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

[TheSlamma]

A year from now you may decide to commit a terrorist attack, the phone data today could be vital to that investigation. The government doesn't know who is or isn't a potential terrorist. All must be suspect.

It's illegal for them to do that. Read the Constitution and don't skip any lines. The bill of rights section should have your full attention.

 

[Jaskalas]

Why is this guy being celebrated while Bradley Manning was vilified?

Information about our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan basically handed them over to Islamic terrorists on a silver platter. Those are war zones and people are getting killed daily. Do you equate America to that?

If the justification for vilifying this guy is that America is at war with its own citizens...

 

[actuarial]

If he was revealing the government breaking the law (as currently written), then he shouldn't be prosecuted.

If he was revealing confidential information, but the government was following the law (as currently written), he should be prosecuted.

It seems many here disagree with the law and so that should absolve all wrongdoing related to it. Why not work towards changing the law?

Should it be so simple that any time we disagree with what the government is doing there should be no repercussions to revealing confidential information?

 

[Darwin333]

So you think opening all of the "secret" and illegal programs into the public realm will help keep us safe?

I am assuming that you also think that corporate boards should release complete transcripts of all illegal activities discussed during meetings to public investors. After all, why shouldn't investors know exactly what is going on with their company?

The bolded is mine and yes after the bolded is added I do.

 

[Darwin333]

If he was revealing the government breaking the law (as currently written), then he shouldn't be prosecuted.

If he was revealing confidential information, but the government was following the law (as currently written), he should be prosecuted.

It seems many here disagree with the law and so that should absolve all wrongdoing related to it. Why not work towards changing the law?

Should it be so simple that any time we disagree with what the government is doing there should be no repercussions to revealing confidential information?

Read the 4th amendment and ask yourself how seizing the phone records of every American can possibly be legal, regardless of any law that Congress has passed, barring a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Jaskalas]

Well NSA has already filed a criminal report and they said FBI and other agencies are already discussing criminal charges and apprehension of this guy. I was watching the news this morning when they were talking about it. They want to do to this guy what they are currently doing to Bradley Manning. The thing that bothers me about this is that none of this data has ever been used to go after the big bankers and those who have done very criminal things against citizens, and the powerful and rich are somewhat exempt from all this. It is only the little guys, the small US citizens who they are garnering all this info from.

It's about the political opponents of those in charge. That's who they go after, like any despot dictatorship. We're supposed to have laws and protections in place to prevent such abuse. The IRS proved otherwise.

 

[Reckoner]

That's f'n lunacy.

DCal is a troll. Don't pay any attention to him.

 

[z1ggy]

A year from now you may decide to commit a terrorist attack, the phone data today could be vital to that investigation. The government doesn't know who is or isn't a potential terrorist. All must be suspect.

When I read this, I laughed, because it's basically lunacy, but then I also realized, this is the type of breed of person our government wants. They want an individual who is so scared, they are willing to trade in freedom, for protection. Thing is, that they really don't offer up much protection, especially if all they claim to do is "mine" the data.

I mean, how much safer are we knowing their are N amount of people out there texting and google searching about explosives? I bet looking back through the bostom bombers data, they found all sorts of crap that any reasonable person would believe they were planning an attack. But can we do anything about it ahead of time? No.. Not with in our law. You can go around arresting people because, "we think you are going to comitt a crime".

Once we do that, we will truly have a police state...And we are a lot closer to that than we think.

 

[Darwin333]

So it is a death pact.

No it is not a death pact. We have a very well defined way to change the Constitution if we need to. It was made sort of difficult to do on purpose but if the change is needed badly enough it shouldn't be that hard.

Until such change is made either none of it is optional or all of it is optional. I don't know about you but I like our freedoms. It seems to me that you don't much care for the 4th or at least don't place a lot of importance in it but I guarantee that you really like some of the others. I would not want to live in a US in which all of our rights are "optional" and can be taken away whenever the .gov pulls the terrorist boogyman card.

How far are you willing to follow your line of reasoning? Are you willing to follow incorruptable and virtually ban certain religions? How about free speech? The 2nd amendment, lots of talk about how much safer we could be if the .gov basically voided the 2nd amendment?

Wonder what would happen if your family members died.

That would be a horrible thing but I would still remember the untold number of Americans who have died to give us and protect those rights.

Its very disturbing that terrorism isn't a statistical danger to the lives of Americans in the US yet it works so very well at terrorizing us to the point of willingly giving up rights to protect us from a nonthreat. Hell, we could quadruple the number of people killed by terrorists in the US and it still wouldn't be a statistically relevant number. Obviously it is very relevant if its one of your loved ones that died but we don't ban bathtubs because someone accidentally drowned in one nor do we put video cameras in the bathroom so .gov inspectors can ensure that you aren't drowning to protect us from bathtubs.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

A year from now you may decide to commit a terrorist attack, the phone data today could be vital to that investigation. The government doesn't know who is or isn't a potential terrorist. All must be suspect.

Yeah, all EXCEPT for the guy that Russia told us was a terrorist who ended up allegedly bombing a marathon....right? The government knows everyone who is a potential terrorist because they are on the government's payroll. See Al-CIAda.

 

[Darwin333]

So you expect all laws, all potential changes to our government, to be written and passed through an amendment and ratified by the states?

No, I expect all laws that violate the current constitution to be written and passed through as an amendment and ratified by the states exactly as the constitution dictates they be. If you think that is "alternate reality" stuff then why exactly do you think the President has to listen to Congress or the Judicial system? I mean its the same document that requires him to do so, if he can blatantly ignore part of it then why not all of it?

Look, the 4th amendment is absurdly clear on this. Why even have a bill of rights or a constitution if the .gov can arbitrarily ignore it whenever they so choose? As we continue down this road, what do you suppose we do if they start ignoring parts that you do actually care about?

 

[Doppel]

A year from now you may decide to commit a terrorist attack, the phone data today could be vital to that investigation. The government doesn't know who is or isn't a potential terrorist. All must be suspect.

You realize your IP is logged right, Dcal430?

 

[Darwin333]

so how did Boston happen?

You will note that the best example he could come up with the necessity for gathering such information was to find a terrorist after an attack, not to prevent the actual attack from occurring.

 

[Attic]

dCal430 is upping is his troll game here.

That shit is tight!

 

[OutHouse]

for all you asshats who support this blatant violation of the constitution. would you be singing the same tune if the government intercepted, opened, scanned and archived every single USPS, FEDEX, UPS, DHL letter and package you send?

 

[actuarial]

Read the 4th amendment and ask yourself how seizing the phone records of every American can possibly be legal, regardless of any law that Congress has passed, barring a Constitutional amendment.

I apologize for my ignorance, but I see this as one of two situations assuming what they were doing wasn't against the law (I covered if it was against the law):
1) There is a law on the books that allows them to do so
2) There isn't a law on the books that bars them from doing so, other than the constitution

If 1) then lobby to have the law changed, or bring up that the law allows the government to do X things, without revealing that they are in fact doing those things.

If 2) things become stickier, but I would go with the government in fact breaking the law and he should likely not be prosecuted. I say likely only because there should have been some other means of putting attention towards it than exposing it to foreign media.

 

[Mai72]

Maybe Obama is checking our emails right now?

 

[BoberFett]

Yeah, they conceived of machine guns, jets, nuclear bombs and global trade on such a scale and the governments needed to run that and still be something other than a doormat for Britain.

Thomas Jefferson couldn't even run a farm with free labor and balance his finances and you're trying to tell me he could see the future?

So you think they didn't understand that weapons evolved from sticks and stones to firearms? And that they would continue to evolve further? You're a joke.

 

[BoberFett]

More e-toughguy. You so impress me.

Maybe daddy would still be alive if that money were being put into cancer research instead of pouring untold billions down the toilet on finding terrrrists.

 

[dabuddha]

So you think they didn't understand that weapons evolved from sticks and stones to firearms? And that they would continue to evolve further? You're a joke.

/woosh. Try explaining firearms to a caveman.

 

[dabuddha]

A year from now you may decide to commit a terrorist attack, the phone data today could be vital to that investigation. The government doesn't know who is or isn't a potential terrorist. All must be suspect.

ugh I don't want to live in your retarded freedom hating world. Sadly, I think we're headed in that direction anyways.

 

[cliftonite]

Maybe daddy would still be alive if that money were being put into cancer research instead of pouring untold billions down the toilet on finding terrrrists.

You are pathetic.

 

[Doppel]

ugh I don't want to live in your retarded freedom hating world. Sadly, I think we're headed in that direction anyways.

Dcal is a pro gov-oppression troll, as evidenced by all his posts (see my sig).

 

[BoberFett]

You are pathetic.

He's the one that brought daddy into the discussion, as if it's somehow relevant. Dad is fair game now.

 

[Doppel]

You are pathetic.

Explain why his comment is pathetic. Arguably, it is insensitive, but the national cancer institute receives less than 1% what the US military receives in funding, despite cancer assuredly affecting, directly or at the furthest a family member, basically everybody at some point in their life and terrorism affecting a minuscule fraction as many people. US' priorities are totally out of whack on where money goes.