• 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]

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?
 
Again, no one is spying on you, James. Calm down.
 
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:
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. :roll:
 
I hope he had that particular flag laundered, since he has repeatedly crapped all over it.
 
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:

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...
 
...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.




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/politics/federal-judge-rules-against-nsa-phone-data-program.html?pagewanted=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:
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.

Considering the people who lied to us are the same ones telling us he released intel to terrorists one has to doubt a word those people say.
 
Considering the people who lied to us are the same ones telling us he released intel to terrorists one has to doubt a word those people say.

Amen, brother. Just as you say - Veterans take their pay from the evil goberment, and are scum.

In the meantime, however, just to make clear, you are neither capable nor willing to attempt to mount a defense of Snowden's actions in releasing massive amounts of information that had nothing whatsoever to do with the NSA metadata program?
 
Amen, brother. Just as you say - Veterans take their pay from the evil goberment, and are scum.

In the meantime, however, just to make clear, you are neither capable nor willing to attempt to mount a defense of Snowden's actions in releasing massive amounts of information that had nothing whatsoever to do with the NSA metadata program?
Why I am going to debate made up claims by die hard anti-4th amendment nuts who think it is alright if the government spies on the people so those nuts make up claims of Snowden giving intel to the enemy?
 
Why I am going to debate made up claims by die hard anti-4th amendment nuts who think it is alright if the government spies on the people so those nuts make up claims of Snowden giving intel to the enemy?

All I'm asking you is if you are willing to defend Snowden's actions.

As for Snowden giving intel to the enemy, well, when you make it public, yeah. That's what happens. I could build a fairly effective case for even more so in private.
 
All I'm asking you is if you are willing to defend Snowden's actions.

As for Snowden giving intel to the enemy, well, when you make it public, yeah. That's what happens. I could build a fairly effective case for even more so in private.
I think if you had any actual trustworthy sources of Snowden giving intel to the enemy you would have posted them by now.But no, your info is from people who are perfectly fine with the government wiping their ass with the 4th amendment.So your claims of Snowden's alleged actions are fraudulent.
 
I think if you had any actual trustworthy sources of Snowden giving intel to the enemy you would have posted them by now.But no, your info is from people who are perfectly fine with the government wiping their ass with the 4th amendment.

A SHORT list that I have posted multiple times for Snowden's defenders, only to watch them each time refuse to even admit that he did this

...The classified portions of the U.S. intelligence budget, detailing how much we spend and where on efforts to spy on terror groups and foreign states, doesn’t deal with Americans’ privacy. This leak revealed the intelligence community’s self-assessment in 50 major areas of counterterrorism, and that “blank spots include questions about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear components when they are being transported, the capabilities of China’s next-generation fighter aircraft, and how Russia’s government leaders are likely to respond to ‘potentially destabilizing events in Moscow, such as large protests and terrorist attacks.’” The Pakistani, Chinese, and Russian intelligence agencies surely appreciate the status report.

Our cyber-warfare capabilities and targets don’t deal with Americans’ privacy. The revelation that the U.S. launched 231 cyber-attacks against “top-priority targets, which former officials say includes adversaries such as Iran, Russia, China and North Korea and activities such as nuclear proliferation” in 2011 has nothing to do with Americans’ privacy.

The extent and methods of our spying on China have nothing to do with Americans’ privacy.

British surveillance of South African and Turkish diplomats has nothing to do with Americans’ privacy.

The NSA’s successful interceptions of communications of Russian President Dimitri Medvedev has nothing to do with Americans’ privacy. This is not a scandal; it is literally the NSA’s job, and now the Russians have a better idea of what messages were intercepted and when.

Revealing NSA intercepts and CIA stations in Latin America — again, nothing to do with U.S. citizens.

Revealing a U.K. secret internet-monitoring station in the Middle East — nothing to do with U.S. citizens.

The extent and range of NSA communications monitoring in India. . . .

The fact that the United States has “ramped up its surveillance of Pakistan’s nuclear arms,” has “previously undisclosed concerns about biological and chemical sites there,” and details of “efforts to assess the loyalties of counterterrorism sources recruited by the CIA” . . .

The U.S.’s spying on Al-Jazeera’s internal communication system. . . .

What we know about al-Qaeda efforts to hack our drones. . . .

The NSA’s ability to intercept the e-mail of al-Qaeda operative Hassan Ghul. . . .

The NSA’s ability to read the e-mail of the Mexican president. . . .

The U.S.’s electronic intercepts of communications to French consulates and embassies in New York and Washington. . . .

The existence of NSA surveillance teams in 80 U.S. embassies around the globe . . .

NSA’s spying on OPEC . . .

NSA’s collecting data on the porn habits of Muslim extremist leaders in order to discredit them . . .

. . . none of these stories have much of a tie to Americans’ privacy....
 
...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.






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.



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.



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



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/politics/federal-judge-rules-against-nsa-phone-data-program.html?pagewanted=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.



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!
Literally all this boils down to is you think it should be illegal so that's all that matters. It's irrelevant what anyone else thinks, Gonzo Rodeo's interpretation is all that matters.

Unfortunately, Gonzo Rodeo is not the arbiter of what's illegal and what's not. More's the pity.
 
I must be missing something with Snowden, because there are a lot of people on the left and right who are normally civil liberties advocates who despise the guy. We know the head of NSA has no problem looking into a camera and lying to the Congress and the public about what the agency is doing. We now know the CIA spies on Senators investigating past wrongdoing and is more than happy to delete/disappear documents that reveal wrongdoing. We know that going through the chain of command is futile. The Obama administration is brutally cracking down on leakers, and is as we speak threatening to jail journalists for failing to reveal their sources, in their prosecution of leakers who revealed illegal activity by the intelligence agencies.

So in a broad sense, without endorsing everything Snowden has done, I'm not sure what someone wanting to expose the extent of the police state in the U.S. is supposed to do? The NSA was simply operating without meaningful restraints, including gathering near blanket coverage of all electronic communications in the U.S., of everyone. And every check on their ability to sift through the data from non-terrorists (aka innocent Americans charged and suspected of no crimes) has been shown to be window dressing, ineffective.

I guess I don't understand how a person can complain about the near total police state we live under, with our government having nearly unrestricted access to ALL our communications, then demonize a person who took a huge risk to expose it all. Sure, he's imperfect, and undoubtedly has made mistakes, but the venom directed against him by civil liberties advocates is really puzzling to me. I don't like that he's hiding out in Russia, and before that China, but the U.S. makes it impossible for him to seek refuge in any other country, so we can't exactly complain that he's not traveling because the U.S. has made that impossible. And I don't expect him to be arrested and voluntarily go to solitary, never to be heard from again, which is what the U.S. did to Manning, for far LESS.
He made the mistake of exposing abuses by both parties. Well...hell...thats just not smart at all.
I think maybe he could have done things differently. I dont know about his intent. One thing we DO know...Snowden was a pebble that tossed himself into the machine. He thought he would be by himself enough to cause the whole thing to come grinding to a halt. Insted, he was crushed and the machine grinds on. In the end...people are so invested in their political ideation and affiliation that they just...dont...care.

Love him or hate him, agree or disagree with him...how does ANYONE feel about the obvious abuses of personal freedoms perpetrated by branches of the government? Read the article. What would you have done? I dont think there is a simple answer.
 
Amen, brother. Just as you say - Veterans take their pay from the evil goberment, and are scum.

In the meantime, however, just to make clear, you are neither capable nor willing to attempt to mount a defense of Snowden's actions in releasing massive amounts of information that had nothing whatsoever to do with the NSA metadata program?

Could it be that the NSA metadata program is not the only criminal actions by the US government?
 
Hahaha see, there ya go, Gonzo. Right there in that post above.
 
Literally all this boils down to is you think it should be illegal so that's all that matters. It's irrelevant what anyone else thinks, Gonzo Rodeo's interpretation is all that matters.

Unfortunately, Gonzo Rodeo is not the arbiter of what's illegal and what's not. More's the pity.

So you clearly can't rebut my argument. That's obvious to all now.

The Fourth Amendment says "you can't do this". FISC and the NSA are beyond the purview of the Supreme Court and judicial review, so nobody could say "this is totally legal" if there was no possibility of review. Perhaps this is all legal, and perhaps the USSC will make a comment and find an exception somewhere in the law. But that's only possible now because of Snowden.
 
lol no, it doesn't say that. You INTERPRET it to say that. Finer legal minds than yours disagree. And you just stomach that.

Moreover, I'm still chucking at you arguing so vociferously about something that's "irrelevant". Because only your interpretation is relevant. The irony, of course, is that if someone's interpretation is irrelevant here, it's certainly not that of the federal judges overseeing this, that disagree with you.
 
Last edited:
lol no, it doesn't say that. You INTERPRET it to say that. Finer legal minds than yours disagree. And you just stomach that.

Moreover, I'm still chucking at you arguing so vociferously about something that's "irrelevant". Because only your interpretation is relevant. The irony, of course, is that if someone's interpretation is irrelevant here, it's certainly not that of the federal judges overseeing this, that disagree with you.

"Finer legal minds" like yours?!? Do you realize you are doing the very thing you are accusing me of? YOU have passed judgment on the NSA's activities as "perfectly legal", while open courts almost immediately started to say the opposite once they found out about the NSA's activities. Try responding to the arguments I've made. It's all there already.
 
Like the actual federal judges overseeing this? Like the entire OGC of NSA? You act as if there haven't been rulings that oppose your viewpoint. Have there been any?
 
Like the actual federal judges overseeing this? Like the entire OGC of NSA? You act as if there haven't been rulings that oppose your viewpoint. Have there been any?

...you mean, all those Federal Judges on the FISA court? You act like all the judges who have weighed in so far are impartial and have been subject to judicial review.

I've already detailed why the NSA watching itself doesn't make a lot of sense. You should really try responding to one of my arguments. This strawman/cherrypick shtick is starting to get kind of old.
 
Back
Top Bottom