• 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!

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

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, no, I'm pretty sure Kal'Stang from www.debatepolitics.com isn't the decision-maker on what's legal and what's not. I think that's actually the courts? In this case the court that actually deals with these things...called the FISA court, actually! How about that! They were given the responsibility of deciding what was legal and what was not and they made those determinations. You just don't like it. That's fine, but you don't get to tell anyone what's legal and what's not. You know that, right? You're not a sheriff out in a Wild West mining town or something, deciding what's legal and what's not based upon your personal preferences...you know that, right?



Okay thank you for your crazy hyperbole. Sorry that what you wish was illegal was not. I again encourage you to write a letter or call in to a talk show.

Old-Man-Yells-At-Cloud-the-simpsons-7414384-265-199.gif

Just thought I would point out some crazy hyperbole. The "hahahahahahahaha" thing really adds validity to whole post.

It is called debate for a reason. We all have different ideas, thoughts and opinions. Whether it is illegal or not isn't the point. I think the point is that some people disagree. If we are just supposed to agree with you because of what you think is illegal or not then I apologize and will never disagree with you again.
 
Yes, I do agree that the debate resulted in some good things. I also agree that giving up some privacy (liberty) for security can only lead to losing more and more liberty. I just don't believe that the "end justifies the means" and I don't believe for one second that he did this in order to create a national debate. In my mind and I could possibly be wrong here, he saw an opportunity and took it. Running to China then Russia to me was just so far from acceptable that it drives him into the realm of traitor and he should pay the consequences.
 
Just thought I would point out some crazy hyperbole. The "hahahahahahahaha" thing really adds validity to whole post.

It is called debate for a reason. We all have different ideas, thoughts and opinions. Whether it is illegal or not isn't the point. I think the point is that some people disagree. If we are just supposed to agree with you because of what you think is illegal or not then I apologize and will never disagree with you again.
Ya know, that would be fine if several people here didn't insist that what NSA does is ILLEGAL. Not that they think it should be illegal, but that it it IS. I'm sorry, but that's factually incorrect and what you're seeing is my response to one of them after ample opportunity to correct themselves was given.

It's not a matter of civilian opinion: what NSA did and does is legal. Right? Wrong? Argue that if you want. Legal and illegal are not arguable. And if you think that doesn't matter, fine. Apparently some people disagree, otherwise they wouldn't have said it (and stuck with it so adamantly in the face of all facts).
 
Last edited:
Just thought I would point out some crazy hyperbole. The "hahahahahahahaha" thing really adds validity to whole post.

It is called debate for a reason. We all have different ideas, thoughts and opinions. Whether it is illegal or not isn't the point. I think the point is that some people disagree. If we are just supposed to agree with you because of what you think is illegal or not then I apologize and will never disagree with you again.

It goes beyond ILLEGAL, its unconstitutional. Remember, "the illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer".

Declassified secret rulings found NSA spying program unconstitutional
22 August 2013
Three secret US court opinions declassified Wednesday show that the NSA collected at least 58,000 emails and other US communications per year that were “wholly domestic” and completely unrelated to terrorism. According to a senior US official quoted in USA Today, the court opinions were declassified by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper because Clapper believed they show “effective self-policing” by the NSA.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2...vealing-unconstitutional-spying-on-us-emails/
 
See? Another person claiming it's illegal when it obviously is not. Using a different program, no less.

It's just silly. Like they don't know the difference between "I think it should be illegal" and "it is illegal". Like come on. How pathetic is that?
 
I'm sure that you'll be able to provide that ruling then won't you?

Smith v Maryland. An individual customer of a telephone company has no right to privacy with regards to the data that the telephone company gathers about its customers’ use of their service, such as the numbers that they connect to.
 
To believe that, you have to ignore that he's still in Russia because we made it impossible for him to leave.

that is incorrect. He is still in Russia because he made a pact with an autocrat, and is now Putins' puppet. He is more than welcome to fly home any day of the week, from our end.

He spent a month in the Russian airport. We rescinded his passport.

Yup. When you flee charges, we try to get you back. International fugitives can get their passports rescinded, especially those who pose an ongong threat to US national security.

So if he's cooperating with Putin, and there is no evidence he is

That is incorrect - he almost certainly is. The manner and timing of this guys' periodic re-entry's into the news are beneficial to Russian foreign policy out of mere coincidence.

then it's the intelligence community's fault in large part by giving him no other option to avoid what could be a lifetime in solitary confinement in a SuperMax prison. He saw what happened to Manning - he could expect worse treatment.

Only if he, like Manning, is guilty of espionage. But even then he would be lucky - we used to execute you for that crime.
 
Smith v Maryland. An individual customer of a telephone company has no right to privacy with regards to the data that the telephone company gathers about its customers’ use of their service, such as the numbers that they connect to.

That is the phone company and the phone companies personal use business. We signed agreements with the company which gave them the access. We did not sign such an agreement with the government/NSA. Try again.
 
I don't think that's true,

It doesn't matter if you think it is true. That is the legal precedent. Smith v Maryland - your cellphone data that you give up to a third party (such as when you dial a number, requesting that that third party connect you to it) has been given up, and is no longer protected under the 4th Amendment.

and the major point is we should be made aware when the secret court issues a secret ruling saying all our data can be vacuumed up under the legal theory that once we hand it over to a private party, our 'expectation' of privacy from then on is ZERO. My "expectation" of privacy wasn't zero. I didn't expect Google or Yahoo to hand over my emails to NSA or for Verizon to let NSA know who and when and where of all my calls.

"All our data" is a misnomer. No one is listening to your calls.

Now that we KNOW that, we can have a national debate about the privacy of our data. Federal laws make disclosing medical information illegal in most cases. Well, maybe we need federal laws about when it's OK to funnel all the email traffic into an NSA server in Utah. That would be nice.....

Sure. And I think that debate is necessary and healthy. But it does not have impact on whether or not Snowden is, in fact, guilty of espionage against the United States of America and whether he has, or not, severely damaged our national security.

That's not the choice

It is, in fact, the choice. When you announce a collection means and a target, you change the behavior of the target to avoid the means.

The FISA court granted warrants for that kind of thing, same way courts have granted warrants for other surveillance for hundreds of years. The question is whether the NSA can vacuum up ALL gmail and then use all kinds of means to search through your email and mine for evidence of wrongdoing.

That is what leads you to the former. If a cellphone in New York suddenly starts calling Mullah Omar McJihad in Pakistan, we need to know very quickly A) who this person is and B) who his contacts are. If cellphone #555-5555 only calls Mullah McJihad and 5 other numbers in the US, well those five other numbers are the other members of the cell, and the clock is ticking on our ability to find them. In collections this is known as "cueing". Under the restrictions you are suggesting, we would be severely limited in our ability to discover either of those sets of data.

Furthermore, the nature of the IT field makes it so that many foreign communications take place "in the US." If Mullah Omar McJihad starts emailing Abu Killsallota on his yahoo account, and that yahoo account goes through a US server, we still need to be able to have a system to find and then gain visibility on it.
 
That is the phone company and the phone companies personal use business. We signed agreements with the company which gave them the access. We did not sign such an agreement with the government/NSA. Try again.

On the contrary - whether or not you signed a contract with the phone company was not the defining factor, else the court would have ruled differently. It's Smith v Maryland, not Smith v Sprint. ;)
 
That is incorrect - he almost certainly is. The manner and timing of this guys' periodic re-entry's into the news are beneficial to Russian foreign policy out of mere coincidence.

"Almost"? So you don't actually know if he is or not. You are just assuming. With people like you around ready to convict without any evidence what so ever its no wonder Snowden ran.
 
So, Rosa Parks: criminal who eroded the rule if law and the very fabric of our democracy, in your eyes.

No, she was a trained protester who pulled off a very difficult and well-aimed IO campaign. The trick with Civil Disobedience is that you have to be willing to suffer the consequences of breaking the law in order to retain your moral position. Else you are just a criminal with something that every other criminal has - an excuse.

Strawmen don't make the wild-eyed pro-espionage partisans look any less crazy, gonzo.
 
"Almost"? So you don't actually know if he is or not

With absolute certainty? :lol: man, I don't have absolute certainty you are even a human being, and not some kind of DebateBot under development from google.

If the best you can reach for is that it is technically possible that he isn't - even if it is overwhelmingly probable that he is.... well, I accept that position. :)

You are just assuming

No, I am assessing based off of the available evidence.

With people like you around ready to convict without any evidence what so ever its no wonder Snowden ran.

:lol: yeah. Because I would have been on the jury.

Snowden ran because he was guilty :shrug: it's pretty hard to deny 4 laptops full of stolen data.
 
Straw man argument: notice of search warrants are not given to the suspect until the search is about to commence.

we don't tell Mullah Omar McJihad that we are watching his phone at all, much less prior to doing so.
 
Anyway, can we continue to infer from the desperate need to switch over to an attack on the NSA that there is implicit agreement that Snowden is, in fact, guilty of espionage, and that his actions cannot be defended as stemming from some kind of sense of patriotism, as he has claimed?
 
No, she was a trained protester who pulled off a very difficult and well-aimed IO campaign. The trick with Civil Disobedience is that you have to be willing to suffer the consequences of breaking the law in order to retain your moral position. Else you are just a criminal with something that every other criminal has - an excuse.

Strawmen don't make the wild-eyed pro-espionage partisans look any less crazy, gonzo.

Civil disobedience now must involve unjust suffering?

Nice roll back of the goal post there. You just got done saying that the law is the law... and now, apparently, the law only counts if it makes you suffer. I see.

How long have you been a democrat?
 
The law IS something now. Can we recognize and agree on that before going forward?
 
No, she was a trained protester who pulled off a very difficult and well-aimed IO campaign. The trick with Civil Disobedience is that you have to be willing to suffer the consequences of breaking the law in order to retain your moral position. Else you are just a criminal with something that every other criminal has - an excuse.

Strawmen don't make the wild-eyed pro-espionage partisans look any less crazy, gonzo.

Being a whistle blower does require being a martyr.
 
we don't tell Mullah Omar McJihad that we are watching his phone at all, much less prior to doing so.

and having a legitimate due process wouldn't change that. The USA has been able to catch many organized crime figures with legitimately legal wiretaps for a long time now.
 
Last edited:
Once again the defenders of the NSAs metadata collection program are invited to post their phone bills online to prove that it isn't private information.
 
Once again the defenders of the NSAs metadata collection program are invited to post their phone bills online to prove that it isn't private information.
I gave it to NSA. Actually I gave them full scope for the spring and summer if 2013, a waiver signed and everything- much more that you ever have.

Why would you conflate that with posting it online? Who told you the two were similar?
 
Sad people can't come out and just flat admit what the law currently is. Says a lot about where they're arguing from n
 
Sad people can't come out and just flat admit what the law currently is. Says a lot about where they're arguing from n

Rosa Parks broke the law.
 
With absolute certainty? :lol: man, I don't have absolute certainty you are even a human being, and not some kind of DebateBot under development from google.

If the best you can reach for is that it is technically possible that he isn't - even if it is overwhelmingly probable that he is.... well, I accept that position. :)

Strawman. I never said "with absolute certainty" did I? I just said that you don't actually know if he is or not. That doesn't require any certainty. It just requires a "yes" or a "no".

No, I am assessing based off of the available evidence.

And what "available evidence" do you have? Please do share it with us. I'm sure that you could at least provide pictures of any documents that you may have saying that he is indeed giving Putin information.

:lol: yeah. Because I would have been on the jury.

Snowden ran because he was guilty :shrug: it's pretty hard to deny 4 laptops full of stolen data.

Again a strawman. I never said that YOU would be on the jury. But instead said "with people like you". IE: There are plenty of people in the US that think enough like you do that no matter what they would convict.
 
Back
Top Bottom