• 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]

Gonzo Rodeo said:
The idea presented by you and cpwill in this thread suggest that the law is black and white. I have demonstrated that it is not with the example of civil disobedience. People like Rosa Parks broke the law, and are now heroes and champions of civil rights.
Click to expand...

Did Rosa Parks flee to Russia?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
The idea presented by you and cpwill in this thread suggest that the law is black and white.
Click to expand...

Whether or not something is legal or illegal is, in fact, binary. Whether it's right or wrong is a different story. But if people don't even have the intellectual honesty to admit that what Snowden did was illegal and what NSA does is legal, how can we even go on from there?

We can talk about right and wrong if you'd like. But we have to first settle what's legal.
 
j-mac said:
Did Rosa Parks flee to Russia?
Click to expand...

She was arrested. She was fired from her job as a seamstress. Her life was made much harder than it already was.

You seem to think this was a good thing.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Whether or not something is legal or illegal is, in fact, binary. Whether it's right or wrong is a different story. But if people don't even have the intellectual honesty to admit that what Snowden did was illegal and what NSA does is legal, how can we even go on from there?

We can talk about right and wrong if you'd like. But we have to first settle what's legal.
Click to expand...

Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg broke the law when he attempted to assassinate Hitler.

I suppose his actions are reprehensible because he had no respect for the rule of law. I guess he deserved to die by firing squad, according to your argument. Justice was served.

Also, what the NSA is doing is not legal. That is why some people don't have a problem with what Snowden did. The very mechanism that denied him from utilizing proper channels (the fact that there were none not withstanding in this case) is part of the overall legal question to begin with. The secrecy and gag orders are not subject to scrutiny by the very nature of secrecy. The only way wrongdoing ever gets exposed for these things is a technically illegal leak.
 
Last edited:
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg broke the law when he attempted to assassinate Hitler.
Click to expand...

hahahahahahah

It's like you didn't even read my post. But you quoted it so...

Whether or not something is legal or illegal is, in fact, binary. Whether it's right or wrong is a different story. But if people don't even have the intellectual honesty to admit that what Snowden did was illegal and what NSA does is legal, how can we even go on from there?

We can talk about right and wrong if you'd like. But we have to first settle what's legal.
Click to expand...

I suppose his actions are reprehensible because he had no respect for the rule of law. I guess he deserved to die by firing squad, according to your argument. Justice was served.
Click to expand...

What argument do you think I'm making?

Also, what the NSA is doing is not legal.
Click to expand...

Well, see that's kinda the point. YES IT IS LEGAL. You just think it shouldn't be. That's what the judicial branch exists for: to decide what's legal and what's not. This is why we can't even get to talking about good or bad; if people can't even face the reality of what's legal, what's the point?
 
NonoBadDog said:
Okay, I see the root of this disagreement with OldWorldOrder.

I think the NSA does some stuff that is legal and have been caught doing some stuff that is not legal. I will not state that everything the NSA does is either legal or illegal.

I would suggest reading the ruling of Judge John Bates from the FISC.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-conte...016974-FISA-court-opinion-with-exemptions.pdf

PAGE 28 Judge Bates states:
But for the first time, the government has now advised the Court that the volume and nature of the information it has been collecting is fundamentally different from what the court had been led to believe.

Page 29 Judge Bates, FISC, states:
"The court is UNABLE (emphasis mine) to find that NSA's minimization procedures, as the government proposes to apply them in connection with MCTs are "reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular [surveillance or physical search], to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need ot the United States to obtain, produce and disseminate foreign intelligence information"

Same page he continues:
The court is also UNABLE (emphasis mine) to find that NSA's targeting and minimization procedures, as the government proposes to implement them in connection with MCTs, ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT (emphasis mine).

MCT=multi-communication transactions

I also recommend New FISC Pen Register Opinion: It

I would say illegal stuff is going on. Just because nobody has gone to jail doesn't mean that someone hasn't broken the law. Hell, look at the IRS and VA situation, just to name a couple. Several Judges have had to reign in the NSA and the FBI because they collected data that they weren't authorized to collect.
Click to expand...

Well certainly, I would assume that most of the stuff the NSA does is legal. I just take issue with that part that's not. And don't care what OWO says, I wasn't debating him.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
She was arrested. She was fired from her job as a seamstress. Her life was made much harder than it already was.

You seem to think this was a good thing.
Click to expand...

What makes you say that? Assuming things are we?
 
NonoBadDog said:
Okay, I see the root of this disagreement with OldWorldOrder.

I think the NSA does some stuff that is legal and have been caught doing some stuff that is not legal. I will not state that everything the NSA does is either legal or illegal.

I would suggest reading the ruling of Judge John Bates from the FISC.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-conte...016974-FISA-court-opinion-with-exemptions.pdf

PAGE 28 Judge Bates states:
But for the first time, the government has now advised the Court that the volume and nature of the information it has been collecting is fundamentally different from what the court had been led to believe.

Page 29 Judge Bates, FISC, states:
"The court is UNABLE (emphasis mine) to find that NSA's minimization procedures, as the government proposes to apply them in connection with MCTs are "reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular [surveillance or physical search], to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need ot the United States to obtain, produce and disseminate foreign intelligence information"

Same page he continues:
The court is also UNABLE (emphasis mine) to find that NSA's targeting and minimization procedures, as the government proposes to implement them in connection with MCTs, ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT (emphasis mine).

MCT=multi-communication transactions

I also recommend New FISC Pen Register Opinion: It

I would say illegal stuff is going on. Just because nobody has gone to jail doesn't mean that someone hasn't broken the law. Hell, look at the IRS and VA situation, just to name a couple. Several Judges have had to reign in the NSA and the FBI because they collected data that they weren't authorized to collect.
Click to expand...


When the media and members of Congress say the NSA spies on Americans, what they really mean is that the FBI helps the NSA do it, providing a technical and legal infrastructure that permits the NSA, which by law collects foreign intelligence, to operate on U.S. soil. It's the FBI, a domestic U.S. law enforcement agency, that collects digital information from at least nine American technology companies as part of the NSA's Prism system. It was the FBI that petitioned the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to order Verizon Business Network Services, one of the United States' biggest telecom carriers for corporations, to hand over the call records of millions of its customers to the NSA.


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/11/21/the_obscure_fbi_team_that_does_the_nsa_dirty_work

FISC/FISA/Grand Jury's, rubber stamps.
 
j-mac said:
Then he should come on back and put it all in the open to a judge. If he is a true whistle blower, there are laws to protect him, if he is just another petulant, cowardly, child that wants to throw a wrench into things, then he'll go to jail.
Click to expand...

One of Obama's many campaign promises was to improve whistle blower protection laws, in fact he has prosecuted more of them than any predecessor. Snowden won't be back without written assurances.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg broke the law when he attempted to assassinate Hitler.

I suppose his actions are reprehensible because he had no respect for the rule of law. I guess he deserved to die by firing squad, according to your argument. Justice was served.

Also, what the NSA is doing is not legal. That is why some people don't have a problem with what Snowden did. The very mechanism that denied him from utilizing proper channels (the fact that there were none not withstanding in this case) is part of the overall legal question to begin with. The secrecy and gag orders are not subject to scrutiny by the very nature of secrecy. The only way wrongdoing ever gets exposed for these things is a technically illegal leak.
Click to expand...

There's a mountain of condemning evidence that demonstrates what the NSA was doing, with regards to domestic spying, was illegal. Why do people fail to understand that Snowden's disclosures had the direct result of producing bi-partisan legislation to reform it. Many believe it hasn't gone far enough, but that's another thread I suppose. And Clapper was busted lying to congress!
 
Montecresto said:
One of Obama's many campaign promises was to improve whistle blower protection laws, in fact he has prosecuted more of them than any predecessor. Snowden won't be back without written assurances.
Click to expand...

What? You mean Obama lied about something? Naw, perish the thought.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
hahahahahahah

It's like you didn't even read my post. But you quoted it so...





What argument do you think I'm making?



Well, see that's kinda the point. YES IT IS LEGAL. You just think it shouldn't be. That's what the judicial branch exists for: to decide what's legal and what's not. This is why we can't even get to talking about good or bad; if people can't even face the reality of what's legal, what's the point?
Click to expand...

Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.

The Constitution is the highest law in the land. This means any other law that contravenes the Constitution is, in fact, illegal. What Snowden did was expose the illegal nature of collection against the intent and literal text of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. He did utilize proper channels and they did not work. The very nature of the secret oversight is part of the reason why this illegal activity is buried so far down and required a leaker to expose it. The orders requiring compliance for metadata were issued with gag orders, meaning there is no legal remedy to fight the seizure without breaking the law. This is the equivalent of the police breaking down your door and then handing you an order from the court saying you aren't allowed to complain about it to anyone or else you're going to go to jail. This is the very reason why a leaker was necessary to expose the wrongdoing on the part of the NSA.

You can complain about the illegal nature of the stunt all you want, and I don't think anyone is saying what Snowden did isn't illegal, but right and wrong are very much intertwined in this debate. If you are going to stick with the "rule of law" argument, it is very pertinent to mention people like Rosa Parks and Claus von Stauffenberg who blatantly broke the law. Mentioning the rule of law also allows debate on higher laws, such as the Constitution... which, given that Snowden had never exposed certain secrets, would never have had the chance to reach the Supreme Court for judicial review. It still may never, but this debate absolutely never would have been given it's day in court, so to speak, if someone didn't break the law to force the issue.

About the continued leaks, as well as Snowden's growing comfort with his hosts, we can blame the administration for thinking Snowden was bluffing when he said he had even more damaging goods in his pocket. They forced him into exile and gave him no reason at all to cooperate. All the administration had to do to put a lid on this thing was offer Snowden asylum as a whistleblower, say the NSA thing was a grave injustice, get him back in the states, and then lock him up in a black site forever and keep doing what they were doing. Americans have the attention span of goldfish. Nobody would have remembered PRISM in three months. But, no. The administration (who knew full what what was going on the whole time) didn't want the mild black eye in the first place. So now we have a full fledged secret-laden fire hose being hosted in a hostile land with no way to do anything about it... not without breaking about 100 treaties and international laws, which you seem to think is anathema to proper and civil order.
 
X Factor said:
Oh, you're right, clearly the thing to do is run to the Russians. Look, I know there are some that think the US is the great evil in the world and like anything that harms the US, a lot of us just aren't in that place.
Click to expand...

He didn't run to the Russians, he just ended up there because they are the only country in the world that has the power (or should we say delusions of power) to thumb their noses at the US government when it comes to being pressured into delivering a suspect into US hands.

Most countries would have helped the US if Snowden had ended up in their country and most other countries would bow under US pressure to do that. Russia might be the only one who would be willing to allow Snowden to live there. China would also be strong enough if they would have wanted too but I am sure they would have handed him over with no problem whatsoever.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.

The Constitution is the highest law in the land. This means any other law that contravenes the Constitution is, in fact, illegal. What Snowden did was expose the illegal nature of collection against the intent and literal text of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. He did utilize proper channels and they did not work. The very nature of the secret oversight is part of the reason why this illegal activity is buried so far down and required a leaker to expose it. The orders requiring compliance for metadata were issued with gag orders, meaning there is no legal remedy to fight the seizure without breaking the law. This is the equivalent of the police breaking down your door and then handing you an order from the court saying you aren't allowed to complain about it to anyone or else you're going to go to jail. This is the very reason why a leaker was necessary to expose the wrongdoing on the part of the NSA.

You can complain about the illegal nature of the stunt all you want, and I don't think anyone is saying what Snowden did isn't illegal, but right and wrong are very much intertwined in this debate. If you are going to stick with the "rule of law" argument, it is very pertinent to mention people like Rosa Parks and Claus von Stauffenberg who blatantly broke the law. Mentioning the rule of law also allows debate on higher laws, such as the Constitution... which, given that Snowden had never exposed certain secrets, would never have had the chance to reach the Supreme Court for judicial review. It still may never, but this debate absolutely never would have been given it's day in court, so to speak, if someone didn't break the law to force the issue.

About the continued leaks, as well as Snowden's growing comfort with his hosts, we can blame the administration for thinking Snowden was bluffing when he said he had even more damaging goods in his pocket. They forced him into exile and gave him no reason at all to cooperate. All the administration had to do to put a lid on this thing was offer Snowden asylum as a whistleblower, say the NSA thing was a grave injustice, get him back in the states, and then lock him up in a black site forever and keep doing what they were doing. Americans have the attention span of goldfish. Nobody would have remembered PRISM in three months. But, no. The administration (who knew full what what was going on the whole time) didn't want the mild black eye in the first place. So now we have a full fledged secret-laden fire hose being hosted in a hostile land with no way to do anything about it... not without breaking about 100 treaties and international laws, which you seem to think is anathema to proper and civil order.
Click to expand...

It's a damn shame actual federal judges that know the law 10000000 times more than you or I disagree. Sorry, it's legal.

Next?

Did you want to talk about whether it's good or bad?

Because it's legal. Sorry. I know you wish it wasn't. The law doesn't care.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
That's exactly why he went there.
Click to expand...

I honestly think it was a short stop in his own mind but he should have known better. Nobody would have wanted him so he was stuck there.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
It's a damn shame actual federal judges that know the law 10000000 times more than you or I disagree. Sorry, it's legal.

Next?

Did you want to talk about whether it's good or bad?

Because it's legal. Sorry. I know you wish it wasn't. The law doesn't care.
Click to expand...

Slavery was legal. People who freed slaves or deferred to them over their owners broke a bunch of laws. Those were bad laws, and we fought a war to get rid of them.

The entire nature of what we are discussing - secrets - ensured there needed to be a leaker to expose the wrongdoing. Just like how civil rights needed civil disobedience to succeed. Criminals, the lot of them! But standing up to bad laws.

Citing secret judges in secret courts as an appeal to authority is on par with asking addicts what we should do with all that cocaine.
 
Peter King said:
I honestly think it was a short stop in his own mind but he should have known better. Nobody would have wanted him so he was stuck there.
Click to expand...

I would really tend to doubt it...the only two places he sets foot in after releasing classified information are two that have adversarial relations with the US? Even if we paint him in the best light possible, it's still on purpose, that he only wanted to expose domestic things but brought information about overseas intelligence operations (his supporters always want to ignore that, yet another issue grappling with reality) to use as a bargaining chip to live a comfortable life, it would still mean he purposefully thought about customers for what he was peddling.

I've never committed treason, but you'd have to assume you'd think ahead a little bit, right? Like it wasn't like me walking into the kitchen and randomly deciding on what to eat.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Slavery was legal. People who freed slaves or deferred to them over their owners broke a bunch of laws. Those were bad laws, and we fought a war to get rid of them.
Click to expand...

And now we're back to you talking about good and bad. What the ****, dude? Is it physically impossible for you to type the words "Yes, what the NSA is doing is legal" or something? If you have an allergy, let me know! You either pretend that it's not or just skip saying it and go right to examples of laws being bad. Why is it you can't simply state that the NSA is doing legal activities? This is getting to be a farce now; I gave you the benefit of the doubt but now this is just silly.

Here: just say it's legal and we can avoid talking about it and go straight to good vs bad. I'm not even reading the rest of your post until you can be intellectually honest, sorry.
 
I prefer to think of it as the American flag embraces Edward Snowden.

;)
 
Montecresto said:
Well certainly, I would assume that most of the stuff the NSA does is legal. I just take issue with that part that's not. And don't care what OWO says, I wasn't debating him.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to say you were debating him. I was trying to tactfully tell OWO that I pretty much disagree with him. He was making blanket statements and it was the same statement over and over. I hate listening to the same information more than twice. Ask my wife.

The thing that is frustrating to me is the lack of adherence to the law and the lack of accountability. If they break the law they should go to jail and that just doesn't happen. There isn't any reason they shouldn't do just whatever the hell they want.
 
NonoBadDog said:
was trying to tactfully tell OWO that I pretty much disagree with him. He was making blanket statements
Click to expand...

Like when people say that what NSA does is illegal, when it's really just their own opinion? Shocking. Libertarians think the government is doing something illegal! I'd say stop the presses, but they're already part of the super secret conspiracy so would it even matter?

(Hint: normal people don't take them any more seriously than they do hardcore leftists)

Maybe the reason they're doing "whatever the hell they want" to you is because you don't actually see all the times they've been stifled by courts? Have you ever even considered that possibility? Serious question. Maybe the reason- shocking- that no one goes to jail is because what they're doing is legal. Whether you like it or not.

I'm sorry that it bores you that I repeat that fact, but I feel like it's kinda important. Like...maybe the most important thing? When people whine about something that they think should be illegal, it's probably kinda important to note if something isn't actually illegal, right?
 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
Since you think metadata is not private information, to prove you are not a hypocrite, post your phone bill in this thread.
Click to expand...

In principal i don't see that it would be so horrible to post my phone bill, if all bills are equally visible. But that was not quite the same thing as having it stored and data mined, the individual level open only under controlled conditions and for limited use.
You might make the point that Snowden or Manning showed it was naive to believe data were ever secret.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom