Snowden: I never gave any information to Chinese or Russian governments
Just because he says it doesn't mean its true. You act like Snowden is a perfect little angel. :roll:
I'm not accusing him (anymore) of giving info to Russia or China, but it could happen.
Ever hear the phrase "Even if I did I wouldn't tell ya!"? Just sayin...
It's the only evidence we have. And I'll take his word over an anonymous government source any day.
Especially when it is a government that is continually caught lying to the American public. Someone tells the truth but many continue to trust the entity that has been lying for years to protect it's own interest over that person.
Worth pointing out here that Webster's definition of Patriotism is "love for or devotion to one's country". Not love or devotion to one's government and not love or devotion to the constitution of any government. People can show that devotion in a variety of ways. Wanting to see their country be kept safe and secure is one. Wanting the government to be held to both the letter and spirit of all laws is another. That one person feels more strongly about one and another feels more strongly about the other makes neither more or less Patriotic.
Ah! You did eventually look it up. "Love for, or devotion to one's country": Excellent and absolutely correct. The government of this country is but one facet of the country. The definition is not "love for, or devotion to one's government".
The Constitution is the document that lays out the protections in place the citizens of the country are supposed to have from the government. It is the chain that is supposed to bind the government, the law of the land. It is basically the blueprint for our country. The government swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the other way around. It would be more correct to give more credence to this document than to a government that is continually caught lying regardless of the political affiliation of the person in power.
Knowing all that should tell you that being more devoted to the blueprint of the country is more along the lines of Patriotism than to a government that continually breaks its oath. Again, it does not say "love your government". How can one love it's country and the ideas the country was founded on without being able to healthily question its government?
You talk about this notion of safety and security. The greatest potential for safety and security to exist is when our personal liberties are protected to their fullest extent. That includes protecting those facets of our society from an overbearing government as well! Liberty and freedom is perhaps the greatest potential form of safety and security there is. Look at what we have today, under the guise of safety and security we have a tyrannical aspect in our government. We have people who are arrested for victim-less crimes all in the name of safety. Sure our government says it keeps us "safe", but who is going to keep us safe from our government?
The NSA's operations simply use "security" as a guise to operate under, when the real goal is information gathering on a wide scale. It is security theater. The best interests and security of American citizens is not actually what is at heart here.
American spy fugitive Edward Snowden emerged from his hideout in the Moscow airport today to speak with international human rights groups, almost three weeks after he first disappeared inside the vast Russian facility, to say he plans to seek temporary asylum in Russia, according to meeting attendees.
I wonder if he will take that redhead russian spy up on her marriage proposal?
And even if it "has nothing at all to do with any attempt to avert terrorism" then the info they have is useless still. They can't do anything with it.
Maybe. Or maybe they can use personal details to smear, or intimidate people they deem to be a threat - dissenters, e.t.c. Or they can at least threaten to intimidate people. It wouldn't be difficult. Even just some innocent flirting on Facebook, or by e- mail, could be used to intimidate someone into silence. The amount of control such access to personal information affords them is greater than you think, and it's not beyond these power-obsessed control freaks to use it.
I believe they already have used it. The Broadwell/Petraeus scandal makes me wonder sometimes. The way our IRS has intimidated political opponents also comes to mind on how the Government, once provided with certain powers and information, will eventually abuse those powers and information.
Yes, it might violate the Constitution, but as years go on, and technology keeps getting better, and enemies get smarter, the Constitution may hold us back from using measures to protect us.
To be clear, I respect your view and know you are a caring American as well. Glad you are an aware citizen.
See, that right there DOES make you less Patriotic according to the historical non-GOP warped definition of the term. You are okay with Constitutional violations by those who took oaths to uphold that very document. This is not okay and does not make you a Patriot. I don't care how many people try to twist my words here, it is pretty much fact that our forefathers' actual display of patriotism would not match up even remotely to what you just professed here.
I'm fine with people coming to there own conclusions that differ from me, but don't call it something it isn't then.
I do appreciate your friendly gesture there.
If you go back and actually read everything I said, I said that I think some small changes need to be made to the Constitution. What the heck is wrong with that? No Constitution lasts forever. I love our Constitution, but if you believe that the current Constitution in its current state will last forever than you are delusional and overly hopeful. I hope it can last a while, but it is impossible. Whether it is by adding a few more amendments or adjusting a few words or phrases, it will change eventually.
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Patriot - one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests.
I love the U.S.A, I support its Authority and Interests (in most cases w support interests, but at this point it sounds like many are not due to the NSA and other shit, but still we "try" and support them). I am also aware that in order to protect our citizens we must do what we can to do that, even if that means changing the law of the land so that it can be done without limitation.
The founding fathers gave us rights that fit the world in 1776. I don't know if you know, but it is 2013. Also, we are Americans. If the American people agreed to change something in the Constitution, it can be done. But it must be agreed upon.
Also, I never said I was "okay" with it. I hate the fact it possibly is a violation of the 4th Amendment, but at the same time it makes you see that if we wanted to protect Americans in such a way the Constitution will limit our protection. I understand the point of the program, but how it was carried out in secrecy was kind of bullshit, but I get it. And now I know such a thing, I will make sure to vote differently next time. Trust me, if this happened before the election, my vote would have been different.
Curious question: What if this program stopped a terrorist attack that was gonna happen in your city? What if it would've involved where you work for some odd reason? Although it is a possible violation of the Constitution, I bet you'd be really damn happy that it saved your life. Just sayin..
Basically, I am no less Patriotic than you. We both love our country, we both love the laws that make us, but at the same time we must also look at our laws and ask ourselves if they can always keep us safe. The gov't does not have the right to change it, we do if we so please. We are People...
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Worth pointing out here that Webster's definition of Patriotism is "love for or devotion to one's country". Not love or devotion to one's government and not love or devotion to the constitution of any government. People can show that devotion in a variety of ways. Wanting to see their country be kept safe and secure is one. Wanting the government to be held to both the letter and spirit of all laws is another. That one person feels more strongly about one and another feels more strongly about the other makes neither more or less Patriotic.
Ah! You did eventually look it up. "Love for, or devotion to one's country": Excellent and absolutely correct. The government of this country is but one facet of the country. The definition is not "love for, or devotion to one's government".
The Constitution is the document that lays out the protections in place the citizens of the country are supposed to have from the government. It is the chain that is supposed to bind the government, the law of the land. It is basically the blueprint for our country. The government swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the other way around. It would be more correct to give more credence to this document than to a government that is continually caught lying regardless of the political affiliation of the person in power.
Knowing all that should tell you that being more devoted to the blueprint of the country is more along the lines of Patriotism than to a government that continually breaks its oath. Again, it does not say "love your government". How can one love it's country and the ideas the country was founded on without being able to healthily question its government?
You talk about this notion of safety and security. The greatest potential for safety and security to exist is when our personal liberties are protected to their fullest extent. That includes protecting those facets of our society from an overbearing government as well! Liberty and freedom is perhaps the greatest potential form of safety and security there is. Look at what we have today, under the guise of safety and security we have a tyrannical aspect in our government. We have people who are arrested for victim-less crimes all in the name of safety. Sure our government says it keeps us "safe", but who is going to keep us safe from our government?
The NSA's operations simply use "security" as a guise to operate under, when the real goal is information gathering on a wide scale. It is security theater. The best interests and security of American citizens is not actually what is at heart here.
1) This is a very well crafted and well written explanation of your beliefs. Nice job. Unfortunately, I don't believe it actually rebuts the point I was making in the post you quoted.
2) You seem to be equating love of country with love of Constitution, and again you seem to be claiming that any who disagree are somehow defending the government. ("It would be more correct to give more credence to this document than to a government that is continually caught lying regardless of the political affiliation of the person in power.") This is just not true. It is quite possible to love your country and to think first of your friends and family, neighbors and community, etc,. That someone might consider the safety of all those paramount is not a sign of a lack of Patriotism. Government and Constitution are not the only choices. Above you have written what you believe to be true. No one needs to agree with you to be Patriotic. This is the point I have made repeatedly that is either being lost or ignored.
3) I am reasonably certain you can go back through all of my posts and never find a single one indicating I believe love of country equals love of government. You keep coming back to that and it has never been a position I have held.
4) You have summarily ignored responses from me to you on pages 18 and 20 of this thread. Perhaps you just missed them.
Worth pointing out here that Webster's definition of Patriotism is "love for or devotion to one's country". Not love or devotion to one's government and not love or devotion to the constitution of any government. People can show that devotion in a variety of ways. Wanting to see their country be kept safe and secure is one. Wanting the government to be held to both the letter and spirit of all laws is another. That one person feels more strongly about one and another feels more strongly about the other makes neither more or less Patriotic.
Ah! You did eventually look it up. "Love for, or devotion to one's country": Excellent and absolutely correct. The government of this country is but one facet of the country. The definition is not "love for, or devotion to one's government".
The Constitution is the document that lays out the protections in place the citizens of the country are supposed to have from the government. It is the chain that is supposed to bind the government, the law of the land. It is basically the blueprint for our country. The government swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the other way around. It would be more correct to give more credence to this document than to a government that is continually caught lying regardless of the political affiliation of the person in power.
Knowing all that should tell you that being more devoted to the blueprint of the country is more along the lines of Patriotism than to a government that continually breaks its oath. Again, it does not say "love your government". How can one love it's country and the ideas the country was founded on without being able to healthily question its government?
You talk about this notion of safety and security. The greatest potential for safety and security to exist is when our personal liberties are protected to their fullest extent. That includes protecting those facets of our society from an overbearing government as well! Liberty and freedom is perhaps the greatest potential form of safety and security there is. Look at what we have today, under the guise of safety and security we have a tyrannical aspect in our government. We have people who are arrested for victim-less crimes all in the name of safety. Sure our government says it keeps us "safe", but who is going to keep us safe from our government?
The NSA's operations simply use "security" as a guise to operate under, when the real goal is information gathering on a wide scale. It is security theater. The best interests and security of American citizens is not actually what is at heart here.
1) This is a very well crafted and well written explanation of your beliefs. Nice job. Unfortunately, I don't believe it actually rebuts the point I was making in the post you quoted.
2) You seem to be equating love of country with love of Constitution, and again you seem to be claiming that any who disagree are somehow defending the government. ("It would be more correct to give more credence to this document than to a government that is continually caught lying regardless of the political affiliation of the person in power.") This is just not true. It is quite possible to love your country and to think first of your friends and family, neighbors and community, etc,. That someone might consider the safety of all those paramount is not a sign of a lack of Patriotism. Government and Constitution are not the only choices. Above you have written what you believe to be true. No one needs to agree with you to be Patriotic. This is the point I have made repeatedly that is either being lost or ignored.
3) I am reasonably certain you can go back through all of my posts and never find a single one indicating I believe love of country equals love of government. You keep coming back to that and it has never been a position I have held.
4) You have summarily ignored responses from me to you on pages 18 and 20 of this thread. Perhaps you just missed them.
I second this
I would never support the gov't over the Constitution. I am sure you will say "yeah, but you support the NSA thing"
to which I would say no I don't. I understand it, I get it. I get why they did it. I think it can be useful, but it is indeed bullshit our civil liberties were abused.
Post edited by Guitar92player on
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Curious question: What if this program stopped a terrorist attack that was gonna happen in your city? What if it would've involved where you work for some odd reason? Although it is a possible violation of the Constitution, I bet you'd be really damn happy that it saved your life. Just sayin..
I would be glad that I was alive. I enjoy being alive. That does not mean I would be glad we had a surveillance apparatus even if it managed to thwart some sort of attack. It is not needed in this form. There was plenty of known information on the other terrorist attacks that occurred. The problem wasn't enough information, it was a lack of action and actual real investigative work following up on what was known.
Your scenario would be make me that much more upset with our government's policies. That someone was so disillusioned with our government and what it does in our name that they found no other recourse other than to commit an act of terrorism to get their point across. These acts are not committed because we are hated for our "freedom". Look at any of the reasons and more times than not the trail leads back to an oppressive, murderous act supported and endorsed by our government.
Furthermore, the current system actually increases the chances of these incidents occurring. It was said best earlier, with the analogy that it is just putting more hay on the haystack.
Basically, I am no less Patriotic than you. We both love our country, we both love the laws that make us, but at the same time we must also look at our laws and ask ourselves if they can always keep us safe. The gov't does not have the right to change it, we do if we so please. We are People...
I disagree with your full assessment. I think you do love your country, but I think you have some misguided notions about government and what its role should be based on the principles of freedom that this country was founded on. Freedom in 1776 is no more antiquated than freedom in 2013. To think otherwise tramples on the spirit of freedom and what it actually is and means.
While you are correct in that there is a process to amend the Constitution, our government sidesteps that process and tramples over the law of the land anyway; they do this because it is convenient for them. Do not go on to blame the Constitution for appearing antiquated by 2013 standards because of this. The blame rests solely with those who felt it needed changing but did not engage in the process to amend it. Furthermore, you have stated that you are okay with this, with a government that violates the Constitution in the name of "security". This is a slippery slope and has led us to where we are today with many of our civil liberties being trampled on.
Basically, I am no less Patriotic than you. We both love our country, we both love the laws that make us, but at the same time we must also look at our laws and ask ourselves if they can always keep us safe. The gov't does not have the right to change it, we do if we so please. We are People...
I disagree with your full assessment. I think you do love your country, but I think you have some misguided notions about government and what its role should be based on the principles of freedom that this country was founded on. Freedom in 1776 is no more antiquated than freedom in 2013. To think otherwise tramples on the spirit of freedom and what it actually is and means.
While you are correct in that there is a process to amend the Constitution, our government sidesteps that process and tramples over the law of the land anyway; they do this because it is convenient for them. Do not go on to blame the Constitution for appearing antiquated by 2013 standards because of this. The blame rests solely with those who felt it needed changing but did not engage in the process to amend it. Furthermore, you have stated that you are okay with this, with a government that violates the Constitution in the name of "security". This is a slippery slope and has led us to where we are today with many of our civil liberties being trampled on.
I do realize that our gov't sidesteps shit, and believe me it pisses me off. And I don't blame the Constitution for anything. But in my opinion some things could be changed a bit such as how guns are handled and (although maybe controversial) no trial for domestic terrorists and criminals who are known 100% to be guilty (because our tax dollars should be better spent elsewhere. But if this doesn't change oh well.)
America should always be protected. Trust me, I wish the gov't did not have to do secret shit to do it. But if they truly did stop major attacks then kudos to them, but in the end (religious speech here) God will judge them and they will pay for what they do later on.
By the way, I said I understand and get it. I am not okay with it. I don't get why you keep ignoring that statement by me.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
1) This is a very well crafted and well written explanation of your beliefs. Nice job. Unfortunately, I don't believe it actually rebuts the point I was making in the post you quoted.
2) You seem to be equating love of country with love of Constitution, and again you seem to be claiming that any who disagree are somehow defending the government. ("It would be more correct to give more credence to this document than to a government that is continually caught lying regardless of the political affiliation of the person in power.") This is just not true. It is quite possible to love your country and to think first of your friends and family, neighbors and community, etc,. That someone might consider the safety of all those paramount is not a sign of a lack of Patriotism. Government and Constitution are not the only choices. Above you have written what you believe to be true. No one needs to agree with you to be Patriotic. This is the point I have made repeatedly that is either being lost or ignored.
That's because you are overlooking my point which is not with those who disagree with me, but with those who do blindly defend the government and then misdirect and attack those who would question the government. I believe it absolutely is true to give more credence to the document that set up our government than the government that lies and tramples on said document. If you do not, that's your deal. But that actually is counter to the definition of a Patriot. Same with your attempt to lump in safety and security of friends and family, etc. Patriotism has nothing to do about those other things you are injecting here. Are unpatriotic people or even national jingoistic people incapable of being able to care about the safety of those closest to them? I would argue they are just as capable if not misguided in their conclusions. That someone would consider the safety of those they decide are important over protecting the natural rights of another individual is favoritism and has no place in a discussion of Patriotism. You do not see how in the long term that this could come back to harm those you care about most. It is short sighted, in other words. If you had an understanding of freedom and what it means, you would see that protecting it does protect those close to you more than any other form of protection.
3) I am reasonably certain you can go back through all of my posts and never find a single one indicating I believe love of country equals love of government. You keep coming back to that and it has never been a position I have held.
That's because you may be thinking I wrote that specifically for you. My apologies for not being clearer, but when I referenced this in that post, it was for anyone and everyone who does that. You claim to not fall under this, so, if true, it does not apply to you.
4) You have summarily ignored responses from me to you on pages 18 and 20 of this thread. Perhaps you just missed them.
Yeah, I chose not to respond to some of your posts because I didn't feel responding to them would really accomplish anything other than muddying the point further. I believe what I believe backed by historical definition and conversations and you disagree with that due to a perversion of a term by a bankrupt political party. I think that a good amount of this boils down to you and I having a different understanding or definition of a term. My use of the term adheres to the simple one sentence explanation first cited in this thread along with the context information and discussions surrounding the concept of Patriotism when this country was first formed.
Basically, I am no less Patriotic than you. We both love our country, we both love the laws that make us, but at the same time we must also look at our laws and ask ourselves if they can always keep us safe. The gov't does not have the right to change it, we do if we so please. We are People...
I disagree with your full assessment. I think you do love your country, but I think you have some misguided notions about government and what its role should be based on the principles of freedom that this country was founded on. Freedom in 1776 is no more antiquated than freedom in 2013. To think otherwise tramples on the spirit of freedom and what it actually is and means.
While you are correct in that there is a process to amend the Constitution, our government sidesteps that process and tramples over the law of the land anyway; they do this because it is convenient for them. Do not go on to blame the Constitution for appearing antiquated by 2013 standards because of this. The blame rests solely with those who felt it needed changing but did not engage in the process to amend it. Furthermore, you have stated that you are okay with this, with a government that violates the Constitution in the name of "security". This is a slippery slope and has led us to where we are today with many of our civil liberties being trampled on.
I do realize that our gov't sidesteps shit, and believe me it pisses me off. And I don't blame the Constitution for anything. But in my opinion some things could be changed a bit such as how guns are handled and (although maybe controversial) no trial for domestic terrorists and criminals who are known 100% to be guilty (because our tax dollars should be better spent elsewhere. But if this doesn't change oh well.)
America should always be protected. Trust me, I wish the gov't did not have to do secret shit to do it. But if they truly did stop major attacks then kudos to them, but in the end (religious speech here) God will judge them and they will pay for what they do later on.
By the way, I said I understand and get it. I am not okay with it. I don't get why you keep ignoring that statement by me.
I guess I believed you to be okay with it when you made this statement
Yes, it might violate the Constitution, but as years go on, and technology keeps getting better, and enemies get smarter, the Constitution may hold us back from using measures to protect us.
The reason I believed this is because I view that as a loaded statement. "The Constition may hold us back from using measures to protect us." I don't believe the Constitution was put in place to protect us from outside threats. It was put in place to protect the natural rights that every individual should have. Including protecting these rights from our own government usurping them. People are so concerned about being protected from terrorism, but never appear to be concerned enough to address the root causes. As long as they feel safe they think they are safe. Furthermore, I do not believe the Constitution is holding us back from outside threats, I believe the lies we are being fed and the perpetuation of our military industrial complex is what is holding us back from outside threats.
It may be that this was not your intent and just how I read it. Either way, that is what I take issue with.
Also, how can someone be known to be 100% guilty if they have not been tried in a court of law? That is a contradictory statement
Also, how can someone be known to be 100% guilty if they have not been tried in a court of law? That is a contradictory statement
If a guy walks out in the middle of a street, kills someone in plain view, its on camera and everyone saw it, then he committed the crime. He did it, end of story.
But we all deserve fair trial, I just hate the whole taxes shit for people who definitely committed the crime they say they didn't do when clearly they did.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
1) This is a very well crafted and well written explanation of your beliefs. Nice job. Unfortunately, I don't believe it actually rebuts the point I was making in the post you quoted.
2) You seem to be equating love of country with love of Constitution, and again you seem to be claiming that any who disagree are somehow defending the government. ("It would be more correct to give more credence to this document than to a government that is continually caught lying regardless of the political affiliation of the person in power.") This is just not true. It is quite possible to love your country and to think first of your friends and family, neighbors and community, etc,. That someone might consider the safety of all those paramount is not a sign of a lack of Patriotism. Government and Constitution are not the only choices. Above you have written what you believe to be true. No one needs to agree with you to be Patriotic. This is the point I have made repeatedly that is either being lost or ignored.
That's because you are overlooking my point which is not with those who disagree with me, but with those who do blindly defend the government and then misdirect and attack those who would question the government. I believe it absolutely is true to give more credence to the document that set up our government than the government that lies and tramples on said document. If you do not, that's your deal. But that actually is counter to the definition of a Patriot. Same with your attempt to lump in safety and security of friends and family, etc. Patriotism has nothing to do about those other things you are injecting here. Are unpatriotic people or even national jingoistic people incapable of being able to care about the safety of those closest to them? I would argue they are just as capable if not misguided in their conclusions. That someone would consider the safety of those they decide are important over protecting the natural rights of another individual is favoritism and has no place in a discussion of Patriotism. You do not see how in the long term that this could come back to harm those you care about most. It is short sighted, in other words. If you had an understanding of freedom and what it means, you would see that protecting it does protect those close to you more than any other form of protection.
3) I am reasonably certain you can go back through all of my posts and never find a single one indicating I believe love of country equals love of government. You keep coming back to that and it has never been a position I have held.
That's because you may be thinking I wrote that specifically for you. My apologies for not being clearer, but when I referenced this in that post, it was for anyone and everyone who does that. You claim to not fall under this, so, if true, it does not apply to you.
4) You have summarily ignored responses from me to you on pages 18 and 20 of this thread. Perhaps you just missed them.
Yeah, I chose not to respond to some of your posts because I didn't feel responding to them would really accomplish anything other than muddying the point further. I believe what I believe backed by historical definition and conversations and you disagree with that due to a perversion of a term by a bankrupt political party. I think that a good amount of this boils down to you and I having a different understanding or definition of a term. My use of the term adheres to the simple one sentence explanation first cited in this thread along with the context information and discussions surrounding the concept of Patriotism when this country was first formed.
Well, your refusal to answer my posts is unfortunate as I did ask you in one of them to explain who it is you are speaking of when you say "those who do blindly defend the government and then misdirect and attack those who would question the government." You know, the brainwashed and delusional crowd. So I will ask you again - can you clarify who these people are and how they differ from anyone and everyone else who disagrees with your views?
My original point in this exchange remains unchanged and, frankly, unchallenged: When you declare those who disagree with you as somehow being less patriotic than you then you are on a slippery slope. Tactics such as those are very much the tactics used by Karl Rove. They are indeed a bankrupt political party, and I do question why you chose to follow along in their tactical footsteps.
Again, our country is not the constitution. The constitution is a piece of paper written by mortal men that has been changed 27 times and will be again. Love of country is not and has never been equal to love of constitution. Not for a single day has that been true. Is that to say the constitution is unimportant? No. But I for one won't regard it as some sort of gospel to be worshiped. We have quite enough of that in the world as it is.
"That someone would consider the safety of those they decide are important over protecting the natural rights of another individual is favoritism and has no place in a discussion of Patriotism. You do not see how in the long term that this could come back to harm those you care about most. It is short sighted, in other words. If you had an understanding of freedom and what it means, you would see that protecting it does protect those close to you more than any other form of protection."
Yes, as I disagree, I must have no understanding of freedom. :roll: At least I'm not brainwashed and delusional, eh?
I'm not playing favoritism at all. I stopped at neighbors and community, but if expanded that list would include city and state, region (such as New England) and eventually include the entire country. There is no favoritism being played here at all. It is not the government but the people and customs and traditions and history that makes up America - and, yes, our freedom too. That one would strive to protect all that, to me, is incredibly patriotic.
Snowden should be regarded as a hero! How can anyone defend the government on this case is beyond me. It doesn't matter what side of the political fence you're on. It is freedom that is at stake!
Worth pointing out here that Webster's definition of Patriotism is "love for or devotion to one's country". Not love or devotion to one's government and not love or devotion to the constitution of any government. People can show that devotion in a variety of ways. Wanting to see their country be kept safe and secure is one. Wanting the government to be held to both the letter and spirit of all laws is another. That one person feels more strongly about one and another feels more strongly about the other makes neither more or less Patriotic.
Except spying on every American has nothing to do with keeping the country safe.
1) This is a very well crafted and well written explanation of your beliefs. Nice job. Unfortunately, I don't believe it actually rebuts the point I was making in the post you quoted.
2) You seem to be equating love of country with love of Constitution, and again you seem to be claiming that any who disagree are somehow defending the government. ("It would be more correct to give more credence to this document than to a government that is continually caught lying regardless of the political affiliation of the person in power.") This is just not true. It is quite possible to love your country and to think first of your friends and family, neighbors and community, etc,. That someone might consider the safety of all those paramount is not a sign of a lack of Patriotism. Government and Constitution are not the only choices. Above you have written what you believe to be true. No one needs to agree with you to be Patriotic. This is the point I have made repeatedly that is either being lost or ignored.
That's because you are overlooking my point which is not with those who disagree with me, but with those who do blindly defend the government and then misdirect and attack those who would question the government. I believe it absolutely is true to give more credence to the document that set up our government than the government that lies and tramples on said document. If you do not, that's your deal. But that actually is counter to the definition of a Patriot. Same with your attempt to lump in safety and security of friends and family, etc. Patriotism has nothing to do about those other things you are injecting here. Are unpatriotic people or even national jingoistic people incapable of being able to care about the safety of those closest to them? I would argue they are just as capable if not misguided in their conclusions. That someone would consider the safety of those they decide are important over protecting the natural rights of another individual is favoritism and has no place in a discussion of Patriotism. You do not see how in the long term that this could come back to harm those you care about most. It is short sighted, in other words. If you had an understanding of freedom and what it means, you would see that protecting it does protect those close to you more than any other form of protection.
3) I am reasonably certain you can go back through all of my posts and never find a single one indicating I believe love of country equals love of government. You keep coming back to that and it has never been a position I have held.
That's because you may be thinking I wrote that specifically for you. My apologies for not being clearer, but when I referenced this in that post, it was for anyone and everyone who does that. You claim to not fall under this, so, if true, it does not apply to you.
4) You have summarily ignored responses from me to you on pages 18 and 20 of this thread. Perhaps you just missed them.
Yeah, I chose not to respond to some of your posts because I didn't feel responding to them would really accomplish anything other than muddying the point further. I believe what I believe backed by historical definition and conversations and you disagree with that due to a perversion of a term by a bankrupt political party. I think that a good amount of this boils down to you and I having a different understanding or definition of a term. My use of the term adheres to the simple one sentence explanation first cited in this thread along with the context information and discussions surrounding the concept of Patriotism when this country was first formed.
Well, your refusal to answer my posts is unfortunate as I did ask you in one of them to explain who it is you are speaking of when you say "those who do blindly defend the government and then misdirect and attack those who would question the government." You know, the brainwashed and delusional crowd. So I will ask you again - can you clarify who these people are and how they differ from anyone and everyone else who disagrees with your views?
My original point in this exchange remains unchanged and, frankly, unchallenged: When you declare those who disagree with you as somehow being less patriotic than you then you are on a slippery slope. Tactics such as those are very much the tactics used by Karl Rove. They are indeed a bankrupt political party, and I do question why you chose to follow along in their tactical footsteps.
Again, our country is not the constitution. The constitution is a piece of paper written by mortal men that has been changed 27 times and will be again. Love of country is not and has never been equal to love of constitution. Not for a single day has that been true. Is that to say the constitution is unimportant? No. But I for one won't regard it as some sort of gospel to be worshiped. We have quite enough of that in the world as it is.
"That someone would consider the safety of those they decide are important over protecting the natural rights of another individual is favoritism and has no place in a discussion of Patriotism. You do not see how in the long term that this could come back to harm those you care about most. It is short sighted, in other words. If you had an understanding of freedom and what it means, you would see that protecting it does protect those close to you more than any other form of protection."
Yes, as I disagree, I must have no understanding of freedom. :roll: At least I'm not brainwashed and delusional, eh?
I'm not playing favoritism at all. I stopped at neighbors and community, but if expanded that list would include city and state, region (such as New England) and eventually include the entire country. There is no favoritism being played here at all. It is not the government but the people and customs and traditions and history that makes up America - and, yes, our freedom too. That one would strive to protect all that, to me, is incredibly patriotic.
Love of country, not love of constitution.
Without the constitution America would be a very different country and was prior to it when we operated under the Articles of the Confederation. The fact that you believe otherwise indicates to me that I may as well stop discussing this issue with you.
Also, I reiterate, I did not declare those who disagree with me as being unpatriotic. That was something you conjured up and applied to my statement. I understand that many will disagree with me. What actually occurred; however, is I declared and commended one individual who I felt was displaying a good amount of Patriotism and lamented that all too many from this country and in this thread are not; that all too many don't question things. This is the key difference between what I actually said and what you believe I said.
That guy is bullshit. If he believes he has done nothing wrong, he should come back here, regardless of what's going on.
The fact he is hiding is making people think he has done something wrong.
Personally, I bet he gave intelligence to other countries. If not, he has no reason to run.
those on the side of right should have no fear, correct?
I saw a snippet of his press conference where he said what he lost in this. He willing gave all of that away in doing what he believed was right. Shit like this doesn't come without sacrifice. He wants to be a living martyr. It doesn't work that way.
While I am glad to have knowledge of the bullshit being done in the name of "my safety", dude by his actions appears to believe in the rule of law, so come back and face it. You never know, you could just be judged by sympathetic people.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
...dude by his actions appears to believe in the rule of law, so come back and face it. You never know, you could just be judged by sympathetic people.
Yeah, sure.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... stleblower 'Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have said Snowden has a good prima facie case for asylum, based on a well-founded fear of political persecution. Snowden's public statement at Sheremetyevo, couched in the language of the US constitution and international law, will have served to entrench that case.
Human rights lawyers say those grounds have been strengthened by the extraordinary lengths to which Washington has gone to try to get him back, as well as the lack of whistleblower protection for national security officials in the US under the Espionage Act, the brutal treatment of the soldier behind the WikiLeaks revelations, Bradley Manning, and the prospect of long-term incarceration before trial, possibly in solitary confinement.'
Statement by Edward Snowden to human rights groups at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport, posted by WikiLeaks:
Friday July 12, 15:00 UTC
Hello. My name is Ed Snowden. A little over one month ago, I had family, a home in paradise, and I lived in great comfort. I also had the capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications. Anyone's communications at any time. That is the power to change people's fates.
It is also a serious violation of the law. The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance. While the US Constitution marks these programs as illegal, my government argues that secret court rulings, which the world is not permitted to see, somehow legitimize an illegal affair. These rulings simply corrupt the most basic notion of justice – that it must be seen to be done. The immoral cannot be made moral through the use of secret law.
I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."
Accordingly, I did what I believed right and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing. I did not seek to enrich myself. I did not seek to sell US secrets. I did not partner with any foreign government to guarantee my safety. Instead, I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice.
That moral decision to tell the public about spying that affects all of us has been costly, but it was the right thing to do and I have no regrets.
Since that time, the government and intelligence services of the United States of America have attempted to make an example of me, a warning to all others who might speak out as I have. I have been made stateless and hounded for my act of political expression. The United States Government has placed me on no-fly lists. It demanded Hong Kong return me outside of the framework of its laws, in direct violation of the principle of non-refoulement – the Law of Nations. It has threatened with sanctions countries who would stand up for my human rights and the UN asylum system. It has even taken the unprecedented step of ordering military allies to ground a Latin American president's plane in search for a political refugee. These dangerous escalations represent a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America, but to the basic rights shared by every person, every nation, to live free from persecution, and to seek and enjoy asylum.
Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. It is my intention to travel to each of these countries to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders.
I announce today my formal acceptance of all offers of support or asylum I have been extended and all others that may be offered in the future. With, for example, the grant of asylum provided by Venezuela's President Maduro, my asylee status is now formal, and no state has a basis by which to limit or interfere with my right to enjoy that asylum. As we have seen, however, some governments in Western European and North American states have demonstrated a willingness to act outside the law, and this behavior persists today. This unlawful threat makes it impossible for me to travel to Latin America and enjoy the asylum granted there in accordance with our shared rights.
This willingness by powerful states to act extra-legally represents a threat to all of us, and must not be allowed to succeed. Accordingly, I ask for your assistance in requesting guarantees of safe passage from the relevant nations in securing my travel to Latin America, as well as requesting asylum in Russia until such time as these states accede to law and my legal travel is permitted. I will be submitting my request to Russia today, and hope it will be accepted favorably.
If you have any questions, I will answer what I can.
That guy is bullshit. If he believes he has done nothing wrong, he should come back here, regardless of what's going on.
The fact he is hiding is making people think he has done something wrong.
Personally, I bet he gave intelligence to other countries. If not, he has no reason to run.
Agreed. In fact he gave his intelligence to other countries.
'..... Ah! A perfect illustration of the poststructuralist paradox. Does the signifier "Merlot" correspond with the 'truth' of the bottle I polished off last night, or do we hold in our thoughts a different "signified" of bottle-of-Merlot-ness? Perhaps we're dreaming of the same bottle!" -FinsburyParkCarrots
...dude by his actions appears to believe in the rule of law, so come back and face it. You never know, you could just be judged by sympathetic people.
Yeah, sure.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... stleblower 'Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have said Snowden has a good prima facie case for asylum, based on a well-founded fear of political persecution. Snowden's public statement at Sheremetyevo, couched in the language of the US constitution and international law, will have served to entrench that case.
Human rights lawyers say those grounds have been strengthened by the extraordinary lengths to which Washington has gone to try to get him back, as well as the lack of whistleblower protection for national security officials in the US under the Espionage Act, the brutal treatment of the soldier behind the WikiLeaks revelations, Bradley Manning, and the prospect of long-term incarceration before trial, possibly in solitary confinement.'
Interesting since we admit refugees of persecution in this country.
That guy is bullshit. If he believes he has done nothing wrong, he should come back here, regardless of what's going on.
The fact he is hiding is making people think he has done something wrong.
Personally, I bet he gave intelligence to other countries. If not, he has no reason to run.
^^ I love how people have quoted me on this. I said this a long time ago. Since then my position on him has changed a bit:
1. I do not think he is bullshit anymore once I found out more.
2. I still think he should come back. I do not know anything about the whistleblowers hiding here from their countries, but I know enough about this guy.
Perhaps we should also tell people that seek asylum here to go back to their country's and face the music?
I would wager he would be thrown in prison or killed regardless of whether he passed on intel or not.
So I hope I answered your comment now. I bet whistleblowers here are in extreme danger if they return home. At least in America we have fair trial. I only want him to come back if the gov't accept his conditions that he won't be harmed, he gets to choose his own venue for trial, etc. If not, then he can stay in hiding.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
...dude by his actions appears to believe in the rule of law, so come back and face it. You never know, you could just be judged by sympathetic people.
Yeah, sure.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... stleblower 'Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have said Snowden has a good prima facie case for asylum, based on a well-founded fear of political persecution. Snowden's public statement at Sheremetyevo, couched in the language of the US constitution and international law, will have served to entrench that case.
Human rights lawyers say those grounds have been strengthened by the extraordinary lengths to which Washington has gone to try to get him back, as well as the lack of whistleblower protection for national security officials in the US under the Espionage Act, the brutal treatment of the soldier behind the WikiLeaks revelations, Bradley Manning, and the prospect of long-term incarceration before trial, possibly in solitary confinement.'
Umm, protesting that the government may be doing this is political in nature. Hiring in with the express purpose of stealing this information is in fact a criminal act, although I would agree it was right that we as citizens now know. He still broke the law. He IS guilty, by his own admission to being the person behind this. Contracts are signed, oaths taken, etc. This wasn't political.
He committed a crime to expose one or many crimes.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
That guy is bullshit. If he believes he has done nothing wrong, he should come back here, regardless of what's going on.
The fact he is hiding is making people think he has done something wrong.
Personally, I bet he gave intelligence to other countries. If not, he has no reason to run.
^^ I love how people have quoted me on this. I said this a long time ago. Since then my position on him has changed a bit:
1. I do not think he is bullshit anymore once I found out more.
2. I still think he should come back. I do not know anything about the whistleblowers hiding here from their countries, but I know enough about this guy.
Perhaps we should also tell people that seek asylum here to go back to their country's and face the music?
I would wager he would be thrown in prison or killed regardless of whether he passed on intel or not.
So I hope I answered your comment now. I bet whistleblowers here are in extreme danger if they return home. At least in America we have fair trial. I only want him to come back if the gov't accept his conditions that he won't be harmed, he gets to choose his own venue for trial, etc. If not, then he can stay in hiding.
My apologies... I was not sure when you wrote it... I tend to say what I need to say and leave threads for a while in the AMT.
That guy is bullshit. If he believes he has done nothing wrong, he should come back here, regardless of what's going on.
The fact he is hiding is making people think he has done something wrong.
Personally, I bet he gave intelligence to other countries. If not, he has no reason to run.
^^ I love how people have quoted me on this. I said this a long time ago. Since then my position on him has changed a bit:
1. I do not think he is bullshit anymore once I found out more.
2. I still think he should come back. I do not know anything about the whistleblowers hiding here from their countries, but I know enough about this guy.
Perhaps we should also tell people that seek asylum here to go back to their country's and face the music?
I would wager he would be thrown in prison or killed regardless of whether he passed on intel or not.
So I hope I answered your comment now. I bet whistleblowers here are in extreme danger if they return home. At least in America we have fair trial. I only want him to come back if the gov't accept his conditions that he won't be harmed, he gets to choose his own venue for trial, etc. If not, then he can stay in hiding.
My apologies... I was not sure when you wrote it... I tend to say what I need to say and leave threads for a while in the AMT.
No worries.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
That guy is bullshit. If he believes he has done nothing wrong, he should come back here, regardless of what's going on.
The fact he is hiding is making people think he has done something wrong.
Personally, I bet he gave intelligence to other countries. If not, he has no reason to run.
Agreed. In fact he gave his intelligence to other countries.
No he didn't.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... n-s-switch 'The oft-repeated claim that Snowden's intent is to harm the US is completely negated by the reality that he has all sorts of documents that could quickly and seriously harm the US if disclosed, yet he has published none of those. When he gave us the documents he provided, he repeatedly insisted that we exercise rigorous journalistic judgment in deciding which documents should be published in the public interest and which ones should be concealed on the ground that the harm of publication outweighs the public value. If his intent were to harm the US, he could have sold all the documents he had for a great deal of money, or indiscriminately published them, or passed them to a foreign adversary. He did none of that.
He carefully vetted every document he gave us, and then on top of that, asked that we only publish those which ought to be disclosed and would not cause gratuitous harm: the same analytical judgment that all media outlets and whistleblowers make all the time. The overwhelming majority of his disclosures were to blow the whistle on US government deceit and radical, hidden domestic surveillance.
My point in this interview was clear, one I've repeated over and over: had he wanted to harm the US government, he easily could have, but hasn't, as evidenced by the fact that - as I said - he has all sorts of documents that could inflict serious harm to the US government's programs. That demonstrates how irrational is the claim that his intent is to harm the US. His intent is to shine a light on these programs so they can be democratically debated. That's why none of the disclosures we've published can be remotely described as harming US national security: all they've harmed are the reputation and credibility of US officials who did these things and then lied about them.'
A smoking gun shows Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is a big liar -- and it's not the first time
David Sirota
Tuesday, Jul 2, 2013
“James Clapper Is Still Lying”: That would be a more honest headline for yesterday’s big Washington Post article about the director of national intelligence’s letter to the U.S. Senate.
Clapper, you may recall, unequivocally said “no, sir” in response to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asking him: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper’s response was shown to be a lie by Snowden’s disclosures, as well as by reports from the Guardian, the Washington Post, the Associated Press and Bloomberg News (among others). This is particularly significant, considering lying before Congress prevents the legislative branch from performing oversight and is therefore a felony.
Upon Snowden’s disclosures, Clapper initially explained his lie by insisting that his answer was carefully and deliberately calculated to be the “least untruthful” response to a question about classified information. Left unmentioned was the fact that he could have simply given the same truthful answer that Alberto Gonzales gave the committee in 2006.
Now, though, Clapper is wholly changing his story, insisting that his answer wasn’t a deliberate, carefully calibrated “least most untruthful” response; it was instead just a spur-of-the-moment accident based on an innocent misunderstanding. Indeed, as the Post reports, “Clapper sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 21 saying that he had misunderstood the question he had been asked” and adding that “he thought Wyden was referring to NSA surveillance of e-mail traffic involving overseas targets, not the separate program in which the agency is authorized to collect records of Americans’ phone calls.” In his letter, Clapper says, “My response was clearly erroneous — for which I apologize,” and added that “mistakes will happen, and when I make one, I correct it.”
So Clapper first says it was a calculated move, and now he’s saying it was just an innocuous misunderstanding and an inadvertent error. With that, the public — and the Obama administration prosecutors who aggressively pursue perjurers — are all supposed to now breathe a sigh of relief and chalk it all up to a forgivable screw-up. It’s all just an innocent mistake, right?
Wrong, because in this crime, as Clapper’s changing story suggests, there remains a smoking gun.
Notice this statement from Sen. Wyden about Snowden’s disclosures — a statement, mind you, that the Post didn’t reference in its story yesterday (emphasis added):
“One of the most important responsibilities a Senator has is oversight of the intelligence community. This job cannot be done responsibly if Senators aren’t getting straight answers to direct questions. When NSA Director Alexander failed to clarify previous public statements about domestic surveillance, it was necessary to put the question to the Director of National Intelligence. So that he would be prepared to answer, I sent the question to Director Clapper’s office a day in advance. After the hearing was over my staff and I gave his office a chance to amend his answer."
So Clapper had a full day’s notice of the specific — and impossible to misunderstand — question Wyden asked, and is nonetheless now claiming that in the heat of the moment he spontaneously misunderstood the question. In other words, he’s not coming clean, as the Post story seems to imply. On the contrary, he’s lying about his deliberate lie, which should only make a perjury prosecution that much easier, for it shows intent.
The importance of such a perjury prosecution, of course, should not be lost on our constitutional law professor-turned-president.
Out of all people, he has to understand that equal protection under the law means treating Clapper (and Alexander, who also lied to Congress) exactly the same way his administration treated pitcher Roger Clemens. Otherwise, the message from the government would be that lying to Congress about baseball is more of a felony than lying to Congress about Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights. Such a message would declare that when it comes to brazen law-breaking, as long as you are personally connected to the president, you get protection rather than the prosecution you deserve.
'We may never know all the details of the mass surveillance programs, but we know this: The administration has justified them through abuse of language, intentional evasion of statutory protections, secret, unreviewable investigative procedures and constitutional arguments that make a mockery of the government’s professed concern with protecting Americans’ privacy. It’s time to call the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs what they are: criminal.'
Comments
Especially when it is a government that is continually caught lying to the American public. Someone tells the truth but many continue to trust the entity that has been lying for years to protect it's own interest over that person.
Ah! You did eventually look it up. "Love for, or devotion to one's country": Excellent and absolutely correct. The government of this country is but one facet of the country. The definition is not "love for, or devotion to one's government".
The Constitution is the document that lays out the protections in place the citizens of the country are supposed to have from the government. It is the chain that is supposed to bind the government, the law of the land. It is basically the blueprint for our country. The government swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the other way around. It would be more correct to give more credence to this document than to a government that is continually caught lying regardless of the political affiliation of the person in power.
Knowing all that should tell you that being more devoted to the blueprint of the country is more along the lines of Patriotism than to a government that continually breaks its oath. Again, it does not say "love your government". How can one love it's country and the ideas the country was founded on without being able to healthily question its government?
You talk about this notion of safety and security. The greatest potential for safety and security to exist is when our personal liberties are protected to their fullest extent. That includes protecting those facets of our society from an overbearing government as well! Liberty and freedom is perhaps the greatest potential form of safety and security there is. Look at what we have today, under the guise of safety and security we have a tyrannical aspect in our government. We have people who are arrested for victim-less crimes all in the name of safety. Sure our government says it keeps us "safe", but who is going to keep us safe from our government?
The NSA's operations simply use "security" as a guise to operate under, when the real goal is information gathering on a wide scale. It is security theater. The best interests and security of American citizens is not actually what is at heart here.
I wonder if he will take that redhead russian spy up on her marriage proposal?
I believe they already have used it. The Broadwell/Petraeus scandal makes me wonder sometimes. The way our IRS has intimidated political opponents also comes to mind on how the Government, once provided with certain powers and information, will eventually abuse those powers and information.
If you go back and actually read everything I said, I said that I think some small changes need to be made to the Constitution. What the heck is wrong with that? No Constitution lasts forever. I love our Constitution, but if you believe that the current Constitution in its current state will last forever than you are delusional and overly hopeful. I hope it can last a while, but it is impossible. Whether it is by adding a few more amendments or adjusting a few words or phrases, it will change eventually.
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Patriot - one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests.
I love the U.S.A, I support its Authority and Interests (in most cases w support interests, but at this point it sounds like many are not due to the NSA and other shit, but still we "try" and support them). I am also aware that in order to protect our citizens we must do what we can to do that, even if that means changing the law of the land so that it can be done without limitation.
The founding fathers gave us rights that fit the world in 1776. I don't know if you know, but it is 2013. Also, we are Americans. If the American people agreed to change something in the Constitution, it can be done. But it must be agreed upon.
Also, I never said I was "okay" with it. I hate the fact it possibly is a violation of the 4th Amendment, but at the same time it makes you see that if we wanted to protect Americans in such a way the Constitution will limit our protection. I understand the point of the program, but how it was carried out in secrecy was kind of bullshit, but I get it. And now I know such a thing, I will make sure to vote differently next time. Trust me, if this happened before the election, my vote would have been different.
Curious question: What if this program stopped a terrorist attack that was gonna happen in your city? What if it would've involved where you work for some odd reason? Although it is a possible violation of the Constitution, I bet you'd be really damn happy that it saved your life. Just sayin..
Basically, I am no less Patriotic than you. We both love our country, we both love the laws that make us, but at the same time we must also look at our laws and ask ourselves if they can always keep us safe. The gov't does not have the right to change it, we do if we so please. We are People...
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
1) This is a very well crafted and well written explanation of your beliefs. Nice job. Unfortunately, I don't believe it actually rebuts the point I was making in the post you quoted.
2) You seem to be equating love of country with love of Constitution, and again you seem to be claiming that any who disagree are somehow defending the government. ("It would be more correct to give more credence to this document than to a government that is continually caught lying regardless of the political affiliation of the person in power.") This is just not true. It is quite possible to love your country and to think first of your friends and family, neighbors and community, etc,. That someone might consider the safety of all those paramount is not a sign of a lack of Patriotism. Government and Constitution are not the only choices. Above you have written what you believe to be true. No one needs to agree with you to be Patriotic. This is the point I have made repeatedly that is either being lost or ignored.
3) I am reasonably certain you can go back through all of my posts and never find a single one indicating I believe love of country equals love of government. You keep coming back to that and it has never been a position I have held.
4) You have summarily ignored responses from me to you on pages 18 and 20 of this thread. Perhaps you just missed them.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I second this
I would never support the gov't over the Constitution. I am sure you will say "yeah, but you support the NSA thing"
to which I would say no I don't. I understand it, I get it. I get why they did it. I think it can be useful, but it is indeed bullshit our civil liberties were abused.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
I would be glad that I was alive. I enjoy being alive. That does not mean I would be glad we had a surveillance apparatus even if it managed to thwart some sort of attack. It is not needed in this form. There was plenty of known information on the other terrorist attacks that occurred. The problem wasn't enough information, it was a lack of action and actual real investigative work following up on what was known.
Your scenario would be make me that much more upset with our government's policies. That someone was so disillusioned with our government and what it does in our name that they found no other recourse other than to commit an act of terrorism to get their point across. These acts are not committed because we are hated for our "freedom". Look at any of the reasons and more times than not the trail leads back to an oppressive, murderous act supported and endorsed by our government.
Furthermore, the current system actually increases the chances of these incidents occurring. It was said best earlier, with the analogy that it is just putting more hay on the haystack.
I disagree with your full assessment. I think you do love your country, but I think you have some misguided notions about government and what its role should be based on the principles of freedom that this country was founded on. Freedom in 1776 is no more antiquated than freedom in 2013. To think otherwise tramples on the spirit of freedom and what it actually is and means.
While you are correct in that there is a process to amend the Constitution, our government sidesteps that process and tramples over the law of the land anyway; they do this because it is convenient for them. Do not go on to blame the Constitution for appearing antiquated by 2013 standards because of this. The blame rests solely with those who felt it needed changing but did not engage in the process to amend it. Furthermore, you have stated that you are okay with this, with a government that violates the Constitution in the name of "security". This is a slippery slope and has led us to where we are today with many of our civil liberties being trampled on.
I do realize that our gov't sidesteps shit, and believe me it pisses me off. And I don't blame the Constitution for anything. But in my opinion some things could be changed a bit such as how guns are handled and (although maybe controversial) no trial for domestic terrorists and criminals who are known 100% to be guilty (because our tax dollars should be better spent elsewhere.
America should always be protected. Trust me, I wish the gov't did not have to do secret shit to do it. But if they truly did stop major attacks then kudos to them, but in the end (religious speech here) God will judge them and they will pay for what they do later on.
By the way, I said I understand and get it. I am not okay with it. I don't get why you keep ignoring that statement by me.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
That's because you are overlooking my point which is not with those who disagree with me, but with those who do blindly defend the government and then misdirect and attack those who would question the government. I believe it absolutely is true to give more credence to the document that set up our government than the government that lies and tramples on said document. If you do not, that's your deal. But that actually is counter to the definition of a Patriot. Same with your attempt to lump in safety and security of friends and family, etc. Patriotism has nothing to do about those other things you are injecting here. Are unpatriotic people or even national jingoistic people incapable of being able to care about the safety of those closest to them? I would argue they are just as capable if not misguided in their conclusions. That someone would consider the safety of those they decide are important over protecting the natural rights of another individual is favoritism and has no place in a discussion of Patriotism. You do not see how in the long term that this could come back to harm those you care about most. It is short sighted, in other words. If you had an understanding of freedom and what it means, you would see that protecting it does protect those close to you more than any other form of protection.
That's because you may be thinking I wrote that specifically for you. My apologies for not being clearer, but when I referenced this in that post, it was for anyone and everyone who does that. You claim to not fall under this, so, if true, it does not apply to you.
Yeah, I chose not to respond to some of your posts because I didn't feel responding to them would really accomplish anything other than muddying the point further. I believe what I believe backed by historical definition and conversations and you disagree with that due to a perversion of a term by a bankrupt political party. I think that a good amount of this boils down to you and I having a different understanding or definition of a term. My use of the term adheres to the simple one sentence explanation first cited in this thread along with the context information and discussions surrounding the concept of Patriotism when this country was first formed.
I guess I believed you to be okay with it when you made this statement
The reason I believed this is because I view that as a loaded statement. "The Constition may hold us back from using measures to protect us." I don't believe the Constitution was put in place to protect us from outside threats. It was put in place to protect the natural rights that every individual should have. Including protecting these rights from our own government usurping them. People are so concerned about being protected from terrorism, but never appear to be concerned enough to address the root causes. As long as they feel safe they think they are safe. Furthermore, I do not believe the Constitution is holding us back from outside threats, I believe the lies we are being fed and the perpetuation of our military industrial complex is what is holding us back from outside threats.
It may be that this was not your intent and just how I read it. Either way, that is what I take issue with.
Also, how can someone be known to be 100% guilty if they have not been tried in a court of law? That is a contradictory statement
If a guy walks out in the middle of a street, kills someone in plain view, its on camera and everyone saw it, then he committed the crime. He did it, end of story.
But we all deserve fair trial, I just hate the whole taxes shit for people who definitely committed the crime they say they didn't do when clearly they did.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Well, your refusal to answer my posts is unfortunate as I did ask you in one of them to explain who it is you are speaking of when you say "those who do blindly defend the government and then misdirect and attack those who would question the government." You know, the brainwashed and delusional crowd. So I will ask you again - can you clarify who these people are and how they differ from anyone and everyone else who disagrees with your views?
My original point in this exchange remains unchanged and, frankly, unchallenged: When you declare those who disagree with you as somehow being less patriotic than you then you are on a slippery slope. Tactics such as those are very much the tactics used by Karl Rove. They are indeed a bankrupt political party, and I do question why you chose to follow along in their tactical footsteps.
Again, our country is not the constitution. The constitution is a piece of paper written by mortal men that has been changed 27 times and will be again. Love of country is not and has never been equal to love of constitution. Not for a single day has that been true. Is that to say the constitution is unimportant? No. But I for one won't regard it as some sort of gospel to be worshiped. We have quite enough of that in the world as it is.
"That someone would consider the safety of those they decide are important over protecting the natural rights of another individual is favoritism and has no place in a discussion of Patriotism. You do not see how in the long term that this could come back to harm those you care about most. It is short sighted, in other words. If you had an understanding of freedom and what it means, you would see that protecting it does protect those close to you more than any other form of protection."
Yes, as I disagree, I must have no understanding of freedom. :roll: At least I'm not brainwashed and delusional, eh?
I'm not playing favoritism at all. I stopped at neighbors and community, but if expanded that list would include city and state, region (such as New England) and eventually include the entire country. There is no favoritism being played here at all. It is not the government but the people and customs and traditions and history that makes up America - and, yes, our freedom too. That one would strive to protect all that, to me, is incredibly patriotic.
Love of country, not love of constitution.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Except spying on every American has nothing to do with keeping the country safe.
Without the constitution America would be a very different country and was prior to it when we operated under the Articles of the Confederation. The fact that you believe otherwise indicates to me that I may as well stop discussing this issue with you.
Also, I reiterate, I did not declare those who disagree with me as being unpatriotic. That was something you conjured up and applied to my statement. I understand that many will disagree with me. What actually occurred; however, is I declared and commended one individual who I felt was displaying a good amount of Patriotism and lamented that all too many from this country and in this thread are not; that all too many don't question things. This is the key difference between what I actually said and what you believe I said.
I saw a snippet of his press conference where he said what he lost in this. He willing gave all of that away in doing what he believed was right. Shit like this doesn't come without sacrifice. He wants to be a living martyr. It doesn't work that way.
While I am glad to have knowledge of the bullshit being done in the name of "my safety", dude by his actions appears to believe in the rule of law, so come back and face it. You never know, you could just be judged by sympathetic people.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Yeah, sure.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... stleblower
'Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have said Snowden has a good prima facie case for asylum, based on a well-founded fear of political persecution. Snowden's public statement at Sheremetyevo, couched in the language of the US constitution and international law, will have served to entrench that case.
Human rights lawyers say those grounds have been strengthened by the extraordinary lengths to which Washington has gone to try to get him back, as well as the lack of whistleblower protection for national security officials in the US under the Espionage Act, the brutal treatment of the soldier behind the WikiLeaks revelations, Bradley Manning, and the prospect of long-term incarceration before trial, possibly in solitary confinement.'
Statement by Edward Snowden to human rights groups at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport, posted by WikiLeaks:
Friday July 12, 15:00 UTC
Hello. My name is Ed Snowden. A little over one month ago, I had family, a home in paradise, and I lived in great comfort. I also had the capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications. Anyone's communications at any time. That is the power to change people's fates.
It is also a serious violation of the law. The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance. While the US Constitution marks these programs as illegal, my government argues that secret court rulings, which the world is not permitted to see, somehow legitimize an illegal affair. These rulings simply corrupt the most basic notion of justice – that it must be seen to be done. The immoral cannot be made moral through the use of secret law.
I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."
Accordingly, I did what I believed right and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing. I did not seek to enrich myself. I did not seek to sell US secrets. I did not partner with any foreign government to guarantee my safety. Instead, I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice.
That moral decision to tell the public about spying that affects all of us has been costly, but it was the right thing to do and I have no regrets.
Since that time, the government and intelligence services of the United States of America have attempted to make an example of me, a warning to all others who might speak out as I have. I have been made stateless and hounded for my act of political expression. The United States Government has placed me on no-fly lists. It demanded Hong Kong return me outside of the framework of its laws, in direct violation of the principle of non-refoulement – the Law of Nations. It has threatened with sanctions countries who would stand up for my human rights and the UN asylum system. It has even taken the unprecedented step of ordering military allies to ground a Latin American president's plane in search for a political refugee. These dangerous escalations represent a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America, but to the basic rights shared by every person, every nation, to live free from persecution, and to seek and enjoy asylum.
Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. It is my intention to travel to each of these countries to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders.
I announce today my formal acceptance of all offers of support or asylum I have been extended and all others that may be offered in the future. With, for example, the grant of asylum provided by Venezuela's President Maduro, my asylee status is now formal, and no state has a basis by which to limit or interfere with my right to enjoy that asylum. As we have seen, however, some governments in Western European and North American states have demonstrated a willingness to act outside the law, and this behavior persists today. This unlawful threat makes it impossible for me to travel to Latin America and enjoy the asylum granted there in accordance with our shared rights.
This willingness by powerful states to act extra-legally represents a threat to all of us, and must not be allowed to succeed. Accordingly, I ask for your assistance in requesting guarantees of safe passage from the relevant nations in securing my travel to Latin America, as well as requesting asylum in Russia until such time as these states accede to law and my legal travel is permitted. I will be submitting my request to Russia today, and hope it will be accepted favorably.
If you have any questions, I will answer what I can.
Thank you.
Agreed. In fact he gave his intelligence to other countries.
Interesting since we admit refugees of persecution in this country.
Perhaps we should also tell people that seek asylum here to go back to their country's and face the music?
I would wager he would be thrown in prison or killed regardless of whether he passed on intel or not.
^^ I love how people have quoted me on this. I said this a long time ago. Since then my position on him has changed a bit:
1. I do not think he is bullshit anymore once I found out more.
2. I still think he should come back. I do not know anything about the whistleblowers hiding here from their countries, but I know enough about this guy.
So I hope I answered your comment now. I bet whistleblowers here are in extreme danger if they return home. At least in America we have fair trial. I only want him to come back if the gov't accept his conditions that he won't be harmed, he gets to choose his own venue for trial, etc. If not, then he can stay in hiding.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
He committed a crime to expose one or many crimes.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
My apologies... I was not sure when you wrote it... I tend to say what I need to say and leave threads for a while in the AMT.
No worries.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
No he didn't.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... n-s-switch
'The oft-repeated claim that Snowden's intent is to harm the US is completely negated by the reality that he has all sorts of documents that could quickly and seriously harm the US if disclosed, yet he has published none of those. When he gave us the documents he provided, he repeatedly insisted that we exercise rigorous journalistic judgment in deciding which documents should be published in the public interest and which ones should be concealed on the ground that the harm of publication outweighs the public value. If his intent were to harm the US, he could have sold all the documents he had for a great deal of money, or indiscriminately published them, or passed them to a foreign adversary. He did none of that.
He carefully vetted every document he gave us, and then on top of that, asked that we only publish those which ought to be disclosed and would not cause gratuitous harm: the same analytical judgment that all media outlets and whistleblowers make all the time. The overwhelming majority of his disclosures were to blow the whistle on US government deceit and radical, hidden domestic surveillance.
My point in this interview was clear, one I've repeated over and over: had he wanted to harm the US government, he easily could have, but hasn't, as evidenced by the fact that - as I said - he has all sorts of documents that could inflict serious harm to the US government's programs. That demonstrates how irrational is the claim that his intent is to harm the US. His intent is to shine a light on these programs so they can be democratically debated. That's why none of the disclosures we've published can be remotely described as harming US national security: all they've harmed are the reputation and credibility of US officials who did these things and then lied about them.'
James Clapper is still lying to America
A smoking gun shows Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is a big liar -- and it's not the first time
David Sirota
Tuesday, Jul 2, 2013
“James Clapper Is Still Lying”: That would be a more honest headline for yesterday’s big Washington Post article about the director of national intelligence’s letter to the U.S. Senate.
Clapper, you may recall, unequivocally said “no, sir” in response to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asking him: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper’s response was shown to be a lie by Snowden’s disclosures, as well as by reports from the Guardian, the Washington Post, the Associated Press and Bloomberg News (among others). This is particularly significant, considering lying before Congress prevents the legislative branch from performing oversight and is therefore a felony.
Upon Snowden’s disclosures, Clapper initially explained his lie by insisting that his answer was carefully and deliberately calculated to be the “least untruthful” response to a question about classified information. Left unmentioned was the fact that he could have simply given the same truthful answer that Alberto Gonzales gave the committee in 2006.
Now, though, Clapper is wholly changing his story, insisting that his answer wasn’t a deliberate, carefully calibrated “least most untruthful” response; it was instead just a spur-of-the-moment accident based on an innocent misunderstanding. Indeed, as the Post reports, “Clapper sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 21 saying that he had misunderstood the question he had been asked” and adding that “he thought Wyden was referring to NSA surveillance of e-mail traffic involving overseas targets, not the separate program in which the agency is authorized to collect records of Americans’ phone calls.” In his letter, Clapper says, “My response was clearly erroneous — for which I apologize,” and added that “mistakes will happen, and when I make one, I correct it.”
So Clapper first says it was a calculated move, and now he’s saying it was just an innocuous misunderstanding and an inadvertent error. With that, the public — and the Obama administration prosecutors who aggressively pursue perjurers — are all supposed to now breathe a sigh of relief and chalk it all up to a forgivable screw-up. It’s all just an innocent mistake, right?
Wrong, because in this crime, as Clapper’s changing story suggests, there remains a smoking gun.
Notice this statement from Sen. Wyden about Snowden’s disclosures — a statement, mind you, that the Post didn’t reference in its story yesterday (emphasis added):
“One of the most important responsibilities a Senator has is oversight of the intelligence community. This job cannot be done responsibly if Senators aren’t getting straight answers to direct questions. When NSA Director Alexander failed to clarify previous public statements about domestic surveillance, it was necessary to put the question to the Director of National Intelligence. So that he would be prepared to answer, I sent the question to Director Clapper’s office a day in advance. After the hearing was over my staff and I gave his office a chance to amend his answer."
So Clapper had a full day’s notice of the specific — and impossible to misunderstand — question Wyden asked, and is nonetheless now claiming that in the heat of the moment he spontaneously misunderstood the question. In other words, he’s not coming clean, as the Post story seems to imply. On the contrary, he’s lying about his deliberate lie, which should only make a perjury prosecution that much easier, for it shows intent.
The importance of such a perjury prosecution, of course, should not be lost on our constitutional law professor-turned-president.
Out of all people, he has to understand that equal protection under the law means treating Clapper (and Alexander, who also lied to Congress) exactly the same way his administration treated pitcher Roger Clemens. Otherwise, the message from the government would be that lying to Congress about baseball is more of a felony than lying to Congress about Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights. Such a message would declare that when it comes to brazen law-breaking, as long as you are personally connected to the president, you get protection rather than the prosecution you deserve.
This NYT article goes some way towards answering your question. I won't post the whole thing as it's quite long. Here's the link http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opini ... =all&_r=1& and a summary:
'We may never know all the details of the mass surveillance programs, but we know this: The administration has justified them through abuse of language, intentional evasion of statutory protections, secret, unreviewable investigative procedures and constitutional arguments that make a mockery of the government’s professed concern with protecting Americans’ privacy. It’s time to call the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs what they are: criminal.'
Holder gets to investigate himself...
Clinton gets to yell "what difference does it make"
Lerner gets to issue a statement on her innoncence and plead the 5th...
I honestly do not know what it will take to unite us?
Whichever game both d's and r's play...they are good at keeping us divided.