• 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]

Jack Hays said:
There's a heavy load of silly propaganda in this link, but the essential facts show through nonetheless.

NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07) - Wikipedia, the ...

en.wikipedia.org/.../NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001–07)Wikipedia


The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy ("warrantless wiretapping") concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of ...‎Overview - ‎Developments - ‎Background - ‎Technical and operational details

The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy ("warrantless wiretapping") concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of allegedly foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the touted war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the terrorist surveillance program,[SUP][1][/SUP] part of the broader President's Surveillance Program, the NSA was authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, the phone calls, Internet activity (Web, e-mail, etc.), text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S. However, it has been discovered that all U.S. communications have been digitally cloned by government agencies, in apparent violation of unreasonable search and seizure. The excuse given to avoid litigation[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] was that no data hoarded would be reviewed until searching it would be legal. But no excuse has been offered the initial seizure of the data which is also illegal[SUP][citation needed][/SUP], according to the U. S. Constitution[SUP][citation needed][/SUP].
Critics, however, claimed that the program was in an effort to attempt to silence critics of the Bush Administration and its handling of several controversial issues during its tenure. Under public pressure, the Bush administration allegedly ceased the warrantless wiretapping program in January 2007 and returned review of surveillance to the FISA court.[SUP][2][/SUP] Subsequently, in 2008 Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which relaxed some of the original FISA court requirements.
During the Obama Administration, the NSA has allegedly continued operating under the new FISA guidelines.[SUP][3][/SUP] However, in April 2009 officials at the United States Department of Justice acknowledged that the NSA had engaged in "overcollection" of domestic communications in excess of the FISA court's authority, but claimed that the acts were unintentional and had since been rectified.[SUP][4][/SUP]
Click to expand...

I'm sorry - but wiki articles as evidence? No... anything else?
 
Ockham said:
I'm sorry - but wiki articles as evidence? No... anything else?
Click to expand...

Please note the links to statutes and policy documents. Wiki is as good as you're going to get in this forum. You seemed to think Wikileaks was credible in an earlier post.
 
Ockham said:
Hardly - I've posted a link showing the NSA spied on Americans without FISA. You say this is untrue. It is therefore incumbent upon you to prove my information and facts are incorrect. You are not proving a negative, you are proving your view positive.

So please... put up or shut up.
Click to expand...
No, you showed a link that exhibited that NSA stored metadata. That's not spying. Ignorance is bliss, I see.
 
Jack Hays said:
Please note the links to statutes and policy documents. Wiki is as good as you're going to get in this forum. You seemed to think Wikileaks was credible in an earlier post.
Click to expand...

I do think they're more credible and I think Snowden is more credible. They are actual people - who knows who edits the Wiki links or what motives they may have. As well, Wiki does not address the specific instance that I linked to - which were 5 American's being spied upon by the NSA without FISA. :shrug:
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Nor has it been found right, so why did you bring it up?
Click to expand...

Let me link it again, perhaps this time you'll read it and a light bulb will turn on:

Ockham said:
Lawsuits don't last long without evidence - it's one of the requirements for a lawsuit. Can you please post proof that the ACLU's lawsuit is frivolous then - thanks.
Click to expand...
 
Ockham said:
I do think they're more credible and I think Snowden is more credible. They are actual people - who knows who edits the Wiki links or what motives they may have. As well, Wiki does not address the specific instance that I linked to - which were 5 American's being spied upon by the NSA without FISA. :shrug:
Click to expand...

It remains to be seen whether there was any spying.
 
Jack Hays said:
It remains to be seen whether there was any spying.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt regardless of the outcome. I'm sure there were plenty of people who denied the CIA could overthrow foreign leaders in the 1960's too. I now know too much about America's history in the 20th century to make a statement like "The (enter Government group here) would not do (__enter awful/horrible/grotesque thing here__) and the accusation of such a thing is untrue." In fact, it would be the direct opposite.
 
Ockham said:
I have no doubt regardless of the outcome. I'm sure there were plenty of people who denied the CIA could overthrow foreign leaders in the 1960's too. I now know too much about America's history in the 20th century to make a statement like "The (enter Government group here) would not do (__enter awful/horrible/grotesque thing here__) and the accusation of such a thing is untrue." In fact, it would be the direct opposite.
Click to expand...

Whenever the CIA undertook any action in the 1960's it was under the lawful order of the President.
 
Jack Hays said:
Whenever the CIA undertook any action in the 1960's it was under the lawful order of the President.
Click to expand...

Because if the President does it, that means it's not illegal right?
 
Ockham said:
So no proof then? I'm shocked...
Click to expand...
...what? Stored metadata isn't spying. Lions aren't dogs. These things are obvious.

Color me surprised you didn't know. Watch out! The government is spying on you! Get your tinfoil hat!
 
Ockham said:
Let me link it again, perhaps this time you'll read it and a light bulb will turn on:
Click to expand...
So no answer. Awesome. There was a lawsuit against duke lacrosse players too. Big deal.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
So no answer. Awesome. There was a lawsuit against duke lacrosse players too. Big deal.
Click to expand...

I've already answered. You've shown nothing but blind faith and a utter failure of proof. Which is why I can now go do something else. When you have something other than your own opinion let me know, won't ya?
 
Henry David said:
That suggests superficial analysis, which is always incomplete.

For example, the case is pretty solid that AQ is a creature of our very own CIA, so "spying" on them is somehow irrelevant and misleading.
Click to expand...

Actually the idea that the CIA created al-Qa'ida is just a cover story. The CIA is too obvious.


REALLY (gosh, I"m going to lose my clearance for this).... really.......... it was a joint venture between the big banks and the masons.

Please do not tell anyone I let that slip.

As to spying on the Chinese, no I do not consider that to be a crime.
Click to expand...

So happy to see you say so. Why do you think Snowden gave them reams of information in how we go about doing so?
 
Ockham said:
I've already answered. You've shown nothing but blind faith and a utter failure of proof. Which is why I can now go do something else. When you have something other than your own opinion let me know, won't ya?
Click to expand...
Err...No. I asked for a yes or no. You're answer? A lawsuit has been initiated.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Err...No. I asked for a yes or no. You're answer? A lawsuit has been initiated.
Click to expand...

You no read so good eh?

Ockham said:
The current ACLU lawsuit has not been found wrong... No.
Click to expand...

I answered No in case you missed it again. I see still no proof.... shocking! :lamo
 
Hard Truth said:
Because the government won't provide the information required for a trial.

"Shubert v. Obama is a class action on behalf of all Americans against the government, alleging a massive, indiscriminate, illegal National Security Agency (NSA) dragnet of the phone calls and email of tens of millions of ordinary Americans. Filed in 2006, Shubert is now the longest running case against the government seeking to stop the domestic spying program. Shubert also seeks to hold accountable the architects of the dragnet, including NSA Director General Keith B. Alexander, former NSA Director General Michael V. Hayden, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former Attorney General John Ashcroft. For seven years, the government sought to dismiss the case on state secrets grounds, arguing that federal courts are powerless to stop even illegal government action implicating national security..."


"...The Obama administration moved to dismiss Jewel in 2009, claiming that litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to disclose privileged “state secrets” and that it was immune from suit.... "
https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying


"ACLU v. NSA:...In July 2007, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, ruling the plaintiffs in the case - which included scholars, journalists, and national nonprofit organizations - had no standing to sue because they could not state with certainty that they have been wiretapped by the NSA..."
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-v-nsa-challenge-illegal-spying
Click to expand...

both of those links are from anti-nsa/spying organizations of course thats what they will claim. Would you honestly believe that the ACLU would admit that its own lawsuit was baseless?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
No one asked that.
Click to expand...

You asked and I answered. Don't get butthurt because I didn't fall for your failure of a trick question. Now.... how about that proof?
 
Ockham said:
You asked and I answered. Don't get butthurt because I didn't fall for your failure of a trick question. Now.... how about that proof?
Click to expand...
I asked yes or no...

You didn't answer...

That's kinda damning...

That's why this legal activity continues lol

But lol I'm sure you'll be mad about it.
 
Wiggen said:
You have no firickin' way of knowing that. You've convinced your government-hating little mind that the NSA files only contained the crap you want to believe it contained. It was the National Security Agency, for Christ's sake! It contained government secrets dealing with the security of the United States - the country you profess to love. But go ahead and continue the worshipping of the weak-assed traitor.

Screw it. I'm done arguing this with you and your country-hating, Snowden-loving crowd. Enjoy each other.
Click to expand...
The only ones who hate their country are scumbags who thinks it is alright if our government wipes its **** covered ass with the Constitution in order to spy on the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom