Ecuador Halts Snowden's Asylum Because Julian Assange is a Fame Hog

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"][QUOTE="fueled-system"] spying on americans without there knowledge to me is breaking the law. us citiizens cant film or record police without consent so why shouldnt it be the same for us? also what good has this program done? they didnt prevent boston wich btw was domestic terrorisim. they even failed at the nyc attempt at times square for a program that protects americans so far in my eyes has failed miserablyfrannkzappa

That changes the entire meaning of your question now doesn't it?

Both of you need to understand that the NSA got the required warrants to do what they did. There is no breach of the law and especially there is no breach of the 4th Amendment. 

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"] so how in the f*ck are we supposed to do anything about spying if we don't have info about it? and how do we get info with out "law-breaking" whistleblowers?majoras_wrath

if he had just released info about that it would have been a different matter.

but he didn't and is now using other peoples lives to further his agenda.

that makes all the other information he stole on the location of federal agents and their families ok? he can do whatever he wants with that information, and is currently blackmailing th us government with it.

the government also attained all necessary warrants for the surveillance.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

if he had just released info about that it would have been a different matter.

but he didn't and is now using other peoples lives to further his agenda.

frannkzappa

that makes all the other information he stole on the location of federal agents and their families ok? he can do whatever he wants with that information, and is currently blackmailing th us government with it.

the government also attained all necessary warrants for the surveillance.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]Wait. You actually approve of arresting whistleblowers?mmwmwmmwmwmm

I don't have a problem with whistleblowers, I have a problem with idealogs who breach secrecy laws and turns over secrets that he swore to protect whether he agrees with them or not. He is no different than John Walker. 

Whistleblowers, like the ones who drop a dime on the government for spending $600 on a hammer or toilet seat, should not be arrested, but for someone who purposely sought out employment with the contractor so he could purposely work at the NSA to "expose" government actions is not a whistleblower, but an idealog who stepped way out of bounds and disregarded his oath of secrecy due to his ideology, yes. 

Do you like to post links or explain your reasoning zappa ? Or are you more of a fan of just saying things in the hopes people believe every word. dkdk999

iv'e already posted a link, but apparently that's just government propaganda.

with primary sources i may add.

[QUOTE="dkdk999"]Do you like to post links or explain your reasoning zappa ? Or are you more of a fan of just saying things in the hopes people believe every word. frannkzappa

iv'e already posted a link, but apparently that's just government propaganda.

http://www.webpronews.com/edward-snowden-will-release-nsa-documents-if-hes-caught-2013-06

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

http://www.usatoday.com/story/cybertruth/2013/06/11/could-edward-snowden-really-shut-down-the-nsa/2412839/

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="dkdk999"]Do you like to post links or explain your reasoning zappa ? Or are you more of a fan of just saying things in the hopes people believe every word. majoras_wrath

iv'e already posted a link, but apparently that's just government propaganda.

how in the world could you construe that as a straw man?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"] I forgot to put "isn't". oops.majoras_wrath

That changes the entire meaning of your question now doesn't it?

Both of you need to understand that the NSA got the required warrants to do what they did. There is no breach of the law and especially there is no breach of the 4th Amendment. 

Fisa court warrant authorising NSA surveillance procedures full document and also has a link to what NSA can do without a warrant for US citizens as well as where they can do it and how any info collected on US citizens can be used. Notice the word Secret on all the documents. 

These documents appear to be ones that Snowden leaked. 

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

iv'e already posted a link, but apparently that's just government propaganda.

frannkzappa

how in the world could you construe that as a straw man?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"] please keep going. I've almost completed my "Arguing on OT with Idiots" bingo card.majoras_wrath

how in the world could you construe that as a straw man?

then why did you post a picture of a straw man?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

that makes all the other information he stole on the location of federal agents and their families ok? he can do whatever he wants with that information, and is currently blackmailing th us government with it.

 

the government also attained all necessary warrants for the surveillance.

majoras_wrath

No, it is you moving the goalposts so you do not have to see what is right in front of you. 

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

how in the world could you construe that as a straw man?

frannkzappa

then why did you post a picture of a straw man?

lol this made me laugh.

[QUOTE="dkdk999"]Do you like to post links or explain your reasoning zappa ? Or are you more of a fan of just saying things in the hopes people believe every word. frannkzappa

iv'e already posted a link, but apparently that's just government propaganda.

with primary sources i may add.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="dkdk999"]Do you like to post links or explain your reasoning zappa ? Or are you more of a fan of just saying things in the hopes people believe every word. dkdk999

iv'e already posted a link, but apparently that's just government propaganda.

with primary sources i may add.

i provided 3 more

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

That changes the entire meaning of your question now doesn't it?

Both of you need to understand that the NSA got the required warrants to do what they did. There is no breach of the law and especially there is no breach of the 4th Amendment. 

WhiteKnight77

Fisa court warrant authorising NSA surveillance procedures full document and also has a link to what NSA can do without a warrant for US citizens as well as where they can do it and how any info collected on US citizens can be used. Notice the word Secret on all the documents. 

These documents appear to be ones that Snowden leaked. 

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

that makes all the other information he stole on the location of federal agents and their families ok? he can do whatever he wants with that information, and is currently blackmailing th us government with it.

 

the government also attained all necessary warrants for the surveillance.

WhiteKnight77

No, it is you moving the goalposts so you do not have to see what is right in front of you. 

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]again, gonna need a source. I'm interested to hear how they got a warrant for just about every americanmajoras_wrath

Fisa court warrant authorising NSA surveillance procedures full document and also has a link to what NSA can do without a warrant for US citizens as well as where they can do it and how any info collected on US citizens can be used. Notice the word Secret on all the documents. 

These documents appear to be ones that Snowden leaked. 

All it takes is one judge to sign off on a warrant. It has been that way for ages and will be that way into the future. Said judge was satisfied that it did not run afoul of the 4th Amendment as many here seem to think was being disregarded. Signing the warrant blows those suppositions out of the water.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"] this is you right now.majoras_wrath

No, it is you moving the goalposts so you do not have to see what is right in front of you.

But he didn't that's the problem.

i moved no "goal posts" i simply disagreed with your inaccurate statement.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Fisa court warrant authorising NSA surveillance procedures full document and also has a link to what NSA can do without a warrant for US citizens as well as where they can do it and how any info collected on US citizens can be used. Notice the word Secret on all the documents. 

These documents appear to be ones that Snowden leaked. 

WhiteKnight77

All it takes is one judge to sign off on a warrant. It has been that way for ages and will be that way into the future. Said judge was satisfied that it did not run afoul of the 4th Amendment as many here seem to think was being disregarded. Signing the warrant blows those suppositions out of the water.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

That is a good thing honestly. Now, it is just a matter of getting someone into Moscow's airport and arresting Snowden since that area of the airport is not exactly Russian soil. Still, I don't think Obama will send anyone in there to provoke Putin's ire.

majoras_wrath

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="dkdk999"]Do you like to post links or explain your reasoning zappa ? Or are you more of a fan of just saying things in the hopes people believe every word. majoras_wrath

iv'e already posted a link, but apparently that's just government propaganda.

[QUOTE="dkdk999"]Can you explain though how the US government breaking the law ? ThaneKrios28

See, this proves you do not know what you are talking about.

Court says public has right to video police in public places shows that we can with the ruling by the US Appeals Court of the 1st Circuit.

 

The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment's aegis extends further than the text's proscription on laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, "the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw." ...

Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."Linked Article

You might be a taxpayer, but you sure do not know of which you speak, time and again. 

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"] jesus. do you know anything? he had contacts in various legitimate media sources that he fed the info to. and no sh*t surveillance isn't mentioned in the 4th, it didn't exist at the time in this form. it however, doesn't take much critical thinking to realize that collecting digital info and storing it in case of lawbreaking is a modern form of "papers and effects".majoras_wrath

that makes all the other information he stole on the location of federal agents and their families ok? he can do whatever he wants with that information, and is currently blackmailing th us government with it.

the government also attained all necessary warrants for the surveillance.

I hadn't read about the FISA ruling, so you are right, technically that makes it a warrant. However, this is incredibly unethical, and as many are saying, should be unconstitutional. I just hope the suits against the government eventually get to the Supreme Court.majoras_wrath

Yes, and I hope it actually has the correct outcome in that court. Odds are that it will not.

It is extremely said to me that it has ever come to this point.