Snowdon is a dummy

@izzythepush,

Listen, at the time NSA didn't break any laws, the Patriot Act gave them the authority to act in the way they did or still does unless the Supreme Court says it doesn't or congress passes a new law that says the Patriot Act was not intended to cover all the actions that NSA does. The author of the Patriot Act can't just years later (when it is no longer popular) say it was never intended to do all this and that be a legal law. (don't how to word what I am saying, but I think the gist got across)

6 Replies

@revelette2,

Might well be that there are/were loopholes in the Patriot Act.

But that's what usually is done after someone found these loopholes, here, there, with all laws: the authors (lawmakers) say, it wasn't intended that way ...

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Hitler was given authority too, Rev.

------------
The usa sprint-from-freedom-to-totalitarianism-and-beyond

As must appear self-evident to both historians and astute observers by now, the United States, in its history, has had a rather facile and at times acrimonious relationship to the idea of domestic democracy (If this is not self-evident, see Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, along with Failed States. For a specific analysis of this observation applied to the USA Patriot Act, see my A User’s Guide to the USA Patriot Act). What is seldom noticed, however, is the speed with which the U.S. has moved from a liberal democracy to, at best, an authoritarian government.

Read on at,

http://spotlightonfreedom.com/the-u-s-sprint-from-freedom-to-totalitarianism-and-beyond

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
“With all due respect to Mark Hosenball, the Reuters report that put this out there was simply wrong,” Snowden replied. “I never stole any passwords, nor did I trick an army of co-workers.”

Interesting question as on the one hand we have Snowden word on this subject and on the other hand we have the word of a government agency that we know had lied to congress and to the american people in the past over national security matters.

My vote is for Snowden as the old saying of fool me once shame on you me fool me twice shame on me, seems to apply here.

Not sure why you are addressing this commentary to me...I had nothing whatever to do with the quoted comment.

But since you are talking about people to be trusted...and you choose Snowden!!!...one has to question your logic.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I'm quite happy to discuss that fact, you're not happy to discuss the fact that the NSA broke its country's laws. Snowden is the minor lawbreaker in all of this.

I can discuss the FACT that Snowden has been charged with breaking some serious laws...because we can document that Snowden HAS BEEN CHARGED with breaking some serious laws.

I cannot discuss the fact that the NSA broke its country's laws...because it has not been established as a FACT that the NSA broke its country's laws.

The courts will decide if Snowden actually broke any laws...and the courts will decide if the NSA broke any laws.

Sorry if you cannot (or more likely, WILL NOT) understand that, Izzy.

This is an example of me dealing with a FACT...and you dealing with an assumption or guess. And yet you accuse me of not using facts!

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Listen, at the time NSA didn't break any laws, the Patriot Act gave them the authority to act in the way they did or still does unless the Supreme Court says it doesn't or congress passes a new law that says the Patriot Act was not intended to cover all the actions that NSA does. The author of the Patriot Act can't just years later (when it is no longer popular) say it was never intended to do all this and that be a legal law. (don't how to word what I am saying, but I think the gist got across)

Thank you, Rev. Izzy just will not grasp that FACT.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Might well be that there are/were loopholes in the Patriot Act.

But that's what usually is done after someone found these loopholes, here, there, with all laws: the authors (lawmakers) say, it wasn't intended that way ...

Okay, Walter...I agree.

But "the law" provides for a way to determine what the law does. The courts have that responsibility...ending with the SCOTUS. And SCOTUS often takes "intention" into consideration.

At the moment, one FACT we know is that Edward Snowden has been charged with serious crimes. (As I have tried to explain to Izzy.)

We DO NOT KNOW that the NSA broke any laws.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Don't you also hope that Obama can get a fair trial??? He now stands accused of violating the highest law in the land. Your wishes for fair fairy-tale trials appear rather slanted...

1 Reply

@revelette2,

You just don't remember history very well. When the Patriot Act was made into law, the US was attacked by terrorists, and over 3000 people were killed.

When laws are created in haste as it was in 2001, they're going to make mistakes that's obvious in hind-sight.

Many laws are established that are revised in later years for many reasons.

You just don't understand the history of jurisprudence.

It's similar to anybody's life; our ideas about different things change as we become "wiser" or more knowledgeable. Maybe in your life, it doesn't.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Don't you also hope that Obama can get a fair trial???

If he is ever charged with a crime...I do indeed hope he gets a fair trial. I would hope that for anyone who is charged with a crime.

Quote:

He now stands accused of violating the highest law in the land.

By you???

When he is charged with breaking any laws by competent authority...I would hope, and expect, he will get a fair trial. Just as I hope, and expect, that Edward Snowden will get one.

(He, by the way, has been charged with crimes by competent authority!)

Quote:

Your wishes for fair fairy-tale trials appear rather slanted...

Your characterizations of trials in the US as "fairy-tale" trials seems a LOT MORE SLANTED, Olivier.

In any case, I am not wishing for a fairy-tale trial...I am wishing for, and expecting, a fair trial.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You just don't remember history very well. When the Patriot Act was made into law, the US was attacked by terrorists, and over 3000 people were killed.

When laws are created in haste as it was in 2001, they're going to make mistakes that's obvious in hind-sight.

Many laws are established that are revised in later years for many reasons.

You just don't understand the history of jurisprudence.

It's similar to anybody's life; our ideas about different things change as we become "wiser" or more knowledgeable. Maybe in your life, it doesn't.

Now that I know you do not have me on IGNORE anymore, ci, I'll direct a comment to you:

It is you who does not understand American "jurisprudence", ci.

If laws change...they change because the courts cause them to change...or because the legislature cause them to change.

They don't change because of a few constantly disgruntled government-hating posters in an Internet forum say they should be different.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I imagine that all laws begin life as disgruntlement. If there was nobody disgruntled there would be no need for laws.

Why does Apisa feel the need to be regularly displaying his very superficial education? And his contempt for our intelligence.

Such a statement that "They don't change because of a few constantly disgruntled government-hating posters in an Internet forum say they should be different" comes close to suggesting A2K be shut down.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Snowden has been charged with Espionage Act violations by the U.S. government. (Sections 793 and 798 of the Espionage Act [plus theft of government property under section 641 of the United State Code].)

What NASA did, was a process, "they" say was/is allowed under the Patriot Act and approved by a secret government court.

"No U.S. extradition treaty currently in force lists espionage as an extraditable offense." -according to a CRS Report for Congress

The Espionage Act, by the way, was amended in 1918 with the addition of Sedition Act amendments, prohibiting public criticism of the United States government ("disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language") ...

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

It would seem to me that shredding the Constitution is disloyal, profane, scurrilous, and abusive.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Obama has been charged with a most serious crime, for a US president: undermining the constitution of the United States. In other words, treason.

Quote:

has been charged with crimes by competent authority

Are you saying that Rand Paul is incompetent?

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Rev: Listen, at the time NSA didn't break any laws, the Patriot Act gave them the authority to act in the way they did ... .

If that's the case, Rev, why did Clapper feel he had to lie about it to Congress?

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Snowden has been charged with Espionage Act violations by the U.S. government. (Sections 793 and 798 of the Espionage Act [plus theft of government property under section 641 of the United State Code].)

What NASA did, was a process, "they" say was/is allowed under the Patriot Act and approved by a secret government court.

"No U.S. extradition treaty currently in force lists espionage as an extraditable offense." -according to a CRS Report for Congress

The Espionage Act, by the way, was amended in 1918 with the addition of Sedition Act amendments, prohibiting public criticism of the United States government ("disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language") ...

Well...you may have some problems with American laws, Walter...but the FACT is that Espionage Act is a legal part of American law....and people can be charged with crimes under that act.

I have presented the FACT...that Edward Snowden has been charged with violations of some of the provisions of that act.

I have also presented my opinion that Edward Snowden is NOT a traitor. I think he is a misguided young man with much the same "wanna be" delusions as George Zimmerman.

So what is your point?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Obama has been charged with a most serious crime, for a US president: undermining the constitution of the United States. In other words, treason.

YOU can charge him with genocide...and it would make no difference. YOU are not competent authority to make charges.

Quote:

Quote:
has been charged with crimes by competent authority

Are you saying that Rand Paul is incompetent?

I am saying that Rand Paul is not competent authority to make charges of the sort we are discussing.

If you really think we are talking about idle charges made by individuals with an ax to grind...rather than legal charges in due process...you are whistling Dixie.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

If laws change...they change because the courts cause them to change...or because the legislature cause them to change.

They don't change because of a few constantly disgruntled government-hating posters in an Internet forum say they should be different.

---------------------

government by the people, with the people, under the ...

How does that go again?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

"Idle charges brought by people with an ax to grind" seems to perfectly characterise the charges against Snowden. Smile

So who would be a "competent authority to make charges of the sort we are discussing" against Obama, if Paul is incompetent?

3 Replies

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know