Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
According to FISA court rulings, for one.
Which one?
The NSA use of blanket survililence (use of section 215 of FISA) is "outside the spirit of the law" and "in violation of the fourth amendment".
Snowden exposed government agency crimes, adn is therefore
Which court convicted anyone of a crime in this matter?
Which court did that?
Which laws? Only the ones you like?Only a Statist with little regard for the law
, or American liberty would attempt to blame Snowden for exposing government crimes.
Government crimes according to who?
Throw the 4th amendment out. Too many words and too few people who know how to read.
The 4th:
"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."
Fucking tragic but this seems to be the way things are going.
Throw the 4th amendment out. Too many words and too few people who know how to read.
The 4th:
"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."
Fucking tragic but this seems to be the way things are going.
I can read the 4th amendment fine.
I am having trouble reading part of the Constitution though. I can't even find it, actually, maybe you can help me? Since you're a Constitutional scholar and all, it should be easy for you! I'm looking for the part that says Ed Snowden is the one who decides if the government violated the 4th amendment. Can you please show me that part? Thanks for the help!
Throw the 4th amendment out. Too many words and too few people who know how to read.
The 4th:
"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."
Fucking tragic but this seems to be the way things are going.
I can read the 4th amendment fine.
I am having trouble reading part of the Constitution though. I can't even find it, actually, maybe you can help me? Since you're a Constitutional scholar and all, it should be easy for you! I'm looking for the part that says Ed Snowden is the one who decides if the government violated the 4th amendment. Can you please show me that part? Thanks for the help!
The FISA court already decided that the NSA was in violation of the fourth amendment.
Throw the 4th amendment out. Too many words and too few people who know how to read.
The 4th:
"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."
Fucking tragic but this seems to be the way things are going.
I can read the 4th amendment fine.
I am having trouble reading part of the Constitution though. I can't even find it, actually, maybe you can help me? Since you're a Constitutional scholar and all, it should be easy for you! I'm looking for the part that says Ed Snowden is the one who decides if the government violated the 4th amendment. Can you please show me that part? Thanks for the help!
Throw the 4th amendment out. Too many words and too few people who know how to read.
The 4th:
"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."
Fucking tragic but this seems to be the way things are going.
I can read the 4th amendment fine.
I am having trouble reading part of the Constitution though. I can't even find it, actually, maybe you can help me? Since you're a Constitutional scholar and all, it should be easy for you! I'm looking for the part that says Ed Snowden is the one who decides if the government violated the 4th amendment. Can you please show me that part? Thanks for the help!
How about the Washington Post reporting on an internal audit by the NSAs Signals Intelligence Directorate. In fact the NSA admits to thousands of privacy violations - here is their own document:
NSA report on privacy violations in the first quarter of 2012 - The Washington Post
From a different Washington Post article:
"The May 2012 audit, intended for the agencys top leaders, counts only incidents at the NSAs Fort Meade headquarters and other *facilities in the Washington area. Three government officials, speak*ing on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters, said the number would be substantially higher if it included other NSA operating units and regional collection centers."
"In October 2011, months after the program got underway, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruled that the collection effort was unconstitutional. The court said that the methods used were deficient on statutory and constitutional grounds, according to a top-secret summary of the opinion, and it ordered the NSA to comply with standard privacy protections or stop the program."
"James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, has acknowledged that the court found the NSA in breach of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but the Obama administration has fought a Freedom of Information lawsuit that seeks the opinion."
NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year, audit finds - The Washington Post
I'm looking forward to your response.
Jesus, you're a dumbfuck, aren'tcha?
Here, child. let me help you out, son. You obviosuly have problems with reading and searching:
NSA Surveillance Violated Constitution, Secret FISA Court Found | Cato @ Liberty
https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2012_rpt/faa-extend.html
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Opinion
I hope you can actually read.
“On at least one occasion,” the intelligence shop has approved Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to say, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court found that “minimization procedures” used by the government while it was collecting intelligence were “unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Minimization refers to how long the government may retain the surveillance data it collects. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is supposed to guarantee our rights against unreasonable searches.
How can he be a traitor for exposing "secrets" when Obama claims those "secrets" are phoney scandals? if they are phoney scandals, then he clearly didn't expose anything real and thus didn't commit any crime.
You may be able to read some of the words, but the meaning is lost on you.
Did Ed Snowden just happen to stumble across information he felt like the public needed to know?
"My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," he told the Post on June 12. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago."
Doesn't sound like it to me! Sounds like he sought out the job with the intent all along of violating his security agreement and U.S. law. That's how SPIES behave - not whistle blowers.
Snowden sought Booz Allen job to gather evidence on NSA surveillance | South China Morning Post
How can he be a traitor for exposing "secrets" when Obama claims those "secrets" are phoney scandals? if they are phoney scandals, then he clearly didn't expose anything real and thus didn't commit any crime.
How can he be a traitor for exposing "secrets" when Obama claims those "secrets" are phoney scandals? if they are phoney scandals, then he clearly didn't expose anything real and thus didn't commit any crime.
That's a good one
Jesus, you're a dumbfuck, aren'tcha?
Here, child. let me help you out, son. You obviosuly have problems with reading and searching:
NSA Surveillance Violated Constitution, Secret FISA Court Found | Cato @ Liberty
https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2012_rpt/faa-extend.html
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Opinion
I hope you can actually read.
On at least one occasion, the intelligence shop has approved Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to say, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court found that minimization procedures used by the government while it was collecting intelligence were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Minimization refers to how long the government may retain the surveillance data it collects. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is supposed to guarantee our rights against unreasonable searches.
I'm sorry, we're talking about two different Ed Snowdens. The one I'm talking about did a lot more than release information that the NSA was holding collected information too long.
If the NSA violates the 4th amendment ever - even once - that means anyone who has taken an oath to protect secrets is free to release any and all secrets they choose to the public?
BTW - can you show us where the 4th amendment says how long the NSA may keep collected data?
How can he be a traitor for exposing "secrets" when Obama claims those "secrets" are phoney scandals? if they are phoney scandals, then he clearly didn't expose anything real and thus didn't commit any crime.
Because he took and oath not to reveal what he revealed. duh.
Did Ed Snowden just happen to stumble across information he felt like the public needed to know?
"My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," he told the Post on June 12. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago."
Doesn't sound like it to me! Sounds like he sought out the job with the intent all along of violating his security agreement and U.S. law. That's how SPIES behave - not whistle blowers.
Snowden sought Booz Allen job to gather evidence on NSA surveillance | South China Morning Post
Spies give secrets to the enemy. He gave that secret to the US people. I guess the US citizens are now the enemy.
Jesus, you're a dumbfuck, aren'tcha?
Here, child. let me help you out, son. You obviosuly have problems with reading and searching:
NSA Surveillance Violated Constitution, Secret FISA Court Found | Cato @ Liberty
https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2012_rpt/faa-extend.html
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Opinion
I hope you can actually read.
On at least one occasion, the intelligence shop has approved Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to say, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court found that minimization procedures used by the government while it was collecting intelligence were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Minimization refers to how long the government may retain the surveillance data it collects. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is supposed to guarantee our rights against unreasonable searches.
I'm sorry, we're talking about two different Ed Snowdens. The one I'm talking about did a lot more than release information that the NSA was holding collected information too long.
If the NSA violates the 4th amendment ever - even once - that means anyone who has taken an oath to protect secrets is free to release any and all secrets they choose to the public?
BTW - can you show us where the 4th amendment says how long the NSA may keep collected data?
Right. He exposed criminal conduct of the NSA. He was under no obligation to maintain secrecy regarding criminal activity. In fact, just teh opposite.
Well, the NSA DID violate the fourth A. So exposing their criminal activity exonerates Snowden from any liability. In the same fashion a state agent would participate in criminal activity to expose bigger crimes.
BTW - moving the goal posts doesn't make you look any smarter, Junior.
