Edward Snowden Discussion Thread

[Lemanrussland]

Again, I cite Katz vs. United States.

Telecommunications are protected by the 4th amendment.

Yes, the content of those communications.

That case says absolutely nothing about whether the fact that you are communicating is protected; the NSA is merely recording the fact that people did communicate.

Sorry, I misread his post.

I thought he said "You do not have an expectation of privacy with your mail or telephone conversations. "

I am a bit tired, so again, sorry. I do realize that specifically, the phone wiretaps (specifically the type where they monitor who contacts whom) are a grey area.

AFAIK, the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on this.

[Nidaria]

The Supreme Court is always right according to the attitude expressed in this thread. So... separate but equal.

The supreme court is the sole decider of what is and is not constitutional. You can object to something all you want but you don't get to call it unconstitutional.

Something is unconstitutional if the Court thinks it is. The Court is completely fallible, and has changed its decisions many times over history.

[Welsh Cowboy]

Yes, the content of those communications.

That case says absolutely nothing about whether the fact that you are communicating is protected; the NSA is merely recording the fact that people did communicate.

Sorry, I misread his post.

I thought he said "You do not have an expectation of privacy with your mail or telephone conversations. "

I am a bit tired, so again, sorry. I do realize that specifically, the phone wiretaps (specifically the type where they monitor who contacts whom) are a grey area.

AFAIK, the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on this.

Honestly, this issue still has me pondering on it. Because I think that security is absolutely an admirable thing, but it can't come at the expense of our liberty.

And at this point, I'm not convinced that the government has violated the Constitution or the law. Although it is scary to think about a government with zerabytes of data.

[Republic of Bordeaux]

Firstly, that decision was overturned.

At one point, however, the Supreme Court was right and just in stating that we could separate public facilities based on the color of skin.

[Ostroeuropa]

AFAIK, the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on this.

That's why I think this case should be made the test case.
It is an unacceptable threat to national security to allow this to remain ambiguous.
Either the intelligence agencies are breaching the constitution and acting outside the law (Threat to national security.)
OR
Agents are confused as to the extent of their jurisdiction and may come to the conclusion that the agency has broken the law when it has not, and will then leak this information. (Threat to national security.)

It must be made clear to the agency that this practice must stop.
OR
It must be made clear to agents that the practice is legal and is not grounds for whistleblowing.


HOWEVER
I doubt this case will ever happen.
As the agency is incredibly unlikely to want to risk having to give up it's power. Which immediately says a whole lot about them that they are willing to endanger national security from the second source in order to preserve power.
I could be wrong about them.
I doubt it.

[Welsh Cowboy]

Firstly, that decision was overturned.

At one point, however, the Supreme Court was right and just in stating that we could separate public facilities based on the color of skin.

That was the law of the land, yes.

It doesn't make the law right, but that's not what I'm saying.

[Lemanrussland]

AFAIK, the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on this.

That's why I think this case should be made the test case.
It is an unacceptable threat to national security to allow this to remain ambiguous.
Either the intelligence agencies are breaching the constitution and acting outside the law (Threat to national security.)
OR
Agents are confused as to the extent of their jurisdiction and may come to the conclusion that the agency has broken the law when it has not, and will then leak this information. (Threat to national security.)

It must be made clear to the agency that this practice must stop.
OR
It must be made clear to agents that the practice is legal and is not grounds for whistleblowing.

Well, historically, whistle-blowers have been punished for leaking even illegal activity.

They must pay the price to show us this information. However, the Obama admin. has been increasingly using a particular interpretation to go after journalists for supposedly "soliciting" this information (and thus being an accomplice to their release) from whistle-blowers, which is a very dangerous line to cross. However, that's another issue entirely.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's why I think this case should be made the test case.
It is an unacceptable threat to national security to allow this to remain ambiguous.
Either the intelligence agencies are breaching the constitution and acting outside the law (Threat to national security.)
OR
Agents are confused as to the extent of their jurisdiction and may come to the conclusion that the agency has broken the law when it has not, and will then leak this information. (Threat to national security.)

It must be made clear to the agency that this practice must stop.
OR
It must be made clear to agents that the practice is legal and is not grounds for whistleblowing.

Well, historically, whistle-blowers have been punished for leaking even illegal activity.

They must pay the price to show us this information. However, the Obama admin. has been increasingly using a particular interpretation to go after journalists for supposedly "soliciting" this information (and thus being an accomplice to their release) from whistle-blowers, which is a very dangerous line to cross. However, that's another issue entirely.

I can't see any justification for punishing whistleblowers of illegal activity. In addition, the knowledge that the practice is legal may well still prevent whistleblowers.

[Republic of Bordeaux]

That was the law of the land, yes.

It doesn't make the law right, but that's not what I'm saying.

I merely chose your post to respond to. The general vibe of this thread is extremely legalistic and also comes off as "The Supreme Court is always right and they are completely infallible." Well; Plessy v. Ferguson proves otherwise. I don't give a rat's ass if the SCOTUS has ruled on this. I don't give a rat's ass if they ever do rule on this. It's a pretty blatant violation of the 4th Amendment, and you don't need any interpretation of the text to do that. You literally read the text word for word to come to this conclusion. Seriously; people get to take the words of the 2nd Amendment word for word to advance gun regulations (I'm not opposed, it's just an example), but we can't do the same for the 4th Amendment.

[Des-Bal]

Yes; so that means that the Separate but Equal clause that everyone clamored as being unjust and immoral was actually just fine. I'm agreeing with you. Everything the Supreme Court says is right, as presented by the authority of John Marshall's court.

You mean the clause that the court deemed unconstitutional? Nobodies talking about morality, constitutional or unconstitutional.

[Phocidaea]

I'm a little curious... who in the blue hell voted "death penalty"?!

I mean, yeesh, we've got mass murderers getting away with life sentences, and you want to kill a guy who just told people what a lot of them already suspected?

[Malvoro]

That would make an amazingly badass 80's action movie title.

The man is hiding out from shadowy government agents in Hong Kong. He has information that can bring down an evil conspiracy within the government itself. I think we know what must be done. We must write, film, and produce... THE PATRIATOR. COMING TO THEATERS SUMMER 2014.

In a world of sneaky government spying
One man exposed it all
THE PATRIATOR
Whistles are blowing!
(you just read this in Don LaFontaine's voice)

[Lemanrussland]

That was the law of the land, yes.

It doesn't make the law right, but that's not what I'm saying.

I merely chose your post to respond to. The general vibe of this thread is extremely legalistic and also comes off as "The Supreme Court is always right and they are completely infallible." Well; Plessy v. Ferguson proves otherwise. I don't give a rat's ass if the SCOTUS has ruled on this. I don't give a rat's ass if they ever do rule on this. It's a pretty blatant violation of the 4th Amendment, and you don't need any interpretation of the text to do that. You literally read the text word for word to come to this conclusion. Seriously; people get to take the words of the 2nd Amendment word for word to advance gun regulations (I'm not opposed, it's just an example), but we can't do the same for the 4th Amendment.

"Your argument has no legal bearing on anything! Come back when the SCOTUS rules on this!" is just a cheap cop out, a way to shut down debate about something. Though, only perhaps one or two posters have used that one-sentence argument in that sort of childish way (not calling names, I think they are pretty obvious to pick out).

[Welsh Cowboy]

That was the law of the land, yes.

It doesn't make the law right, but that's not what I'm saying.

I merely chose your post to respond to. The general vibe of this thread is extremely legalistic and also comes off as "The Supreme Court is always right and they are completely infallible." Well; Plessy v. Ferguson proves otherwise. I don't give a rat's ass if the SCOTUS has ruled on this. I don't give a rat's ass if they ever do rule on this. It's a pretty blatant violation of the 4th Amendment, and you don't need any interpretation of the text to do that. You literally read the text word for word to come to this conclusion. Seriously; people get to take the words of the 2nd Amendment word for word to advance gun regulations (I'm not opposed, it's just an example), but we can't do the same for the 4th Amendment.

Whether you think something is right or not does not mean it is. The Supreme Court gets to establish what is and isn't law in the US. Your opinion really doesn't factor into it. You are free to campaign against any of their decisions, which might be wrong or unjust, but those decisions make the law of the land.

[Sucrati]

He basically said to himself: Screw the Rules, I'm doing what's right. The fact remains that under this administration, I haven't heard of so many whistleblowers get into major legal trouble for their... troubles in exposing a supposedly 'transparent' government. Obama and Co. were all about eliminating this kind of thing but instead turn around and expand it!

[Republic of Bordeaux]

Whether you think something is right or not does not mean it is. The Supreme Court gets to establish what is and isn't law in the US. Your opinion really doesn't factor into it. You are free to campaign against any of their decisions, which might be wrong or unjust, but those decisions make the law of the land.

Why should the SCOTUS have that authority because Jefferson didn't want to give Marbury his commission?

Regardless, that's not opinion. That's taking the text at face value. I did not have to put in critical thinking to come to this conclusion. I read the text, looked at the circumstances, and said, "Given the circumstances, this is a pretty blatant violation." You can try and pull legalistic shit all you want (it's what most apologists to this policy does - but I'm not accusing you of being an apologist), but it doesn't change the fact that these policies go against the exact wording as defined by the Constitution.

[Welsh Cowboy]

Whether you think something is right or not does not mean it is. The Supreme Court gets to establish what is and isn't law in the US. Your opinion really doesn't factor into it. You are free to campaign against any of their decisions, which might be wrong or unjust, but those decisions make the law of the land.

Why should the SCOTUS have that authority because Jefferson didn't want to give Marbury his commission?

Regardless, that's not opinion. That's taking the text at face value. I did not have to put in critical thinking to come to this conclusion. I read the text, looked at the circumstances, and said, "Given the circumstances, this is a pretty blatant violation." You can try and pull legalistic shit all you want (it's what most apologists to this policy does - but I'm not accusing you of being an apologist), but it doesn't change the fact that these policies go against the exact wording as defined by the Constitution.

So what are the limits of "unreasonable"? There is no way you can get everyone to agree on what is "unreasonable" and hence why we have a Supreme Court to settle those disputes.

You think the Constitution clearly prohibits it; others don't. So we need a higher authority to determine what it means. Then, if people disagree, they can campaign against it.

[Des-Bal]

Why should the SCOTUS have that authority because Jefferson didn't want to give Marbury his commission?

Regardless, that's not opinion. That's taking the text at face value. I did not have to put in critical thinking to come to this conclusion. I read the text, looked at the circumstances, and said, "Given the circumstances, this is a pretty blatant violation." You can try and pull legalistic shit all you want (it's what most apologists to this policy does - but I'm not accusing you of being an apologist), but it doesn't change the fact that these policies go against the exact wording as defined by the Constitution.

Interpreting the constitution is something people dedicate their lives to. Everyone has a different interpretation the fact that you say this violates means absolutely nothing.

[Republic of Bordeaux]

You mean the clause that the court deemed unconstitutional? Nobodies talking about morality, constitutional or unconstitutional.

Wow; the point is flying way over your heads. My entire point in a nutshell: contrary to the vibe of this thread, the Supreme Court is NOT infallible. Separate but Equal went on to be declared unconstitutional, and it always was. Several rulings have been overturned, because they were found to not be in line with the Constitution. Why, then, should I put all of my interpretations (or in this case my reading skills) aside and bow to the will of a government branch so they can rule on something as sensitive as the 4th Amendment when they have been wrong on things before?

[Malvoro]

Since the NSA's surveillance program is illegal activity and Snowden exposed it, you sir are incorrect.

It doesn't violate any laws. Some could certainly argue that it's unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment, but it didn't break any law.

Yes and it is precisely this using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of it that allows governments and corporations to rob and enslave a population.

[Des-Bal]

Wow; the point is flying way over your heads. My entire point in a nutshell: contrary to the vibe of this thread, the Supreme Court is NOT infallible. Separate but Equal went on to be declared unconstitutional, and it always was. Several rulings have been overturned, because they were found to not be in line with the Constitution. Why, then, should I put all of my interpretations (or in this case my reading skills) aside and bow to the will of a government branch so they can rule on something as sensitive as the 4th Amendment when they have been wrong on things before?

It's not flying over my head you're trying to confuse a very clear cut issue. The Supreme Court and only the supreme court wields the power to interpret the constitution, it is not possible for this country to function if we honor every individuals interpretation.

[Republic of Bordeaux]

Interpreting the constitution is something people dedicate their lives to. Everyone has a different interpretation the fact that you say this violates means absolutely nothing.

We sound more like a police state every-damn-day.


I don't get how primary reading skills are seen as interpretation. You don't need to think independently at all to come to this conclusion. It's pretty straightforward - the acts carried out in this instance contradict the wording of the 4th Amendment as set down by the Founding Fathers so many years ago. It's as simple as that. I'm sorry that I don't trust a panel of judges who are heavily influenced and appointed by the same douchebags that put these policies into place to rule this for what it is. I'm sorry that I expect trivial reading skills out of the rest of the people in this country.

[Orcoa]

That would be nice if every other intelligence agency in the world played by the same set of rules.

Their powers are usually either defined, or they are completely ineffectual.
As soon as an agency can get away with breaking the law, it usually starts focusing inward and policing itself and the state and putting puppets in charge.

Wow

How utterly silly and childish of you to think that other agencies from outside countries are going to act "ethically"

Do you live in the real world or do you live in a land where black and white is a thing?

[Northwest Slobovia]

Yes, the content of those communications.

That case says absolutely nothing about whether the fact that you are communicating is protected; the NSA is merely recording the fact that people did communicate.

Sorry, I misread his post.

I thought he said "You do not have an expectation of privacy with your mail or telephone conversations. "

I am a bit tired, so again, sorry. I do realize that specifically, the phone wiretaps (specifically the type where they monitor who contacts whom) are a grey area.

AFAIK, the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on this.

I think the closest they got was dismissing Clapper v Amnesty International (pdf of decision) over the FISA wiretaps because the plaintiffs didn't have standing. However, it now sure looks like they do. Expect a rematch.

Since people are tossing around "treason" as though they knew what it meant:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Article III, Section 3

Revealing that the US government is spying on US citizens is hardly helping our enemies... unless you mean that hundreds of millions of innocent citizens of the republic are its enemies. In which case, perhaps you need a refresher on how the US government works? Save your vitriol for real traitors, like the scum who join, or try to join, Al Qaeda.

So, WRT to the OP: he's a patriot, and the Obama administration, which has been bending Americans over for at least a couple of months now, needs to bend over and take it like a man.

[Lemanrussland]

You mean the clause that the court deemed unconstitutional? Nobodies talking about morality, constitutional or unconstitutional.

Wow; the point is flying way over your heads. My entire point in a nutshell: contrary to the vibe of this thread, the Supreme Court is NOT infallible. Separate but Equal went on to be declared unconstitutional, and it always was. Several rulings have been overturned, because they were found to not be in line with the Constitution. Why, then, should I put all of my interpretations (or in this case my reading skills) aside and bow to the will of a government branch so they can rule on something as sensitive as the 4th Amendment when they have been wrong on things before?

Take note, they haven't ruled on this. They declined to do so in the case of Hepting v. AT&T, after Congress basically gave AT&T a pardon for aiding the NSA in spying on all of it's users.

We'll see what happens with Jewel vs. NSA, I predict it will be stonewalled by the administration in court, though you never know.