• 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!

Greenwald says 'low-level' NSA workers can tap into phone, Internet records

Hard Truth said:
and many of the post-Church committee reforms, watered-down, eliminated or ignored after 9/11 and the passage of the Patriot Act etc.
Click to expand...

Nah.

I'm still amazed that people can't just come to terms with the idea that many (most, frankly) legal experts don't think this is unconstitutional.
 
cpwill said:
...I am not convinced that the NSA program violates the Constitution?
Click to expand...
So you are making the implied case that gathering data on all Americans is a legal search?

Interesting - can you show Sessions' statements on this program? Shelby I trust... well, that's not true, I can throw some people quite far, depending on leverage, and how I'm feeling at the moment.
Click to expand...
No. Wisdom gives me the opportunity to judge things for which I have no compelling evidence.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
...I am not convinced that the NSA program violates the Constitution?
Click to expand...
I believe you to be a very honorable man. Are you telling me that you have direct knowledge of this program and the NSA is not gathering data on American citizens? If you tell me that you have direct knowledge of this program and that it is not gathering data on every one of us then I shall reconsider my stance.
 
greyhat said:
Maybe some of us don't ascribe to the notion that constitutionality is determined by one sole individual (ie you or I) but rather by law, with SCOTUS being the ultimate adjudicator.

If you believe the programs are unconstitutional then I recommend that you take legal action; sue the government if you'd like to, although you'll find that you lack legal standing therefore rendering your argument pointless.
Click to expand...
Yes. More obstacles. Some of us are able to read the Constitution and get it.

Some cannot and prefer the growing tyranny. Do you believe you will escape its effects? Or do you intend to be dead before the worst gets here?
 
greyhat said:
The ACLU, EFF and other have tried and the reason they've failed is because they lack legal standing. The intel committee are made of congressmen so if Rep John Doe is denied is bc he isn't a member of the committee and is not authorized to have access to this- that's why a committee exists.
Click to expand...
If it is not fixable the problem will eventually be decided through the force of arms. What a shame to see this magnificent country die without even a whimper. When you take away every legal option than all that is left is force. Isn't that why revolts occur?
 
Misterveritis said:
Yes. More obstacles. Some of us are able to read the Constitution and get it.

Some cannot and prefer the growing tyranny. Do you believe you will escape its effects? Or do you intend to be dead before the worst gets here?
Click to expand...

History and The Law disagree with you.
 
greyhat said:
There is nothing stopping Congress from suing the Executive branch; Congress has standing, however if a law suit was warranted, then Congress wouldn't sue, instead they'd repeal or modify the existing laws, The AUMF for example.

The fact that no such action has been pursued tells you that after all the huffing and puffing and grandstanding that Congress as an institution accepts these laws and the programs based on them. The House saber rattles but only because it must yield to the passions of its constituencies and their never ending need for reelection.

Unfortunately the Public can't be as informed as it wishes without compromising methods and sources; this is why we have state secrets after all.
Click to expand...
Defund the offending programs.
 
By the way, greyhat, congresspeople weren't denied detailed information, they were looking for basic information on these programs and on FISA court rulings, which were flatly denied. They even made their own correspondence public.

The members sitting on the IC's for both the House and Senate are backed by massive amounts of pro-surveillance funding.

Finally, there is no recourse for action by congress aside from passing a sweeping law, since they can't pass one on the particulars, which is something that will never pass, as we've already seen. There is no oversight happening here, the IC acts as a rubber stamp for the expansion of the surveillance state.
 
Misterveritis said:
If it is not fixable the problem will eventually be decided through the force of arms. What a shame to see this magnificent country die without even a whimper. When you take away every legal option than all that is left is force. Isn't that why revolts occur?
Click to expand...

Bring it! See how long your "revolt" lasts. Sad how you see things.
 
greyhat said:
Take up arms then; see how far that takes you....what governance did you like btw?
Click to expand...
Do you realize what will happen if a couple of millions of us do rebel?

First we have to toss out the SQRLS (Status Quo Republican Losers) and replace them with conservatives who will support and defend the Constitution. After we rid ourselves of the socialists in the Republican party we can go after the Marxists, progressives, liberals and socialists in the Democratic party.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
By the way, greyhat, congresspeople weren't denied detailed information, they were looking for basic information on these programs and on FISA court rulings, which were flatly denied. They even made their own correspondence public.

The members sitting on the IC's for both the House and Senate are backed by massive amounts of pro-surveillance funding.
Click to expand...

General Alexander, DNI and others have properly briefed those congress people which needed to be briefed.

Unfortunately your average Rep doesn't rank high enough to warrant such info; there is still a "need to know" basis.
 
Misterveritis said:
Do you realize what will happen if a couple of millions of us do rebel?

First we have to toss out the SQRLS (Status Quo Republican Losers) and replace them with conservatives who will support and defend the Constitution. After we rid ourselves of the socialists in the Republican party we can go after the Marxists, progressives, liberals and socialists in the Democratic party.
Click to expand...

If the Civil War serves as precedent then such insurrection would be squashed; I hope we never go to that and I take refuge in knowing that you and your kind are but a small minority on the fringes of reality.
 
greyhat said:
The Fourth Amendment not ambiguous? Really..? This is probably one of the most ambiguous parts of The Constitution. Take a look at it.

You may also want to revisit your history; the US has a long standing tradition of wartime surveillance of the enemy, both foreign and domestic, and while we’re not at war with a State per se, we’re at war nonetheless (whether we should or not is besides the point).

This tradition of intel collection goes back to our colonial times and is a practice as old as communications itself; during the Revolutionary War George Washington made frequent use of his Army's collection capabilities; he directed the interception of British mail, the opening of such documents and the exploitation of their data. You may argue that this was directed at a foreign power and that’s true, but such logic has extended to other cases; during the Civil War the Union wiretapped the Confederate’s telegraphs and I remind you, without a warrant and while targeting US persons.

Even in more recent times such as WWI, Wilson authorized the US military to intercept telegraph, telephone and cable communications headed in and out of the US (sound familiar?); he derived this authority from The Constitution and from Congress’ declaration of war, an authorization to use military force that did not explicitly include language related to SIGINT collection methods.

This was once again done in WWII after Pearl Harbor and one can see how such protocols exist today, in a more technologically advanced manner through the NSA’s (and other's) various programs.

You may not like the truth for it is counterintuitive to what you believe, but the truth it is nonetheless…
Click to expand...
You actually don't get it do you?
 
greyhat said:
If the Civil War serves as precedent then such insurrection would be squashed; I hope we never go to that and I take refuge in knowing that you and your kind are but a small minority on the fringes of reality.
Click to expand...
Really. How are we doing in Afghanistan?
 
Misterveritis said:
Really. How are we doing in Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

Now you're getting it: you're a lot like the Taliban. Really angry, unable to grasp the concept that someone can disagree with you without being one of: ignorant, dumb, or evil. The parallels are actually pretty stark. Zealots, both.
 
greyhat said:
General Alexander, DNI and others have properly briefed those congress people which needed to be briefed.

Unfortunately your average Rep doesn't rank high enough to warrant such info; there is still a "need to know" basis.
Click to expand...

That's what they said before everybody found out they were lying about that.
 
greyhat said:
Bring it! See how long your "revolt" lasts. Sad how you see things.
Click to expand...

You do realize it is inevitable don't you? How did the First Revolution turn out? How many hundreds of millions of weapons are in the population? How many busybody bureaucrats are there? If we are fortunate there will be an indispensable man available. When you and yours prevent every possible non-violent means to fix this nation then what, in your opinion, is left?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Now you're getting it: you're a lot like the Taliban. Really angry, unable to grasp the concept that someone can disagree with you without being one of: ignorant, dumb, or evil. The parallels are actually pretty stark. Zealots, both.
Click to expand...

Tell me again. How are we doing in Afghanistan? When you and yours go out of your way to prevent any peaceable way of fixing this nation what else is left?

I am fascinated by you. I am strongly supporting the defense of the Constitution and individual liberty. And you? Well, you shovel **** in Louisiana.
 
Misterveritis said:
You do realize it is inevitable don't you? How did the First Revolution turn out? How many hundreds of millions of weapons are in the population? How many busybody bureaucrats are there? If we are fortunate there will be an indispensable man available. When you and yours prevent every possible non-violent means to fix this nation then what, in your opinion, is left?
Click to expand...

Most Americans don't think like you; they have bigger things to worry about.

You sound more and more like a fringe group of old angry men in the woods.
 
Earlier I wrote, "Some cannot and prefer the growing tyranny. Do you believe you will escape its effects? Or do you intend to be dead before the worst gets here?"

greyhat said:
History and The Law disagree with you.
Click to expand...

This actually makes no sense in context. If you were not so dangerous I would pity you. No. Really I wouldn't.
 
greyhat said:
Most Americans don't think like you; they have bigger things to worry about.

You sound more and more like a fringe group of old angry men in the woods.
Click to expand...

So you didn't recognize the need for a second George Washington in my words? He was one angry old man in the woods. He grew old in the service to his country. So did I.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom