Edward Snowden Playlist

hutch wrote:


I guess people here would want Harriet Tubman behind bars too..

Pssst.  Harriet Tubman is underground.

sweetcell wrote:

atomicfront wrote:

beetsnotbeats wrote:

atomicfront wrote:

beetsnotbeats wrote:

atomicfront wrote:

beetsnotbeats wrote:

atomicfront wrote:

He broke the law so he deserves to go to jail.

So you would have thrown Rosa Parks in jail? Even high school dropouts know that's wrong.

So you believe laws protecting national security are wrong and are comparable to racism in the US South in the 1960's? 

My question wasn't about national security. It was about whether or not all law breaking should be punished. Rosa Parks broke the law. Should she have been punished?

Well do you think serial killers should be punished?  If we don't prosecute people who divulge national security secrets than we should get rid of the whole NSA and CIA and save a lot of money.

Again, avoiding the question. Should Rosa Parks have been punished for breaking the law?

She sat on the wrong seat on the bus.  Sure they can prosecute her all they want if that is the law.   The problem is the law was unconstitutional.  Prosecute her and then lose in the supreme court that works for me.  

and you think PRISM is constitutional? 

same same.

If it is unconstitutional he should stay in the USA and fight the charges.  He has no desire to do that and is trying to go to countries that do much worse things than our PRISM program.  So he is a hypocrit as well.  I hope they catch him and I hope he does hard time.

As for you guys I don't know why you were so against the Obama programs. You voted for him.  I told you he was too conservative and I did not vote for him.  You should be the ones supporting the programs. 

beetsnotbeats wrote:

Again, avoiding the question. Should Rosa Parks have been punished for breaking the law?

FACT: Rosa Parks did NOT break the law!!!
Please know the facts before you use her as a (very bad) example!

"According to the law, no passenger would be required to move or give up his seat and stand if the bus was crowded and no other seats were available."

"The police charged her with violating the part of the Montgomery City code that dealt with segregation law, even though she had not technically violated the law. The ironic part of her arrest was that as the officer was taking her away she asked him why the police would take part in such wrong behavior. His answer amazed her when he said, "I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
http://www.rosaparksfacts.com/rosa-parks-civil-rights-movement.php#rosa-parks-arrest

During World War II Supreme Court declared the internment of Americans of Japanese descent constitutional…..

slappy wrote:

beetsnotbeats wrote:

Again, avoiding the question. Should Rosa Parks have been punished for breaking the law?

FACT: Rosa Parks did NOT break the law!!!
Please know the facts before you use her as a (very bad) example!

"According to the law, no passenger would be required to move or give up his seat and stand if the bus was crowded and no other seats were available."

"The police charged her with violating the part of the Montgomery City code that dealt with segregation law, even though she had not technically violated the law. The ironic part of her arrest was that as the officer was taking her away she asked him why the police would take part in such wrong behavior. His answer amazed her when he said, "I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
http://www.rosaparksfacts.com/rosa-parks-civil-rights-movement.php#rosa-parks-arrest

Thank you for the correction but I wouldn't go so far as to cite it as a "very bad" example. It's widely believed that Parks was arrested because she broke the law at the time. And the cop quote further illustrates to the stupidity of "the law's the law" cliché.

hutch wrote:
During World War II Supreme Court declared the internment of Americans of Japanese descent constitutional…..

What does any of this have to do with the current case.  Laws regarding secret documents are valid laws.  My mother used to do that for a living and had a top secret clearance.  She couldn't even discuss anything about them with me.  What is so hard about that law?  If you don't like the law don't get a job working for the NSA.  If you find something that you think needs to be released to the nation than you shouldn't be leaving the country with the secret documents.  You need to stay here and face the consequences.  Realize he wanted to release more documents in the paper but they declined.  Realize this guy is a traitor not a hero.  I don't think he should be executed but a few years in a tough federal prison should do the trick.  

Stop comparing him to people he is nothing like.  He is like Lee Harvey Oswald.  He left the country to go to our enemies.

atomicfront wrote:

sweetcell wrote:

atomicfront wrote:

beetsnotbeats wrote:

atomicfront wrote:

beetsnotbeats wrote:

atomicfront wrote:

beetsnotbeats wrote:

atomicfront wrote:

He broke the law so he deserves to go to jail.

So you would have thrown Rosa Parks in jail? Even high school dropouts know that's wrong.

So you believe laws protecting national security are wrong and are comparable to racism in the US South in the 1960's? 

My question wasn't about national security. It was about whether or not all law breaking should be punished. Rosa Parks broke the law. Should she have been punished?

Well do you think serial killers should be punished?  If we don't prosecute people who divulge national security secrets than we should get rid of the whole NSA and CIA and save a lot of money.

Again, avoiding the question. Should Rosa Parks have been punished for breaking the law?

She sat on the wrong seat on the bus.  Sure they can prosecute her all they want if that is the law.   The problem is the law was unconstitutional.  Prosecute her and then lose in the supreme court that works for me.  

and you think PRISM is constitutional? 

same same.

If it is unconstitutional he should stay in the USA and fight the charges.  He has no desire to do that and is trying to go to countries that do much worse things than our PRISM program.  So he is a hypocrit as well.  I hope they catch him and I hope he does hard time.

As for you guys I don't know why you were so against the Obama programs. You voted for him.  I told you he was too conservative and I did not vote for him.  You should be the ones supporting the programs. 

Not all of us voted for Obama in '12. And if you think he would have received a fair trial here given the way this DOJ has dealt with whistleblowers, you are delusional. It would definitely throw you from troll level into batshit crazy territory.

atomicfront wrote:

hutch wrote:
During World War II Supreme Court declared the internment of Americans of Japanese descent constitutional…..

What does any of this have to do with the current case.  Laws regarding secret documents are valid laws.  My mother used to do that for a living and had a top secret clearance.  She couldn't even discuss anything about them with me.  What is so hard about that law?  If you don't like the law don't get a job working for the NSA.  If you find something that you think needs to be released to the nation than you shouldn't be leaving the country with the secret documents.  You need to stay here and face the consequences.  Realize he wanted to release more documents in the paper but they declined.  Realize this guy is a traitor not a hero.  I don't think he should be executed but a few years in a tough federal prison should do the trick.  

Stop comparing him to people he is nothing like.  He is like Lee Harvey Oswald.  He left the country to go to our enemies.

So did you think Dan Ellsberg deserved to go to prison, too? He did pretty much the same.

atomicfront wrote:

hutch wrote:
During World War II Supreme Court declared the internment of Americans of Japanese descent constitutional…..

What does any of this have to do with the current case.  Laws regarding secret documents are valid laws.  My mother used to do that for a living and had a top secret clearance.  She couldn't even discuss anything about them with me.  What is so hard about that law?  If you don't like the law don't get a job working for the NSA.  If you find something that you think needs to be released to the nation than you shouldn't be leaving the country with the secret documents.  You need to stay here and face the consequences.  Realize he wanted to release more documents in the paper but they declined.  Realize this guy is a traitor not a hero.  I don't think he should be executed but a few years in a tough federal prison should do the trick.  

Stop comparing him to people he is nothing like.  He is like Lee Harvey Oswald.  He left the country to go to our enemies.

please point me to the law that says the government can record all my conversations/track all my internet activity and listen in on my calls without a warrant.

seriously. please do.

but even if this law you claim exists does exist (which I do not accept unless you can show me to the contrary) then the law must be changed.

hutch wrote:

atomicfront wrote:

hutch wrote:
During World War II Supreme Court declared the internment of Americans of Japanese descent constitutional…..

What does any of this have to do with the current case.  Laws regarding secret documents are valid laws.  My mother used to do that for a living and had a top secret clearance.  She couldn't even discuss anything about them with me.  What is so hard about that law?  If you don't like the law don't get a job working for the NSA.  If you find something that you think needs to be released to the nation than you shouldn't be leaving the country with the secret documents.  You need to stay here and face the consequences.  Realize he wanted to release more documents in the paper but they declined.  Realize this guy is a traitor not a hero.  I don't think he should be executed but a few years in a tough federal prison should do the trick.  

Stop comparing him to people he is nothing like.  He is like Lee Harvey Oswald.  He left the country to go to our enemies.

please point me to the law that says the government can record all my conversations/track all my internet activity and listen in on my calls without a warrant.

seriously. please do.

but even if this law you claim exists does exist (which I do not accept unless you can show me to the contrary) then the law must be changed.

The government can listen to the calls but they can't use them against you in court unless they get a warrant.  I assume.  Did you think what you did on the Internet was private? 

atomicfront wrote:

sweetcell wrote:
and you think PRISM is constitutional? 

same same.

If it is unconstitutional he should stay in the USA and fight the charges.  He has no desire to do that and is trying to go to countries that do much worse things than our PRISM program.  So he is a hypocrit as well.  I hope they catch him and I hope he does hard time.

As for you guys I don't know why you were so against the Obama programs. You voted for him.  I told you he was too conservative and I did not vote for him.  You should be the ones supporting the programs. 

thanks to the patriot act and executive orders, the constitution is now a secondary concern.  it's also why he was charged with espionage and not breach of contract.  his court case can now be behind closed doors because of "national security concerns".  

and newsflash: PRISM is a Bush-era program, it started in 2007 (AKA before Obama was elected).  it is disgusting that Obama hasn't rescinded it, but to call them "Obama programs" is disingenuous.

atomicfront wrote:
The government can listen to the calls but they can't use them against you in court unless they get a warrant.  I assume.   

you've proven yourself to be misinformed on a lot of things, so you'll forgive me for not trusting what you assume.

one of the concepts of our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty".  the government can't listen to whatever it wants, "just in case", and then retroactively get a warrant to use stuff it wasn't allowed to collect in the first place.  the innocent should not have to give up their rights to catch the guilty.

beetsnotbeats wrote:
Thank you for the correction but I wouldn't go so far as to cite it as a "very bad" example. It's widely believed that Parks was arrested because she broke the law at the time. And the cop quote further illustrates to the stupidity of "the law's the law" cliché.

It IS a very bad example because it's not true. She didn't break a law.
A fallacy cannot be used as an example of fact.

Stupid clichés remain until they are ended confronted with the facts. Just because you think 'it's widely believed' doesn't make it fit into the realm of reality.

atomicfront wrote:

hutch wrote:

atomicfront wrote:

hutch wrote:
During World War II Supreme Court declared the internment of Americans of Japanese descent constitutional…..

What does any of this have to do with the current case.  Laws regarding secret documents are valid laws.  My mother used to do that for a living and had a top secret clearance.  She couldn't even discuss anything about them with me.  What is so hard about that law?  If you don't like the law don't get a job working for the NSA.  If you find something that you think needs to be released to the nation than you shouldn't be leaving the country with the secret documents.  You need to stay here and face the consequences.  Realize he wanted to release more documents in the paper but they declined.  Realize this guy is a traitor not a hero.  I don't think he should be executed but a few years in a tough federal prison should do the trick.  

Stop comparing him to people he is nothing like.  He is like Lee Harvey Oswald.  He left the country to go to our enemies.

please point me to the law that says the government can record all my conversations/track all my internet activity and listen in on my calls without a warrant.

seriously. please do.

but even if this law you claim exists does exist (which I do not accept unless you can show me to the contrary) then the law must be changed.

The government can listen to the calls but they can't use them against you in court unless they get a warrant.  I assume.  Did you think what you did on the Internet was private? 

you're just talking out of your ass … point me to the law that gives the US federal government the authority- and also point me to the Supreme Court decision that upholds the law as constitutional- to record all calls, track all internet activity, etc etc and have people listen in on my calls without a warrant.

I seriously want you to do that otherwise I'll conclude you don't know what you're talking about.

I actually don't have a problem with the government monitoring my phone and internet conversations. Why would they even care about a conversation I had with my brother about beer, or about what my mom said when she was blathering on about American Idol? It's not like they are sitting there listening to every word anyway. Their ears would only perk up if someone uttered some kind of terrorist bullshit keywords. Which doesn't happen.

James wrote:
I actually don't have a problem with the government monitoring my phone and internet conversations. Why would they even care about a conversation I had with my brother about beer, or about what my mom said when she was blathering on about American Idol? It's not like they are sitting there listening to every word anyway. Their ears would only perk up if someone uttered some kind of terrorist bullshit keywords. Which doesn't happen.

But doesn't all of that fall into the category of a warrantless search?  It's not like they suspect you.  They're just searching you in case you're doing something wrong - or in case you ever do. 

hutch wrote:
you're just talking out of your ass … point me to the law that gives the US federal government the authority- and also point me to the Supreme Court decision that upholds the law as constitutional- to record all calls, track all internet activity, etc etc and have people listen in on my calls without a warrant.

I seriously want you to do that otherwise I'll conclude you don't know what you're talking about.

Not defending him but I think he's talking about the whole NSA intelligence industrial complex and not specific laws …
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/23/nsa-intelligence-industrial-complex-abuse

James wrote:
I actually don't have a problem with the government monitoring my phone and internet conversations. Why would they even care about a conversation I had with my brother about beer, or about what my mom said when she was blathering on about American Idol? It's not like they are sitting there listening to every word anyway. Their ears would only perk up if someone uttered some kind of terrorist bullshit keywords. Which doesn't happen.

This is just a variation on the "well, if you're doing nothing wrong… you should have nothing to worry about, right?"

I just said I don't have a problem with it. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not commenting on the legality of it.

grateful wrote:

James wrote:
I actually don't have a problem with the government monitoring my phone and internet conversations. Why would they even care about a conversation I had with my brother about beer, or about what my mom said when she was blathering on about American Idol? It's not like they are sitting there listening to every word anyway. Their ears would only perk up if someone uttered some kind of terrorist bullshit keywords. Which doesn't happen.

But doesn't all of that fall into the category of a warrantless search?  It's not like they suspect you.  They're just searching you in case you're doing something wrong - or in case you ever do. 

James wrote:
I actually don't have a problem with the government monitoring my phone and internet conversations. Why would they even care about a conversation I had with my brother about beer, or about what my mom said when she was blathering on about American Idol? It's not like they are sitting there listening to every word anyway. Their ears would only perk up if someone uttered some kind of terrorist bullshit keywords. Which doesn't happen.

i get what you're saying, my emails and phone conversations aren't that interesting either.  however, it says a lot about a society and how its government regards its citizens.  this is a variation on the "if you've got nothing to hide you'll have nothing to fear" argument, which has been torn to shreds by many:

- http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/
- http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110524/00084614407/privacy-is-not-secrecy-debunking-if-youve-got-nothing-to-hide-argument.shtml
- http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html
- http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
- http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/debunking-the-dangerous-nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear/
etc…

the next step to the if you've done nothing wrong is the "well he must have done something.."

it really is a slippery slope…