Edward Snowden Discussion Thread

[Welsh Cowboy]

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.

In a police state you are not allowed to criticize the government.

Have you read any right-wing blogs? They don't get shut down. Nor do satire shows like the Daily Show or The Colbert Report.

[Lemanrussland]

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.

Love how North Korea is the glorious standard we hold ourselves to in this country.

[Republic of Bordeaux]

In a police state you are not allowed to criticize the government.

Have you read any right-wing blogs? They don't get shut down. Nor do satire shows like the Daily Show or The Colbert Report.

Then let me correct myself:

We have many characteristics of a police state at the moment, and we are possibly on the road to becoming one in the name of "security".

EDIT: Addendum!

There is nothing stopping us from becoming a police state, because violations of personal liberties are "OK" so long as there are congressional laws to back them up and SCOTUS rulings to support them (or a lack of SCOTUS rulings to oppose them).

[Lemanrussland]

"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.

He said "more like a police state". Learn to read, and stop holding up North Korea or the PRC as the standard where we say "no, this is now unacceptable".

[Des-Bal]

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."

It's actually along the lines of "mob justice bad."

[Des-Bal]

Then let me correct myself:

We have many characteristics of a police state at the moment, and we are possibly on the road to becoming one in the name of "security".

We don't have many characteristics of a police state. Your comparisons were laughable.

[Welsh Cowboy]

In a police state you are not allowed to criticize the government.

Have you read any right-wing blogs? They don't get shut down. Nor do satire shows like the Daily Show or The Colbert Report.

Then let me correct myself:

We have many characteristics of a police state at the moment, and we are possibly on the road to becoming one in the name of "security".

I don't think we have that many characteristics, if any, of a police state.

[Northwest Slobovia]

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.

It's the press's job to get scoops. Anyway, as was reported at the time, the usual way administrations deal with scoops that could blow operations is to tell the press to hold off reporting until it's over. Apparently, Obama and company decided to bring the hammer down instead. Looks like they hit their thumb.

I keep trying to make this work, but it's not gelling:

A short, short time ago, in a country close, close by...

It is a period of casual oppression. Rebel agents, striking from a Hawaiian base,
have won their first victory against the evil Federal Administration. During the battle,
rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Administration's ultimate weapon,
PRISM, a cybernetic eavesdropping program with enough power to spy on an entire planet.
Pursued by the Administration's sinister agents, Edward Snowden races to Hong Kong
aboard a commercial airliner, custodian of the stolen plans that can save his people and
restore freedom to the planet...

Which I think neatly sums up my opinion of the matter.

[Lemanrussland]

Then let me correct myself:

We have many characteristics of a police state at the moment, and we are possibly on the road to becoming one in the name of "security".

We don't have many characteristics of a police state. Your comparisons were laughable.

Pervasive, Orwellian surveillance is one characteristic of a police state.

Of course, apologists like you will never admit we're making mistakes, or that we've compromised our liberties too much. You'll just move the goalie posts and continue to argue on the behalf of tyrannical bullshit like this.

[Wamitoria]

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.

That would be because of the information provided by Mr. Snowden.

[Republic of Bordeaux]

It's actually along the lines of "mob justice bad."

No; what you described is literally "No one needs to think because the government does it for us."

I'm not advocating mob justice, I'm merely saying that the recent actions blatantly violate the wording of the 4th Amendment (and there's really no denying that unless you're lying to yourself/lying to others to try and get them to support said actions).

[Des-Bal]

Pervasive, Orwellian surveillance is one characteristic of a police state.

Of course, apologists like you will never admit we're making mistakes, or that we've compromised our liberties too much. You'll just move the goalie posts and continue to argue on the behalf of tyrannical bullshit like this.

You're talking to a rabid libertarian so don't give me that shit.

[Lemanrussland]

Pervasive, Orwellian surveillance is one characteristic of a police state.

Of course, apologists like you will never admit we're making mistakes, or that we've compromised our liberties too much. You'll just move the goalie posts and continue to argue on the behalf of tyrannical bullshit like this.

You're talking to a rabid libertarian so don't give me that shit.

Right...

[Republic of Bordeaux]

Pervasive, Orwellian surveillance is one characteristic of a police state.

Of course, apologists like you will never admit we're making mistakes, or that we've compromised our liberties too much. You'll just move the goalie posts and continue to argue on the behalf of tyrannical bullshit like this.

Or, argue that since the SCOTUS has necessarily said it's "wrong", then it's ok and saying otherwise is flat out wrong.

[Des-Bal]

No; what you described is literally "No one needs to think because the government does it for us."

I'm not advocating mob justice, I'm merely saying that the recent actions blatantly violate the wording of the 4th Amendment (and there's really no denying that unless you're lying to yourself/lying to others to try and get them to support said actions).

No it literally isn't. "Unreasonable" is up for interpretation and only the courts interpretation is valid.

[Republic of Bordeaux]

You're talking to a rabid libertarian so don't give me that shit.

Sorry if I have a hard time believing you're a "rabid libertarian".

[Des-Bal]

Right...

I believe the government should consist of a military a police force and a justice system. I don't even believe in public roads. The fact of the matter is we're talking about unconstitutional and you don't get to decide that.

[Republic of Bordeaux]

No it literally isn't. "Unreasonable" is up for interpretation and only the courts interpretation is valid.

How the FUCK is saying "only the court's interpretation is valid" not saying "there's no need to think because the government can do it"? You sound like the world's worst libertarian, ever. That's not a personal attack (not intended to be, sorry if it offends), but I'm not aware of any other libertarian advocating that the government should have the authority to draw the line of an unreasonable intrusion upon our liberties.

[Des-Bal]

Sorry if I have a hard time believing you're a "rabid libertarian".

I support child labor and the legalization of heroin.

[Des-Bal]

No it literally isn't. "Unreasonable" is up for interpretation and only the courts interpretation is valid.

How the FUCK is saying "only the court's interpretation is valid" not saying "there's no need to think because the government can do it"? You sound like the world's worst libertarian, ever. That's not a personal attack (not intended to be, sorry if it offends), but I'm not aware of any other libertarian advocating that the government should have the authority to draw the line of an unreasonable intrusion upon our liberties.

Because I'm not a crazy person?

The government absolutely has sole authority to draw the line. The alternative is every individual deciding which laws do and do not apply to them.

[Lemanrussland]

Right...

I believe the government should consist of a military a police force and a justice system. I don't even believe in public roads. The fact of the matter is we're talking about unconstitutional and you don't get to decide that.

That doesn't mean we can't debate it, nor does it mean I can't express my opinion that's it's unconstitutional and must be stopped.

My words don't carry any legal weight, neither do yours, but this isn't an excuse to shut down discussion.

[Republic of Bordeaux]

Because I'm not a crazy person?

The government absolutely has sole authority to draw the line. The alternative is every individual deciding which laws do and do not apply to them.

I recognize the government needs authority on laws. I may have become a bit heated on the topic, and I apologize. I don't think we should dismiss the wrongs done by the NSA just because they aren't "necessarily" illegal or wrong as defined by congressional laws or SCOTUS rulings.

[Ifreann]

No it literally isn't. "Unreasonable" is up for interpretation and only the courts interpretation is valid.

How the FUCK is saying "only the court's interpretation is valid" not saying "there's no need to think because the government can do it"?

Because they mean two entirely different things.

[Welsh Cowboy]

Because I'm not a crazy person?

The government absolutely has sole authority to draw the line. The alternative is every individual deciding which laws do and do not apply to them.

I recognize the government needs authority on laws. I may have become a bit heated on the topic, and I apologize. I don't think we should dismiss the wrongs done by the NSA just because they aren't "necessarily" illegal or wrong as defined by congressional laws or SCOTUS rulings.

Well we can debate whether there should be new laws against what they're doing, but they're not illegal, so in fact Mr. Snowmen revealed a classified program that wasn't actually illegal.

[Lemanrussland]

I recognize the government needs authority on laws. I may have become a bit heated on the topic, and I apologize. I don't think we should dismiss the wrongs done by the NSA just because they aren't "necessarily" illegal or wrong as defined by congressional laws or SCOTUS rulings.

Well we can debate whether there should be new laws against what they're doing, but they're not illegal, so in fact Mr. Snowmen revealed a classified program that wasn't actually illegal.

You're missing the point entirely.

Again, stop hiding behind the lack of a SCOTUS ruling on this issue to shut down all discussion. It's legalistic, pedantic, and reflects an unwillingness to actually discuss the issue.