NSA leaker has come forward: Idiot has fled the U.S

[Fenixgoon]

That doesn't make sense, the Patriot act was passed several decades later. It's more recent and thus more relevant.

you could argue that about any law, constitutional or not, with that logic.

please explain how the patriot act is more relevant than the constitution in protecting and securing the liberties of individuals.

the patriot act protects me from terrorists? i'm more likely to die in a car crash or get struck by lightning. the patriot act probably does as much good against terrorists as an "assault weapons ban" does against mass shootings.

 

[Nebor]

you could argue that about any law, constitutional or not, with that logic.

please explain how the patriot act is more relevant than the constitution in protecting and securing the liberties of individuals.

the patriot act protects me from terrorists? i'm more likely to die in a car crash or get struck by lightning. the patriot act probably does as much good against terrorists as an "assault weapons ban" does against mass shootings.

The patriot is (obviously) about supporting patriots. People who love our country. That's the men in women in our clandestine services in the case of this discussion.

And we won't know how well an assault weapons ban could really work until it's vigorously enforced with the sort of data-indexing that we now know the government possesses.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Everyone has to deal with reality when they're faced with the kinds of decision that the president is. And increasingly that pushes them towards totalitarianism because that's what is required to safeguard our nation against today's enemies.

If you feel that totalitarianism is needed then perhaps it's time for you to relocate. Be safe in Beijing and take our leaders who feel the same with you please.

 

[Bowfinger]

If you feel that totalitarianism is needed then perhaps it's time for you to relocate. Be safe in Beijing and take our leaders who feel the same with you please.

This. "Land of the free, home of the brave"? Sad to say those are the good old days.

 

[Fenixgoon]

The patriot is (obviously) about supporting patriots. People who love our country. That's the men in women in our clandestine services in the case of this discussion.

And we won't know how well an assault weapons ban could really work until it's vigorously enforced with the sort of data-indexing that we now know the government possesses.

my sarcasm meter is broken. Can't tell if you're serious or not.

 

[Genx87]

This. "Land of the free, home of the brave"? Sad to say those are the good old days.

As I get older that phrase makes me feel more jaded. Home of the "free". Free to do what exactly? All the regulation and law probably puts me into the category of felon once a day without even knowing if the state had the resources to enforce it.
I cant even look at private property rights without disgust. Effectively renting land from the govt via property taxation. And if they feel the need, they can evict me via eminent domain if they find a party willing to pay higher rent.

 

[hal2kilo]

my sarcasm meter is broken. Can't tell if you're serious or not.

pathetic if he is serious.

 

[MiniDoom]

As I get older that phrase makes me feel more jaded. Home of the "free". Free to do what exactly? All the regulation and law probably puts me into the category of felon once a day without even knowing if the state had the resources to enforce it.
I cant even look at private property rights without disgust. Effectively renting land from the govt via property taxation. And if they feel the need, they can evict you via eminent domain if they find a party willing to pay higher rent.

yep, i won't be feeding my children that line of bull shit I was fed as a kid.

 

[bshole]

As I get older that phrase makes me feel more jaded. Home of the "free". Free to do what exactly? All the regulation and law probably puts me into the category of felon once a day without even knowing if the state had the resources to enforce it.
I cant even look at private property rights without disgust. Effectively renting land from the govt via property taxation. And if they feel the need, they can evict you via eminent domain if they find a party willing to pay higher rent.

My next door neighbor was just evicted from her house. She was like 85 and couldn't keep up with the property tax.

I pay property tax and the city provides sewer service. When they flood my basement with sewer water during heavy rainstorms, they provide not a cent in compensation. I am forced to use their service and then they are not held liable for the quality of the service they provide? I have had 3 sewer backups since 1998. The first one wiped out my entire library of books in the basement along with all my college photos, letters and mementos.

I pay $500/month in property taxes. My house payment is $700/month. So yes I am renting the house from the government and they are providing some rather crappy services to me in return.

 

[Remobz]

NSA seems like a joke to me now.

 

[bradly1101]

And increasingly that pushes them towards totalitarianism because that's what is required to safeguard our nation against today's enemies.

I sure don't want to live there. I would much rather trace the path of a man I have much more respect for than the president (and I voted for him), and live in Hong Kong, Moscow then Ecuador.

I wonder if Putin is threatening to hold Snowden and extract the rest of what he knows, then pay him to keep quiet. Otherwise an exchange of prisoners. Oh, my conspiracy theories!

 

[Fern]

If he was ever on it, Snowden gave up the moral high ground the minute he decided to start talking about things other than domestic surveillance and domestic collection -- ie. hacking China. If he continues to spill US secrets that have nothing at all to do with US civil liberties, I don't think anyone should support him.

Just because some good could come from his initial statements and actions -- those being worthy of a serious national conversation, and perhaps some legislative changes -- it doesn't mean that his high crimes should be completely thrown out the window...

Did Obama commit a "high crime" when he disclosed the USA was behind Stuxnet?

Fern

 

[Riparian]

Did Obama commit a "high crime" when he disclosed the USA was behind Stuxnet?

Fern

Are you equating a President's clearance level to a contractor for the NSA?

 

[Fern]

Are you equating a President's clearance level to a contractor for the NSA?

Of what importance is the level of security clearance when it comes to determining whether a leak is damaging to US interest's?

A "high crime" would not be dependent upon the person's security clearance, rather it would be dependent upon the extent of the damage of the leak itself.

Fern

 

[Riparian]

Of what importance is the level of security clearance when it comes to determining whether a leak is damaging to US interest's?

A "high crime" would not be dependent upon the person's security clearance, rather it would be dependent upon the extent of the damage of the leak itself.

Fern

Who determines whether information is confidential or public? I'm just trying to understand how a Presidential disclosure is the equivalent to the disclosure by someone who does not have that power and may not even have all of the information to make the judgment of whether something should be disclosed or not.

Anyways, I'm all for the disclosure of the PRISM program, just can't figure out why you're trying to equate the two, highly different situations.

 

[Fern]

Who determines whether information is confidential or public?

I believe you are focused on the legal definition of 'leak' etc.

I am focused on the definition of "high crime". Accordingly, and IMO, the question centers on the damage caused to the USA. In the Constitution "high Crimes" apply to the President. Under your (apparent) line of reasoning 'leaks', or disclosure of info, by the President, no matter how damaging could never be considered a "high Crime".

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Anyways, I'm all for the disclosure of the PRISM program, just can't figure out why you're trying to equate the two, highly different situations.

I was responding to a poster who claimed Snowden's leak was a high crime.

Ergo if Snowden's leak was a high crime why wasn't Obama's?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

I was responding to a poster who claimed Snowden's leak was a high crime.

Ergo if Snowden's leak was a high crime why wasn't Obama's?

Fern

You realize it is literally impossible for Obama to be guilty of unauthorized disclosure of classified information, right? The authority to classify information COMES from the president.

 

[fskimospy]

I believe you are focused on the legal definition of 'leak' etc.

I am focused on the definition of "high crime". Accordingly, and IMO, the question centers on the damage caused to the USA. In the Constitution "high Crimes" apply to the President. Under your (apparent) line of reasoning 'leaks', or disclosure of info, by the President, no matter how damaging could never be considered a "high Crime".

Fern

You cannot be serious with this line of reasoning. First, where are you getting your definition of high crime? Did you just male it up or are you using an actual legal definition? What makes you think that such a disclosure caused sufficient damage to the US to be a high crime? Congress certainly doesn't think so.

I think you are very confused about what those terms mean

 

[Fern]

You cannot be serious with this line of reasoning. First, where are you getting your definition of high crime? Did you just male it up or are you using an actual legal definition? What makes you think that such a disclosure caused sufficient damage to the US to be a high crime? Congress certainly doesn't think so.

I think you are very confused about what those terms mean

High crimes is not well defined.

However:

Generally, debate over the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors has split into two camps. The minority view is held by critics who undertake a literal reading of the Constitution. They maintain that high crimes means what it says—criminal activity—and argue that the Framers wanted only criminal activities to be the basis for impeachment. The generally accepted viewpoint is much broader. It defines high crimes and misdemeanors as any serious abuse of power—including both legal and illegal activities. Supporters of this reading believe that because impeachment is a public inquiry, first and fore-most, it is appropriate to read the phrase broadly in order to provide the most thorough inquiry possible. Thus, a civil officer may face impeachment for misconduct, violations of oath of office, serious incompetence, or, in the case of judges, activities that undermine public confidence or damage the integrity of the judiciary.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/High+Crimes+and+Misdemeanors

Obama's action are covered in the definition above. The question is whether it is sufficiently serious, and that is subjective.

Confused? God, you're an insufferable ass.

Fern

 

[palehorse]

Did Obama commit a "high crime" when he disclosed the USA was behind Stuxnet?

Fern

I personally thought so at the time, yes.

Then again, the President may have it within his power to classify and declassify information at his discretion.

His position is certainly worthy of the "original classification authority" title, but I'm not sure if he's really is considered an actual OCA. I'm also not really sure if even an individual OCA can declassify something without a proper panel and review... except, perhaps, the President? I don't know...

EDIT: please replace the word "high" with the word "serious" in my previous post. I was in no way trying to equate Snowden's crimes to those described in the Constitution as "high crimes and misdemeanors," relative to a President. I simply meant to say that his acts of espionage are a serious crime...

 

[fskimospy]

The president is the person who classifies or declassifies all information. It is absolutely in his power.

The idea that a low level analyst choosing to disclose something and the president doing so are somehow analogous is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[shady28]

That doesn't make sense, the Patriot act was passed several decades later. It's more recent and thus more relevant.

With all due respect, that statement labels you as being completely ignorant of what a constitution is and how it functions.

The only way that you can change the constitution is with an Amendment.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, and it states that no laws shall be passed that abridge it.

The Patriot Act is not an Amendment to the Constitution.

If the Constitution is Amended, you'll know about it, because it requires 2/3 majority in both House and Senate just to propose an Amendment (not pass it, PROPOSE IT).

After that, it must then be ratified by 3/4 of the STATE legislatures (38 out of 50).

UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE NOW??????

 

[RampantAndroid]

That doesn't make sense, the Patriot act was passed several decades later. It's more recent and thus more relevant.

....No. As Shady points out, the constitution is "the law of the land" - to change that law, congress must pass an amendment and then 3/4ths of all states must ratify it (oversimplifying here, of course.)

All laws passed that are not amendments are subject to the constitution and it's amendments (the bill of rights.)

 

[Nebor]

With all due respect, that statement labels you as being completely ignorant of what a constitution is and how it functions.

The only way that you can change the constitution is with an Amendment.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, and it states that no laws shall be passed that abridge it.

The Patriot Act is not an Amendment to the Constitution.

If the Constitution is Amended, you'll know about it, because it requires 2/3 majority in both House and Senate just to propose an Amendment (not pass it, PROPOSE IT).

After that, it must then be ratified by 3/4 of the STATE legislatures (38 out of 50).

UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE NOW??????

Well that doesn't make any sense. Everyone in this thread is saying that the patriot act and the NSA's recent actions are in violation of the constitution. How can that be, if what you say is true?