting the American people from unjust governance. Any junior high school civics student knows this. The federal government is only allowed to do what the Constitution specifically says it can do, with some minor wiggle room left for case law provided by contemporaneous judicial review. Congress has made fantastic sweeping legislative pushes beyond it's original boundaries (as has the office of the Executive) which then effectively allows the Judiciary to affect broader changes through review, but no matter how this process might conspire to undo the original intent of the Constitution, it is a process that has been wholly skipped so far as relates to the topic we are discussing. THAT is why I am so charged about the whole thing in the first place. Yeah, it's Big Brother, and there is a very slippery slope there, but the fact that Congress has legislated it's way from under the Constitution with the help of the courts is what really grinds my gears. That is exactly how you boil the frog.

    When you continue to harp on the words "legal" and "irrelevant", I can't help but hear "Befehl ist Befehl". When you whine, "BUT IT'S LEGAL!", that doesn't mean it's right, and if it's not right, society will eventually call that illegal. Like slavery. Slavery was legal, and slavery was wrong; society eventually caught up and made it illegal. So if we were 19th century plantation owners, and you were screaming at me that "IT'S LEGAL!!!", I would similarly tell you that's irrelevant, because it's still wrong.
    "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

  3. #383
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    Metadata collection isn't spying, it's holding the data because the phone companies don't. If they did, it wouldn't have been an issue. Warrants are still required to access that data, so it's hardly spying.

    As far as spying on Germany...everyone outside of Five Eyes spies on everyone else, that's just how it works.


    You think it's just metadata?


    https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline


    read on my good man, read on.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  4. #384
    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
    An untested law cannot ever said to be legal or illegal, neither definitively nor contemporaneously. The actions of the FISC were beyond testing by the inherently secret nature of the subject matter. This is all in the very well thought out rebuttals that you keep ignoring.

    Take indefinite detention, for example. There is a law that says "indefinite detention (of terror suspects) is legal." But there are several proscriptions of such an action in superior legal documents, and those proscriptions need to be examined against currently defined groups and practices, such as "who/what is a terrorist?", and "can US citizens be declared terrorists and voided of their due process in spite of the lack of open rebellion and/or invasion?" So in order to actually rule whether or not indefinite detention is actually legal, and considered so right now, it must be tested and subjected to judicial review (which it is currently undergoing). So please understand that when you spike the "WELL, IT'S LEGAL!" football, I am not being inconsistent or judgmental or acting like a superior legal authority than the entire Judicial System when I say it's current status of legality has not been tested and would not have had a chance to have been tested without Snowden. As of right now, how YOU see the law (and, in fact, how one small sliver of the judiciary has commented on it) is completely irrelevant, because the secret actions of the NSA and FISC were beyond the scope of review.

    Even a passing study of the Constitution reveals a document that is charged with protecting the American people from unjust governance. Any junior high school civics student knows this. The federal government is only allowed to do what the Constitution specifically says it can do, with some minor wiggle room left for case law provided by contemporaneous judicial review. Congress has made fantastic sweeping legislative pushes beyond it's original boundaries (as has the office of the Executive) which then effectively allows the Judiciary to affect broader changes through review, but no matter how this process might conspire to undo the original intent of the Constitution, it is a process that has been wholly skipped so far as relates to the topic we are discussing. THAT is why I am so charged about the whole thing in the first place. Yeah, it's Big Brother, and there is a very slippery slope there, but the fact that Congress has legislated it's way from under the Constitution with the help of the courts is what really grinds my gears. That is exactly how you boil the frog.

    When you continue to harp on the words "legal" and "irrelevant", I can't help but hear "Befehl ist Befehl". When you whine, "BUT IT'S LEGAL!", that doesn't mean it's right, and if it's not right, society will eventually call that illegal. Like slavery. Slavery was legal, and slavery was wrong; society eventually caught up and made it illegal. So if we were 19th century plantation owners, and you were screaming at me that "IT'S LEGAL!!!", I would similarly tell you that's irrelevant, because it's still wrong.
    That's the entire point: if you want to argue right and wrong then go for it! Stop trying to shoehorn legality in there if all you have is your own interpretation that it SHOULD be. Exactly as we saw Henry David do it in this thread just a few posts ago. It's declared "illegal" and "criminal" in a completely arbitrary nature, ignoring the fact that it's, ya know, not have been found to be at all.

    That's...kinda important, no?

    Or is it irrelevant unless it supports your stance?

    Now if you want to talk about right and wrong, go ahead. Let's hash that out. Because declaring something illegal- something that has not been found be at all- simply because you think it should be is a complete nonstarter.
    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. #385
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,133

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    That's the entire point: if you want to argue right and wrong then go for it! Stop trying to shoehorn legality in there if all you have is your own interpretation that it SHOULD be. Exactly as we saw Henry David do it in this thread just a few posts ago. It's declared "illegal" and "criminal" in a completely arbitrary nature, ignoring the fact that it's, ya know, not have been found to be at all.

    That's...kinda important, no?

    Or is it irrelevant unless it supports your stance?

    Now if you want to talk about right and wrong, go ahead. Let's hash that out. Because declaring something illegal- something that has not been found be at all- simply because you think it should be is a complete nonstarter.
    Let me ask you a question:

    Do you think it's even possible for a Court, any Court, to perform an illegal action? I mean, is it definitionally possible, or is that a logical contradiction like a square circle?
    "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. #386
    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
    Let me ask you a question:

    Do you think it's even possible for a Court, any Court, to perform an illegal action? I mean, is it definitionally possible, or is that a logical contradiction like a square circle?
    Sure. Wouldn't it have to be found as such? Or do we just call things illegal because we think they should be?

    Right now, this is like people saying abortion is illegal. Because they think it should be.
    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. #387
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,133

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post

    Right now, this is like people saying abortion is illegal. Because they think it should be.
    Unrestricted abortion is illegal almost everywhere. Roe v. Wade allows states to place restrictions against certain practices and timelines allowable for abortions. Yet people will still declare the USSC judged in favor of the medical right to privacy, when in fact the court judged in the public interests of the government as pertains to a woman's right to choose vs the state's right to regulate such a choice. So, there's that. It is just as irrelevant to declare "BUT ABORTION IS LEGAL" if someone wanted a late term abortion in a state that places restrictions on post-viability abortions. It's a misunderstanding of the law that causes people to interpret the legality of things they want to do, which is another reason why we have a judicial review process!

    But I digress. Let's look at the rest of your answer, which I find very interesting:

    Sure. Wouldn't it have to be found as such? Or do we just call things illegal because we think they should be?
    And by what process is any court subject to examination? Specifically, what process is a secret, closed court subject to?
    "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

  8. #388
    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]

    No one said unrestricted, so that was...interesting of you.

    And I don't know...hmm...I wonder if there's been any circuit court rulings...hmmm......
    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

  9. #389
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,133

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    No one said unrestricted, so that was...interesting of you.
    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.

    And I don't know...hmm...I wonder if there's been any circuit court rulings...hmmm......
    The Circuit just heard arguments last week. It could be a while before we know.

    But isn't it fantastic that the conversation is being had finally? And this is also only over metadata. The full scope of the programs being utilized against US citizens that aren't suspected of a crime, however, is going to be a much bigger deal if/when that ever comes down the pike. It took Verizon fighting the FISC for this to be an issue, and only after Snowden blew the whistle.
    Last edited by Gonzo Rodeo; 11-13-14 at 03:59 PM.
    "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. #390
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-17 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    15,248

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

    Without bothering to read through all of the previous posts, let me summarize my feelings as follows:

    Screw Snowden. He took America's secrets to Russia and he can rot there as far as I'm concerned.
    "Groups with guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein"

    Dick Rowe, A & R man
    Decca Records
    London, 1962

Page 39 of 63 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... 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
  •