• 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!

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

Nope I didn't. But apparently you forgot that the Constitution was made in order to form a more perfect union and to protect peoples rights. Not "form a more perfect union and violate peoples rights".

And no one's rights were violated. Again, there's a difference between what you think and what the law has decided. No one ever told you that? Just because you think something should be illegal doesn't mean it is. Is that really such a hard concept for you to grapple with? I honestly don't get this. I don't think marijuana should be illegal at all, but I don't go around saying "OMG it's illegal to fine people for smoking it! because that's just plain wrong and nonsensical.
 
lol prof is still posting!!!:lol::lol::lol:
 
Really? Those federal judges just need more education from His Honorable Kal'Stang from www.debatepolitics.com huh? Those federal judges who oversaw this and ruled on its behalf must need to go to your Bonners Ferry law school, I guess.

Are you trying to claim that judges cannot break the law also? Really? You do know that those judges are PEOPLE right? Just as fallible as you or I. Are just as corruptable and prone to breaking the law.

Btw, I didn't go to school in Bonners Ferry. I just live here. You have no idea what my background is.

Ummm....sure? If a judge found it to be legal, guess what? It would be legal. Do you even know what legal means? There seems to be a huge group of you here that think "illegal" just means "I don't like it" and "legal" means "I like it". Honestly, do you know what legal and illegal mean? Christ.

Do you know what "legal" means? Whether something is legal or not is not dependent on any judge or any group of judges. Something either does not violate the law or it does. And you don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand the Constitution and what the 4th Amendment says. You only need reading comprehension.
 
Last edited:
And no one's rights were violated. Again, there's a difference between what you think and what the law has decided. No one ever told you that? Just because you think something should be illegal doesn't mean it is. Is that really such a hard concept for you to grapple with? I honestly don't get this. I don't think marijuana should be illegal at all, but I don't go around saying "OMG it's illegal to fine people for smoking it! because that's just plain wrong and nonsensical.

It has nothing to do with what I think should be illegal or not. Fact of the matter is that in order to issue ANY warrant the 4th Amendment states that there must be probable cause.

Amendment IV

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.


Again, I challenge you and anyone else to show me the probable cause for searching my phone records. (I am a verizon customer and have been since before 9/11)
 
Are you trying to claim that judges cannot break the law also? Really?

lol no. Did I say that? Or did you make that up?

You do know that those judges are PEOPLE right? Just as fallible as you or I. Are just as corruptable and prone to breaking the law.

Okay? What does that have to do with you saying that something is illegal that has not been declared illegal? Is this the United States of Kal'Stang now?

What is your legal background anyway? How many of these judges made the same mistake that you are expertly avoiding, do you think?

Btw, I didn't go to school in Bonners Ferry. I just live here. You have no idea what my background is.

I assume a judge of some sort. Probably federal. Right?

Do you know what "legal" means? Whether something is legal or not is not dependent on any judge or any group of judges. Something either does not violate the law or it does. And you don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand the Constitution and what the 4th Amendment says. You only need reading comprehension.

lol no, legal depends upon the legislative branch (Patriot Act, in this case) and then, when challenged, is either upheld by the judicial branch or isn't. When it comes to warrants, if a judge approves it, it's "legal". Did you know that, Your Honor? What you're talking about is whether something is constitutional or not, and unless you're Scalia or something, that's not within your purview either.

You just give opinions, do you understand? You give opinions to your friends and people on the internet. At no point to you dictate what is and isn't legal or constitutional. I'm sorry.
 
It has nothing to do with what I think should be illegal or not. Fact of the matter is that in order to issue ANY warrant the 4th Amendment states that there must be probable cause.

Amendment IV

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.


Again, I challenge you and anyone else to show me the probable cause for searching my phone records. (I am a verizon customer and have been since before 9/11)

A FISA judge was presented with something that someone said was probable cause. The judge agreed, and several judges have agreed for almost a decade now. The probable cause is classified and no one would give you a clearance in the state you're in now, so you won't see it until it's declassified.

That doesn't make anything illegal, though, sadly for you. You just don't like it. Keep in mind the difference.

Hey, I have an idea! Why not sue them and take it to court! Then you can find out!
 
Least oppressive? Are you high?

The US has been very middle of the road, no need to kid yourself. So you care more about the Constitution than you do the American people? Interesting. Not me.

Not many countries, if any, were less oppressive until after WWII. If you think otherwise, tell me which countries are or were less oppressive.

Not only that, our system has been able to evolve without as much instability and violence as most nations.

The odds of a terrorist attack impacting any particular individual are extremely slim, even if we experienced as many attacks as a place like Israel. I'll take that one in a million or less risk over letting the government know who I'm calling and e-mailing.
 
You just give opinions

LOL!

In the midst of revelations that the government has conducted extensive top-secret surveillance operations to collect domestic phone records and internet communications, the Justice Department was due to file a court motion Friday in its effort to keep secret an 86-page court opinion that determined that the government had violated the spirit of federal surveillance laws and engaged in unconstitutional spying.

On at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

link above
 
Not many countries, if any, were less oppressive until after WWII. If you think otherwise, tell me which countries are or were less oppressive.

Britain. Canada. So it's clearly not just the constitution.

Not only that, our system has been able to evolve without as much instability and violence as most nations.

Again, why would you owe that to the constitution?

The odds of a terrorist attack impacting any particular individual are extremely slim, even if we experienced as many attacks as a place like Israel. I'll take that one in a million or less risk over letting the government know who I'm calling and e-mailing.

You're very right about it being extremely slim. I don't see why it matters, though, if it helps.
 
lol no. Did I say that? Or did you make that up?

By claiming that these judges did not violate the 4th amendment and that what they did was legal, yes, you are saying that.

Okay? What does that have to do with you saying that something is illegal that has not been declared illegal? Is this the United States of Kal'Stang now?

The point was to show you that judges can make illegal decisions also. Or was that too hard to understand?

lol no, legal depends upon the legislative branch (Patriot Act, in this case) and then, when challenged, is either upheld by the judicial branch or isn't. When it comes to warrants, if a judge approves it, it's "legal". Did you know that, Your Honor? What you're talking about is whether something is constitutional or not, and unless you're Scalia or something, that's not within your purview either.

No, legal does not depend on the legislative branch after a law is made. And the Patriot Act cannot trump the 4th Amendment as the Patriot Act is not an Amendment to the Constitution. Parts of the Patriot Act have already been shot down due to those parts violating the 4th Amendment. That alone should be evidence enough to you that the 4th Amendment trumps the Patriot Act.

You just give opinions, do you understand? You give opinions to your friends and people on the internet. At no point to you dictate what is and isn't legal or constitutional. I'm sorry.

Nope, I have given facts. None of which you have debunked yet.
 
A FISA judge was presented with something that someone said was probable cause. The judge agreed, and several judges have agreed for almost a decade now. The probable cause is classified and no one would give you a clearance in the state you're in now, so you won't see it until it's declassified.

That doesn't make anything illegal, though, sadly for you. You just don't like it. Keep in mind the difference.

Hey, I have an idea! Why not sue them and take it to court! Then you can find out!

In otherwords you have no evidence of any probable cause to search my phone records. Hell, you can't even think of any lol.
 
By claiming that these judges did not violate the 4th amendment and that what they did was legal, yes, you are saying that.

Saying that judges can't break the law? No. Don't put words in my mouth- no one ever said judges couldn't commit crimes. I'm very aware the judges can speed and steal and murder and rape. That's called 'breaking the law'. Now, what you're talking about is ruling on something incorrectly. Sure they can. I guess even a bunch of them could, although that seems less likely. Regardless, it's still 'legal' until it's overt turned. Are you gonna over turn it from your bench, Your Honor? Until you do, it's legal.

The point was to show you that judges can make illegal decisions also. Or was that too hard to understand?

It was horrible logic. Let me guess, you're a Truther too, aren't you?

No, legal does not depend on the legislative branch after a law is made.

Who said anything about after a law being made? Are you putting words in my mouth again? Can't defeat my argument on its own, so you have to add to it?

Who said anything about after a law was made?

And the Patriot Act cannot trump the 4th Amendment as the Patriot Act is not an Amendment to the Constitution.

No, it's a law. And the law has not been found unconstitutional. Laws against rape aren't in the constitution either. So?

Parts of the Patriot Act have already been shot down due to those parts violating the 4th Amendment.

The standing Patriot Act? No. Don't lie, please.

That alone should be evidence enough to you that the 4th Amendment trumps the Patriot Act.

You're not a judge, why do you keep pretending like you are? Or are you? Please let me know.

Nope, I have given facts. None of which you have debunked yet.

lol, you ARE a truther, aren't you?!
 
In otherwords you have no evidence of any probable cause to search my phone records. Hell, you can't even think of any lol.

I don't need any? I didn't ask for the warrant.
 
A FISA judge was presented with something that someone said was probable cause. The judge agreed, and several judges have agreed for almost a decade now. The probable cause is classified and no one would give you a clearance in the state you're in now, so you won't see it until it's declassified.

That doesn't make anything illegal, though, sadly for you. You just don't like it. Keep in mind the difference.

Hey, I have an idea! Why not sue them and take it to court! Then you can find out!

There is no way that any reasonable suspicion/probable cause can be justified for monitoring the entire nation.
 
You can't even guarantee me you know how to spell guarantee.

And this is where you have failed. When a person starts attacking another persons spelling then it is a sure sign that they have no actual truthful arguement.

Because of this I think I have drummed you enough. Cya! :2wave:
 
There is no way that any reasonable suspicion/probable cause can be justified for monitoring the entire nation.

Well, several judges staked their careers on ruling otherwise. Now, it's either because they are evil overlords, bent on dominating the American people, crushing them down, or it's because they really thought it was both legal and provided a benefit far outweighing the cost.
 
Back
Top Bottom