Edward Snowden Discussion Thread

[Des-Bal]

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.

1.You don't get to decide what the law is. That is not a police state, it's just a state.
2. The supreme court is basically above influence. They serve until they quit, die, or go on a crime spree. This is my area of study, justices rule in ways that often piss off the president.

[Northwest Slobovia]

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.

One of the reasons I'm hopeful that the Supreme Court will do the right thing there is because in US v Jones, the Justices closely questioned the administration over whether anonymous GPS tracking could be used against them or the Congress. Unless no Justice nor any member of Congress is a Verizon customer, the administration has been spying on them. I somehow don't think the Justices will take nicely to that.

[Lemanrussland]

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.

1.You don't get to decide what the law is. That is not a police state, it's just a state.
2. The supreme court is basically above influence. They serve until they quit, die, or go on a crime spree. This is my area of study, justices rule in ways that often piss off the president.

"1.You don't get to decide what the law is. That is not a police state, it's just a state."

I don't think he's referring to him not having his way with the law, but rather the broad assaults levied against our civil liberties all the time by Congress, the Administration, and agencies like the NSA. If you plug your ears and deny that that's even happening, I'm at a loss of words as what to say.

[Welsh Cowboy]

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.

One of the reasons I'm hopeful that the Supreme Court will do the right thing there is because in US v Jones, the Justices closely questioned the administration over whether anonymous GPS tracking could be used against them or the Congress. Unless no Justice nor any member of Congress is a Verizon customer, the administration has been spying on them. I somehow don't think the Justices will take nicely to that.

It could end up being like the Associated Press scandal; the press began pushing back when government overreach started affecting them.

[Republic of Bordeaux]

1.You don't get to decide what the law is. That is not a police state, it's just a state.

No; we're a police state because there is no regard for the 4th Amendment, neither from people like you nor the government.

2. The supreme court is basically above influence. They serve until they quit, die, or go on a crime spree. This is my area of study, justices rule in ways that often piss off the president.

"This is my area of study" then stop regurgitating the same legalistic shit. I realize the court can often contradict the president (didn't Nixon appoint a man that pissed him off?), but that doesn't change the fact that they are often heavily influenced by the people who appointed them to power. I believe that it's naive to trust that a Court appointed by two administrations that have a hard-on for things like the Patriot Act and NDAA will overturn or rule these actions as unconstitutional. If they do turn it over, then I'm wrong. But I highly doubt that they will.

Also, what do you mean "basically above influence"? Could you elaborate?

[Republic of Bordeaux]

If you plug your ears and deny that that's even happening, I'm at a loss of words as what to say.

This is what's been happening the entire damn thread. "Can you source a SCOTUS ruling or a law that says this is illegal? If not, then your opinion is invalid and doesn't matter at all."

They essentially are denying that we are a police state, because it's not "necessarily" illegal.

[Des-Bal]

"1.You don't get to decide what the law is. That is not a police state, it's just a state."

I don't think he's referring to him not having his way with the law, but rather the broad assaults levied against our civil liberties all the time by Congress, the Administration, and agencies like the NSA. If you plug your ears and deny that that's even happening, I'm at a loss of words as what to say.

Which ones? Specifically which assaults on our civil liberties. I hear about them a lot but I really don't see them.

[Welsh Cowboy]

If you plug your ears and deny that that's even happening, I'm at a loss of words as what to say.

This is what's been happening the entire damn thread. "Can you source a SCOTUS ruling or a law that says this is illegal? If not, then your opinion is invalid and doesn't matter at all."

They essentially are denying that we are a police state, because it's not "necessarily" illegal.

Please don't claim that we are a police state. We are not. Look at North Korea if you want to see a police state.

[Des-Bal]

No; we're a police state because there is no regard for the 4th Amendment, neither from people like you nor the government.

"This is my area of study" then stop regurgitating the same legalistic shit. I realize the court can often contradict the president (didn't Nixon appoint a man that pissed him off?), but that doesn't change the fact that they are often heavily influenced by the people who appointed them to power. I believe that it's naive to trust that a Court appointed by two administrations that have a hard-on for things like the Patriot Act and NDAA will overturn or rule these actions as unconstitutional. If they do turn it over, then I'm wrong. But I highly doubt that they will.

Also, what do you mean "basically above influence"? Could you elaborate?

Who's pulling the strings? Who do you think is influencing the Supreme Court?

[Orcoa]

1.You don't get to decide what the law is. That is not a police state, it's just a state.
2. The supreme court is basically above influence. They serve until they quit, die, or go on a crime spree. This is my area of study, justices rule in ways that often piss off the president.

"1.You don't get to decide what the law is. That is not a police state, it's just a state."

I don't think he's referring to him not having his way with the law, but rather the broad assaults levied against our civil liberties all the time by Congress, the Administration, and agencies like the NSA. If you plug your ears and deny that that's even happening, I'm at a loss of words as what to say.

And you have no idea what a real police state is

a real police state would not allow someone like this to get away with releasing this type of information and live?

a real police state would censor this kind of news on both Tv and the web.

a real police state would be more effective with keeping their secrets hidden by both the public and those who have a hand in this kind of spying.

The United States of America is not a police state....if you want a police state, go look at China or North Korea.

[Republic of Bordeaux]

Which ones? Specifically which assaults on our civil liberties. I hear about them a lot but I really don't see them.

I can generalize it and say: privacy. That's a pretty broad term for my political doctrine, so I'll specify a little bit and say privacy of communications in both handwritten, electronic, and vocal methods.

[Des-Bal]

This is what's been happening the entire damn thread. "Can you source a SCOTUS ruling or a law that says this is illegal? If not, then your opinion is invalid and doesn't matter at all."

They essentially are denying that we are a police state, because it's not "necessarily" illegal.

You're claiming that something is unconstitutional, you are being challenged to prove it. We aren't a police state.

[Northwest Slobovia]

One of the reasons I'm hopeful that the Supreme Court will do the right thing there is because in US v Jones, the Justices closely questioned the administration over whether anonymous GPS tracking could be used against them or the Congress. Unless no Justice nor any member of Congress is a Verizon customer, the administration has been spying on them. I somehow don't think the Justices will take nicely to that.

It could end up being like the Associated Press scandal; the press began pushing back when government overreach started affecting them.

Yup. And unlike the AP, the Justices are The Law.

[Wamitoria]

"1.You don't get to decide what the law is. That is not a police state, it's just a state."

I don't think he's referring to him not having his way with the law, but rather the broad assaults levied against our civil liberties all the time by Congress, the Administration, and agencies like the NSA. If you plug your ears and deny that that's even happening, I'm at a loss of words as what to say.

Which ones? Specifically which assaults on our civil liberties. I hear about them a lot but I really don't see them.

Well, they have secret courts handing out secret interpretations of secret legal provisions.

That seems kind of like a violation of our basic civil liberties to me.

[Welsh Cowboy]

It could end up being like the Associated Press scandal; the press began pushing back when government overreach started affecting them.

Yup. And unlike the AP, the Justices are The Law.

Although maybe they're all T-Mobile customers.

[Republic of Bordeaux]

And you have no idea what a real police state is

a real police state would not allow someone like this to get away with releasing this type of information and live?

He isn't getting away with it. He will face a likely hefty prison sentence.

a real police state would censor this kind of news on both Tv and the web.

They don't censor it, but evidently they monitor it. Not any better.

a real police state would be more effective with keeping their secrets hidden by both the public and those who have a hand in this kind of spying.

Considering the leaks have been from people from the inside, I'd say they're pretty damn good at keeping their secrets. The leaks have shown they have quite a few secrets to keep.

The United States of America is not a police state....if you want a police state, go look at China or North Korea.

It's not a police state on the level that they are, but we're not far away from it.

[Wamitoria]

It could end up being like the Associated Press scandal; the press began pushing back when government overreach started affecting them.

Yup. And unlike the AP, the Justices are The Law.

Also, the Justices aren't botching massive spy operations in order to get a scoop on their competitors.

[Wamitoria]

Yup. And unlike the AP, the Justices are The Law.

Although maybe they're all T-Mobile customers.

Sequester cuts probably bumped everyone onto Tracfone

[Republic of Bordeaux]

You're claiming that something is unconstitutional, you are being challenged to prove it. We aren't a police state.

And I have referenced my source for these allegations as the original wording of the actual amendment. I will post it here if you want...

"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."

[Des-Bal]

Which ones? Specifically which assaults on our civil liberties. I hear about them a lot but I really don't see them.

I can generalize it and say: privacy. That's a pretty broad term for my political doctrine, so I'll specify a little bit and say privacy of communications in both handwritten, electronic, and vocal methods.

So the information you send through private companies under TOS you haven't read isn't as safe as you expect it to be? Having all of the information is only slightly more helpful than having none of the information. Are you upset that hypothetical access to your information is possible? Because if that's the case you shouldn't be using anything that leaves a record anyway. You're calling the knowledge that you made a phone call your private information.

[Ifreann]

Which ones? Specifically which assaults on our civil liberties. I hear about them a lot but I really don't see them.

Well, they have secret courts handing out secret interpretations of secret legal provisions.

That seems kind of like a violation of our basic civil liberties to me.

A secret court that people on the internet know about doesn't sound very secret to me at all.

[Orcoa]

And you have no idea what a real police state is

a real police state would not allow someone like this to get away with releasing this type of information and live?

He isn't getting away with it. He will face a likely hefty prison sentence.

a real police state would censor this kind of news on both Tv and the web.

They don't censor it, but evidently they monitor it. Not any better.

a real police state would be more effective with keeping their secrets hidden by both the public and those who have a hand in this kind of spying.

Considering the leaks have been from people from the inside, I'd say they're pretty damn good at keeping their secrets. The leaks have shown they have quite a few secrets to keep.

The United States of America is not a police state....if you want a police state, go look at China or North Korea.

It's not a police state on the level that they are, but we're not far away from it.

And you still really have no idea what a real police state is.

Not surprised really

[Des-Bal]

You're claiming that something is unconstitutional, you are being challenged to prove it. We aren't a police state.

And I have referenced my source for these allegations as the original wording of the actual amendment. I will post it here if you want...

"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."

Unreasonable. Subjective. Only the court decides what that means.

[Republic of Bordeaux]

And you still really have no idea what a real police state is.

Not surprised really

Clever jab at my intelligence, yet no substance to back it up. You listed out what a police state would have, and I demonstrated ways in which the US shares those characteristics. You've essentially resorted to personal attacks because you realize your argument is gone, and you're in damage control mode. Unless! You can bring up an argument to retort this statement. I will gain more respect for you if you actually try to continue the argument, rather than just making blank statements such as "You still have no idea what a real police state is" (even though, you posted characteristics of a police state and I related them to the US) and then personal attacks on my intelligence. Thanks.

[Republic of Bordeaux]

Unreasonable. Subjective. Only the court decides what that means.

That's a horrible line of thought. It's along the lines of, "We don't need to think for ourselves because the courts will do it for us."