Snowden's Statement against the Regime: Obama fears and informed people

[PratchettFan]

You don't think that there isn't an elite underground that is using this information to their own personal advancement? GROW UP.

I am grown up. Which means I base my opinions upon information, not vague claims. How are they using the information for their personal advancement and who exactly is "they"?

Your 'opinions' certainly not based upon the Constitution. Dude. Thousands of power hungry government workers are sifting through all sorts of information. And they do it with virtually no accountability. The potential for abuse is endless. You may prefer to think that they're so noble and wouldn't dare do anything bad to you, but that's because you're a baffoon. I on the other hand, believe in my freedom and Constitutional right to privacy.

Probable cause and warrants are currently a thing of the past in this 'well we got to protect you against terrorism' net.

So you have no idea. Understood.

 

[numan]

He could have and SHOULD have followed a "legal" route provided him under Whistle Blower status, if, indeed, there was a "need" for the American public to know.

CleverGirl, I don't think it is very clever to mindlessly parrot that cliché of prole-feed propaganda. It's such a load of crap!

It has become very obvious that the official "whistle-blower" route is just a ploy to identify whistle-blowers so they can be squashed.

A standard Orwellian tactic -- straight out of 1984.

Snowden should have followed a legal route? Why? So that a secret court could stonewall him? GROW UP.

Are all traitors bad people? What if a man knew a secret. The secret was a big one. A secret in which a nation murdered thousands and covered it. He knew he couldn't reveal the truth if he went through "the proper channels," which really means "their way in which they have all the advantages." Humans are predisposed to being rather nasty little mammals at times, aren't they? Behind all these flashy slogans of fairness and transparency is a slimy, grinning politician. The man knows he can't speak truth to power, because power is powerful, especially when motivated by wicked desires. What other option is left? If a plan is set in motion in which a man takes those secrets, and steps a little out of the range of the corrupt, he can tell his fellow citizens the truth. Though it may cost him, though it may destroy him, he feels that deep down what he is doing is right, because it is a level of honesty one can never hope to receive from the people in power.

It's good to know that there are still a few people left who can see the obvious.
.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

He could have and SHOULD have followed a "legal" route provided him under Whistle Blower status, if, indeed, there was a "need" for the American public to know.

CleverGirl, I don't think it is very clever to mindlessly parrot that cliché of prole-feed propaganda. It's such a load of crap!

It has become very obvious that the official "whistle-blower" route is just a ploy to identify whistle-blowers so they can be squashed.

A standard Orwellian tactic -- straight out of 1984

Plus, even if Snowden could have hypothetically saved his skin. That wasn't his end game. If he tried to bring this through the courts, it would have been buried in bureaucratic red tape while the government conducts business as usual.

 

[Wake]

Very well put. A nation is based on principles. This is supposed to be a nation of laws (although Barry and his cronies have done everything they can to destroy that principle recently - i.e., immigration, Obamacare implementation, etc.). When you take an oath to protect and defend the constitution, you not only swear to protect and defend the writing on that paper but also the principles that it was based upon. Freedom, fairness, equality, the rights of man. One of the reasons that the IRS scandal cuts me to the core.

Obviously, as with Nazi Germany in the 30's, if a man knew of the plan to exterminate the Jews, then he is bound by his concious and his honor to 'blow the whistle' on such secrets. But the secrets that Snowden knew were not killing anyone nor did it put anyone into harms way. Is it big brother? Yes, I believe it is. Is what the NSA doing wrong? Again, I believe it is wrong because a grandmother in Grand Island, Nebraska isn't planning to plant a bomb. But it is more the offense of the controllers (the administration) than the controlled (the NSA). It is from the same vein that makes us call the Ft. Hood shooting an act of 'work place violence.'

I understand your sentiments. I too believe that this nation is on a path to self destruction and that despite their statements that they want to be the "most transparent" administration in history, this group of thugs is hell bent on destroying this nation under the cover of darkness, secrets AND lies. I have moved the lion's share of my savings out of this country and have made my ranch literally 'self sustaining'.

But I can only reiterate that a man has only one thing that is truly valuable. It is his word. Given the life-death level of this I believe that he should have pursued other avenues first.

While we don't see eye-to-eye on some things, I have respect for you because in spite of our differences you're both civil and knowledgeable.

 

[rightwinger]

Poor, poor Snowden

Gets to live out his life in an airport

Of course, if he decides to return, we have a nice jail cell for him

And you have become the worst of everything you hate. Good work RW, good work. lol.

Some Americans detest traitors

 

[Politico]

'

He should go to jail for wasting everyone's time.

The government should go to jail, for wasting everyone's time -- and money -- and lives !!!

.

Yeah the 'whole' government should go to jail. Nothing off about that statement.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

'

He should go to jail for wasting everyone's time.

The government should go to jail, for wasting everyone's time -- and money -- and lives !!!

.

Yeah the 'whole' government should go to jail. Nothing off about that statement.

It's called hyperbole.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

PRISM's Legal Basis: How We Got Here, and What We Can Do to Get Back - Margot Kaminski - The Atlantic

First, there is the question of whom the surveillance targets. PRISM spies on Americans. The Director of National Intelligence emphasized yesterday that PRISM targets only " non-U.S. persons located outside the United States ." But the press release also acknowledges that "information about U.S. persons" may be "incidentally acquired" in such pursuits. Targeting is not the same as collecting; the program may "target" foreign persons, but "acquire" information on Americans.

The current scope of this "incidental" surveillance will shock most Americans. Before 2008, the law limited "incidental" surveillance by limiting primary surveillance. The government had to show probable cause that its surveillance target was the agent of a foreign power, and that the facility being watched was about to be used by that target. You could be incidentally observed if you communicated with a targeted foreign agent, but otherwise foreign communications were likely to be unmonitored.

But in 2008, the FISA Amendments Act (FISAAA) changed this. The government now does not need to show probable cause that the target is a foreign agent. It need only have a "reasonable belief" that the target is located outside of the United States. The new version of FISA does not require the government to identify its targets; it does not require the government to identify the monitored facilities; and the purpose of foreign intelligence gathering attaches to the whole surveillance program, not the individual investigation. That is to say: the FISA Amendments Act permits the government to obtain a single court order through which it can monitor thousands, or even millions, of people. The scope of "incidental" surveillance thus vastly expanded as Congress lowered the requirements for spying on the primary target.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Not only is PRISM against the 4th amendment; which prohibits this type of dragnet policing. It's not even based on a real statute.

No statute explicitly authorizes mass surveillance. Through a series of legal contortions, the Obama administration has argued that Congress, since 9/11, intended to implicitly authorize mass surveillance. But this strategy mostly consists of wordplay, fear-mongering and a highly selective reading of the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[numan]

Poor, poor Snowden

Gets to live out his life in an airport

Of course, if he decides to return, we have a nice jail cell for him

And you have become the worst of everything you hate. Good work RW, good work. lol.

Some Americans detest traitors

But who is the traitor -- you, or Snowden? · ·

.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

And you have become the worst of everything you hate. Good work RW, good work. lol.

Some Americans detest traitors

But who is the traitor -- you, or Snowden? · ·

.

Technically, he might not rise to the level of traitor. He certainly is a useful idiot.

 

[numan]

'

The Great RON COBB ---- From 1968 !!!!

.