• 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]

Redress said:
Stranded in Russia by his own actions. If you break the law, you cannot cry that people want to charge you with a crime.
Click to expand...

The NSA was/still is breaking the law.
 
Redress said:
Snowden has not been convicted by any one. He has yet to stand trial. If he should ever return to the US, he will not stand trial because he embarrassed any one. He will stand trial because he broke the fucking law. And in fact, it is a very good, reasonable law. Information is classified for a reason. Allowing Joe Blow to decide if information should be classified is a really bad idea. If he guesses wrong then the information is still out there.
Click to expand...

I'm curious, is there absolutely no crime you think would warrant whistleblowing? No matter what 100% loyalty to the government and no exceptions? If they're killing kids in dark rooms, nope, keep your mouth shut?

It's important to make the distinction between "No one should ever whistleblow for any reason" and "I simply don't think his reason was good enough", so which is it for you?
 
I find it funny how many people think NSA is "breaking the law", yet the majority of those FISA federal judges disagree. To some random people on the internet with no law experience or education, it's clear it's illegal, yet to professionals it's not. Hmm, I wonder which carries more weight.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
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.

If the NSA is doing 1% of the stuff Snowden has exposed, the government is blatantly in violation of the Fourth Amendment. If they aren't doing what Snowden has accused them of, then he is guilty of libel and not exposing classified material.

The problem is, it's very hard to take the Federal Government to court (which is presided over by the Federal Government).
Click to expand...

Just because you claim its violates the 4th amendment doesn't mean that it actually does.

Smith v Maryland (1979)

This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties
Click to expand...

ACLU v Clapper (2013) found in favor of the government based on Smith v Maryland. The ACLU has appealed but unless the appeals court overturns it I don't think the SCOTUS will hear it.
 
Crovax said:
Just because you claim its violates the 4th amendment doesn't mean that it actually does.

Smith v Maryland (1979)



ACLU v Clapper (2013) found in favor of the government based on Smith v Maryland. The ACLU has appealed but unless the appeals court overturns it I don't think the SCOTUS will hear it.
Click to expand...

How is a private conversation or a private email between two citizens suddenly exempt from the 4th? When you pick up a phone to call a friend, all of your data is going through a third party, so do you support the government eavesdropping on any and all communication of every kind?

It's also important to note that Smith v Maryland involved simply keeping a record of phone numbers called, not actual recording of conversations and emails.
 
cpwill said:
Wrong. He flew to China, and then flew to Russia, carrying 4 laptops crammed full of US National Security in them in order to trade for passage, at which point he basically became Putins' Agent. Snowden chose to trade with and seek the embrace of the autocrats. He's welcome to fly back to the US any time he wants, and he doesn't, because he prefers it precisely where he is.
Click to expand...

If you have any evidence for any of that, a link would be nice.

And he simply WAS in the airport in Russia for over a month. His passport WAS rescinded. From NBC News: Edward Snowden: A Timeline - NBC News

June 23, 2013: Snowden leaves Hong Kong for Ecuador, with a planned stopover in Russia. But he is stranded at Sheremetyevo International Airport in Moscow after U.S. authorities rescind his passport. He spends the next month living in limbo in the airport’s transit center.
Click to expand...

So you have evidence that's not true. Let's see it. Also, remember this? Bolivia: Presidential plane forced to land after Snowden rumors - CNN.com

(CNN) -- Bolivian officials say their country's presidential plane had to land in Austria on Tuesday after false rumors circulated that former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden was aboard the aircraft.

Portuguese authorities wouldn't let President Evo Morales' plane land for refueling in Lisbon, Bolivian Defense Minister Ruben Saavedra told CNN en Español. French authorities also wouldn't let the plane enter their airspace, he said.
Click to expand...

So if' he's Putin's agent, the U.S. sure made that easy when they rescinded his passport while en route to Ecuador, then grounded planes the U.S. suspected of carrying him OUT of Russia and Putin's grasp.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
How is a private conversation or a private email between two citizens suddenly exempt from the 4th? When you pick up a phone to call a friend, all of your data is going through a third party, so do you support the government eavesdropping on any and all communication of every kind?

It's also important to note that Smith v Maryland involved simply keeping a record of phone numbers called, not actual recording of conversations and emails.
Click to expand...

The phone company doesn't keep a recording of your phone call, but when you send an email it is stored on the server until deleted. So you have entrusted the email company with the security of the data and also lost the privacy of that data especially when you have agreed to the sharing of this data in your user agreement.
 
Crovax said:
The phone company doesn't keep a recording of your phone call, but when you send an email it is stored on the server until deleted. So you have entrusted the email company with the security of the data and also lost the privacy of that data especially when you have agreed to the sharing of this data in your user agreement.
Click to expand...

So it is your opinion that all email of every citizen and non-citizen, is property of the US government to observe, analyze, collect, and redistribute? Are you that big of a statist?

And the government HAS been listening to phone calls, so by your very definition they broke the law.
 
Redress said:
No, my question does not require an massive surveillance program. It merely requires the existence of secret material.
Click to expand...

And I answered your question, and speculated on what the Founders would have thought about massive surveillance on U.S. citizens, secret courts, etc. Do you think they'd have signed off on the NSA programs? Agreed that a FISA court could meet in secret, make secret rulings that not even all members of Congress can be informed of? That they'd have agreed that a handful of elected representatives, and the secret court and police could unilaterally make dramatic expansions of intelligence activities by that early government directed against U.S. citizens/residents, and not inform the public about any of it?
 
JasperL said:
.... Do you think they'd have signed off on the NSA programs? Agreed that a FISA court could meet in secret, make secret rulings that not even all members of Congress can be informed of? ....
Click to expand...

It would not surprise me, if the answer were: They would have, if confronted by the problems we have recently had. They were practical people. They would have probably put better institutional checks and controls in place, though.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So it is your opinion that all email of every citizen and non-citizen, is property of the US government to observe, analyze, collect, and redistribute? Are you that big of a statist?

And the government HAS been listening to phone calls, so by your very definition they broke the law.
Click to expand...

There is still a lot of argument ahead. And I am honestly not sure about where we should go.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So it is your opinion that all email of every citizen and non-citizen, is property of the US government to observe, analyze, collect, and redistribute? Are you that big of a statist?
Click to expand...

Nowhere did I say anything of the sort, are you really so paranoid that you don't see a difference between a private company and the government? The users gave the company the ability to share the data and the company chose to share that data with the NSA. If you got "spied" on you only have yourself to blame for not reading the fine print.

And the government HAS been listening to phone calls, so by your very definition they broke the law.
Click to expand...

and what definition would that be? I never claimed all phone calls were privates I only pointed out the differences between phone calls and emails
 
OldWorldOrder said:
I find it funny how many people think NSA is "breaking the law", yet the majority of those FISA federal judges disagree. To some random people on the internet with no law experience or education, it's clear it's illegal, yet to professionals it's not. Hmm, I wonder which carries more weight.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, now that I know the secret court issuing secret orders has approved of something, then that settles it. It's legal and obviously we shouldn't question those secret orders we can't know about! Glad you cleared that up.

Besides, there are obviously solid mechanisms to ensure the NSA et al are complying with the secret orders of the secret court. Whistleblowers that go to the press are prosecuted and charged under the espionage act, which carries the death penalty. Manning was held in punitive solitary confinement for months, against the advice of physicians, and cut off from the world. The press that reports on their leaks are threatened with jail if they don't reveal their sources, which has, as intended, put a screeching halt on that type of reporting as journalists can no longer promise to protect sources because to do so means jail time. Reporters have had their phones tapped. Whistle blowers who tried to address things internally have hit brick walls at step one of the process, which is why several went public. So these ways of checking the spy agencies should work great, because all anyone has to lose if they come forward with wrongdoing is a life term in prison! And journalists just risk jail if they report on the leaks!

Congressional oversight should also be effective. Why, at least a half dozen can be read into the most secret programs. And of course they can't reveal anything of what they know - they can't even tell their fellow members of Congress. And when called to testify, we can be sure that the heads of the agencies will tell us the "least untruthful" answer possible! So, they'll lie as little as possible! I know that makes me feel better.

And when properly vetted members of Congress and their staffs with appropriate security clearances do investigate the spy agencies, the agencies will spy on them, removing documents that are inconvenient, causing Congress to print the document, and carry it out in secret, and store in a damn safe to make sure they can have continued access to it. Which is a good thing because the document was disappeared from the electronic records. So the agencies have shown contempt for Congress and their oversight role, which means we should trust that Congress can effectively oversee these agencies.

In short, there is no worries I can see. It's legal, the secret court issues secret orders telling us so, and all the oversight mechanisms appear to be working fine.
 
Last edited:
Crovax said:
Nowhere did I say anything of the sort, are you really so paranoid that you don't see a difference between a private company and the government? The users gave the company the ability to share the data and the company chose to share that data with the NSA. If you got "spied" on you only have yourself to blame for not reading the fine print.

and what definition would that be? I never claimed all phone calls were privates I only pointed out the differences between phone calls and emails
Click to expand...

Your definition was that if any third party has access to your data, the government can take it and do whatever it wants with it legally. That was your claim, and it's false.

Just because you rent an apartment from a company does not mean the company can give the government unwarranted access to search your domicile. Likewise, using a telephone does not somehow negate the 4th amendment and grant the government the right to listen to your phone calls. The company may or may not have a legal basis to giving the information away (though I still think that should be illegal), however, that does not change the illegality of the government then listening to those phone calls.

These companies are in most cases not willingly giving over the information, it mostly comes from court orders that have been handed out like candy. Companies like Google, for instance, aren't even allowed to talk about WHAT they are under direct orders from the government to hand over because the government issues gag orders.

The argument you're essentially making is that if a third party has access to your private information, the government can use their patriot act powers to order the company to hand over access to it. That means that just about everything is up for grabs. Your home if you're renting, all of your phone calls, all of your emails, everything. Why you think that should just be perfectly legal blows my mind.
 
The out of control NSA has been spying on the American people for some time Metadata is still data, and I think that in the modern era there are things that need to happen to ensure freedom and liberty to the People. The first and foremost is that 4th needs to be expanded, strengthened, and obeyed. Right now our government pretty well just carries itself as if the 4th doesn't exist.

The mega datafarming and unwarranted spying would have to come to an end too. I know, lots of people scared of freedom will cry about how we're at more "risk" without it (though they never seem able to quantify this risk), that the terrorists will get us, that the US couldn't compete in international intelligence, and blah. But most of that is just bunk to excuse gross expansions of government power against the rights and liberties of the People. I'll take Free over Big Brother any day of the week.
 
Crovax said:
The phone company doesn't keep a recording of your phone call, but when you send an email it is stored on the server until deleted. So you have entrusted the email company with the security of the data and also lost the privacy of that data especially when you have agreed to the sharing of this data in your user agreement.
Click to expand...

My agreement with Google told me they'd funnel all my email into NSA servers in Utah? I guess I missed that bit of verbiage....

It doesn't say that, and if clever lawyers drafting impenetrable agreements can get to that result without users realizing what rights they've signed away, that in no way absolves our own government from informing us when it firehoses all the email traffic into its own servers for future analysis.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
These companies are in most cases not willingly giving over the information, it mostly comes from court orders that have been handed out like candy. Companies like Google, for instance, aren't even allowed to talk about WHAT they are under direct orders from the government to hand over because the government issues gag orders.

The argument you're essentially making is that if a third party has access to your private information, the government can use their patriot act powers to order the company to hand over access to it. That means that just about everything is up for grabs. Your home if you're renting, all of your phone calls, all of your emails, everything. Why you think that should just be perfectly legal blows my mind.
Click to expand...

The Verizon secret order from the secret FISA court is explicit - no one can know about the data Verizon was required to hand over. The good thing is U.S. companies are losing trust and therefore losing business worldwide. I hope their international business falls to zero. And then we'll have powerful forces on our side to reverse this nonsense.

And don't forget about financial information - checking, investments, credit and debit card transactions, all travel, etc.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
And the illegal, unconstitutional things he exposed? Who goes to jail for enacting and carrying out those things?

Ok, fine, the way he went about it was wrong... does this mean what he exposed is not wrong?
Click to expand...

Well of course no one. It's pointless with arguing this subject though with any in or near to government and particularly intel, if you know what I mean. Worrying about Snowden 'possibly' having got someone killed, when the same thing could be argued about Scooter Libby's outing of Valerie Plame, but of course Bush pardoned him, and I'm sure these same guys had no trouble with that!
 
Montecresto said:
...Scooter Libby's outing of Valerie Plame, but of course Bush pardoned him, and I'm sure these same guys had no trouble with that!
Click to expand...

Bush commuted Libby's sentence. He did not pardon him. Libby's conviction stands.
 
Crovax said:
I think it's odd that the Snowden apologists talk about how he is being found guilty without trial and yet they claim he exposed illegal and unconstitutional things and yet those things have not yet been fully determined in a court of law.
Click to expand...

Right, that's why as a direct result of Snowden's disclosures, we have the AFA, a bi-partisan bill to do a comprehensive reformation of the NSA's domestic intel gathering.
 
JasperL said:
Oh, well, now that I know the secret court issuing secret orders has approved of something, then that settles it. It's legal and obviously we shouldn't question those secret orders we can't know about! Glad you cleared that up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, secret. It's involving intelligence operations. Do you think intelligence operations should be transparent? I'm sorry, this is just the most nonsensical of arguments.

Besides, there are obviously solid mechanisms to ensure the NSA et al are complying with the secret orders of the secret court.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are. It's called the government of the United States. You seem to be very big on the Constitution when you want to be (your interpretation of the 4th Amendment), but not so big on it when it's prescribing that the legislative branch have oversight over these operations. Are you only a fan of it when it suits your purposes?

Whistleblowers that go to the press are prosecuted and charged under the espionage act, which carries the death penalty. Manning was held in punitive solitary confinement for months, against the advice of physicians, and cut off from the world. The press that reports on their leaks are threatened with jail if they don't reveal their sources, which has, as intended, put a screeching halt on that type of reporting as journalists can no longer promise to protect sources because to do so means jail time. Reporters have had their phones tapped. Whistle blowers who tried to address things internally have hit brick walls at step one of the process, which is why several went public. So these ways of checking the spy agencies should work great, because all anyone has to lose if they come forward with wrongdoing is a life term in prison! And journalists just risk jail if they report on the leaks!
Click to expand...

Wait, are you saying that disclosing intelligence operations to the general public is against the law? Ya don't say! Or do you think it shouldn't be?

Congressional oversight should also be effective.
Click to expand...

And it is! How about that!

Why, at least a half dozen can be read into the most secret programs. And of course they can't reveal anything of what they know - they can't even tell their fellow members of Congress. And when called to testify, we can be sure that the heads of the agencies will tell us the "least untruthful" answer possible! So, they'll lie as little as possible! I know that makes me feel better.
Click to expand...

They're certainly not going to tell the general public the truth. Why should they?

And when properly vetted members of Congress and their staffs with appropriate security clearances do investigate the spy agencies, the agencies will spy on them, removing documents that are inconvenient, causing Congress to print the document, and carry it out in secret, and store in a damn safe to make sure they can have continued access to it. Which is a good thing because the document was disappeared from the electronic records. So the agencies have shown contempt for Congress and their oversight role, which means we should trust that Congress can effectively oversee these agencies.
Click to expand...

Yes, you should. What's your other option? Not have them? What is it that you think intelligence agencies do? Because you seem to be displaying a complete ignorance of them and their roles. So why oh why should someone listen to someone that is completely ignorant? More know-nothingism. That's no way to run a country. So many people seem to championing having people entirely ignorant of things run them. Why? What do you for a living? Do you think it'd be good if I came over and started calling the shots there? Why do you think you should do that with regards to intelligence operations?

In short, there is no worries I can see.
Click to expand...

Well, you can't see much of anything from your vantage point so it's moot.

It's legal, the secret court issues secret orders telling us so, and all the oversight mechanisms appear to be working fine.
Click to expand...

There ya go. Now you go worry about the things that you're an expert in and let the experts in intelligence operations and oversight worry about theirs. Appealing to the most ignorant to run things is monumentally stupid, I'm sorry.
 
Your Star said:
The NSA was/still is breaking the law.
Click to expand...

Which is a seperate issue and one I agree needs to be addressed. That does not change the fact that Snowden broke the law.
 
Redress said:
Which is a seperate issue and one I agree needs to be addressed. That does not change the fact that Snowden broke the law.
Click to expand...

He did, but the much bigger crime has been committed by the NSA. Therefore, if Snowden does time, so do those responsible at the NSA. Of course we know that will never happen. Therefore I'm not interested in a one sided justice.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I'm curious, is there absolutely no crime you think would warrant whistleblowing? No matter what 100% loyalty to the government and no exceptions? If they're killing kids in dark rooms, nope, keep your mouth shut?

It's important to make the distinction between "No one should ever whistleblow for any reason" and "I simply don't think his reason was good enough", so which is it for you?
Click to expand...

1: Whistleblowing can be done by ways other than what he did. The system for whistleblowing does need to be improved, as does oversite for classified programs and the legality of those programs. But, going to the press, and using classified information to negotiate with, and continuing to threaten more releases, that is the wrong way.

2: I have not claimed either of the two extremes you present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom