• 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]

Montecresto said:
Agreed as I have mentioned before, I'll support Snowden going to jail, SO LONG AS, those responsible for violating the constitution, a higher law, go to prison too, for a longer period.
Click to expand...



That is simply not how it works...Our justice system is not predicated on a tit for tat doling out of sentencing...Snowden, and his crime stands alone, and should be tried as such...I am sure it would not be a very good defense to plead that someone else did something bad too....
 
j-mac said:
That is simply not how it works...Our justice system is not predicated on a tit for tat doling out of sentencing...Snowden, and his crime stands alone, and should be tried as such...I am sure it would not be a very good defense to plead that someone else did something bad too....
Click to expand...

It wasn't offered as a defense! It's a prerequisite. You want Snowden and his crime to stand alone. Where are you calling for those responsible at the NSA, and their crime to stand alone?
 
Montecresto said:
Agreed as I have mentioned before, I'll support Snowden going to jail, SO LONG AS, those responsible for violating the constitution, a higher law, go to prison too, for a longer period.
Click to expand...

I agree totally.
 
j-mac said:
That is simply not how it works...Our justice system is not predicated on a tit for tat doling out of sentencing...Snowden, and his crime stands alone, and should be tried as such...I am sure it would not be a very good defense to plead that someone else did something bad too....
Click to expand...

I think he means that all of the parties should be held accountable.
 
j-mac said:
That is simply not how it works...Our justice system is not predicated on a tit for tat doling out of sentencing...Snowden, and his crime stands alone, and should be tried as such...I am sure it would not be a very good defense to plead that someone else did something bad too....
Click to expand...

Once the government is held accountable, I'll contemplate holding Snowden responsible for his actions. Government first though. They are a far more significant danger to us all than this 1 guy.
 
Montecresto said:
It's a "RUBBER STAMP" bud, this can't possibly be what you consider oversight. I'll stand for liberty and in the process I may retain my security too! You go ahead and sacrifice one for the other and wind up with nothing.
Click to expand...

What controls would you require to enable the new technologies to be used? They are obviously different from the old ones and require different rules. So, what do you require?


PS: What might be interesting as an aside here is, that the German agency tapped Hillary, when she was Secretary of State.
 
joG said:
What controls would you require to enable the new technologies to be used? They are obviously different from the old ones and require different rules. So, what do you require?


PS: What might be interesting as an aside here is, that the German agency tapped Hillary, when she was Secretary of State.
Click to expand...

My chief complaint is domestic spying, and my fourth amendment protections. Diplomats can expect in the course of discharging their duties they might spy on one another. I don't run in such circles, and I disagree with anybody that denies that I would have an expectation of privacy. Unless of course there is probable cause that I have forfeited it.
 
j-mac said:
That is simply not how it works...Our justice system is not predicated on a tit for tat doling out of sentencing...Snowden, and his crime stands alone, and should be tried as such...I am sure it would not be a very good defense to plead that someone else did something bad too....
Click to expand...

That's true to a point, but you can't have a "Justice" system that only punishes people who reveal wrongdoing, and not the people who were revealed to have done the wrong. And that's been recent history. Almost no one in government revealed to have broken laws has been prosecuted, but whistleblowers have been HARSHLY prosecuted. We can't have confidence in a system like that, and we don't. It looks rigged because it is rigged, and we know that because the risk only runs one way - government officials are immune from prosecution, but not those who leak information about those wrongdoings.
 
Kal'Stang said:
"Those that would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither."
Click to expand...

If that was the quote, would it mean anything? (It's not, by the way)

Why the hell should anyone trust a FISA court? No accountability. No oversight. Everything is done secretly. Thanks but no thanks. You might trust such a system. I don't. Never will.
Click to expand...

No one really cares if you trust it or not. Their job was to do exactly what you're clamoring for someone to do, and they did it. Sorry.

This whole thread is just a bunch of people wishing that something was illegal when it plainly wasn't. Keep on wishing guys! Be sure to look for a falling star tonight!
 
joG said:
What controls would you require to enable the new technologies to be used? They are obviously different from the old ones and require different rules. So, what do you require?


PS: What might be interesting as an aside here is, that the German agency tapped Hillary, when she was Secretary of State.
Click to expand...

Pretty much all technology falls under the Bill of Rights. Just because you get GPS, doesn't mean you can arbitrarily attach GPS to anyone (even in public) without cause and warrant. There must be CLEAR and CONSISTENT oversight from the SCOTUS (FISA must be lesser to the SCOTUS, no federal court can exist that does not belong directly to the SCOTUS). Content should be screened by civil liberties groups (which could be established) to assess whether or not the information warrants secrecy. Anything that doesn't becomes public record.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
If that was the quote, would it mean anything? (It's not, by the way)
Click to expand...

Its close enough that you got the reference...even if it wasn't exact wording. And yes, it means ALOT to anyone that respects and wants Rights and Freedoms. Though I'm pretty sure that it doesn't mean squat to those that would suppress them.

OldWorldOrder said:
No one really cares if you trust it or not. Their job was to do exactly what you're clamoring for someone to do, and they did it. Sorry.

This whole thread is just a bunch of people wishing that something was illegal when it plainly wasn't. Keep on wishing guys! Be sure to look for a falling star tonight!
Click to expand...

Except that it was illegal. FISA or not. Just because you have a "federal judge" in the pockets of a few select politicians and in the pockets of Hitler wannabe's does not mean that what was done was not illegal. I would dare the NSA to try and issue such a warrant in an Open court. How much would you bet that it would be shot down quicker than stink can get on crap?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
No one really cares if you trust it or not. Their job was to do exactly what you're clamoring for someone to do, and they did it. Sorry.
Click to expand...

And we care the same amount that YOU trust them - not at all. Fact is Snowden revealed these secret orders and we're having a national debate about them, and whether we go back to secret orders by secret courts being able to decide how much of our information to hand over to NSA will happen as it should - with the options on the table and elected officials, and not NSA hacks or secret courts, making those decisions. And for the public to be informed about those broad decisions.

This whole thread is just a bunch of people wishing that something was illegal when it plainly wasn't. Keep on wishing guys! Be sure to look for a falling star tonight!
Click to expand...

No, this whole thread is people expressing opinions about the trade off between security and privacy. You seem to think the only rational choice is for us to give up all expectations of privacy so the NSA can do it's job easier. It's not the only rational choice - there is a trade off to no privacy, and some of us would choose more privacy even IF it makes NSA's job a bit harder. I don't expect when I send an email that it's public record, and I don't expect when I make a phone call that the details of it should get immediately routed into an NSA database. You disagree. FANTASTIC. Democracy works by having these debates in public, not decided in the dark.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Its close enough that you got the reference...even if it wasn't exact wording.
Click to expand...

Except the actual quote is "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Those highlighted words are there for a reason- because they're important. Everyone trades some liberty for safety- that's called a society- so what you said didn't even make any sense.

And yes, it means ALOT to anyone that respects and wants Rights and Freedoms. Though I'm pretty sure that it doesn't mean squat to those that would suppress them.
Click to expand...

Besides butchering the quote into something nonsensical, it's still just a quote. It wasn't a counterpoint to what I said.

Except that it was illegal. FISA or not.
Click to expand...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, no, I'm pretty sure Kal'Stang from www.debatepolitics.com isn't the decision-maker on what's legal and what's not. I think that's actually the courts? In this case the court that actually deals with these things...called the FISA court, actually! How about that! They were given the responsibility of deciding what was legal and what was not and they made those determinations. You just don't like it. That's fine, but you don't get to tell anyone what's legal and what's not. You know that, right? You're not a sheriff out in a Wild West mining town or something, deciding what's legal and what's not based upon your personal preferences...you know that, right?

Just because you have a "federal judge" in the pockets of a few select politicians and in the pockets of Hitler wannabe's does not mean that what was done was not illegal. I would dare the NSA to try and issue such a warrant in an Open court. How much would you bet that it would be shot down quicker than stink can get on crap?
Click to expand...

Okay thank you for your crazy hyperbole. Sorry that what you wish was illegal was not. I again encourage you to write a letter or call in to a talk show.

Old-Man-Yells-At-Cloud-the-simpsons-7414384-265-199.gif
 
JasperL said:
And we care the same amount that YOU trust them - not at all. Fact is Snowden revealed these secret orders and we're having a national debate about them, and whether we go back to secret orders by secret courts being able to decide how much of our information to hand over to NSA will happen as it should - with the options on the table and elected officials, and not NSA hacks or secret courts, making those decisions. And for the public to be informed about those broad decisions.



No, this whole thread is people expressing opinions about the trade off between security and privacy. You seem to think the only rational choice is for us to give up all expectations of privacy so the NSA can do it's job easier. It's not the only rational choice - there is a trade off to no privacy, and some of us would choose more privacy even IF it makes NSA's job a bit harder. I don't expect when I send an email that it's public record, and I don't expect when I make a phone call that the details of it should get immediately routed into an NSA database. You disagree. FANTASTIC. Democracy works by having these debates in public, not decided in the dark.
Click to expand...

You never answered me when I asked if you knew that intelligence operations needed secrecy to be effective. Did you know that or...?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Except the actual quote is "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Those highlighted words are there for a reason- because they're important. Everyone trades some liberty for safety- that's called a society- so what you said didn't even make any sense.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say that privacy is not essential? As for "a little temporary"....that's exactly what the NSA is. They cannot guarantee 100% safety.

OldWorldOrder said:
Besides butchering the quote into something nonsensical, it's still just a quote. It wasn't a counterpoint to what I said.
Click to expand...

Like I said before, "I'm pretty sure that it doesn't mean squat to those that would suppress them."

OldWorldOrder said:
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, no, I'm pretty sure Kal'Stang from www.debatepolitics.com isn't the decision-maker on what's legal and what's not. I think that's actually the courts? In this case the court that actually deals with these things...called the FISA court, actually! How about that! They were given the responsibility of deciding what was legal and what was not and they made those determinations. You just don't like it. That's fine, but you don't get to tell anyone what's legal and what's not. You know that, right? You're not a sheriff out in a Wild West mining town or something, deciding what's legal and what's not based upon your personal preferences...you know that, right?
Click to expand...

You never answered my question. How would any other court, particularly SCOTUS, rule on those warrants? I would bet you that they wouldn't have OK'd it.

And FYI, yes, actually I can. Ever hear of Jury Nullification? I can make anyone that actually did commit a crime a free man with it. IE: Making what they did legal for them.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Are you trying to say that privacy is not essential? As for "a little temporary"....that's exactly what the NSA is. They cannot guarantee 100% safety.
Click to expand...

Complete privacy isn't essential, no. Ask anyone who takes credit applications. And "not 100%"= "a little temporary" in your mind? Oooookay. I think I'll be saying this a lot in this post: too bad actual decision makers don't agree.

Like I said before, "I'm pretty sure that it doesn't mean squat to those that would suppress them."
Click to expand...

Okay?

You never answered my question. How would any other court, particularly SCOTUS, rule on those warrants? I would bet you that they wouldn't have OK'd it.
Click to expand...

I don't know? Do you have anything other than a random ass opinion? Either way, they're actual federal judges, so what rule as legal trumps your gut feeling. Sorry, you can wish it was illegal but it wasn't and as of right now it's not. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. You just wish it was. Here it comes: too bad actual decision makers don't agree.

And FYI, yes, actually I can. Ever hear of Jury Nullification? I can make anyone that actually did commit a crime a free man with it. IE: Making what they did legal for them.
Click to expand...

hahahahahaha and are you now introducing a new facet of legality that no one's ever heard of: The Kal'Stang Internet Legality Clause, wherein things are legal or illegal just because you say so? NSA! Be wary of the KILC! Make sure your office of general counsel consults with people regarding the KILC! You don't want to do anything that Kal'Stang might say is illegal, because that makes it illegal! Be careful guys! :lamo
 
Last edited:
OldWorldOrder said:
Complete privacy isn't essential, no. Ask anyone who takes credit applications. And "not 100%"= "a little temporary" in your mind? Oooookay. I think I'll be saying this a lot in this post: too bad actual decision makers don't agree.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. This shows that you have no problem with ignoring peoples Rights.

OldWorldOrder said:
I don't know? Do you have anything other than a random ass opinion? Either way, they're actual federal judges, so what rule as legal trumps your gut feeling. Sorry, you can wish it was illegal but it wasn't and as of right now it's not. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL[/b]. You just wish it was. Here it comes: too bad actual decision makers don't agree.
Click to expand...


Roe V Wade is a perfect example that the Government does NOT have the ability to arbitrarily invade peoples privacy...even at the expense of another's life.

OldWorldOrder said:
hahahahahaha and are you now introducing a new facet of legality that no one's ever heard of: The Kal'Stang Internet Legality Clause, wherein things are legal or illegal just because you say so? NSA! Be wary of the KILC! Make sure your office of general counsel consults with people regarding the KILC! You don't want to do anything that Kal'Stang might say is illegal, because that makes it illegal! Be careful guys! :lamo
Click to expand...

New facet? Actually its quite old and has been used numerous times through out history and is still even being used today. Some examples of prominent times and issues where it was used: It was used a lot towards the end of slavery when jurors would use jury nullification despite the evidence that a person that helped black slaves get to freedom. It was also used during the Prohibition era, so much so that lawmakers had no choice but to repeal that amendment. And it is used today quite a bit for marijuana users. And those are just the ones that I could think of off the top of my head.

Here's a couple of links to education yourself on...

umkc.edu
Wiki ~ Jury Nullification
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yes, it is. This shows that you have no problem with ignoring peoples Rights.
Click to expand...

Mhmm, whatever hyperbole you need to feel better.

Roe V Wade is a perfect example that the Government does NOT have the ability to arbitrarily invade peoples privacy...even at the expense of another's life.
Click to expand...

I guess 'arbitrarily' would be the keyword here, wouldn't it? Also: this isn't Roe V Wade.

New facet? Actually its quite old and has been used numerous times through out history and is still even being used today. Some examples of prominent times and issues where it was used: It was used a lot towards the end of slavery when jurors would use jury nullification despite the evidence that a person that helped black slaves get to freedom. It was also used during the Prohibition era, so much so that lawmakers had no choice but to repeal that amendment. And it is used today quite a bit for marijuana users. And those are just the ones that I could think of off the top of my head.

Here's a couple of links to education yourself on...

umkc.edu
Wiki ~ Jury Nullification
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about jury nullification, I know what that is- I'm talking about this new thing wherein something is illegal simply because you, Kal'Stang, say it is. As opposed to, ya know, saying you think it should be illegal. Do you have any links to the KILC? The Kal'Stang Internet Legality Clause?
 
cpwill said:
That is incorrect. Since the claim that the FISA court ruling allowing the collection of metadata in the form of point-to-point transmission records is a violation of the 4th Amendment, it's adherents have to deal with the fact that SCOTUS already dealt with that exact same data base, and ruled that it did not fall under 4th Amendment protection. The FISA court derived its' ruling from SCOTUS direction.



:shrug: you can call it whatever epithet you like. Announcing to Mullah Omar McJihad that we intend to watch your gmail account from now on because we know that is where you are planning your CONUS-based attacks is amazingly stupid CT practice, which is why no administration of either party no matter what their personal inclinations or backgrounds will do it.
Click to expand...

Straw man argument: notice of search warrants are not given to the suspect until the search is about to commence.
 
Rentoc said:
This is my first post. So, hello to all. :2wave:
As for Mr. Snowden. I would have to say the word "traitor" comes to mind. While the NSA may have been up to some no good, there are options available to a true "whistleblower" other than running off to our two biggest "rivals/enemies" seeking refuge giving up only he knows what information. I believe he should be captured, tried and judged accordingly.
This Hero Worship of him in my mind is not only silly, but downright scary. It worries me that so many citizens find this country so, well, disgusting? Not really sure what word to use there.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that he did make some efforts to go through 'proper' channels to complain about the illegal activities. Exactly what do you think he should have done differently?

"...Snowden said that, using "internal channels of dissent", he had told multiple employees and two supervisors about his concerns that the NSA programs were unconstitutional. An NSA spokesperson responded, saying they had "not found any evidence to support Mr. Snowden's contention that he brought these matters to anyone's attention."[60] Snowden elaborated in January 2014, saying " made tremendous efforts to report these programs to co-workers, supervisors, and anyone with the proper clearance who would listen. The reactions of those I told about the scale of the constitutional violations ranged from deeply concerned to appalled, but no one was willing to risk their jobs, families, and possibly even freedom to go to through what Drake did."[99] In March 2014, during testimony to the European Parliament, Snowden wrote that before revealing classified information he had reported "clearly problematic programs" to ten officials, who he said did nothing in response.[100] In a May 2014 interview, Snowden told NBC News that after bringing his concerns about the legality of the NSA spying programs to officials, he was told to stay silent on the matter. Snowden said:

The NSA has records—they have copies of emails right now to their Office of General Counsel, to their oversight and compliance folks from me raising concerns about the NSA's interpretations of its legal authorities. I had raised these complaints not just officially in writing through email, but to my supervisors, to my colleagues, in more than one office. I did it in Fort Meade. I did it in Hawaii. And many, many of these individuals were shocked by these programs. They had never seen them themselves. And the ones who had, went, 'You know, you're right. … But if you say something about this, they're going to destroy you......."
Wikipedia
 
There is no reason to debate with trollish self proclaimed know-it-alls who support every government invasion of privacy with the justification that it hasn't been found illegal yet. Such people may be paid to post on-line and no evidence or argument will change their position.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
I guess 'arbitrarily' would be the keyword here, wouldn't it? Also: this isn't Roe V Wade.
Click to expand...

A word that I used. Not the court. You can look it up I'm sure. And it still pertains to our Right to Privacy. Is there anything about it that would cause you to think that SCOTUS would hand out such a warrant as the NSA used to use mass surveillance on innocent people? If SCOTUS isn't going to allow the government to ban abortion due to privacy concerns...what makes you think that it would allow the NSA to do what it did?

OldWorldOrder said:
I'm not talking about jury nullification, I know what that is- I'm talking about this new thing wherein something is illegal simply because you, Kal'Stang, say it is. As opposed to, ya know, saying you think it should be illegal. Do you have any links to the KILC? The Kal'Stang Internet Legality Clause?
Click to expand...

Wait you weren't talking about Jury Nullification despite your quotation of me talking about it and not only claiming that it was some "new facet of legality" that I had made up? Do you really expect me to believe that?
 
Hard Truth said:
There is no reason to debate with trollish self proclaimed know-it-alls who support every government invasion of privacy with the justification that it hasn't been found illegal yet. Such people may be paid to post on-line and no evidence or argument will change their position.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm done here.
 
There's also no reason to listen to people who don't know anything about intelligence operations wax on about what they think about them. It's useless. Unfortunately for them, the programs were and are legal. Cry about it more.

I love the idea of Snowden going to someone and saying "Hey guys, I think this might be unconstitutional" and just not listening when people are like "Yeah dude, we have an entire Office of General Counsel that goes over all these things with a fine tooth comb and an entire federal court system that's been overseeing this, but I appreciate your concerns...were you pre law or...no? Oh...okay, well thanks. We have like hundreds of people paid precisely to keep us Consitutional and weigh in on that, but I appreciate your concern, IT guy." Then Snowden angrily decides to grab all kinds of data on not only domestic metadata storage but information about on-going overseas operations and gives it to China and Russia....and some folks in the US think he's a hero.

One born every minute, PT Barnum was right.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
A word that I used. Not the court. You can look it up I'm sure. And it still pertains to our Right to Privacy. Is there anything about it that would cause you to think that SCOTUS would hand out such a warrant as the NSA used to use mass surveillance on innocent people? If SCOTUS isn't going to allow the government to ban abortion due to privacy concerns...what makes you think that it would allow the NSA to do what it did?
Click to expand...

Well, maybe because it's made up of federal judges? Ya know, the same kind of people that ruled what the NSA does is legal? But there's no need to get into hypothetical situations: what's the law right now regarding those programs?

You and I both know you won't answer that extremely simple question because you know it's going to refute what you said about it being 'illegal'. And that says a lot that you can't answer it. In our future discussions about this, if I'm unlucky enough to have any, I'll just ask you that, and you can ignore it, and we'll both know the truth, and we'll both be sad about your inability to answer it, but in different ways.

Wait you weren't talking about Jury Nullification despite your quotation of me talking about it and not only claiming that it was some "new facet of legality" that I had made up? Do you really expect me to believe that?
Click to expand...

Can you read?

"are you now introducing a new facet of legality that no one's ever heard of: The Kal'Stang Internet Legality Clause, wherein things are legal or illegal just because you say so?" As in, "in this thread are you now introducing a new facet of legality that no one's ever heard of: The Kal'Stang Internet Legality Clause, wherein things are legal or illegal just because you say so?" It's right there in black and white. That's what the colon means: Colon (punctuation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (See, I used it again)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom