Edward Snowden: American Hero

#101
#101
volinbham said:
I'm glad he did what he did but if you break the law you pay the price.
Click to expand...

I have mixed feelings on this. I wonder if he has leaked any other classified information.

The government cannot let this slide. Classified information is to be classified.
 
#103
#103
volinbham said:
I'm glad he did what he did but if you break the law you pay the price.
Click to expand...

I'm with Gramps. If there's no other method for an overreach of the law to reach the public, and he is prosecuted (what's extradition law on this?), then I would like to see some leniency. What are whistleblower laws? Any protection for him?

And the ultimate action should be representatives being voted out, but with partisan politics, there's no chance.
 
#105
#105
Obsessed said:
Quote the whole quote
Click to expand...

:confused:

I didn't watch the video. I just took that quote from the title. That was the whole quote.

I don't understand why my post offended you. All I did was point out the irony of seeking asylum in China of all places. I think what he did was righteous, as evidenced by my "good for him" comment.
 
#106
#106
volinbham said:
The phone number is by definition connected to a person - it is an identifier.

If I understand the program correctly (have heard conflicting things) the data is not mined at all until a number pops from other investigative techniques. Then a court order is sought to find out what other numbers this number talked to.

If that is true, I see no reason the government needs to own this data prior to use. it may be an extra set of steps but why not wait to subpoena it when authorized to do so? It alleviates the opportunity for abuse.




The latter is my understanding of how it is done. The claim I've heard is that the first scenario does not occur and I would have a problem if it did.





Of course the debate cannot occur unless we know what is done...



As to the last point - no effin' way
Click to expand...

And that is the rub. Neither of us would consider it because of the way the political system has developed.

Unfortunately the system won't be fixed until enough 50 year old citizens who have been successful in life decide to participate in ways more meaningful than simply voting. As long as we limit ourselves to voting, the career politicians and their lobbiest benefactors win.
 
#107
#107
Thrasher865 said:
:confused:

I didn't watch the video. I just took that quote from the title. That was the whole quote.

I don't understand why my post offended you. All I did was point out the irony of seeking asylum in China of all places. I think what he did was righteous, as evidenced by my "good for him" comment.
Click to expand...

I understand the irony. But he was not seeking asylum from china. He looking at Iceland for help. Which they offered. But now he's missing
 
#108
#108
Oh, I read this morning he was "currently in HK, seeking asylum." I assumed that meant seeking asylum with the commies.
 
#109
#109
Weezy said:
I'm with Gramps. If there's no other method for an overreach of the law to reach the public, and he is prosecuted (what's extradition law on this?), then I would like to see some leniency. What are whistleblower laws? Any protection for him?

And the ultimate action should be representatives being voted out, but with partisan politics, there's no chance.
Click to expand...

I too would like to see some leniency but at the heart of the matter is preserving the rule of law; not the rule of man. He exposed activities but that doesn't make him above the law.

The whistleblower thing is interesting since it protects in cases of exposing abuse and illegal activities whereas this is at least legal (what we know of it).

As stated earlier, I do see this case as somewhat different from the Bradley Manning document dump.
 
#110
#110
I will vote against anyone that labels him a traitor or of aiding the enemy. He really was just informing the public of how government takes loopholes (thinking of the hole in the castle wall imagery) and makes gates.

Doesn't really matter though, all of my representatives are already on that list.
 
#111
#111
YorkVol said:
Sure I can, I know many of them personally, even some who died protecting said freedom.
Click to expand...

Again. Absurd. I don't care if you were all raised in the same family, you can't speak for all of them and their view of freedom or what it exactly it is they are fighting for.
 
#114
#114
Paul makes it seem like they were mislead

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/yahoo-news-interview-rand-paul-says-nsa-phone-232201004.html
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#115
#115
VolsNSkinsFan said:
The guy should have gone to Rand Paul or Cruz instead of the guardian

That's my only beef
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


Ted Cruz is being hypocritical on this issue.

He not only sits on the Committee on the Judiciary, he sits on the Crime and Terrorism subcommittee which has

Oversight of anti-terrorism enforcement and policy;

Oversight of Department of Homeland Security functions as they relate to anti-terrorism enforcement and policy;

Oversight of State Department consular operations as they relate to anti-terrorism enforcement and policy;

Oversight of espionage laws and their enforcement.


It has been reported this program has been debated and voted on several time in the Judiciary committee. Yet he comes out with the following BS Statement.

Press Release of Senator Cruz

Sen. Cruz Statement on NSA Phone Surveillance

Contact: (202) 224-5922 / press@cruz.senate.gov
Friday, June 7, 2013

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) today released the following statement regarding President Obama’s comments on the NSA’s gathering of Americans’ private phone records:

We should always be mindful of the need for government to have the tools necessary to keep Americans safe in a dangerous world, where there are enemies plotting to attack us. We have seen the face of that enemy time and again, most recently in the terrorist attacks at Fort Hood, Benghazi and Boston to name a few.

But on one hand the Obama Administration says this enemy is in retreat, yet on the other, they are implementing what appears to be an unprecedented and intrusive surveillance system on private American citizens in the name of guarding against that enemy. Just today, the president encouraged us to trust him on this – to trust that there are safeguards to ensure our privacy is protected, trust that there is a system of checks and balances to prevent an abuse of power. But in light of this Administration's track record, how can they expect to be trusted?

We have discovered over the past few months an ongoing pattern of wanton disregard not only for Americans' privacy, but for the truth – DOJ's refusal to be forthcoming about drone policy, IRS's targeting groups for their political beliefs and then misleading the American people about it, DOJ's targeting of journalists for doing their jobs, and now what seems an unprecedented intrusion into Americans' personal phone records and potentially into their broader online activities.

Americans trusted President Obama when he came to office promising the most transparent administration in history. But that trust has been broken and the only way to earn it back is to tell the truth. That's what Americans deserve. I will be working with my colleagues in the Senate who share my concerns to ensure that we have all the facts about these surveillance programs, and that our government is appropriately balancing concerns of national security with Americans' personal liberties.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#116
#116
Have been on the run all day (both literally and figuratively). I heard the dude gave more classified information that not even the post or the guardian would publish.

Can anybody confirm?
 
#117
#117
PKT_VOL said:
Have been on the run all day (both literally and figuratively). I heard the dude gave more classified information that not even the post or the guardian would publish.

Can anybody confirm?
Click to expand...

That's classified...























Sorry PKT, couldn't resist.
 
#121
#121
And if you don't think this is a major violation of the constitution then you aren't a real liberal.
 
#122
#122
Gramps said:
Ted Cruz is being hypocritical on this issue.

He not only sits on the Committee on the Judiciary, he sits on the Crime and Terrorism subcommittee which has

Oversight of anti-terrorism enforcement and policy;

Oversight of Department of Homeland Security functions as they relate to anti-terrorism enforcement and policy;

Oversight of State Department consular operations as they relate to anti-terrorism enforcement and policy;

Oversight of espionage laws and their enforcement.


It has been reported this program has been debated and voted on several time in the Judiciary committee. Yet he comes out with the following BS Statement.
Click to expand...

He is a freshman senator, how is he being hypocritical?
He didn't vote for the patriot act, nor did he vote to keep it. So again, how is he being hypocritical?

Ted Cruz might not be perfect, but he is by far better then most senators. A far cry better then those 2 morons in Tennessee.
 
#123
#123
lawgator1 said:
He will - and should- go to prison for a very, very long time.
Click to expand...

I hadn't formed an opinion until I read this post.

From now on, I will forever refer to the Washington Monument as the Washington/Snowden Monument.

That should appease all the idiotic, socialist dumbasses that love their women hyphenating their last names.
 
#124
#124
bamacheats said:
I hadn't formed an opinion until I read this post.

From now on, I will forever refer to the Washington Monument as the Washington/Snowden Monument.

That should appease all the idiotic, socialist dumbasses that love their women hyphenating their last names.
Click to expand...

ditto
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top