Edward Snowden poll (5/20/14): Hero or Traitor? (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

JZilla....has there ever been a "breach" like this in the NSA? Has there ever been news as "big" as what Snowden has produced? I ask because if not, perhaps the policies/procedures in place aren't enough for something like this. Is that possible? I scandal so big that there's really no right way to expose it. Thoughts?

It's not a challenge to you...I'm simply wondering why Snowden would have the belief the existing channels weren't appropriate. Clearly, he's in hiding and I'm pretty confident the gov't is out looking for him as we converse.

 

[Hipple II]

I freaking love Judge Napalitano

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/05/29/judge-napolitano-reacts-after-snowden-says-there-are-some-things-worth-dying

Judge Andrew Napolitano reacted this morning to the NBC News interview with NSA leaker Edward Snowden, who showed no remorse for breaking U.S. law to leak a trove of classified documents outlining the NSA's massive surveillance program.


"There have been times throughout American history where what is right is not the same as what is legal. Sometimes to do the right thing you have to break the law," Snowden told Brian Williams.

Brian Kilmeade asked the judge what kind of society we would have if people decided to break laws that they did not feel were right.

Napolitano countered that the nation's founders did just that and were considered "traitors" in the eyes of the King of England.

"When you do that and you succeed, you're considered a hero and you're a patriot. When you do that and you fail, you end up in the gallows or in jail," said Napolitano.

Kilmeade then pressed the judge on what kind of "courage" Snowden showed by stealing the documents and then fleeing to Russia.

"He saw what happened to other people who attempted to reveal what the government was doing. I don't justify living in Moscow at all, but he seems to feel that Moscow is a place where the American government can't reach him," said Napolitano, pointing out that Snowden has hired a prominent D.C. attorney to negotiate his return to the U.S. with the Justice Department.

Napolitano thinks there will be a deal struck and does not believe the government wants to put Snowden on trial.

Watch the full discussion above, including Judge Napolitano's reaction to Snowden's argument that the U.S. cannot be a free society while being subject to surveillance.

"We have to say 'there are some things worth dying for' and I think the country is one of them," said Snowden.

To hear more analysis from Judge Napolitano, tune in to Special Report's All-Star Panel, tonight at 6:30p ET.

The latest from Judge Nap on Fox News...

'It Seems Clear' That Crimes Occurred Within VA

Greenwald Says He'll Reveal Names of U.S. Citizens Targeted By NSA

Congress Reins In NSA? Not So Fast, Says Judge Nap

POSTED IN:
// Edward Snowden // NSA // NSA Surveillance Program // NSA Spying // Fourth Amendment

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Wow, Zilla sure did have a melt down.

Honestly I have a lot more faith that gov't is working in our best interests when the employees carrying out the policy are level headed. When this type of anger and insults are throw around by the people in charge of watching out for are best interests, you have to wonder if it carries over to their everyday jobs.

Not to mention it being a bad sign that people involved in these industries are taking it personally.

Sorry, I don't appreciate dittohead couch potatoes telling me where my or my brothers' loyalties lie. I put my ### on the line and it wasn't about "the government." But take my reaction however you like, your minds are all made up. Again, I spent a full day trying to discuss this in a civil fashion and you fruitcakes just keep singing the same tune. You have no interest in looking at this situation objectively, only from the standpoint of your own paranoid worldview. And from where I stand, I find some of your loyalties highly questionable.

Call it a meltdown, or "martyr" shtick if it makes you feel better, that doesn't bother me. I'm just telling it like I see it.

Obviously something is bothering you, particularly if you want to sling insults around at me unprovoked like this.

I think it's pretty clear what bothered me, and it was a blanket statement directed at Dr D but I think enough of you guys are standing behind it that I don't feel too bad about flinging some mud back at all of you collectively. I'm sure you can take it, after all it's just the internet. Feel free to address the substance of what I'm saying rather than my perceived emotions.

Would you agree that expressing a general desire to subvert the US government could be taken as a treasonous stance?

Maybe if you post something of substance again instead of misplaced put-downs.

Here's the problem, I tried this a few pages back and then I was accused by cherry-pick by Spock and Joe T of receiving financial gain from my work in the Department of Defense, and then by Joe of it being a "look at me" mentality for saying I served my country. So it wasn't personal until those morons starting tossing out unfounded accusations because of my rightful opinion that Snowden is a traitor.

So to Short Bus, Spock and Joe T>

I don't owe you ####s a thing. For every person that thanks me for my service, I humbly accept it and move on. For every ### clown that says I am "look at me!" or profiting from being a OIF and OEF vet, yeah...well you never were really worth the five minutes I just spent typing this note.

I don't need to be a company guy to think Snowden is a traitor, I just use my experience and logic for which I have a lot of. If you don't like my opinion, fine. I can talk this out and Snowden doesn't make any difference to me, and I have no issue with people believing the exposed program is unjust and encroaching on personal freedoms. But what was released and the actions of Snowden are not mutually exclusive, he can be a hero for releasing the prism program information to protect the interests of the public, and be a traitor for handing anything at all over to foreign and domestic enemies of the state. I don't have to be getting a fat wallet from the government to believe one, both, or neither. You don't have to be a clueless hippie for believing one, both, or neither.

None of this was directed at you Slapdash, I'm just wrapping up my thoughts over the past three or so pages. JZilla knows way more than me about this stuff, and he thinks Snowden is a creep also. So do others I know who have or are doing that kind of work. If you knew him you know he doesn't take it personally, he's just stating his opinion which is very much different from yours. But it seems that anyone who is very much against the actions of Snowden is some sort of extremest nationalist, neither JZilla or me are like that at all. National Security is of utmost importance to me as an individual however, and that's because I never want to see another 9/11 happen to my country. If that makes me a LOOK AT ME! monster, then I guess that's what I am.

 

[grateful zed]

hero

 

[Norman Paperman]

I think treason is vastly overrated imo.

Its one of those things that get the flag-wavers all riled up, but in the end the actual harm done is so de minimis, that the punishment rarely fits the crime. Given the amount of spying we do on other countries, all's fair in love and war imo.

 

[Dickies]

When this all first went down I agreed with the idea of exposing what the NSA was doing, but thought Snowden could have perhaps done it in a more sensible manner. After watching the Frontline this past week about the whole affair, I think that he had no other choice. The legality of the whole operation is questionable at best, yet all the others who voiced their opinions were steamrolled by the government, their lives all but destroyed in the process, and nobody knew anything about it. Snowden knew what had happened to them and decided he needed to provide as much proof as possible as to what was going on or he would suffer the same fate as the others and the public would be none the wiser.

I voted hero. From everything I know, there is 0% chance he's a traitor.

 

[Politician Spock]

Here's the problem, I tried this a few pages back and then I was accused by cherry-pick by Spock and Joe T of receiving financial gain from my work in the Department of Defense, and then by Joe of it being a "look at me" mentality for saying I served my country. So it wasn't personal until those morons starting tossing out unfounded accusations because of my rightful opinion that Snowden is a traitor.

If you don't want it to get personal, then don't rely on things that are personal to you to support your argument. Your defense of the unconstitutional programs should be able to stand on its own regardless of who you are or what you've done.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Here's the problem, I tried this a few pages back and then I was accused by cherry-pick by Spock and Joe T of receiving financial gain from my work in the Department of Defense, and then by Joe of it being a "look at me" mentality for saying I served my country. So it wasn't personal until those morons starting tossing out unfounded accusations because of my rightful opinion that Snowden is a traitor.

If you don't want it to get personal, then don't rely on things that are personal to you to support your argument. Your defense of the unconstitutional programs should be able to stand on its own regardless of who you are or what you've done.

This doesn't sound like much of an apology. There isn't much evidence that you have any idea of anything you espouse, only that you seem stuck on the idea that a 240-year-old document has somehow been violated. How about dinosaurs, real or made up?

 

[Politician Spock]

Here's the problem, I tried this a few pages back and then I was accused by cherry-pick by Spock and Joe T of receiving financial gain from my work in the Department of Defense, and then by Joe of it being a "look at me" mentality for saying I served my country. So it wasn't personal until those morons starting tossing out unfounded accusations because of my rightful opinion that Snowden is a traitor.

If you don't want it to get personal, then don't rely on things that are personal to you to support your argument. Your defense of the unconstitutional programs should be able to stand on its own regardless of who you are or what you've done.

This doesn't sound like much of an apology. There isn't much evidence that you have any idea of anything you espouse, only that you seem stuck on the idea that a 240-year-old document has somehow been violated. How about dinosaurs, real or made up?

Apologize for what? Still playing the martyr card I see.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Here's the problem, I tried this a few pages back and then I was accused by cherry-pick by Spock and Joe T of receiving financial gain from my work in the Department of Defense, and then by Joe of it being a "look at me" mentality for saying I served my country. So it wasn't personal until those morons starting tossing out unfounded accusations because of my rightful opinion that Snowden is a traitor.

If you don't want it to get personal, then don't rely on things that are personal to you to support your argument. Your defense of the unconstitutional programs should be able to stand on its own regardless of who you are or what you've done.

This doesn't sound like much of an apology. There isn't much evidence that you have any idea of anything you espouse, only that you seem stuck on the idea that a 240-year-old document has somehow been violated. How about dinosaurs, real or made up?

Apologize for what? Still playing the martyr card I see.

Real martyrs played in college marching bands, gaining worldly experience and unquestioned knowledge at road games vs MAC teams. Not sure I can compete with that.

 

[Politician Spock]

Here's the problem, I tried this a few pages back and then I was accused by cherry-pick by Spock and Joe T of receiving financial gain from my work in the Department of Defense, and then by Joe of it being a "look at me" mentality for saying I served my country. So it wasn't personal until those morons starting tossing out unfounded accusations because of my rightful opinion that Snowden is a traitor.

If you don't want it to get personal, then don't rely on things that are personal to you to support your argument. Your defense of the unconstitutional programs should be able to stand on its own regardless of who you are or what you've done.

This doesn't sound like much of an apology. There isn't much evidence that you have any idea of anything you espouse, only that you seem stuck on the idea that a 240-year-old document has somehow been violated. How about dinosaurs, real or made up?

Apologize for what? Still playing the martyr card I see.

Real martyrs played in college marching bands, gaining worldly experience and unquestioned knowledge at road games vs MAC teams. Not sure I can compete with that.

And you're playing the ad hominem card too.

Do you have any way of defending these unconstitutional programs without logical fallacies?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

You and Joe T are invested in Russian oil companies because you support Snowden, amiright?

 

[timschochet]

Here's the problem, I tried this a few pages back and then I was accused by cherry-pick by Spock and Joe T of receiving financial gain from my work in the Department of Defense, and then by Joe of it being a "look at me" mentality for saying I served my country. So it wasn't personal until those morons starting tossing out unfounded accusations because of my rightful opinion that Snowden is a traitor.

If you don't want it to get personal, then don't rely on things that are personal to you to support your argument. Your defense of the unconstitutional programs should be able to stand on its own regardless of who you are or what you've done.

The whole basis of your argument continues to be your rather arrogant assertion that what the NSA is doing is unconstitutional. I call it arrogant because you act like it's an obvious fact, and not a subjective question open to debate. As we've discussed again and again, while many constitutional scholars agree with your position, others disagree, including some very respectable judges and perhaps some Supreme Court judges. Right now it's a open issue worthy of debate.

 

[Politician Spock]

Here's the problem, I tried this a few pages back and then I was accused by cherry-pick by Spock and Joe T of receiving financial gain from my work in the Department of Defense, and then by Joe of it being a "look at me" mentality for saying I served my country. So it wasn't personal until those morons starting tossing out unfounded accusations because of my rightful opinion that Snowden is a traitor.

If you don't want it to get personal, then don't rely on things that are personal to you to support your argument. Your defense of the unconstitutional programs should be able to stand on its own regardless of who you are or what you've done.

The whole basis of your argument continues to be your rather arrogant assertion that what the NSA is doing is unconstitutional. I call it arrogant because you act like it's an obvious fact, and not a subjective question open to debate. As we've discussed again and again, while many constitutional scholars agree with your position, others disagree, including some very respectable judges and perhaps some Supreme Court judges. Right now it's a open issue worthy of debate.

Please change your username to "Strawman Argument". You do it constantly.

The basis of my argument has been, is, and will continue to be that the system of checks and balances of our government is currently flawed. Without Snowden doing what he did, then we do NOT have an open issue worthy of debate. Currently the legislation can pass law of which the constitutionality of said law is never constitutionally challenged, because all repurcussions of said law are hidden by claims of national security, eliminating the judicial requirement for evidence of harm in order to open the debate of the constitutionality of said law.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Here's the problem, I tried this a few pages back and then I was accused by cherry-pick by Spock and Joe T of receiving financial gain from my work in the Department of Defense, and then by Joe of it being a "look at me" mentality for saying I served my country. So it wasn't personal until those morons starting tossing out unfounded accusations because of my rightful opinion that Snowden is a traitor.

If you don't want it to get personal, then don't rely on things that are personal to you to support your argument. Your defense of the unconstitutional programs should be able to stand on its own regardless of who you are or what you've done.

The whole basis of your argument continues to be your rather arrogant assertion that what the NSA is doing is unconstitutional. I call it arrogant because you act like it's an obvious fact, and not a subjective question open to debate. As we've discussed again and again, while many constitutional scholars agree with your position, others disagree, including some very respectable judges and perhaps some Supreme Court judges. Right now it's a open issue worthy of debate.

He doesn't know any other argument. He watched twenty minutes of the Frontline episode, read an article on freedomchat.com, and has two Tim signatures to prove he's big and bad.

In the end he's a clueless small town hack who was in the band in college who loves throwing the sanctity of the constitution around, when he's never thought of defending it. Not in uniform, not in an assembly, not at the polls. He's fighting the man at a football forum, taking it to the people with vim and vigor hoping the FBG moderators close the thread before he swallows his own tongue.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Somebody get me some water

I'M ON FIRE IN HERE!!!!

 

[timschochet]

Here's the problem, I tried this a few pages back and then I was accused by cherry-pick by Spock and Joe T of receiving financial gain from my work in the Department of Defense, and then by Joe of it being a "look at me" mentality for saying I served my country. So it wasn't personal until those morons starting tossing out unfounded accusations because of my rightful opinion that Snowden is a traitor.

If you don't want it to get personal, then don't rely on things that are personal to you to support your argument. Your defense of the unconstitutional programs should be able to stand on its own regardless of who you are or what you've done.

The whole basis of your argument continues to be your rather arrogant assertion that what the NSA is doing is unconstitutional. I call it arrogant because you act like it's an obvious fact, and not a subjective question open to debate. As we've discussed again and again, while many constitutional scholars agree with your position, others disagree, including some very respectable judges and perhaps some Supreme Court judges. Right now it's a open issue worthy of debate.

Please change your username to "Strawman Argument". You do it constantly.

The basis of my argument has been, is, and will continue to be that the system of checks and balances of our government is currently flawed. Without Snowden doing what he did, then we do NOT have an open issue worthy of debate. Currently the legislation can pass law of which the constitutionality of said law is never constitutionally challenged, because all repurcussions of said law are hidden by claims of national security, eliminating the judicial requirement for evidence of harm in order to open the debate of the constitutionality of said law.

Actually, I regard the bolded as a very reasonable argument, and in fact I have a hard time disagreeing with it. Well said.

But it's NOT what you've argued in the past. You just referred to Dr. Detroit as offering defense of "unconstitutional programs." That's a much more direct argument than the bolded one, and THAT argument I reject. And it's not a strawman to call you out for making it.

 

[Politician Spock]

Here's the problem, I tried this a few pages back and then I was accused by cherry-pick by Spock and Joe T of receiving financial gain from my work in the Department of Defense, and then by Joe of it being a "look at me" mentality for saying I served my country. So it wasn't personal until those morons starting tossing out unfounded accusations because of my rightful opinion that Snowden is a traitor.

If you don't want it to get personal, then don't rely on things that are personal to you to support your argument. Your defense of the unconstitutional programs should be able to stand on its own regardless of who you are or what you've done.

The whole basis of your argument continues to be your rather arrogant assertion that what the NSA is doing is unconstitutional. I call it arrogant because you act like it's an obvious fact, and not a subjective question open to debate. As we've discussed again and again, while many constitutional scholars agree with your position, others disagree, including some very respectable judges and perhaps some Supreme Court judges. Right now it's a open issue worthy of debate.

Please change your username to "Strawman Argument". You do it constantly.

The basis of my argument has been, is, and will continue to be that the system of checks and balances of our government is currently flawed. Without Snowden doing what he did, then we do NOT have an open issue worthy of debate. Currently the legislation can pass law of which the constitutionality of said law is never constitutionally challenged, because all repurcussions of said law are hidden by claims of national security, eliminating the judicial requirement for evidence of harm in order to open the debate of the constitutionality of said law.

Actually, I regard the bolded as a very reasonable argument, and in fact I have a hard time disagreeing with it. Well said.But it's NOT what you've argued in the past. You just referred to Dr. Detroit as offering defense of "unconstitutional programs." That's a much more direct argument than the bolded one, and THAT argument I reject. And it's not a strawman to call you out for making it.

I have argued it numerous times in this thread alone, as well as numerous other threads. You're cherry picking and really grasping at straws if you think the basis of my argument is the use of "un" in front of "constitutional". It looks like to me like it touches a nerve with you when you read the word "unconstitutional". I'll continue to use if for that reason alone.

 

[timschochet]

Here's the problem, I tried this a few pages back and then I was accused by cherry-pick by Spock and Joe T of receiving financial gain from my work in the Department of Defense, and then by Joe of it being a "look at me" mentality for saying I served my country. So it wasn't personal until those morons starting tossing out unfounded accusations because of my rightful opinion that Snowden is a traitor.

If you don't want it to get personal, then don't rely on things that are personal to you to support your argument. Your defense of the unconstitutional programs should be able to stand on its own regardless of who you are or what you've done.

The whole basis of your argument continues to be your rather arrogant assertion that what the NSA is doing is unconstitutional. I call it arrogant because you act like it's an obvious fact, and not a subjective question open to debate. As we've discussed again and again, while many constitutional scholars agree with your position, others disagree, including some very respectable judges and perhaps some Supreme Court judges. Right now it's a open issue worthy of debate.

Please change your username to "Strawman Argument". You do it constantly.

The basis of my argument has been, is, and will continue to be that the system of checks and balances of our government is currently flawed. Without Snowden doing what he did, then we do NOT have an open issue worthy of debate. Currently the legislation can pass law of which the constitutionality of said law is never constitutionally challenged, because all repurcussions of said law are hidden by claims of national security, eliminating the judicial requirement for evidence of harm in order to open the debate of the constitutionality of said law.

Actually, I regard the bolded as a very reasonable argument, and in fact I have a hard time disagreeing with it. Well said.But it's NOT what you've argued in the past. You just referred to Dr. Detroit as offering defense of "unconstitutional programs." That's a much more direct argument than the bolded one, and THAT argument I reject. And it's not a strawman to call you out for making it.

I have argued it numerous times in this thread alone, as well as numerous other threads. You're cherry picking and really grasping at straws if you think the basis of my argument is the use of "un" in front of "constitutional". It looks like to me like it touches a nerve with you when you read the word "unconstitutional". I'll continue to use if for that reason alone.

Whatever. I'm trying to compliment you. You made a very succinct argument just now. If you made it in the past, I don't recall it being nearly as concise. It's a thoughtful argument and even if you are someone, like me, who believes that the mass collection of data with bulk warrants ultimately IS constitutional, the question of whether the government should be allowed to shove aside the whole debate in the name of national security is a good one. Well done.

 

[Politician Spock]

Here's the problem, I tried this a few pages back and then I was accused by cherry-pick by Spock and Joe T of receiving financial gain from my work in the Department of Defense, and then by Joe of it being a "look at me" mentality for saying I served my country. So it wasn't personal until those morons starting tossing out unfounded accusations because of my rightful opinion that Snowden is a traitor.

If you don't want it to get personal, then don't rely on things that are personal to you to support your argument. Your defense of the unconstitutional programs should be able to stand on its own regardless of who you are or what you've done.

The whole basis of your argument continues to be your rather arrogant assertion that what the NSA is doing is unconstitutional. I call it arrogant because you act like it's an obvious fact, and not a subjective question open to debate. As we've discussed again and again, while many constitutional scholars agree with your position, others disagree, including some very respectable judges and perhaps some Supreme Court judges. Right now it's a open issue worthy of debate.

Please change your username to "Strawman Argument". You do it constantly.

The basis of my argument has been, is, and will continue to be that the system of checks and balances of our government is currently flawed. Without Snowden doing what he did, then we do NOT have an open issue worthy of debate. Currently the legislation can pass law of which the constitutionality of said law is never constitutionally challenged, because all repurcussions of said law are hidden by claims of national security, eliminating the judicial requirement for evidence of harm in order to open the debate of the constitutionality of said law.

Actually, I regard the bolded as a very reasonable argument, and in fact I have a hard time disagreeing with it. Well said.But it's NOT what you've argued in the past. You just referred to Dr. Detroit as offering defense of "unconstitutional programs." That's a much more direct argument than the bolded one, and THAT argument I reject. And it's not a strawman to call you out for making it.

I have argued it numerous times in this thread alone, as well as numerous other threads. You're cherry picking and really grasping at straws if you think the basis of my argument is the use of "un" in front of "constitutional". It looks like to me like it touches a nerve with you when you read the word "unconstitutional". I'll continue to use if for that reason alone.

Whatever. I'm trying to compliment you. You made a very succinct argument just now. If you made it in the past, I don't recall it being nearly as concise. It's a thoughtful argument and even if you are someone, like me, who believes that the mass collection of data with bulk warrants ultimately IS constitutional, the question of whether the government should be allowed to shove aside the whole debate in the name of national security is a good one. Well done.

Here I am stating it in the Verizon thread when the story broke last June and capitalizing it to call your attention to it: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=682440&page=26#entry15648788

Here I am two months later in the same thread responding to one of your posts stating it again: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=682440&page=46#entry15835547

Here I am stating it earlier in this thread: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=706860&page=13#entry16867546

Etc, etc, etc.....

 

[fatness]

I think I remember Ahrn placing his anger correctly, But Ed Snowden isn't fit to mop up **** Cheney's evil piss, never mind try to blow a whistle on him.

**** Cheney, I remember him. He was part of dredging up old discredited intelligence, polishing it up, making it look new again, making it look threatening, and passing it up the line to president Bush who became convinced there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We invaded and occupied Iraq over that, remember? And there weren't any weapons of mass destruction.

That was a #### lie foisted upon the country. The parts of the intelligence community who were part of it deserve perpetual discredit and infamy. A damn war over discredited intelligence.

Doesn't give rise to much faith in what our now-much-larger intelligence community is doing today.

 

[fatness]

JZilla knows way more than me about this stuff, and he thinks Snowden is a creep also. So do others I know who have or are doing that kind of work. If you knew him you know he doesn't take it personally, he's just stating his opinion which is very much different from yours.

So people in the intelligence business have a low opinion of Snowden. That's hardly surprising. He's exposed some of what they do, it looks overbearing and intrusive to a lot of Americans, so of course they're going to have a low opinion of the guy.

 

[Politician Spock]

JZilla knows way more than me about this stuff, and he thinks Snowden is a creep also. So do others I know who have or are doing that kind of work. If you knew him you know he doesn't take it personally, he's just stating his opinion which is very much different from yours.

So people in the intelligence business have a low opinion of Snowden. That's hardly surprising. He's exposed some of what they do, it looks overbearing and intrusive to a lot of Americans, so of course they're going to have a low opinion of the guy.

It's called in-group favoritism, aka in-group bias.

 

[RCon]

Whatever. I'm trying to compliment you. You made a very succinct argument just now. If you made it in the past, I don't recall it being nearly as concise. It's a thoughtful argument and even if you are someone, like me, who believes that the mass collection of data with bulk warrants ultimately IS constitutional, the question of whether the government should be allowed to shove aside the whole debate in the name of national security is a good one. Well done.

I thought you conceded in the other thread that a mass warrant allowing everything is the logical equivalent of no warrant?

 

[timschochet]

Whatever. I'm trying to compliment you. You made a very succinct argument just now. If you made it in the past, I don't recall it being nearly as concise. It's a thoughtful argument and even if you are someone, like me, who believes that the mass collection of data with bulk warrants ultimately IS constitutional, the question of whether the government should be allowed to shove aside the whole debate in the name of national security is a good one. Well done.

I thought you conceded in the other thread that a mass warrant allowing everything is the logical equivalent of no warrant?

I go back and forth. Keep changing my mind.

 

[RCon]

Whatever. I'm trying to compliment you. You made a very succinct argument just now. If you made it in the past, I don't recall it being nearly as concise. It's a thoughtful argument and even if you are someone, like me, who believes that the mass collection of data with bulk warrants ultimately IS constitutional, the question of whether the government should be allowed to shove aside the whole debate in the name of national security is a good one. Well done.

I thought you conceded in the other thread that a mass warrant allowing everything is the logical equivalent of no warrant?

I go back and forth. Keep changing my mind.

Weird. It's not debatable in the slightest that a single warrant authorizing everything for all time IS logically equivalent to no warrant. You can argue that such a thing would still be constitutional (you'd be wrong, obviously, but at least the argument would be logically consistent), but the logic is pretty clear.

 

[Politician Spock]

Whatever. I'm trying to compliment you. You made a very succinct argument just now. If you made it in the past, I don't recall it being nearly as concise. It's a thoughtful argument and even if you are someone, like me, who believes that the mass collection of data with bulk warrants ultimately IS constitutional, the question of whether the government should be allowed to shove aside the whole debate in the name of national security is a good one. Well done.

I thought you conceded in the other thread that a mass warrant allowing everything is the logical equivalent of no warrant?

I go back and forth. Keep changing my mind.

Really? I hadn't noticed.

 

[Joe T]

Whatever. I'm trying to compliment you. You made a very succinct argument just now. If you made it in the past, I don't recall it being nearly as concise. It's a thoughtful argument and even if you are someone, like me, who believes that the mass collection of data with bulk warrants ultimately IS constitutional, the question of whether the government should be allowed to shove aside the whole debate in the name of national security is a good one. Well done.

I thought you conceded in the other thread that a mass warrant allowing everything is the logical equivalent of no warrant?

I go back and forth. Keep changing my mind.

Really? I hadn't noticed.

 

[tonydead]

Really enjoy reading this tread, for the most part. Interesting subject after seeing the interview and I will be checking out the frontline series soon.

I really didn't like the direction Spock took with the financial gain argument. It was rather week imo, but, DD did offer up that he worked for the DoD for 20 years so it is relevant. Why JZ and DD took so much offence is curiously bazar. Seems like an easily enough argument to refute or dismiss.

Carry on.

 

[Slapdash]

EFF Tells Court That The NSA Knowingly And Illegally Destroyed Evidence In Key Case Over Bulk Surveillance

The NSA is just following orders, unless they're from a non-secret court.

 

[StrikeS2k]

EFF Tells Court That The NSA Knowingly And Illegally Destroyed Evidence In Key Case Over Bulk Surveillance

The NSA is just following orders, unless they're from a non-secret court.

I'm sure Tim will be along presently to tell us why this is ok and we shouldn't care if the government destroys evidence.

 

[The Commish]

EFF Tells Court That The NSA Knowingly And Illegally Destroyed Evidence In Key Case Over Bulk Surveillance

The NSA is just following orders, unless they're from a non-secret court.

I'm sure Tim will be along presently to tell us why this is ok and we shouldn't care if the government destroys evidence.

I think the rule is....if it's collected in bulk, it can be destroyed in bulk.

 

[Politician Spock]

EFF Tells Court That The NSA Knowingly And Illegally Destroyed Evidence In Key Case Over Bulk Surveillance

The NSA is just following orders, unless they're from a non-secret court.

Well, according to jzilla, we the tax payers pay the NSA to lie. So I guess that means we pay them to destroy evidence too.

 

[Joe T]

Tech companies beef up against mass spying

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101735811

 

[fantasycurse42]

His girlfriend either has a penis, or the worlds largest ######.

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/edward-snowden-living-moscow-u-s-girlfriend-report-article-1.1970932

 

[Jack White]

Snowden considering returning to US:

I hope he doesn't.

There is no way he can possibly receive a fair trial.

And if US officials promise him a fair trial, that's enough evidence to the contrary.

 

[irish eyes]

His girlfriend either has a penis, or the worlds largest ######.

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/edward-snowden-living-moscow-u-s-girlfriend-report-article-1.1970932

Is that Flo from the progressive commercials?

 

[The Commish]

Snowden considering returning to US:

I hope he doesn't.

There is no way he can possibly receive a fair trial.

And if US officials promise him a fair trial, that's enough evidence to the contrary.

Yeah, not a chance I come back to the US.

 

[cstu]

Did John Oliver expose Snowden's lies?

 

[Fennis]

whatever happened to his pole dancing girl friend? She still single?

they are back together

http://drugoi.livejournal.com/4032438.html

she was also at the Oscars:

http://photos.vanityfair.com/2015/02/23/54eaac9c1ac93f5b578442e9_snowden-girlfriend-oscars.jpg