INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: RageBeoulve on August 27, 2013, 09:07:29 AM
-
And give him the treatment people don't usually get from the U.S. government. STOP THE PRISM PROGRAM. Please read this, and I hope you'll sign.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_prism_global/?dqEkIeb
-
Fair treatment would be a short trial, a long rope, and a short drop.
-
Fair treatment would be a short trial, a long rope, and a short drop.
Guilty until proven innocent for anyone you have beef with then. Fuck off, Possum. You're embarrassing.
-
"I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong." - Edward Snowden said from his hotel room in Hong Kong.
If you are going to break the law to push a social objective, regardless of how right or wrong that objective is, then you stand by it. You tell the world that this is wrong, and I am going to sit in a cell to show the world how wrong it is. You don't run off to Moscow and live in the airport like a rat.
You really can't handle any opinion other than your own, can you? It must be hard.
-
Fair treatment would be a short trial, a long rope, and a short drop.
Guilty until proven innocent for anyone you have beef with then. Fuck off, Possum. You're embarrassing.
I can't embarrass you as I am in no way associated with you. Don't feel like you are responsible for my opinions, then you won't feel embarrassment for them.
-
"I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong." - Edward Snowden said from his hotel room in Hong Kong.
If you are going to break the law to push a social objective, regardless of how right or wrong that objective is, then you stand by it. You tell the world that this is wrong, and I am going to sit in a cell to show the world how wrong it is. You don't run off to Moscow and live in the airport like a rat.
You really can't handle any opinion other than your own, can you? It must be hard.
I was thinking the same about you.
Fair treatment would be a short trial, a long rope, and a short drop.
"Yeah lets give him a quick bullshit trial and murder him for disagreeing with our criminal government. LETS LYNCH THAT NAGGER"
Law. You use that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
-
LETS LYNCH THAT NAGGER"
AMERICUH, FUCK YEA!
-
LETS LYNCH THAT NAGGER"
AMERICUH, FUCK YEA!
(http://static3.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/not+sure+wether+you+guys+are+just+completely+retarded+or+_5569086608d44fbdbff9f3eb6fb8aa3e.png)
-
"I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong." - Edward Snowden said from his hotel room in Hong Kong.
If you are going to break the law to push a social objective, regardless of how right or wrong that objective is, then you stand by it. You tell the world that this is wrong, and I am going to sit in a cell to show the world how wrong it is. You don't run off to Moscow and live in the airport like a rat.
You really can't handle any opinion other than your own, can you? It must be hard.
That was stupid said of him, of course. There is no God or anything protecting those who have done something morally right that is illegal or goes against what "society" - that mostly consists of idiots - considers wrong.
-
I can't believe the guy is living in a Russian airport, made me LoL. :LOL:
-
"I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong." - Edward Snowden said from his hotel room in Hong Kong.
If you are going to break the law to push a social objective, regardless of how right or wrong that objective is, then you stand by it. You tell the world that this is wrong, and I am going to sit in a cell to show the world how wrong it is. You don't run off to Moscow and live in the airport like a rat.
You really can't handle any opinion other than your own, can you? It must be hard.
That was stupid said of him, of course. There is no God or anything protecting those who have done something morally right that is illegal or goes against what "society" - that mostly consists of idiots - considers wrong.
Indeed. But saying stupid shit isn't grounds for killing somebody. I mean.. has the world lost what sanity it had?
-
Eh, I have bigger problems than Edward Snowden :dunno:
-
Eh, I have bigger problems than Edward Snowden :dunno:
In the long run you don't.
-
Eh, I have bigger problems than Edward Snowden :dunno:
In the long run you don't.
Exactly. Are you on drugs, Possum?
-
Why not back yourselves up instead of posting bare assertions?
-
Why not back yourselves up instead of posting bare assertions?
Would you like to live in an Orwellian world? Because that is what we are going to have (and partly have already), if we just accept what bastards like the NSA are doing.
-
Why not back yourselves up instead of posting bare assertions?
Here you go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VzSdRoKEU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VzSdRoKEU)
-
Sorry, but wanting someone who basically revealed very damning privacy violations to be dead is disgusting. He should be congratulated for what he did.
I am not a believer of nutty conspiracies, but invasive surveillance is very much a real issue that needs to be tackled.
-
It certainly is. Judging from what I've been able to find out about the guy, and as much as I can find on his "crimes", I would call him a goddamn hero.
-
Why not back yourselves up instead of posting bare assertions?
Here you go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VzSdRoKEU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VzSdRoKEU)
What does that have to do with Snowden?
Not that it's wrong.
Possum, are you still there?
-
Why not back yourselves up instead of posting bare assertions?
Here you go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VzSdRoKEU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VzSdRoKEU)
What does that have to do with Snowden?
Not that it's wrong.
Possum, are you still there?
It puts things in context. Do you honestly believe such people would treat snowden fairly?
-
Why not back yourselves up instead of posting bare assertions?
Here you go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VzSdRoKEU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VzSdRoKEU)
What does that have to do with Snowden?
Not that it's wrong.
Possum, are you still there?
Kind of. Every topic here turns into a circle jerk and I lose interest ;)
-
Let me clarify a bit. Eddie Snowden should be hung for being a pussy, not for leaking. He took a perfect opportunity to actually foment change, and wasted it by running off to China and Russia.
While some people here get hard thinking about armed rebellion and the like, its a juvenile fantasy. The only real change that has ever occurred in this country has been through non-violent sacrifice. MLK outlined the ideal model in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. One of the most basic principles of civil disobedience to protest unlawful and immoral state action is a complete willingness to accept the consequences of your disobedience.
Ghandi taught that one must maintain respect for the rule of law, even while disobeying the specific law that you perceive as unjust. He also taught that one should always plead guilty to any violation of the law, and to take the penance of the oppressors upon yourself. You should attempt to convert your opponent by demonstrating the justice of your cause.
Eddie could have told the world what he knew, and then sat in a jail cell while the world looked on and accused the US of punishing a whistleblower who outed immoral acts of the state. Instead he flipped the script by acting like a guilty toddler and running off to Uncle Putin's house. He changed the entire focus of the story to protect his lily white ass, and in doing so squandered the best possible opportunity to instigate real change.
Fuck Eddie Snowden.
-
Let me clarify a bit. Eddie Snowden should be hung for being a pussy, not for leaking. He took a perfect opportunity to actually foment change, and wasted it by running off to China and Russia.
While some people here get hard thinking about armed rebellion and the like, its a juvenile fantasy. The only real change that has ever occurred in this country has been through non-violent sacrifice. MLK outlined the ideal model in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. One of the most basic principles of civil disobedience to protest unlawful and immoral state action is a complete willingness to accept the consequences of your disobedience.
Ghandi taught that one must maintain respect for the rule of law, even while disobeying the specific law that you perceive as unjust. He also taught that one should always plead guilty to any violation of the law, and to take the penance of the oppressors upon yourself. You should attempt to convert your opponent by demonstrating the justice of your cause.
Eddie could have told the world what he knew, and then sat in a jail cell while the world looked on and accused the US of punishing a whistleblower who outed immoral acts of the state. Instead he flipped the script by acting like a guilty toddler and running off to Uncle Putin's house. He changed the entire focus of the story to protect his lily white ass, and in doing so squandered the best possible opportunity to instigate real change.
Fuck Eddie Snowden.
At least he did something. :dunno:
-
Why not back yourselves up instead of posting bare assertions?
Here you go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VzSdRoKEU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VzSdRoKEU)
What does that have to do with Snowden?
Not that it's wrong.
Possum, are you still there?
It puts things in context. Do you honestly believe such people would treat snowden fairly?
No, I don't. But fair treatment for average criminals is a fair trial.
Let me clarify a bit. Eddie Snowden should be hung for being a pussy, not for leaking. He took a perfect opportunity to actually foment change, and wasted it by running off to China and Russia.
While some people here get hard thinking about armed rebellion and the like, its a juvenile fantasy. The only real change that has ever occurred in this country has been through non-violent sacrifice. MLK outlined the ideal model in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. One of the most basic principles of civil disobedience to protest unlawful and immoral state action is a complete willingness to accept the consequences of your disobedience.
Such as the American Revolution and the American Civil War?
Ghandi taught that one must maintain respect for the rule of law, even while disobeying the specific law that you perceive as unjust. He also taught that one should always plead guilty to any violation of the law, and to take the penance of the oppressors upon yourself. You should attempt to convert your opponent by demonstrating the justice of your cause.
Eddie could have told the world what he knew, and then sat in a jail cell while the world looked on and accused the US of punishing a whistleblower who outed immoral acts of the state. Instead he flipped the script by acting like a guilty toddler and running off to Uncle Putin's house. He changed the entire focus of the story to protect his lily white ass, and in doing so squandered the best possible opportunity to instigate real change.
Fuck Eddie Snowden.
A better argument. :thumbup:
-
No, I don't. But fair treatment for average criminals is a fair trial.
Do you believe he would receive a fair trial? I mean we don't even know for sure what he actually did other than what the piss stream media blabs to us.
Take a look at the Zimmerman case. Do you think that case was handled by professionals?
-
No, I don't. But fair treatment for average criminals is a fair trial.
Do you believe he would receive a fair trial? I mean we don't even know for sure what he actually did other than what the piss stream media blabs to us.
Take a look at the Zimmerman case. Do you think that case was handled by professionals?
The Zimmerman case wasn't about whistleblowing.
No, I don't think that Snowden would receive a fair trial. Does that mean that we should give up on that ideal?
-
Why not back yourselves up instead of posting bare assertions?
Here you go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VzSdRoKEU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VzSdRoKEU)
What does that have to do with Snowden?
Not that it's wrong.
Possum, are you still there?
Kind of. Every topic here turns into a circle jerk and I lose interest ;)
The fun thing about circle jerks is that everyone gets off. ;)
This time, there's no one in the middle for us to :squit: on. :P
-
No, I don't. But fair treatment for average criminals is a fair trial.
Do you believe he would receive a fair trial? I mean we don't even know for sure what he actually did other than what the piss stream media blabs to us.
Take a look at the Zimmerman case. Do you think that case was handled by professionals?
The Zimmerman case wasn't about whistleblowing.
No, I don't think that Snowden would receive a fair trial. Does that mean that we should give up on that ideal?
....
Would you bang your head against a three foot thick steel wall, even if you knew it to be impossible to break through that way?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REbuE9Ir82E&feature=youtube_gdata_player (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REbuE9Ir82E&feature=youtube_gdata_player)
-
Such as the American Revolution and the American Civil War?
The world has changed a bit in the past 148 years
-
At least he did something. :dunno:
Increased international tensions between the US and the Fourth Reich. YAY Eddie!
-
At least he did something. :dunno:
Increased international tensions between the US and the Fourth Reich. YAY Eddie!
I'd say that the US of today is the Fourth Reich :(
-
At least he did something. :dunno:
Increased international tensions between the US and the Fourth Reich. YAY Eddie!
This statement is extremely ambiguous, Possum. Explain.
-
At least he did something. :dunno:
Increased international tensions between the US and the Fourth Reich. YAY Eddie!
I'd say that the US of today is the Fourth Reich :(
That's just silly, or you're just trolling. The US hasn't outlawed talk of homosexuality, and the US isn't raiding art museums to confiscate art that makes fun of the president. Russia is going off the deep end of history right now.
-
At least he did something. :dunno:
Increased international tensions between the US and the Fourth Reich. YAY Eddie!
This statement is extremely ambiguous, Possum. Explain.
What part is ambiguous? By the Fourth Reich I refer to Russia.
-
At least he did something. :dunno:
Increased international tensions between the US and the Fourth Reich. YAY Eddie!
I'd say that the US of today is the Fourth Reich :(
That's just silly, or you're just trolling. The US hasn't outlawed talk of homosexuality, and the US isn't raiding art museums to confiscate art that makes fun of the president. Russia is going off the deep end of history right now.
isn't raiding art museums to confiscate art that makes fun of the president.
No... but-
Obama outlaws Freedom of Protest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W38EG0FZZw#)
-
Says the Russians ... who have no skill whatsoever in hyperbole.
-
Says the Russians ... who have no skill whatsoever in hyperbole.
Are you TRYING to be vague?
-
Says the Russians ... who have no skill whatsoever in hyperbole.
Are you TRYING to be vague?
No, I honestly have no idea why you think I am being vague. Sarcasm isn't vague. I was being sarcastic.
Dropping sarcasm - you posted a video from Russia Today, who lurves Putin like its daddy, to try and prove that the US is worse than Russia. I was implying that the network engages in hyperbole, and as such is not a reliable source for your argument.
-
"With the stroke of a pen, President Obama signed bill HR 347 into law earlier this month. With that move, Obama made it a felony to express freedom of speech in America."
Hyperbole of the worst variety. Someone would have to watch Fox News regularly to believe that kind of dripping bullshit. ;)
-
Says the Russians ... who have no skill whatsoever in hyperbole.
Are you TRYING to be vague?
No, I honestly have no idea why you think I am being vague. Sarcasm isn't vague. I was being sarcastic.
Dropping sarcasm - you posted a video from Russia Today, who lurves Putin like its daddy, to try and prove that the US is worse than Russia. I was implying that the network engages in hyperbole, and as such is not a reliable source for your argument.
So you are relying on the source of the report, rather than the bare information. (The information is true, by the way. Able to be proven by looking at the bill itself.)
This tells me that you think mainly with feels. No wonder why I don't understand what you are saying.
-
"With the stroke of a pen, President Obama signed bill HR 347 into law earlier this month. With that move, Obama made it a felony to express freedom of speech in America."
Hyperbole of the worst variety. Someone would have to watch Fox News regularly to believe that kind of dripping bullshit. ;)
Again, here you are, flinging poo at a statement. Can you disprove it? :zoinks:
-
"With the stroke of a pen, President Obama signed bill HR 347 into law earlier this month. With that move, Obama made it a felony to express freedom of speech in America."
Hyperbole of the worst variety. Someone would have to watch Fox News regularly to believe that kind of dripping bullshit. ;)
Again, here you are, flinging poo at a statement. Can you disprove it? :zoinks:
Can I disprove that "expressing freedom of speech" is not now a felony in America?
Yes
-
"With the stroke of a pen, President Obama signed bill HR 347 into law earlier this month. With that move, Obama made it a felony to express freedom of speech in America."
Hyperbole of the worst variety. Someone would have to watch Fox News regularly to believe that kind of dripping bullshit. ;)
Again, here you are, flinging poo at a statement. Can you disprove it? :zoinks:
Can I disprove that "expressing freedom of speech" is not now a felony in America?
Yes
Tunnel vision. The news report described how it infringes on free speech, making it harder to protest and do other related things. This is ILLEGAL, and you know it.
I'm not giving an inch on this, and i'm aware of this "taking things out of context" tactic. Its very similar to some discussions I've had with religious people.
-
I have no idea what you are talking about. If your intent is to engage in an argument somehow proving that your opinion is "right", then go ahead and have fun :)
I didn't watch the video. I am not devoting 8 minutes of my time to a proposition that I pre-judged to be hyperbolic and juvenile. I simply grabbed a quick quote of the video description provided by the station itself, and used that as an example of what I knew would be contained therein.
-
I have no idea what you are talking about. If your intent is to engage in an argument somehow proving that your opinion is "right", then go ahead and have fun :)
I didn't watch the video. I am not devoting 8 minutes of my time to a proposition that I pre-judged to be hyperbolic and juvenile. I simply grabbed a quick quote of the video description provided by the station itself, and used that as an example of what I knew would be contained therein.
If your intent is to engage in an argument somehow proving that your opinion is "right", then go ahead and have fun :)
Emotions. Don't care. This isn't a honeymoon, its a debate.
I didn't watch the video. I am not devoting 8 minutes of my time to a proposition that I pre-judged to be hyperbolic and juvenile.
As I thought. Blind faith in something.
I simply grabbed a quick quote of the video description provided by the station itself, and used that as an example of what I knew would be contained therein.
You even explained it. That one made me laugh. :LOL:
-
It's a debate? You haven't asserted anything yet that I have seen. You just posted a Russian news program.
Go ahead and debate then :)
-
In Russia news program posts you! :viking:
-
It's a debate? You haven't asserted anything yet that I have seen. You just posted a Russian news program.
Go ahead and debate then :)
You just posted a Russian news program
Mind telling me what the problem is?
-
It's a debate? You haven't asserted anything yet that I have seen. You just posted a Russian news program.
Go ahead and debate then :)
You just posted a Russian news program
Mind telling me what the problem is?
I thought you were going to debate. Start with making your own assertion, not posting someone else's.
-
It's a debate? You haven't asserted anything yet that I have seen. You just posted a Russian news program.
Go ahead and debate then :)
You just posted a Russian news program
Mind telling me what the problem is?
I thought you were going to debate. Start with making your own assertion, not posting someone else's.
Okay, Possum. All I can do with that is post evidence as my own assertion. Would you prefer to look at the bill?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf)
There. I posted the video because it covered the information and was relatively unbiased by blind American patriotism. I hadn't considered someone would say RUSSIAN SHIT AIN'T NO GOOD DON'T MATTER WHATS IN DER I DIDN'T WATCH WHURS MA KFC?
Sorry to be blunt, but i'm a bit tired of this attitude. All countries are guilty of it, too.
-
I think Snowden is :viking:
-
I think Snowden is :viking:
Again, he can make a boast most of the armchair faggots can't. He did something.
-
A bill isn't an assertion. I still have no idea what your point is.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Martial Law & Gun Confiscation - A Reminder From New Orleans! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q2BXH0JfOc#ws)
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.
-
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?
-
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.
Martial Law & Gun Confiscation - A Reminder From New Orleans! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q2BXH0JfOc#ws)
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. :dunno:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_qbT9lfmNQI0/Suw5_MiSmNI/AAAAAAAADQU/x6xx3ngnzt4/s800/obama65.jpg)
HOOOPE! CHAAAANGE! Fucking suckers.
-
(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000476811/polls_ayers_wright_obama_5626_39985_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg)
-
Eh, this is hopeless and quite frankly boring.
-
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.
-
:agreed:
-
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.
-
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.
-
The FRA runs their surveillance on a tiny scale. The FRA's disadvantage here (I think), apart from their more obvious relative lack of resources, is that they can't access most of the internet's backbone structure.
I'm pretty sure that they do break the law, though.
What annoys me with both is that they are both quick to assure that their citizens are protected against these intrusions, implying that everyone else isn't.
There are very few political boundaries on teh interwebz. This board's server, for instance, is located in the US but I am regularly backing up its contents outside it. The board's members come from all over the globe, from countries with differing laws and regulations, using internet providers with differing terms of service, and many of them conflicting with each other. Yet here we are, publishing information that may be stored on a US server but accessed and copied outside it by people outside the US jurisdiction.
To me, assuring that some are "protected" (what a silly word, in this context) and others aren't when listening to this kind of traffic is nonsensical. How would they know? Do we all carry virtual flags, waving them virtually while posting?
I suspect our governments hope we'll liken their eavesdropping to putting ears on physical walls and believing them that no, they wouldn't do that on their soil. It's perverted and obviously wrong. Surely they wouldn't.
But they don't know and often can't know where in the world those walls are. If we are to entertain this mental image of ears against physical walls, let's include every foreign embassy wall there is. Let's include every wall there is, with ears against every single one. And every time, the first question is, "whose wall is this?"
Ed Snowden is a hero.
-
:agreed: :plus:
-
The FRA runs their surveillance on a tiny scale. The FRA's disadvantage here (I think), apart from their more obvious relative lack of resources, is that they can't access most of the internet's backbone structure.
I'm pretty sure that they do break the law, though.
What annoys me with both is that they are both quick to assure that their citizens are protected against these intrusions, implying that everyone else isn't.
There are very few political boundaries on teh interwebz. This board's server, for instance, is located in the US but I am regularly backing up its contents outside it. The board's members come from all over the globe, from countries with differing laws and regulations, using internet providers with differing terms of service, and many of them conflicting with each other. Yet here we are, publishing information that may be stored on a US server but accessed and copied outside it by people outside the US jurisdiction.
To me, assuring that some are "protected" (what a silly word, in this context) and others aren't when listening to this kind of traffic is nonsensical. How would they know? Do we all carry virtual flags, waving them virtually while posting?
I suspect our governments hope we'll liken their eavesdropping to putting ears on physical walls and believing them that no, they wouldn't do that on their soil. It's perverted and obviously wrong. Surely they wouldn't.
But they don't know and often can't know where in the world those walls are. If we are to entertain this mental image of ears against physical walls, let's include every foreign embassy wall there is. Let's include every wall there is, with ears against every single one. And every time, the first question is, "whose wall is this?"
Ed Snowden is a hero.
Well said, O-man. :thumbup:
-
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.
Yeah see? You know what else? I'd be willing to bet that this spying shit is against the law almost everywhere in the world. Its pretty normal not to want to be treated like a piece of shit by the people you elect to be your voice.
-
It's probably against the consitution in every country in Europe and in every country that has a constitution similar to European constitutions. It might not be illegal in Russia or China, but in every country we consider civilised it's most probably against the law.
-
I suspect it's illegal in Russia, too. :-\
-
It's probably against the consitution in every country in Europe and in every country that has a constitution similar to European constitutions. It might not be illegal in Russia or China, but in every country we consider civilised it's most probably against the law.
Yeah I don't even think the reds would put up with that shit, Lit.