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.
The guy that leaked the Pentagon Papers thinks this is a bigger story? And Obamazombies are still defending him?
This is really a fantastic development though. Can you think of a better litmus test to separate actual, well-intentioned liberals, from the neo-cons they've been suckered into following?
What amazes me is that they insist that the right are the ones trying to turn this into a scandal, even though every single right wing Republican I can think of is defending it.
and exactly why the IRS can't share the information with anyone with out a court order. There really isn't much difference here.This shit is cracking me up, man.
It's like the UnConservatives woke up about six months ago.
"There's a Department of WHAT!?! Homeland Security? Since when? That sounds like something a NAZI would come up with!!!!!"
Wait til they find out that the government compels employers to give all kinds of information about their employees to the "Nazi" goverment.
Which is exactly why income tax is so insidious.
Probable cause - according to you, right?
That's correct.
So if you're hacking up your passenger with a knife, the officer has to wait for the judge to sign a warrant - or he has to wait for you - the person doing the hacking up - to make the determination there is probable cause - right? That's an interesting understanding of the law, considering that's not at all how the U.S. Courts apply it. I understand that they have no authority though, right?
(Not that you would hack up a passenger with a knife, btw)
NO ONE has to wait for an Supreme Court case on this. Congress makes laws in ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION.. Youre only point is that it hasn't been RULED unconstitutional in a public court.. By logic and reason, without this LEAK (disclosure), we would have never KNOWN about the lawlessness that exists. In fact, when the phone companies went to PUBLIC COURT to initially BLOCK this grab -- they were sent National Security Letters telling them to immediately DROP the court cases.
Lawlessness according to whom?
The NSA should clearly always tell the truth. We wouldn't want the terrorists to be misinformed about our intelligence activities.
WTFuck are you trying to prove here? Trying to out Neo-Con the Neo-Cons?
I just want to know under what authority Snowden determine the government was violating the Constitution - hence granting him authority to violate his oath to not release secret information. Is this just something he thought up himself? Is that how it works? Anyone who has taken an oath to keep government secrets can just - on their own - say "hey, the government's violating the Constitution, so its OK and legal for me to release these secrets" Is that how its supposed to work?
You do realize that authority means permission, don't you? You seem to believe that we all need some "authority" to give us "permission" to do what we believe is right and proper.
Government classifies all sorts of things, from real secrets, to screwups, corruption, and attempts at power grabs. Whistleblowers are the heroes who reveal the screwups, corruption and power grabs. Those who reveal real national security secrets should be prosecuted, and every whistleblower runs the risk of prosecution.
This NSA data mining of all of our electronic information, is patently unconstitutional, has no real impact on national security, and should have been revealed before all the money was spent on it.
Anyone who is comfortable with the government having databases of all of our financial records, health records, court records, E-mails, etc., is a friggin idiot, or a born again slave.
Probable cause - according to you, right?
That's correct.
So if you're hacking up your passenger with a knife, the officer has to wait for the judge to sign a warrant - or he has to wait for you - the person doing the hacking up - to make the determination there is probable cause - right? That's an interesting understanding of the law, considering that's not at all how the U.S. Courts apply it. I understand that they have no authority though, right?
(Not that you would hack up a passenger with a knife, btw)
At that point, we're at a standstill til he gets a judge to sign a warrant. On the other hand, the next ploy is to impound my vehicle until that happens.. And you KNOW who pays for that..
What if after the judge signs the warrant, FOX News decides the warrant should not have been issued?
That's correct.
So if you're hacking up your passenger with a knife, the officer has to wait for the judge to sign a warrant - or he has to wait for you - the person doing the hacking up - to make the determination there is probable cause - right? That's an interesting understanding of the law, considering that's not at all how the U.S. Courts apply it. I understand that they have no authority though, right?
(Not that you would hack up a passenger with a knife, btw)
At that point, we're at a standstill til he gets a judge to sign a warrant. On the other hand, the next ploy is to impound my vehicle until that happens.. And you KNOW who pays for that..
What if after the judge signs the warrant, FOX News decides the warrant should not have been issued?
You seem to have problems with the literal English interpretation of words.. Spent too much time in prison or an astronomical observatory?
Your example above is not "PROBABLE" cause, that would be "DEFINATE" cause if the passenger is in the compartment and NOT in the trunk. You are a true waste of time when you're in this kind of mood...
Not necessarily. If no charges ever come from the search it is unlikely the officer would have to answer in court in any way.That's correct.
So if you're hacking up your passenger with a knife, the officer has to wait for the judge to sign a warrant - or he has to wait for you - the person doing the hacking up - to make the determination there is probable cause - right? That's an interesting understanding of the law, considering that's not at all how the U.S. Courts apply it. I understand that they have no authority though, right?
(Not that you would hack up a passenger with a knife, btw)
Of course not. Police officers are empowered to act on their judgement. But they have to be willing to defend that judgement in court if there is a question as to whether they had probably cause or not.
In the case of the Obama administration's surveillance, I suspect they'll have a hard time showing probably cause for each the millions of instances of 'search and seizure' in question.
*But again, I suspect you are aware of all this (and would be making the same arguments if a Republican administration got caught doing this shit). You're just playing dumb. Or, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you really are dumb.
Edward Snowden, the man behind one of the biggest national security leaks in U.S. history, is a fan of former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).
According to campaign finance reports, Snowden donated $250 to the libertarian's presidential campaign twice in 2012. Paul has long railed against government secrecy and intrusion into private life.
Snowden told The Guardian that he voted for a third-party candidate in 2008, although he was optimistic about President Barack Obama's promises.
"A lot of people in 2008 voted for Obama. I did not vote for him. I voted for a third party," he said. "But I believed in Obama's promises. I was going to disclose it [but waited because of his election]. He continued with the policies of his predecessor."
So if you're hacking up your passenger with a knife, the officer has to wait for the judge to sign a warrant - or he has to wait for you - the person doing the hacking up - to make the determination there is probable cause - right? That's an interesting understanding of the law, considering that's not at all how the U.S. Courts apply it. I understand that they have no authority though, right?
(Not that you would hack up a passenger with a knife, btw)
What if after the judge signs the warrant, FOX News decides the warrant should not have been issued?
You seem to have problems with the literal English interpretation of words.. Spent too much time in prison or an astronomical observatory?
Your example above is not "PROBABLE" cause, that would be "DEFINATE" cause if the passenger is in the compartment and NOT in the trunk. You are a true waste of time when you're in this kind of mood...
"definite cause" ? The Constitution doesn't mention that. I don't think Blacks law dictionary would have it either. I think you just made it up.
You seem to have problems with the literal English interpretation of words.. Spent too much time in prison or an astronomical observatory?
Your example above is not "PROBABLE" cause, that would be "DEFINATE" cause if the passenger is in the compartment and NOT in the trunk. You are a true waste of time when you're in this kind of mood...
"definite cause" ? The Constitution doesn't mention that. I don't think Blacks law dictionary would have it either. I think you just made it up.
Thank-you for confirming everything I just said..
I've been away all day, so I don't know if this has been posted or not.
Edward Snowden, the man behind one of the biggest national security leaks in U.S. history, is a fan of former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).
According to campaign finance reports, Snowden donated $250 to the libertarian's presidential campaign twice in 2012. Paul has long railed against government secrecy and intrusion into private life.
Snowden told The Guardian that he voted for a third-party candidate in 2008, although he was optimistic about President Barack Obama's promises.
"A lot of people in 2008 voted for Obama. I did not vote for him. I voted for a third party," he said. "But I believed in Obama's promises. I was going to disclose it [but waited because of his election]. He continued with the policies of his predecessor."
More: Edward Snowden Is A Ron Paul Supporter
I've been away all day, so I don't know if this has been posted or not.
Edward Snowden, the man behind one of the biggest national security leaks in U.S. history, is a fan of former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).
According to campaign finance reports, Snowden donated $250 to the libertarian's presidential campaign twice in 2012. Paul has long railed against government secrecy and intrusion into private life.
Snowden told The Guardian that he voted for a third-party candidate in 2008, although he was optimistic about President Barack Obama's promises.
"A lot of people in 2008 voted for Obama. I did not vote for him. I voted for a third party," he said. "But I believed in Obama's promises. I was going to disclose it [but waited because of his election]. He continued with the policies of his predecessor."
More: Edward Snowden Is A Ron Paul Supporter
Thanks for providing that character reference. I trust his judgement more now you moron.
That's all ya got????
Do you even UNDERSTAND that Ron Paul is one of the HANDFUL politicians INNOCENT of any complicity in this matter? Or is complicity too big a word for you?
Edward Snowden is a hero who has exposed one of the most serious events of the decade - the creeping formulation of a mass surveillance state, Julian Assange said on Monday.
The WikiLeaks founder said the question of surveillance abuses by states and tech companies was something that I and many other journalists and civil libertarians have been campaigning about for a long time. It is very pleasing to see such clear and concrete proof presented to the public.
Assange told Sky News that Snowden was in a very, very serious position, because we can see the kind of rhetoric that occurred against me and Bradley Manning back in 2010, 2011, applied to Snowden.
I've been away all day, so I don't know if this has been posted or not.
More: Edward Snowden Is A Ron Paul Supporter
Thanks for providing that character reference. I trust his judgement more now you moron.
That's all ya got????
Do you even UNDERSTAND that Ron Paul is one of the HANDFUL politicians INNOCENT of any complicity in this matter? Or is complicity too big a word for you?
Ron Paul isn't all bad: he's only half insane.
I've been away all day, so I don't know if this has been posted or not.
More: Edward Snowden Is A Ron Paul Supporter
Thanks for providing that character reference. I trust his judgement more now you moron.
That's all ya got????
Do you even UNDERSTAND that Ron Paul is one of the HANDFUL politicians INNOCENT of any complicity in this matter? Or is complicity too big a word for you?
Ron Paul isn't all bad: he's only half insane.
They'll follow the law, as they always have. Unlike Booosh and Cheney, and Reagan and Nixon....
Should Snowden receive death or life in prison if convicted of treason?
Should Snowden receive death or life in prison if convicted of treason?
I don't know.. what should Obama get?
Leaking top-secret intel could drown Obama?s presidency - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com
