• 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]

Ockham said:
And they do - Snowden and Wiki Leaks have put a light on the illegality of our governments doings and there's no putting that toothpaste back in the tube.
Click to expand...
Yeah see...no they don't.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
That is absolutely incorrect. All intelligence agencies fall under the purview of executive order 12333.

Executive Orders
Click to expand...

and you disagree that it was common knowledge that our intelligence agencies might sometimes operate outside the executive order? i'd argue that anyone who applied to the NSA is going to be the type of person who believes we have a right to spy on anyone we deem to be a threat.
 
bg85 said:
and you disagree that it was common knowledge that our intelligence agencies might sometimes operate outside the executive order? i'd argue that anyone who applied to the NSA is going to be the type of person who believes we have a right to spy on anyone we deem to be a threat.
Click to expand...
...do you know anyone who works or has worked at NSA? Any intelligence agency? Military intelligence?
 
bg85 said:
and you disagree that it was common knowledge that our intelligence agencies might sometimes operate outside the executive order? i'd argue that anyone who applied to the NSA is going to be the type of person who believes we have a right to spy on anyone we deem to be a threat.
Click to expand...

No one operates outside 12333.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
...do you know anyone who works or has worked at NSA? Any intelligence agency? Military intelligence?
Click to expand...

Why? Is that a requirement?
Doesn't everyone have an uncle or family member who is a spy with the CIA, NSA or the like on the interwebz? :lamo
 
Ockham said:
Why? Is that a requirement?
Doesn't everyone have an uncle or family member who is a spy with the CIA, NSA or the like on the interwebz? :lamo
Click to expand...
Just curious if there was any foundation to his speculation or if it was baseless and/or founded in movies and tv shows.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
No, the ACLU thinks something. That doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...

Lawsuits don't last long without evidence - it's one of the requirements for a lawsuit. Can you please post proof that the ACLU's lawsuit is frivolous then - thanks.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Just curious if there was any foundation to his speculation or if it was baseless and/or founded in movies and tv shows.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. There are facts the NSA have indeed spied on American's without FISA approval. You are denying those facts correct?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
...do you know anyone who works or has worked at NSA? Any intelligence agency? Military intelligence?
Click to expand...

my brother. also had a good friend from high school who i think worked at the NSA but i don't really keep in touch with him much anymore. i'm from the DC area originally so i know a lot of federal types.
 
Ockham said:
Irrelevant. There are facts the NSA have indeed spied on American's without FISA approval. You are denying those facts correct?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's not true, sorry.
 
Ockham said:
Lawsuits don't last long without evidence - it's one of the requirements for a lawsuit. Can you please post proof that the ACLU's lawsuit is frivolous then - thanks.
Click to expand...
So you're saying issues don't become lawsuits unless they're true? No lawsuit has ever been false?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
So you're saying issues don't become lawsuits unless they're true? No lawsuit has ever been false?
Click to expand...

I clearly said what I said... here - let me copy & paste it for you so you can read it again.

Ockham said:
Lawsuits don't last long without evidence - it's one of the requirements for a lawsuit. Can you please post proof that the ACLU's lawsuit is frivolous then - thanks.
Click to expand...

That's what I said.
 
Ockham said:
Good. And you can prove that it's not true.... so please, prove away. Show how it's all untrue. :popcorn2:
Click to expand...
Are you second person in this thread to ask for assistive to prove a negative? Again: I can't prove you aren't visited by Martians, I can't prove you aren't haunted by Ted Kennedy, I can't prove Jupiter didn't smash into the earth, and I can't prove the NSA doesn't spy on you.
 
Ockham said:
I clearly said what I said... here - let me copy & paste it for you so you can read it again.



That's what I said.
Click to expand...
Has a lawsuit ever been found to be wrong? Yes or no.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Are you second person in this thread to ask for assistive to prove a negative? Again: I can't prove you aren't visited by Martians, I can't prove you aren't haunted by Ted Kennedy, I can't prove Jupiter didn't smash into the earth, and I can't prove the NSA doesn't spy on you.
Click to expand...

Hardly - I've posted a link showing the NSA spied on Americans without FISA. You say this is untrue. It is therefore incumbent upon you to prove my information and facts are incorrect. You are not proving a negative, you are proving your view positive.

So please... put up or shut up.
 
Ockham said:
Please post proof then.... forgive me if I don't take you're word for it.
Click to expand...

There's a heavy load of silly propaganda in this link, but the essential facts show through nonetheless.

NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07) - Wikipedia, the ...

en.wikipedia.org/.../NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001–07)Wikipedia


The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy ("warrantless wiretapping") concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of ...‎Overview - ‎Developments - ‎Background - ‎Technical and operational details

The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy ("warrantless wiretapping") concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of allegedly foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the touted war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the terrorist surveillance program,[SUP][1][/SUP] part of the broader President's Surveillance Program, the NSA was authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, the phone calls, Internet activity (Web, e-mail, etc.), text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S. However, it has been discovered that all U.S. communications have been digitally cloned by government agencies, in apparent violation of unreasonable search and seizure. The excuse given to avoid litigation[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] was that no data hoarded would be reviewed until searching it would be legal. But no excuse has been offered the initial seizure of the data which is also illegal[SUP][citation needed][/SUP], according to the U. S. Constitution[SUP][citation needed][/SUP].
Critics, however, claimed that the program was in an effort to attempt to silence critics of the Bush Administration and its handling of several controversial issues during its tenure. Under public pressure, the Bush administration allegedly ceased the warrantless wiretapping program in January 2007 and returned review of surveillance to the FISA court.[SUP][2][/SUP] Subsequently, in 2008 Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which relaxed some of the original FISA court requirements.
During the Obama Administration, the NSA has allegedly continued operating under the new FISA guidelines.[SUP][3][/SUP] However, in April 2009 officials at the United States Department of Justice acknowledged that the NSA had engaged in "overcollection" of domestic communications in excess of the FISA court's authority, but claimed that the acts were unintentional and had since been rectified.[SUP][4][/SUP]

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom