• 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!

Ron Paul Launches Clemency Petition For Edward Snowden

Bigfoot 88 said:
1-I was still talking about the NSA, not Snowden.

2-Who cares if Turley and Hewitt write for Townhall? You do know what op-eds are, right? That article was written by Debra Saunders.
Click to expand...

How does this change the fact that they are Constitutional Attorneys.....and they both write for more than just Townhall. While appearing all across the country on television and radio? Speaking at Law Schools and in public venue too?

You cannot talk about one without the other with this issue. Fact is most Constitutional Attorneys think Snowden is a traitor. Did he take an Oath?
 
MMC said:
How does this change the fact that they are Constitutional Attorneys.....and they both write for more than just Townhall. While appearing all across the country on television and radio? Speaking at Law Schools and in public venue too?

You cannot talk about one without the other with this issue. Fact is most Constitutional Attorneys think Snowden is a traitor. Did he take an Oath?
Click to expand...

1-Let me get this straight. You post an article from Townhall by some lady. Then you state Hewitt and Turley write for Townhall. How the heck is this relevant to anything?

2-You can talk about one without the other. And I need some sort of proof that most Constitutional Attorneys think Snowden is a traitor.

The fact is, Snowden is not a traitor unless proven using the Constitutional procedure.

A3, S3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Click to expand...
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
1-Let me get this straight. You post an article from Townhall by some lady. Then you state Hewitt and Turley write for Townhall. How the heck is this relevant to anything?

2-You can talk about one without the other. And I need some sort of proof that most Constitutional Attorneys think Snowden is a traitor.

The fact is, Snowden is not a traitor unless proven using the Constitutional procedure.

A3, S3:
Click to expand...



Look lets make this simple instead.....of you talking ****. You got anything with Constitutional attorneys saying that Snowden didn't break the Law.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
And I need some sort of proof that most Constitutional Attorneys think Snowden is a traitor.
Click to expand...

But, of course, anyone that disagrees with you isn't a "true" constitutional scholar...

It's a a fallacy called No True Scotsman, and it's embarrassing that a (seemingly) adult would engage in it. Laughable.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
No, we should be starting with the guy who gave state secrets to the Chinese and Russians and basically everyone else on the planet.
Click to expand...

You're right! He made it very clear that the USA citizens need to be protected against the NSA. They operate against the Constitution and their leaders perjure themselves to the Public at large that elect the Congressional inquisitors. That's who we need to be protected against. Thank you, Snowden.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
But, of course, anyone that disagrees with you isn't a "true" constitutional scholar...

It's a a fallacy called No True Scotsman, and it's embarrassing that a (seemingly) adult would engage in it. Laughable.
Click to expand...


Yeah not even other Constitutional Attorneys.....that have articles up across the Net. Guess they are hard to find on backpages.com. :roll:
 
MMC said:
Look lets make this simple instead.....of you talking ****. You got anything with Constitutional attorneys saying that Snowden didn't break the Law.
Click to expand...

No.

Although, even I am not claiming Snowden didn't break the law. I acknowledge it. He acknowledges it.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
But, of course, anyone that disagrees with you isn't a "true" constitutional scholar...

It's a a fallacy called No True Scotsman, and it's embarrassing that a (seemingly) adult would engage in it. Laughable.
Click to expand...

Actually, you came up with that phrase, not me, which would make you guilty of a strawman fallacy.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
Actually, you came up with that phrase, not me, which would make you guilty of a strawman fallacy.
Click to expand...

Haha no I didn't.

Bigfoot 88 said:
True Constitutional scholars are on my side. I could understand why those who choose to be liars and subvert it while hiding behind their law degree would "disagree" with me.
Click to expand...
 
MMC said:
When you realize he took more information that he himself didn't understand. Then decided to share with other countries. Put others at risk. Despite his argument of wanting to show what the NSA was doing. Then you will realize like most others that are in Special Ops and other Clandestine agencies. How he is classified as a traitor.
Click to expand...

Are you sure of that? Can you link me to something that indicates he revealed secret agents? Why, we had a case in recent years of the WH leaking the names of a secret agent, nobody was prosecuted. So, do you have a fact about this or just a general sense that Snowden revealed information that was deadlier than the revelations of the overall spying?
 
MMC said:
To those whom he worked with.....and to his Country.
Click to expand...

The only ones who betrayed the country are the NSA agents wiping their asses with the 4th amendment and the elected officials who continue to allow them to do that.Not the guy who revealed that these people are wiping their asses with the 4th amendment.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Haha no I didn't.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. I never said one could only be a true Constitutional scholar to agree with me. I said true Constitutional scholars do agree with me.

Aside from scholars, there are also those who chose to not be scholars, instead hiding behind their law degree to subvert the Constitution. Honestly is a trait of scholarship.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
Wrong again. I never said one could only be a true Constitutional scholar to agree with me. I said true Constitutional scholars do agree with me.

Aside from scholars, there are also those who chose to not be scholars, instead hiding behind their law degree to subvert the Constitution. Honestly is a trait of scholarship.
Click to expand...

So are there true constitutional scholars that don't agree with you? Then what was the point of saying "True Constitutional scholars are on my side"? lol is this you trying to backtrack now?
 
specklebang said:
Are you sure of that? Can you link me to something that indicates he revealed secret agents? Why, we had a case in recent years of the WH leaking the names of a secret agent, nobody was prosecuted. So, do you have a fact about this or just a general sense that Snowden revealed information that was deadlier than the revelations of the overall spying?
Click to expand...


Sure SB......and any can look Hugh Hewitt.com up to and look at all his articles up over it.

Here's what Dr. Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, an international expert on laws governing cyber conflicts and cyber warfare, told Business Insider (emphasis ours):

"All of the targets [Snowden] was referring to [in reference to the NSA hacking China] was either espionage or some other interference with the cyber infrastructure in another state. ... That doesn't mean everything was 'lawful,' but under international law there is no prohibition of espionage."

Dr. von Heinegg noted that if any of the NSA hacks on Chinese universities, hospitals, and private businesses caused damage in real life — e.g. patients dying — that would at least be a violation of the prohibition to inflict serious damage on another state (but short of an act of war).

Snowden's leaks to China, along with evidence of cyber espionage by China against the U.S., do reveal a vicious circle of cyber spying between the two countries — but that's how espionage works.

Dr. von Heinegg explains why this leak by Snowden doesn't amount to whistleblowing: (emphasis ours)

"Let's be quite clear: Intruding into another state's systems in order to figure out what's in there — that's simply espionage, everybody's doing it. ... The answer of international law [regarding espionage] is: 'Don't get caught while you're doing it on foreign territory.' That's all."

He added that spying is spying, whether it's a "diplomat" with wigs or rooms full of hackers, and that "only the means are different" from what occurred during the Cold War.

Nevertheless, Snowden told the South China Morning Post that he plans to divulge information to other countries as well:

"If I have time to go through this information, I would like to make it available to journalists in each country to make their own assessment, independent of my bias, as to whether or not the knowledge of US network operations against their people should be published."

Consequently, Snowden's leaks to China suggest "that his actions aren't motivated by loyalty to his country, but, instead, by a personal view of how the world should work," as Business Insider CEO Henry Blodget wrote recently.

Read more: Snowden Is Both A Hero And A Traitor - Business Insider
 
OldWorldOrder said:
So are there true constitutional scholars that don't agree with you? Then what was the point of saying "True Constitutional scholars are on my side"? lol is this you trying to backtrack now?
Click to expand...

If there are, I haven't seen any. And that isn't surprising.

The 4th amendment is very clear: "The right of the people to be secure 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."

A true scholar might disagree with my interpretation of it and have something historical to back up their opinion with. Some writings from the Framers for instance. Maybe a piece of common law which better defines what words meant at the time.

But someone hiding behind their law degree might just say something like: "Well, we need this for national security, this is the mainstream view, we have had wartime powers before...."

In other words, they can't actually debate the Constitution but instead use their law degree as an appeal to legal authority.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
I thought we were talking about whether the NSA
Click to expand...

No, the thread is about a clemency petition for a traitor.
I think I'll stay with the opinion of Boehner and McCain--that Snowden is a traitor .
 
The idea that what the NSA is doing doesn't violate the 4th amendment is a joke.

If you want to try and make the argument that we have no choice that's fine, but don't pretend its all perfectly constitutional. I'm also going to have to go slippery slope on this one. Today they use it to protect us from terrorists, tomorrow they'll be writing us speeding tickets using gps data from our cell phones. Its an awesome power that they wield like children in daddy's gun safe.

Also if you look at all the evidence, its obvious they do far more than they officially admit to. The whole thing stinks.
 
NIMBY said:
No, the thread is about a clemency petition for a traitor.
I think I'll stay with the opinion of Boehner and McCain--that Snowden is a traitor .
Click to expand...

Before you jump in and tell me how you agree the Johns, please realize there was another dialogue going on that you had no reason to interrupt.
 
Verax said:
The idea that what the NSA is doing doesn't violate the 4th amendment is a joke.
Click to expand...
You are being used by Paulbots in forming the Amash coalition.
Where was this phony libertarian outrage last decade ?
 
I could care less.
Stay on the topic of the thread, as I am told, and which I do, obeying the dp rules.
Go start yourself a new thread on your derail .
Bigfoot 88 said:
Before you jump in and tell me how you agree the Johns, please realize there was another dialogue going on that you had no reason to interrupt.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
I could care less.
Stay on the topic of the thread, as I am told, and which I do, obeying the dp rules.
Go start yourself a new thread on your derail .
Click to expand...
NIMBY said:
doesn't matter--and Snowden should still get the guillotine .
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter?

Well, this isn't your thread, you can't pick and choose what parts of the OP you want to exist, and you can't make me leave the thread.

Lump it.
 
NIMBY said:
You are being used by Paulbots in forming the Amash coalition.
Where was this phony libertarian outrage last decade ?
Click to expand...

I like Ron somewhat, keep him at arm's length. Rand I don't much care for. Overall I have little in the support for their beliefs.

However this isn't about them, its about the NSA and their role in our lives going forward. They need to back off and reassess how far they go and that's not going to happen if we don't forcefully fight back. This is our chance to make things right and if we don't we can be assured that government spying on us will become a fact of life. I don't think there is anything American about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom