Fair treatment for Ed Snowden

[MLA]

A bill isn't an assertion.  I still have no idea what your point is.

The assertion is, our government is corrupt as shit. They will not allow the man to have a fair trial and likely be found innocent of whatever jacked up charges they try and blast him with.

Let me put it in the form of a metaphor. Say our glorious leaders suddenly forced a bill through that enforced puppy kicking, disguised as something that would keep us safe. Some guy notices that the bill requires people to kick puppies in the head on sight, but is hidden in some stupid ass political jargon.

The guy exposes it, and flees to another country. What really burns you up is the fact that we can't murder him for trying to stop people from abusing puppies. The nerve of that guy! Everyone else has to do it! Who does he think he is?

Let's just start with the second sentence.  Are you actually asserting that when he leaked classified information he was not actually breaking the law?  I am assuming that what you mean by "jacked up charges" is that there are no real offenses that he could be charged with.

John Brown was breaking the law when attacking Harper's Ferry. Colonel von Stauffenberg was breaking the law when trying to blow up Adolf.

Indeed.

[RageBeoulve]

A bill isn't an assertion.  I still have no idea what your point is.

The assertion is, our government is corrupt as shit. They will not allow the man to have a fair trial and likely be found innocent of whatever jacked up charges they try and blast him with.

Let me put it in the form of a metaphor. Say our glorious leaders suddenly forced a bill through that enforced puppy kicking, disguised as something that would keep us safe. Some guy notices that the bill requires people to kick puppies in the head on sight, but is hidden in some stupid ass political jargon.

The guy exposes it, and flees to another country. What really burns you up is the fact that we can't murder him for trying to stop people from abusing puppies. The nerve of that guy! Everyone else has to do it! Who does he think he is?

Let's just start with the second sentence.  Are you actually asserting that when he leaked classified information he was not actually breaking the law?  I am assuming that what you mean by "jacked up charges" is that there are no real offenses that he could be charged with.

Many laws are unconstitutional, thus illegal. So yes. That is exactly what I am saying.

So your argument was that he did not break the law because the law he broke was against the law?

Please explain how laws barring individuals with access to confidential information are unconstitutional.  Which section/amendment?

Depends on what information our criminal government is trying to pass off as confidential. Information that BREAKS THE LAW, should indeed by screamed from the rooftops immediately by anyone who gives half a shit about this country.

Bill of Rights (and 14th Amendment) Provisions Relating to the Right of Privacy

Amendment I
 (Privacy of Beliefs)
 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

Amendment III
 (Privacy of the Home)
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
 (Privacy of the Person and Possessions)
 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.

Amendment IX
 (More General Protection for Privacy?)
 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
 without due process of law.

Suck it.

[RageBeoulve]

Speaking of which...

Amendment III
 (Privacy of the Home)
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
 (Privacy of the Person and Possessions)
 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.

Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
 without due process of law.

Criminals. Our government CONSTANTLY breaks the law. But yeah you go ahead and believe in such an administration like its some kind of weird religion, Possum. You're certainly not alone, that's for sure.

[MLA]

Information that BREAKS THE LAW, should indeed by screamed from the rooftops immediately by anyone who gives half a shit about this country.

I don't disagree, but that's not the point being debated.  But while we are at it, what law did that information break?

Amendment I
 (Privacy of Beliefs)
 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

The Supreme Court has held over and over again that not all speech is free.  You can't shout FIRE in a crowded movie theater, you can't slander or libel someone, you can't give away state secrets to the enemy.

Amendment III
 (Privacy of the Home)
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

What?

Amendment IV
 (Privacy of the Person and Possessions)
 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.

You don't think his admission of leaking the documents grants law enforcement probable cause that he leaked the documents?

Amendment IX
 (More General Protection for Privacy?)
 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You lost me here.

Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
 without due process of law.

Huh?  This is a good argument against Gitmo, if you presume that the constitution applies to foreigners, but I can't see what you are saying here for this.

You need to do more than post the text of the constitution and then assume that everyone can draw the same inferences that you do.  Your argument was that the law that prevents people from leaking state secrets is unconstitutional.  How so exactly?

[MLA]

Speaking of which...

Amendment III
 (Privacy of the Home)
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
 (Privacy of the Person and Possessions)
 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.

Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
 without due process of law.

Criminals. Our government CONSTANTLY breaks the law. But yeah you go ahead and believe in such an administration like its some kind of weird religion, Possum. You're certainly not alone, that's for sure.

You accuse me of arguing with my feelings, but your argument seems to mainly consist of anger at the situation and insults thrown at anyone who either disagrees with you, or agrees with you in a way you disagree with.   

[RageBeoulve]

I don't disagree, but that's not the point being debated.  But while we are at it, what law did that information break?

Because mining everyones data without their knowledge is the same as:

*Invading their home without a warrant

*Claiming their property

Amendment IV
 Privacy of the Person and Possessions

secrets to the enemy.

Yeah because we're all the enemy. We're all suspected terrorists. The citizens. Cause like, we're the ones he gave this information to. And that information was a secret, because it was ILLEGAL.

You don't think his admission of leaking the documents grants law enforcement probable cause that he leaked the documents?

Not when the documents detailed information that these policies violate several amendments of the constitution, including the bill of rights. That makes him a hero, not a criminal. You can't call someone a criminal simply for tattling on criminals.

You lost me here.

It means you can't use your rights as an excuse to crusade and deprive everyone else their rights.

Huh?  This is a good argument against Gitmo, if you presume that the constitution applies to foreigners, but I can't see what you are saying here for this

No. Your personal information is your property. The government has no right to just deprive you of that on a whim. The NSA and other spying programs are in BLATANT violation of law.

Take a look. Actually read this stuff, will you?

No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
 without due process of law.

[RageBeoulve]

You accuse me of arguing with my feelings, but your argument seems to mainly consist of anger at the situation and insults thrown at anyone who either disagrees with you, or agrees with you in a way you disagree with.

You aren't going to twist things around. Sorry. I insult people ignorant of the law, who get their opinions from the massive shill programs called mainstream media. You do indeed argue with your feelings by constantly trying to counter my arguments without providing anything but feelings or opinion. Allow me to explain, in your words:

The Supreme Court has held over and over again

  Lol. Yeah they're looking out for you. Did you know that the Supreme Court must also obey the law, even though they also constantly break it?

Please explain how laws barring individuals with access to confidential information are unconstitutional.

You don't understand why that way of thinking is problematic, do you?

A bill isn't an assertion

It isn't, huh?

See? While I am providing information, the very laws which cover these types of situations, you STILL act as if you do not understand. This looks just completely brainwashed to me. I can't believe you are unable to read and understand these simple laws.

[TheoK]

Many people seem to think that the state can't break its own laws. Of course it can, especially since it gets away with it most times.

[RageBeoulve]

Many people seem to think that the state can't break its own laws. Of course it can, especially since it gets away with it most times.

I swear dude, its like religious dogma to some people. They actually believe these people are "in charge" or something. And because of that, they are! Never ceases to amaze me how stupid people can really be. Pic related.



HOOOPE! CHAAAANGE! Fucking suckers.

[RageBeoulve]

[MLA]

Eh, this is hopeless and quite frankly boring.

[odeon]

Ed Snowden is a whistleblower. Yes, he's broken the law to expose his government breaking it, but I'd much rather have an individual to break the law than the government.

[TheoK]

 

[RageBeoulve]

Ed Snowden is a whistleblower. Yes, he's broken the law to expose his government breaking it, but I'd much rather have an individual to break the law than the government.

EXACTLY. Possum, Odeon understands these laws, and he's not even subject to them. (btw, I don't know if the Swedish constitution is similar to our, orrrr?)

Eh, this is hopeless and quite frankly boring.

Umm yeah. Its hopeless when you are wrong and you know it. Its especially hopeless when someone is holding the laws you are denying right in front of your face, and you attempt to derail things every step of the way because you hate your country.

[TheoK]

Theoretically surveillance by the FRA should be as illegal here as  the surveillance by the NSA in the US:

"Instrument of Government

---

Physical integrity and freedom of movement

Art. 4. There shall be no capital punishment.

Art. 5. Everyone shall be protected against corporal punishment. No one may be subjected to torture or medical intervention with the purpose of extorting or suppressing statements.

Art. 6. Everyone shall be protected in their relations with the public institutions against any physical violation also other than under article 4. and 5. Everyone shall likewise be protected against body searches, house searches, and other such invasions of privacy, against examination of mail or other confidental correspondence, and against eavesdropping and the recordin of telephone conversations or other confidential communications.
  In addition to what is laid down in paragraph one, everyone shall be protected in their relations with the public institutions against significant invasion of their personal privacy, if these occur without their consent and involve the surveillance and systematic monitoring of the individual's personal circumstances."

The last sentence makes it almost ridiculously clear that the "FRA law" is a gross crime against the Swedish constitution.