• 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!

U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress

joG said:
I looked at the documentary. So?
Click to expand...

Then you learned that Guardian lawyers redacted the releases to protect US strategic and national security interests. Snowden was clear of his intentions as articulated by him through the the multiple interviews in the documentary, namely to apprise Americans that what senator Church warned us about 45 years ago, was actually upon us. I will always be greatful for that, because I have no blind trust for government, any. And the founding fathers, aware of the same, stated such with the admonition that if men were angels, we wouldn't even need a constitution and a bill of rights. :shrug:
 
Montecresto said:
Then you learned that Guardian lawyers redacted the releases to protect US strategic and national security interests. Snowden was clear of his intentions as articulated by him through the the multiple interviews in the documentary, namely to apprise Americans that what senator Church warned us about 45 years ago, was actually upon us. I will always be greatful for that, because I have no blind trust for government, any. And the founding fathers, aware of the same, stated such with the admonition that if men were angels, we wouldn't even need a constitution and a bill of rights. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I do not see anything that would redeem his breaking the law to the extent he did in that. Furthermore, I do not really see the massive breech of Constitutional rights, that you claim. Yes, there was probably some overreach. But that will occur and should be one of three foci: Prosecute Snowden, check the system of checks and balances for inefficiencies and correct them.
 
Northern Light said:
People needed to be shocked a long time ago for this to matter. That ship has set sail. This kind of behavior is normal now. :shrug:

Not saying I condone it, but you get the government that you ask for.

If you're pro-NSA then you have no right to be upset over this.
Click to expand...

Yep. The same people who applauded the Patriot Act and the NSA 10 years ago have no right to complain about it now simply because the man in the WH has a D after his name instead of an R.
 
joG said:
I do not see anything that would redeem his breaking the law to the extent he did in that. Furthermore, I do not really see the massive breech of Constitutional rights, that you claim. Yes, there was probably some overreach. But that will occur and should be one of three foci: Prosecute Snowden, check the system of checks and balances for inefficiencies and correct them.
Click to expand...

That I claim lol. As suspected, you did not watch the documentary.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
That I claim lol. As suspected, you did not what he the documentary.
Click to expand...

I just do not think it quite true in that respect. But the story must be told that way. Of course they need a scandal. Otherwise nobody would listen.
 
joG said:
I just do not think it quite true in that respect. But the story must be told that way. Of course they need a scandal. Otherwise nobody would listen.
Click to expand...

Another lol. Yep, senator Church began the scandal. It's no skin off my teeth whether you recognize the dangers of the NSA and the disclosures that Snowden made relevant to the agencies most direct violations of my fourth amendment rights as you're in no position to effect any change in it either way. :shrug:
 
Montecresto said:
Another lol. Yep, senator Church began the scandal. It's no skin off my teeth whether you recognize the dangers of the NSA and the disclosures that Snowden made relevant to the agencies most direct violations of my fourth amendment rights as you're in no position to effect any change in it either way. :shrug:
Click to expand...

As so often, you choose to concentrate on the wrong questions and priorities from what seems to be political bias. That is often the case with people with such leanings. It is the same rage that you find in the 1968 protest pamphlets. It was as counterproductive then as it is now, only now there is less excuse for holding such outdated opinions. ;)
 
joG said:
As so often, you choose to concentrate on the wrong questions and priorities from what seems to be political bias. That is often the case with people with such leanings. It is the same rage that you find in the 1968 protest pamphlets. It was as counterproductive then as it is now, only now there is less excuse for holding such outdated opinions. ;)
Click to expand...

I focus on what's important to me. I place a high level of importance on the people's bill of rights, unlike you, I watched the documentary, and I can't be bothered that you and I have separate ideologies and civil liberty priorities.
 
Montecresto said:
I focus on what's important to me. I place a high level of importance on the people's bill of rights, unlike you, I watched the documentary, and I can't be bothered that you and I have separate ideologies and civil liberty priorities.
Click to expand...

No question that the constitutional rights are first priority. So why do you not concentrate on getting them right? And as to the documentary, why do you let your ideology blind you?
 
joG said:
No question that the constitutional rights are first priority. So why do you not concentrate on getting them right? And as to the documentary, why do you let your ideology blind you?
Click to expand...

I do.

And I don't. What concern is it of yours that the PBOR's is paramount to me?
 
Montecresto said:
I do.

And I don't. What concern is it of yours that the PBOR's is paramount to me?
Click to expand...

The reason it is of concern is that the rules and checks and balances you think we're fine for the technologies of 1968. The newer ones require a new set of rules and demanding the old ones is less counterproductive than dangerous for us all.
 
joG said:
The reason it is of concern is that the rules and checks and balances you think we're fine for the technologies of 1968. The newer ones require a new set of rules and demanding the old ones is less counterproductive than dangerous for us all.
Click to expand...

You mean 1975. It could have been 1875, and the fourth amendment would read the same. No new rules are needed. The government must have probable cause to collect and store my personal conversations, let alone to conduct any analyses.
 
Montecresto said:
You mean 1975. It could have been 1875, and the fourth amendment would read the same. No new rules are needed. The government must have probable cause to collect and store my personal conversations, let alone to conduct any analyses.
Click to expand...

You really think that? I would think that anything in the public domain is and should be public. Why shouldn't it be collected and stored? Maybe the 4th Amendment would have been written differently, if the technology had been, what it is now. As it was, it does not cover your position.
 
joG said:
You really think that? I would think that anything in the public domain is and should be public. Why shouldn't it be collected and stored? Maybe the 4th Amendment would have been written differently, if the technology had been, what it is now. As it was, it does not cover your position.
Click to expand...

The bill of rights is a sound protection for American citizens from the potential burden of an over zealous government with vastly greater resources than any citizen. And there's a HUGE difference between my carrier warehousing my data (where it most certainly is not public) and a government doing so. Nope, your flat ass wrong about this, the intent of the fourth amendment is clear. The government should be required to secure a court order after presenting evidence that I may be involved in or planning a crime. Otherwise, they can suck an egg, the same with any of my fellow Americans that think the government can violate any of the PBOR'.
 
joG said:
You really think that? I would think that anything in the public domain is and should be public. Why shouldn't it be collected and stored? Maybe the 4th Amendment would have been written differently, if the technology had been, what it is now. As it was, it does not cover your position.
Click to expand...

In the hypothetical that you do internet banking with your smart phone (I do not), do you consider your banking matters to be in the public domain?
 
Thoreau72 said:
In the hypothetical that you do internet banking with your smart phone (I do not), do you consider your banking matters to be in the public domain?
Click to expand...

That's the **** that makes me nuts. I would consider that to be between me and my banker, and if the Feds should believe they need access to it, that would likely be the IRS for purposes of audit, to ensure that I am paying my taxes properly, and then, not without a court order. My bank shouldn't be cooperating with the Feds without it. The same goes for my phone calls, texts, e-mails, google searches, etc. All that I do with the expectation of privacy, and screw SCOTUS if they disagree, they've been wrong before. ;)
 
Montecresto said:
The bill of rights is a sound protection for American citizens from the potential burden of an over zealous government with vastly greater resources than any citizen. And there's a HUGE difference between my carrier warehousing my data (where it most certainly is not public) and a government doing so. Nope, your flat ass wrong about this, the intent of the fourth amendment is clear. The government should be required to secure a court order after presenting evidence that I may be involved in or planning a crime. Otherwise, they can suck an egg, the same with any of my fellow Americans that think the government can violate any of the PBOR'.
Click to expand...

What goes through the Internet is public. Too many persons and groups have the capability of hacking, collecting and storing your information and mining it with the information of so many others illegally or legally. It is no longer necessary to break into each house and look up the contents of folders and account statements. The world has changed and there is no point in acting as though the technology did not have to be employed to fortify us against those that do use it.
But I think you are wrong that the Constitution forbids using data collection and mining by government. That does not mean we do not require new regulation and mechanisms of control of the way government can do this.
 
On one hand the Israeli PM should not be acting so militarily and without regard to human life in Gaza and Palestine. On the other the power of the Executive Branch and CIA of the U.S. itself has become so overreaching and powerful it is becoming in likeness to that of a fiat dictatorship.
 
joG said:
What goes through the Internet is public. Too many persons and groups have the capability of hacking, collecting and storing your information and mining it with the information of so many others illegally or legally. It is no longer necessary to break into each house and look up the contents of folders and account statements. The world has changed and there is no point in acting as though the technology did not have to be employed to fortify us against those that do use it.
But I think you are wrong that the Constitution forbids using data collection and mining by government. That does not mean we do not require new regulation and mechanisms of control of the way government can do this.
Click to expand...

I disagree that it's public just because somebody has figured out how to kick the invisible wall down. And will never EVER agree with your assertion that the government can data mine me when I'm under no suspicion of wrong doing. I'll fight you and any other SOB that thinks he can punk my fourth amendment right. I have pointed out for years now that technology will be our Frankenstein monster, and lack the confidence that the checks and balances to which you continually refer will ever come, will come with the proper safe guards, or will have the necessary enforcement to protect me and my fellow Americans which are concerned about it. For you, and any others that value a strong centralized government to civil liberty, too bad!
 
Abbazorkzog said:
On one hand the Israeli PM should not be acting so militarily and without regard to human life in Gaza and Palestine. On the other the power of the Executive Branch and CIA of the U.S. itself has become so overreaching and powerful it is becoming in likeness to that of a fiat dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Senator Church (of the famed Church Committee) 1975:

In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government has perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air. Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left such is the capability to monitor everything—telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide.
If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.
 
Montecresto said:
I disagree that it's public just because somebody has figured out how to kick the invisible wall down. And will never EVER agree with your assertion that the government can data mine me when I'm under no suspicion of wrong doing. I'll fight you and any other SOB that thinks he can punk my fourth amendment right. I have pointed out for years now that technology will be our Frankenstein monster, and lack the confidence that the checks and balances to which you continually refer will ever come, will come with the proper safe guards, or will have the necessary enforcement to protect me and my fellow Americans which are concerned about it. For you, and any others that value a strong centralized government to civil liberty, too bad!
Click to expand...

when you press 'send' you have placed your information out there for those who can capture it, to do so
 
justabubba said:
when you press 'send' you have placed your information out there for those who can capture it, to do so
Click to expand...

People can break into my residence and steal my personal data too, but it's still not public. If I read your comment correctly.
 
Montecresto said:
People can break into my residence and steal my personal data too, but it's still not public. If I read your comment correctly.
Click to expand...

the difference is you did not place the latter outside your home into the public's domain
 
justabubba said:
the difference is you did not place the latter outside your home into the public's domain
Click to expand...

I don't consider my private phone calls public domain, and don't care what SCOTUS thinks of it. :shrug: And, it could be on my back porch, and it's still not in the "public domain".
 
Montecresto said:
I don't consider my private phone calls public domain, and don't care what SCOTUS thinks of it. :shrug: And, it could be on my back porch, and it's still not in the "public domain".
Click to expand...

your choice
convenience or privacy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom