Edward Snowden identified as source of NSA leaks

[Payday]

And who exactly has time to read those all the time? They can just as well say I just agreed to donate my kidney, doesn't mean they have the right to show up at my door with a box full of ice cubes and a scalpel..

These are my favorite comments in here.

[ringpriest]

Gladly!

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...ets-job-offers

Excellent! I see the article also states he'll be fine financially, and mentions the multiple job offers he has.

Kucherena explained to me. "But his father is coming [to Moscow] soon, his American lawyer is coming. He won't be left to face his fate alone." He added, "He has American friends here. So everything will be okay."

"I have to say he's getting a lot of job offers coming in," Kucherena said. "Offers from journalists to work together, and the like. I've passed them on to him, he'll make the decision himself."

Now that we've jointly established that Snowden, while short on savings and ready cash, is in no danger of becoming an impoverished beggar on the streets of Moscow, we can return to the more significant topic of the legality of the programs he revealed. Digging up that link didn't seem to tax you unduly. Can we expect one establishing the legality of the NSA's sweeping and apparently warrantless domestic surveillance?

[Kellhound]

And who exactly has time to read those all the time? They can just as well say I just agreed to donate my kidney, doesn't mean they have the right to show up at my door with a box full of ice cubes and a scalpel..

Well, if you do not take the time to understand what you are agreeing to, you have no basis to complain later that you are not happy about what happens....

[Skroe]

Nice strawmanorama Holy jesus.

No not really. I'm talking in generalities on purpose because my point extends well beyond just this one issue. It extends to every political debate. I go back to, as I have before, the Iraq War. People called it an "illegal war" for years. They still do! And they do this after the former lead prosecutor of the international criminal court, when he had that job, said on record, in his response to why he brought no charges over the Iraq War, that the idea of an "illegal war" does not exist. It is an artificial construct that doesn't exist in law.

But people believed it.

People believe epic bullshit like that. They deserve to be told, that it's epic bullshit. Just like this PRISM stuff. I just linked you a direct court challenge from Verizon, that Verizon lost. And it's worth noting, the same month Yahoo won (see below). But people don't like the outcome, so they go around calling it illegal.

That's such crap. That can't be taken seriously. If people don't have respect for the process or the law itself, what the hell are they doing? Are they 10? Do they want it their way or the high way? Because that's not how the world works. As I explained, I want the NSA to be doing this. I have rights too. So how do I and ringpriest live in the same country? How do we compromise. We have the process and courts for that. You win some. You lose some.

http://www.ibtimes.com/yahoo-wins-vi...uments-1347827

[Rukentuts]

Can we expect one establishing the legality of the NSA's sweeping and apparently warrantless domestic surveillance?

If you're not going to read what already exists in the thread then what's the point?

[Yadryonych]

The irony of an American whistle-blower, who believes the American government is committing injustices, fleeing to a rival country whose record of human rights violation is even worse.

No one single's human rights violation is strictly not to be compared with violation of rights of humanity itself. The PRISM program is the such violation

[Skroe]

Just because it passes the checks and balances doesn't mean it's ethical.

That's an ENTIRELY different argument. ENTIRELY. That has NOTHING to do with its legality or constitutionality. We can have a legitimate, adult conversation about that, gladly. Because even I want some of the NSA stuff to be curtailed. But serious adults can't have a serious conversation, if you have one asshole playing make believe with the facts.

If you lose in court, you lose. And the anti-Prism crowd has lost on the basis of its existence. If you don't want PRISM to exist, be grown up, change the law. That is how the process works. And if folks don't like the process, go to hell. It's how this country operates, and that is where you'll win or lose.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

You implied I want the government gone. No, I want them to stop acting like Wanna be Lex Luthors.

[ringpriest]

No. If something survives court challenge, it is constitutional.

Which this did.

Here:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...gh-court-order

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...py.html?pg=all


Do folks care to challenge the legitimacy of a court? Because my count, PRISM has been through all three hands of checks and balances. Do we need another?

Leaving aside the question of FISA's legitimacy, the links you provided only relate to one specific re-authorization of the collection of records from one phone provider. There's no mention of the Constitution in either article, much less a Constitutional challenge. And again you assert that PRISM was explicitly authorized by Congress, with no evidence to support that claim.

[Rukentuts]

Leaving aside the question of FISA's legitimacy, the links you provided only relate to one specific re-authorization of the collection of records from one phone provider. There's no mention of the Constitution in either article, much less a Constitutional challenge. And again you assert that PRISM was explicitly authorized by Congress, with no evidence to support that claim.

PRISM doesn't need to be authorized by Congress, because it isn't a law; it's a program. It can be authorized by the Executive Branch (the NSA) to enforce existing laws (Patriot Act).

This is basic US Civics.

[Kellhound]

Excellent! I see the article also states he'll be fine financially, and mentions the multiple job offers he has.



Now that we've jointly established that Snowden, while short on savings and ready cash, is in no danger of becoming an impoverished beggar on the streets of Moscow, we can return to the more significant topic of the legality of the programs he revealed. Digging up that link didn't seem to tax you unduly. Can we expect one establishing the legality of the NSA's sweeping and apparently warrantless domestic surveillance?

Its legallity is open to conjecture until such time as the Supreme Court rules on it. The government is skirting a very dangerous line no matter which way it falls. If it turns out that every classified document he released contains nothing but information concerning unconstitutional activity within the US, then I will look at him in a slightly more favorable light. Until then, I will go off the fact that he has caused enourmous damage to US intelligence gathering operations and fled like a common criminal. Further, as he is a fugitive, any American giving him assistance should be charged with aiding in the unlawful flight of a fugitive.

[Skroe]

You implied I want the government gone. No, I want them to stop acting like Wanna be Lex Luthors.

No I didn't. I have no clue what you want and wouldn't pull a Bakis and presume I do.

But what I'm saying is, there is a specific way to challenge PRISM, the NSA and change the law. That isn't served by pretending - and it is pretending - on the part of anyone, that these things are illegal or unconstitutional. It has to be done through the process.

Because as I said before. I am an American Taxpayer. I have rights. I want my government do be doing this NSA stuff. I think it is money very well spent. There are American Taxpayers here who disagree. Who think it's an abuse and an abomination. Their opinion is legitimate. So how do we resolve this?

Well we work through the process. The law gets challenged in court. It wins or loses. The law can be overturned via new elections and replacement of the law by the legislature. The law can be refused to be signed by the President when it comes up for renewal (if it has an expiration date).

But that is how we do this, because that is how our process, our system, allows for compromise between parties and how two Taxpayers, both with rights, who profoundly disagree, live in the same country. That is why LEGITIMIZATION in this country is by law and by process of law, not by people. Obama doesn't make something legitimate... but the President of the United States as an office exercising his legal powers does, and same with Congress, and same with the courts.

To pretend Prism and what not is illegal and unconstitutional is to directly challenge my rights as a citizen and a taxpayer to have laws I support enforced, and the process by which parties come to a legally legitimate outcome.

I would be happy to have a conversation and a debate on the ethical nature of NSA spying and even IF we should be doing it like this. But it is not a legitimate opinion to have that it is illegal or unconstutional. The courts heard those challenges, and that argument has lost. The only way to stop it now is to change the law, which means you need 218 congressmen, 60 senators and the President on your side.

If you don't have that, you aren't going to change the law, because you don't have the political support required to do it.

- - - Updated - - -

Its legallity is open to conjecture until such time as the Supreme Court rules on it. The government is skirting a very dangerous line no matter which way it falls. If it turns out that every classified document he released contains nothing but information concerning unconstitutional activity within the US, then I will look at him in a slightly more favorable light. Until then, I will go off the fact that he has caused enourmous damage to US intelligence gathering operations and fled like a common criminal. Further, as he is a fugitive, any American giving him assistance should be charged with aiding in the unlawful flight of a fugitive.

No. Not necessarily. The Supreme Court has judicial review, but doesn't take up every case they are asked to because they believe it is settled law or not worth reviewing. That doesn't make it conjecture until that point at all. The FISA court found it constitutional and legal (see my prior link). That means until such a time the Supreme Court does take it up, it is as the FISA court decided. The Supreme Court will find, if they decide to take it up, that either the FISA court made the correct call, or that it did not. Shorthand, that is a decision on the constitutionality of it or not, but legally, it is acting as a court of appeals (of last resort) and deciding if a prior court made the right call.

[Kellhound]

No I didn't. I have no clue what you want and wouldn't pull a Bakis and presume I do.

But what I'm saying is, there is a specific way to challenge PRISM, the NSA and change the law. That isn't served by pretending - and it is pretending - on the part of anyone, that these things are illegal or unconstitutional. It has to be done through the process.

Because as I said before. I am an American Taxpayer. I have rights. I want my government do be doing this NSA stuff. I think it is money very well spent. There are American Taxpayers here who disagree. Who think it's an abuse and an abomination. Their opinion is legitimate. So how do we resolve this?

Well we work through the process. The law gets challenged in court. It wins or loses. The law can be overturned via new elections and replacement of the law by the legislature. The law can be refused to be signed by the President when it comes up for renewal (if it has an expiration date).

But that is how we do this, because that is how our process, our system, allows for compromise between parties and how two Taxpayers, both with rights, who profoundly disagree, live in the same country. That is why LEGITIMIZATION in this country is by law and by process of law, not by people. Obama doesn't make something legitimate... but the President of the United States as an office exercising his legal powers does, and same with Congress, and same with the courts.

To pretend Prism and what not is illegal and unconstitutional is to directly challenge my rights as a citizen and a taxpayer to have laws I support enforced, and the process by which parties come to a legally legitimate outcome.

I would be happy to have a conversation and a debate on the ethical nature of NSA spying and even IF we should be doing it like this. But it is not a legitimate opinion to have that it is illegal or unconstutional. The courts heard those challenges, and that argument has lost. The only way to stop it now is to change the law, which means you need 218 congressmen, 60 senators and the President on your side.

If you don't have that, you aren't going to change the law, because you don't have the political support required to do it.

- - - Updated - - -



No. Not necessarily. The Supreme Court has judicial review, but doesn't take up every case they are asked to because they believe it is settled law or not worth reviewing. That doesn't make it conjecture until that point at all. The FISA court found it constitutional and legal (see my prior link). That means until such a time the Supreme Court does take it up, it is as the FISA court decided. The Supreme Court will find, if they decide to take it up, that either the FISA court made the correct call, or that it did not. Shorthand, that is a decision on the constitutionality of it or not, but legally, it is acting as a court of appeals (of last resort) and deciding if a prior court made the right call.

Until a law has been submitted for review by the SCOTUS, its constitutionallity is questionable. Refusing to grant certiorari is legally the same as affirming the lower court ruling. Thus, refusing to act carries the same effect as acting when it comes to the SCOTUS.

[Reeve]

I mean read any privacy policy for any website ever. Look for a section called "Data we may collect".

By using their services you agreed to their policies, thus the whole "you gave it up willingly" is accurate, and ignorance is no defense.

The Google Privacy Policy says nowhere that I willingly give up the right to my message content to them when I use gmail.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/

It does say they may collect some metadata. It does say they may share personal information to comply with the law, but it always refers to it as my information, not theirs.

[Deleted]

No not really. I'm talking in generalities on purpose because my point extends well beyond just this one issue. It extends to every political debate. I go back to, as I have before, the Iraq War. People called it an "illegal war" for years. They still do! And they do this after the former lead prosecutor of the international criminal court, when he had that job, said on record, in his response to why he brought no charges over the Iraq War, that the idea of an "illegal war" does not exist. It is an artificial construct that doesn't exist in law.

The idea exists, laws exist, courts like in Den Haag exist... but all are based on one principle: vae victis. You get punished for illegal wars, but only if you lose them.

The only illegal wars are wars which you lose. And with the current power balance the USA can't lose a war in a way that it counts, unlike Vietnam and possible in the near future Afghanistan. Germany has a paragraph in the constitution where every war of agression, even any act facilitating it is illegal, but it will never be acted upon, never be persecuted, as long as we remain an obedient part of the winning team. Fuck Yugoslavia and all of the rest not paying tribute.

[Payday]

The Google Privacy Policy says nowhere that I willingly give up the right to my message content to them when I use gmail.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/

It does say they may collect some metadata. It does say they may share personal information to comply with the law, but it always refers to it as my information, not theirs.

We will share personal information with companies, organizations or individuals outside of Google if we have a good-faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary to:

meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request.
enforce applicable Terms of Service, including investigation of potential violations.
detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or technical issues.
protect against harm to the rights, property or safety of Google, our users or the public as required or permitted by law.

Vague is king

Edit: Where does it say it's your information in there?

[Skroe]

The idea exists, laws exist, courts like in Den Haag exist... but all are based on one principle: vae victis. You get punished for illegal wars, but only if you lose them.

The only illegal wars are wars which you lose. And with the current power balance the USA can't lose a war in a way that it counts, unlike Vietnam and possible in the near future Afghanistan. Germany has a paragraph in the constitution where every war of agression, even any act facilitating it is illegal, but it will never be acted upon, never be persecuted, as long as we remain an obedient part of the winning team. Fuck Yugoslavia and all of the rest not paying tribute.

Have you read the ICC prosecutor (Ocampo) write up on the matter? I'll give you one chance before I expose your bullshit opinion for the bullshit that it is.

[Kellhound]

Have you read the ICC prosecutor (Ocampo) write up on the matter? I'll give you one chance before I expose your bullshit opinion for the bullshit that it is.

Thankfully, the US is not a Party to the ICC and as such we are not bound by it.

[Deleted]

Have you read the ICC prosecutor (Ocampo) write up on the matter? I'll give you one chance before I expose your bullshit opinion for the bullshit that it is.

How very generous of you. No, I haven't, the data of prosecutions broken down to ethnicity even in the Yugoslavian Civil war are obvious, not brining up NATO forces. You're too intelligent to believe otherwise, so continue reveling and slapping yourself on the back from the postition of defending the vitor. Godovina Heroj, or maybe Obama, Bush, Clinton, Schröder, Blair... does it matter? You won't fool even yourself with your transparent propaganda, much less others.

[Deleted]

Yes, we have. Like five different people have. You arrived late in the thread. Go read it. I'm not going to do the hard work for you.

I must've missed it aswell... But nevermind that.

I have a question, and it's about which court did what. Now as I understand it the FISA court decided that it was OK to spy on foreign countries... They don't have juristiction to decide if it's OK to spy on US citizens... So which court did authorize that you can spy on US citizens?