Snowdon is a dummy

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Sorry but the power of jury nullification is indeed part of having a fair trial.

The power of citizens on juries to nullifying either injustice laws and or laws that are being apply in an injustice manner by the state in one hell of a wonderful safe guard against the power of the state to do evil in the name of the letter of the laws.

There is nothing unjust in prosecuting a criminal for breaking the law.

The only injustice here is your call for allowing criminals to harm the country with impunity.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

There is nothing unjust in prosecuting a criminal for breaking the law.

It is very often unjust to prosecute criminals for breaking the law, that is why DA's have prosecutorial discretion.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

There is nothing unjust in prosecuting a criminal for breaking the law.

So the men and women who aided run away slaves should have been sentence to decades in prisons as law breakers?

Those laws was found to be constitutional after all by the Supreme court at the time.

Shame on northern juries using the power of jury nullification to stop those constitutional laws from being enforced against members of the underground railroad after all they was clearly criminals.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

It is very often unjust to prosecute criminals for breaking the law, that is why DA's has prosecutorial discretion.

Situations where prosecution is unjust are likely a rarity.

And there is certainly no injustice in the government prosecuting Snowden.

There wouldn't even be injustice in the government simply killing Snowden outright.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

So the men and women who aided run away slaves should have been sentence to decades in prisons as law breakers?

There is a bit of a difference between "helping a slave escape" and "helping terrorists kill innocent Americans".

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

It is very often unjust to prosecute criminals for breaking the law, that is why DA's has prosecutorial discretion.

Hawkeye it would seems that oralloy logic seems not to be very consisted given that he seems to approved of government bureaucrats being allowed to order the murder of citizens on US soil even after they was found innocent by a jury.

In any case, there are countless examples in every administration of government secrets being leaked for the benefit of those in power without any charges being level against the leakers.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

There is a bit of a difference between "helping a slave escape" and "helping terrorists kill innocent Americans".

Given that the massive spying on citizens had not been shown to be helpful in stopping any attacks you logic fail completely.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Given that the massive spying on citizens had not been shown to be helpful in stopping any attacks you logic fail completely.

Your characterization of this as "massive spying on citizens" is inaccurate. The metadata was only accessed when they had a search warrant.

And it has been shown that it was useful before you guys wrecked the program.

The fact that you refuse to accept the reality that the program was useful (before it was destroyed) does not change the fact that it was.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

"helping terrorists kill innocent Americans".

Footnote even as just a hobbies as far as computer and internet security is concern nothing that Snowden revealed either surprised me and somehow I must assumed that the terrorists was at least as aware as I was over the risks and countermeasures needed to counter those risks to their communications security before Snowden.

Snowden in fact just allowed the American people to know what their government was doing and did not in fact tell the terrorists anything useful that they did not in fact already assume as I had assume before Snowden went public.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The metadata was only accessed when they had a search warrant.

Sure it was and the security of this data was so high that fairly low level employees was able to used the data to checked up on their girlfriends and wives for example.

Second the secret court rubber stamp all but one request in it history so that was no safe guard either.

Warrant needed indeed see below and somehow this low level misused of the data is very likely just the tip of the iceberg.

Quote:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/23/nsa-officers-sometimes-spy-on-love-interests/

WASHINGTON—National Security Agency officers on several occasions have channeled their agency’s enormous eavesdropping power to spy on love interests, U.S. officials said.

The practice isn’t frequent — one official estimated a handful of cases in the last decade — but it’s common enough to garner its own spycraft label: LOVEINT.

Spy agencies often refer to their various types of intelligence collection with the suffix of “INT,” such as “SIGINT” for collecting signals intelligence, or communications; and “HUMINT” for human intelligence, or spying.

The “LOVEINT” examples constitute most episodes of willful misconduct by NSA employees, officials said.

In the wake of revelations last week that NSA had violated privacy rules on nearly 3,000 occasions in a one-year period, NSA Chief Compliance Officer John DeLong emphasized in a conference call with reporters last week that those errors were unintentional. He did say that there have been “a couple” of willful violations in the past decade. He said he didn’t have the exact figures at the moment.

NSA said in a statement Friday that there have been “very rare” instances of willful violations of any kind in the past decade, and none have violated key surveillance laws. “NSA has zero tolerance for willful violations of the agency’s authorities” and responds “as appropriate.”

The LOVEINT violations involved overseas communications, officials said, such as spying on a partner or spouse. In each instance, the employee was punished either with an administrative action or termination.

Most of the incidents, officials said, were self-reported. Such admissions can arise, for example, when an employee takes a polygraph tests as part of a renewal of a security clearance.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Snowden in fact just allowed the American people to know what their government was doing and did not in fact tell the terrorists anything useful that they did not in fact already assume as I had assume before Snowden went public.

The American public already knew that the NSA was gathering all information in the entire world.

And Snowden told the terrorists the specific things that the government was doing to try to catch them, allowing the terrorists to avoid those specific things.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Sure it was and the security of this data was so high that fairly low level employees was able to used the data to checked up on their girlfriends and wives for example.

They were fired for doing so, as I recall.

BillRM wrote:

Second the secret court rubber stamp all but one request in it history so that was no safe guard either.

If you don't think getting court approval matters, then you shouldn't have any complaints about programs that don't bother to secure court approval.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

They were fired for doing so, as I recall.

It did not stated that all was fired and that was just the few who seems to had confessed to such misdeeds, so how many others was doing the same?

An no a secret court that just rubber stamps all requests is no better then no court at all in my opinion.

But then you are all for allowing the intelligent community to murder citizens they do not care for.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

It did not stated that all was fired and that was just the few who seems to had confessed to such misdeeds, so how many others was doing the same?

So now I'm being asked to imagine that the NSA is committing misdeeds that there is no evidence of them having committed?

BillRM wrote:

An no a secret court that just rubber stamps all requests is no better then no court at all in my opinion.

You have no basis for saying that the court rubber stamped the approvals.

BillRM wrote:

But then you are all for allowing the intelligent community to murder citizens they do not care for.

Thermobaric DroneStrikes are the best way of killing wayward traitors.

The temperature gets about 4500 degrees inside a thermobaric fireball. I forget if that is Fahrenheit or Celsius, but it hardly matters.

That's why the terrorists are always charred black after a DroneStrike. Nice and crispy.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

That's why the terrorists are always charred black after a DroneStrike. Nice and crispy

LOL one can hope that you are just walking by as the drone strike come in on some US citizen on US soil.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
As I said, Bill...

...you do not want him to get a fair trial!

I think eventually he will get one though.

Sorry but the power of jury nullification is indeed part of having a fair trial.

Did I say it was not???

C'mon.

Quote:

The power of citizens on juries to nullifying either injustice laws and or laws that are being apply in an injustice manner by the state in one hell of a wonderful safe guard against the power of the state to do evil in the name of the letter of the laws.

So...bring it on.

Let him come back and face a fair trial.

Perhaps that is what will happen.

It is, as you mentioned, a part of the process.

All I am asking for is a fair trial...which I think you do not want.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
There is nothing unjust in prosecuting a criminal for breaking the law.

It is very often unjust to prosecute criminals for breaking the law, that is why DA's have prosecutorial discretion.

Okay...so let him return.

If the prosecutors think it unjust to prosecute him...they won't.

All I am asking is that he get a fair trial. If the powers that be decide there should be no trial...fine with me.

He should come back...and get a fair trial...if the powers that be decide to prosecute. And the jury can nullify if they choose.

All I want is a fair trial.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Snowden in fact just allowed the American people to know what their government was doing and did not in fact tell the terrorists anything useful that they did not in fact already assume as I had assume before Snowden went public.

Well...armed with all that knowledge...a decent defense should be able to get Snowden off.

All he has to do is to come back and face trial.

It will be a fair trial...and since you see it as obvious he was just doing good for America and the American public...

...acquittal should be a snap.

[/quote]

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

LOL one can hope that you are just walking by as the drone strike come in on some US citizen on US soil.

That's not very nice.

Better to hope that some of Snowden's family gets it, or his girlfriend.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Okay...so let him return.

So far as I know he is free to return, but I dont think he has any obligation to put his head in the mouth of American law when that law is unjust, it being the tool of an abusive government. He was serving the collectives interest, because in my opinion the governments abuse of its own citizen is a more grave threat than terrorism, if the collectives agent named the government does in fact punish a defender of the collective then the agent is discredited . I reserve the right to change my mind once terrorists get portable nukes, which is coming, I might be willing to give up some of my rights to fight that threat id te required global government has not been formed in time.

Also, I dont think that national governments can defeat terrorism, a global government is going to be needed for that. I am not willing to give up everything important that America stands for in the lost cause of the USA governments war or terror. Let the government do what it can about terror up to the point of abusing me only, and let's get to work with the long term solution, a global government.

2 Replies

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know