The smear job continues, directing our attention away from the real issue.
Exactly. But then all this bullshit comes as no surprise. Because of course anybody who casts those in power in a bad light needs to be denigrated and abused. Meanwhile, the fact that the U.S government was revealed to be lying to the public, and spying on them, in breach of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, gets relegated to the bottom of the page.
For the first time, Snowden has admitted he sought a position at Booz Allen Hamilton so he could collect proof about the US National Security Agency's secret surveillance programmes ahead of planned leaks to the media.
"My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," he told the Post on June 12. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago."
"..about three months ago". How long had he already been working in the industry before he decided he needed to reveal the mass surveillance program to the public?
In his own words he took the position at Booz Allen specifically for this purpose. How long he has worked in the industry is completely irrelevant.
"My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," he told the Post on June 12. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago."
So was Sullivan describing your conflicting views, or wasn't he?
As I said, he was. However, the words you attributed to me were not words I had written. That is either dishonest or lazy.
Actually, it's neither. You said he described your conflicting views, and then start frothing at the mouth and pretending to be insulted when I direct a question at you based on his description. Nothing dishonest, or lazy, about that.
Next you'll try turning this thread into a discussion about my 'clear hatred of, and prejudice against, America and Americans'.
In his own words he took the position at Booz Allen specifically for this purpose. How long he has worked in the industry is completely irrelevant.
"My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," he told the Post on June 12. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago."
Which is exactly what I already stated above.
And like I already stated above, 'so what?' How long did Daniel Ellsberg work as a military analyst before deciding to reveal the Pentagon Papers to the World? Who cares?
Find me one whistle blower who began his career with the sole intention of revealing State secrets and corruption to the World. These people began their careers with good intentions and with faith in their superiors, and in the system as a whole, before becoming disillusioned with all the lies and corruption that they discover in that same system. So what? It's not these individuals that we should be concentrating on, but the information they've chosen to share with us, at great risk to themselves.
So was Sullivan describing your conflicting views, or wasn't he?
As I said, he was. However, the words you attributed to me were not words I had written. That is either dishonest or lazy.
Actually, it's neither. You said he described your conflicting views, and then start frothing at the mouth and pretending to be insulted when I direct a question at you based on his description. Nothing dishonest, or lazy, about that.
Next you'll try turning this thread into a discussion about my 'clear hatred of, and prejudice against, America and Americans'.
No frothing and I'm not offended. I just didn't write the words that you quoted me as having written. As it would have been much easier to copy and paste into quotes the text you wanted to rebut, rather than editing the quote down to look like it had been written by me, and since it is a trick you have pulled before, I felt it was worth mentioning. And by your reaction I can see that it was dishonest.
In his own words he took the position at Booz Allen specifically for this purpose. How long he has worked in the industry is completely irrelevant.
"My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," he told the Post on June 12. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago."
I thought Andrew Sullivan described my conflicting views on Snowden well:
"...But I am more conflicted by a man who took his job in order to expose what he already believed was wrong, then ran away to seek refuge in authoritarian regimes with open hostility to the US."
I stated that was the reason he took the job and you clearly disagreed. Had you simply admitted that he had in fact taken this job specifically for these reasons we would have had no reason to disagree. But go on with Daniel Ellsburg and your attempt to shift the argument.
Meanwhile, the fact that the U.S government was revealed to be lying to the public, and spying on them, in breach of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, gets relegated to the bottom of the page.
Look, I'm very inclined to agree with you about the program being really, really scary, but you still have not articulated how it's illegal. I'm trying to myself, but I can see lots of ways that the program, scary as it is, could also be legal.
If we're going to go after conspiracy and scandal and governmental abuse, let's make sure we've covered all our bases.
Any assessment of whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated requires us to evaluate several elements, many of which we simply don't have. For instance, in what cases was the program used? What circumstances surrounded each "search?" Were there exigencies that allowed the search to happen without a warrant? Were the searches done with a warrant? (No one seems to consider that). Was the information obtained public information anyway? Further, and importantly, have any prosecutions or official actions been taken resulting from the use of the program, which, assuming is violative of the Fourth Amendment, would require us to suppress any evidence gained from the illegal program and used in said actions?
The Fourth Amendment is protection against illegally obtained evidence. "Evidence" is only used to support or buttress official actions, such as criminal prosecutions, detainment, or other government proceedings. If there are no official actions being taken, that doesn't mean the program isn't illegal. But it does become very difficult to determine if a Fourth Amendment violation exists, if for no other reason than there is no discovery process by which we could view the government's evidence gathering procedures (hint: this is why discovery in criminal cases is so crucial). Without being able to look at the government's evidence gathering (again, because who knows if there are any pending actions stemming from evidence gained through the program), we're left to speculate, without more, that the program may be illegal. We're left to take the word of someone whom we knew nothing about until a few weeks ago. Maybe he's telling the truth, maybe he's not. The problem with alleging Fourth Amendment violations here is proving they exist without any known use of the evidence, but also the reality of the solution. The solution, in most cases, for a Fourth Amendment violation is suppression of evidence. Proving that the NSA has overreached and violated the Fourth Amendment with this program means what? They stop the program? By what sanction? There's nothing that stops police officers from violation Miranda on a daily basis. Any evidence gained will simply be suppressed in court. That doesn't mean the officer won't continue to do it in the future (and many do). So ask yourself, even if you can prove it's a violation of the Fourth Amendment, what's the remedy that stops this program?
But if we're going to claim conspiracy and government abuse, don't we owe it to ourselves, for our own credibility on a myriad of other issues, to at least vet this out a bit, and try to articulate why this is an abuse of government power? And if it's not an abuse, either because we can't prove it or because it's actually not, then shouldn't we focus more on issues like government transparency so that we know full well the power the government is using? And (I'm on a roll here) isn't that, in the end, an issue best tackled via election and legislation? (remedies, remember?
So I'll ask again: What facts exist that provide conclusive proof that this violates the Fourth Amendment? (please don't simply link to or paste someone else's article or argument). I too would like to believe that the program is in violation of the Constitution because that would mean a check on government power. But I'm also not willing to bypass scrutiny and consideration in the pursuit of my own beliefs.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Meanwhile, the fact that the U.S government was revealed to be lying to the public, and spying on them, in breach of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, gets relegated to the bottom of the page.
Look, I'm very inclined to agree with you about the program being really, really scary, but you still have not articulated how it's illegal. I'm trying to myself, but I can see lots of ways that the program, scary as it is, could also be legal.
If we're going to go after conspiracy and scandal and governmental abuse, let's make sure we've covered all our bases.
Any assessment of whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated requires us to evaluate several elements, many of which we simply don't have. For instance, in what cases was the program used? What circumstances surrounded each "search?" Were there exigencies that allowed the search to happen without a warrant? Were the searches done with a warrant? (No one seems to consider that). Was the information obtained public information anyway? Further, and importantly, have any prosecutions or official actions been taken resulting from the use of the program, which, assuming is violative of the Fourth Amendment, would require us to suppress any evidence gained from the illegal program and used in said actions?
The Fourth Amendment is protection against illegally obtained evidence. "Evidence" is only used to support or buttress official actions, such as criminal prosecutions, detainment, or other government proceedings. If there are no official actions being taken, that doesn't mean the program isn't illegal. But it does become very difficult to determine if a Fourth Amendment violation exists, if for no other reason than there is no discovery process by which we could view the government's evidence gathering procedures (hint: this is why discovery in criminal cases is so crucial). Without being able to look at the government's evidence gathering (again, because who knows if there are any pending actions stemming from evidence gained through the program), we're left to speculate, without more, that the program may be illegal. We're left to take the word of someone whom we knew nothing about until a few weeks ago. Maybe he's telling the truth, maybe he's not. The problem with alleging Fourth Amendment violations here is proving they exist without any known use of the evidence, but also the reality of the solution. The solution, in most cases, for a Fourth Amendment violation is suppression of evidence. Proving that the NSA has overreached and violated the Fourth Amendment with this program means what? They stop the program? By what sanction? There's nothing that stops police officers from violation Miranda on a daily basis. Any evidence gained will simply be suppressed in court. That doesn't mean the officer won't continue to do it in the future (and many do). So ask yourself, even if you can prove it's a violation of the Fourth Amendment, what's the remedy that stops this program?
But if we're going to claim conspiracy and government abuse, don't we owe it to ourselves, for our own credibility on a myriad of other issues, to at least vet this out a bit, and try to articulate why this is an abuse of government power? And if it's not an abuse, either because we can't prove it or because it's actually not, then shouldn't we focus more on issues like government transparency so that we know full well the power the government is using? And (I'm on a roll here) isn't that, in the end, an issue best tackled via election and legislation? (remedies, remember?
So I'll ask again: What facts exist that provide conclusive proof that this violates the Fourth Amendment? (please don't simply link to or paste someone else's article or argument). I too would like to believe that the program is in violation of the Constitution because that would mean a check on government power. But I'm also not willing to bypass scrutiny and consideration in the pursuit of my own beliefs.
Meanwhile, the fact that the U.S government was revealed to be lying to the public, and spying on them, in breach of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, gets relegated to the bottom of the page.
Look, I'm very inclined to agree with you about the program being really, really scary, but you still have not articulated how it's illegal. I'm trying to myself, but I can see lots of ways that the program, scary as it is, could also be legal.
If we're going to go after conspiracy and scandal and governmental abuse, let's make sure we've covered all our bases.
Any assessment of whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated requires us to evaluate several elements, many of which we simply don't have. For instance, in what cases was the program used? What circumstances surrounded each "search?" Were there exigencies that allowed the search to happen without a warrant? Were the searches done with a warrant? (No one seems to consider that). Was the information obtained public information anyway? Further, and importantly, have any prosecutions or official actions been taken resulting from the use of the program, which, assuming is violative of the Fourth Amendment, would require us to suppress any evidence gained from the illegal program and used in said actions?
The Fourth Amendment is protection against illegally obtained evidence. "Evidence" is only used to support or buttress official actions, such as criminal prosecutions, detainment, or other government proceedings. If there are no official actions being taken, that doesn't mean the program isn't illegal. But it does become very difficult to determine if a Fourth Amendment violation exists, if for no other reason than there is no discovery process by which we could view the government's evidence gathering procedures (hint: this is why discovery in criminal cases is so crucial). Without being able to look at the government's evidence gathering (again, because who knows if there are any pending actions stemming from evidence gained through the program), we're left to speculate, without more, that the program may be illegal. We're left to take the word of someone whom we knew nothing about until a few weeks ago. Maybe he's telling the truth, maybe he's not. The problem with alleging Fourth Amendment violations here is proving they exist without any known use of the evidence, but also the reality of the solution. The solution, in most cases, for a Fourth Amendment violation is suppression of evidence. Proving that the NSA has overreached and violated the Fourth Amendment with this program means what? They stop the program? By what sanction? There's nothing that stops police officers from violation Miranda on a daily basis. Any evidence gained will simply be suppressed in court. That doesn't mean the officer won't continue to do it in the future (and many do). So ask yourself, even if you can prove it's a violation of the Fourth Amendment, what's the remedy that stops this program?
But if we're going to claim conspiracy and government abuse, don't we owe it to ourselves, for our own credibility on a myriad of other issues, to at least vet this out a bit, and try to articulate why this is an abuse of government power? And if it's not an abuse, either because we can't prove it or because it's actually not, then shouldn't we focus more on issues like government transparency so that we know full well the power the government is using? And (I'm on a roll here) isn't that, in the end, an issue best tackled via election and legislation? (remedies, remember?
So I'll ask again: What facts exist that provide conclusive proof that this violates the Fourth Amendment? (please don't simply link to or paste someone else's article or argument). I too would like to believe that the program is in violation of the Constitution because that would mean a check on government power. But I'm also not willing to bypass scrutiny and consideration in the pursuit of my own beliefs.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to uphold the privacy and security of individual persons against subjective invasions by the government and its officials. When the government violates an individual’s “expectation of privacy”, then an unlawful search has occurred. An individual’s “expectation of privacy” can be defined as whether the individual expects their actions will be free from government intrusion.
The Fourth Amendment requires that searches meet a “reasonableness standard.” Reasonableness can weighted on the circumstances surrounding the search and by measuring the search’s overall intrusive nature against the legitimate interests of the government. A search will be unreasonable any time the government cannot prove that it was necessary. The government must show that there was “probable cause” for a search to be deemed “Constitutional”.
The crux of your argument is that we don't know whether the government has breached the Fourth Amendment because they've been acting in complete secrecy. Is that in itself not a breach of the Constitution? A complete lack of transparency and accountability? Where's the Congressional oversight here?
In the meantime, are we to believe that 300 Million Americans are suspected terrorists under probable cause? Highly unlikely.
This type of behaviour by the U.S government is exactly why the Amendment was added in the first place.
[No frothing and I'm not offended. I just didn't write the words that you quoted me as having written. As it would have been much easier to copy and paste into quotes the text you wanted to rebut, rather than editing the quote down to look like it had been written by me, and since it is a trick you have pulled before, I felt it was worth mentioning. And by your reaction I can see that it was dishonest.
Regardless of whether you wrote the words I referred to, you stated clearly that Sullivan had described your conflicting views well. So when I asked you a question based on Sullivan's words - that describe your views well, you have no reason to spit your dummy out and jump on your high horse.
In his own words he took the position at Booz Allen specifically for this purpose. How long he has worked in the industry is completely irrelevant.
"My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," he told the Post on June 12. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago."
Really?
I was referring to the question of how long he'd worked in the industry. Keep trying to trip me up. I can see how important it is for you to succeed in that mission.
I stated that was the reason he took the job and you clearly disagreed. Had you simply admitted that he had in fact taken this job specifically for these reasons we would have had no reason to disagree. But go on with Daniel Ellsburg and your attempt to shift the argument.
You stated the reason he took his job was to expose government secrets. You initially didn't refer - when quoting Andrew Sullivan - to his last job at Booz Allen Hamilton, but the part you quoted simply referred to 'his job', which I took to mean his job as a security analyst, notwithstanding any particular company.
As for attempting to shift the argument, how does comparing the case with Daniel Ellsberg constitute shifting the argument? I asked you some valid questions. Instead of accusing me of attempting to shift the argument, why don't you do the honest thing and answer them, instead of trying to evade them, just as I've answered your slippery attacks on my integrity?
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to uphold the privacy and security of individual persons against subjective invasions by the government and its officials. When the government violates an individual’s “expectation of privacy”, then an unlawful search has occurred. An individual’s “expectation of privacy” can be defined as whether the individual expects their actions will be free from government intrusion.
The Fourth Amendment requires that searches meet a “reasonableness standard.” Reasonableness can weighted on the circumstances surrounding the search and by measuring the search’s overall intrusive nature against the legitimate interests of the government. A search will be unreasonable any time the government cannot prove that it was necessary. The government must show that there was “probable cause” for a search to be deemed “Constitutional”.
The crux of your argument is that we don't know whether the government has breached the Fourth Amendment because they've been acting in complete secrecy. Is that in itself not a breach of the Constitution? A complete lack of transparency and accountability? Where's the Congressional oversight here?
In the meantime, are we to believe that 300 Million Americans are suspected terrorists under probable cause? Highly unlikely.
This type of behaviour by the U.S government is exactly why the Amendment was added in the first place.
No, the crux of my argument is that simply saying something is a violation doesn't make it so. To prove it is, you need facts about the use of the program. If you don't have facts, you can't prove a violation. You might have a secrecy issue (transparency, remember?), but you can't simply allege a violation without articulating how. Unfortunately, if the government's operating in secret, we can't very well point to facts that make it unreasonable or violative of the Constitution. Further, it's an incorrect statement of the law to claim that "reasonableness" (within the purview of Fourth Amendment law) rests on whether the government can prove a purpose related to the search. That's an inarticulate generalization at best, and one that doesn't further your claim that the program violates the law. You still need facts to prove how it violates the Fourth Amendment. Quoting the Constitution (unless your Antonin Scalia) does not suffice for an answer.
I want to believe this program is a Fourth Amendment violation. But we need facts to prove that, and under Fourth Amendment law, if the government can show a warrant, or an exception to the warrant requirement (they're are 8 or so, at least two of which could easily be used), then the program does not conflict with the Constitution.
Instead of bringing up issues of about Congressional oversight and government secrecy - a whole separate issue than Fourth Amendment law (transparency, remember?), please point to unimpeachable facts surrounding the use of the program that confirm this is a Fourth Amendment violation. So far, we've got the words of someone we didn't know anything about until weeks ago.
You and I might agree on a lot of things, but I'm not willing to set reason aside just because something smells funny at face value. We lose credibility almost instantly when we do that.
You can do better than this.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
[No frothing and I'm not offended. I just didn't write the words that you quoted me as having written. As it would have been much easier to copy and paste into quotes the text you wanted to rebut, rather than editing the quote down to look like it had been written by me, and since it is a trick you have pulled before, I felt it was worth mentioning. And by your reaction I can see that it was dishonest.
Regardless of whether you wrote the words I referred to, you stated clearly that Sullivan had described your conflicting views well. So when I asked you a question based on Sullivan's words - that describe your views well, you have no reason to spit your dummy out and jump on your high horse.
No, not regardless. I stated clearly and repeatedly that Sullivan described my views well, and I pointed to the text that proved Snowden did in fact take his job exactly for the reasons given. However, the words you claimed were mine were not mine. I am not frothing or offended or on a high horse, although I realize it is much easier for you to pretend that is the case rather than give a single inch and say "Hey, my bad."
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to uphold the privacy and security of individual persons against subjective invasions by the government and its officials. When the government violates an individual’s “expectation of privacy”, then an unlawful search has occurred. An individual’s “expectation of privacy” can be defined as whether the individual expects their actions will be free from government intrusion.
The Fourth Amendment requires that searches meet a “reasonableness standard.” Reasonableness can weighted on the circumstances surrounding the search and by measuring the search’s overall intrusive nature against the legitimate interests of the government. A search will be unreasonable any time the government cannot prove that it was necessary. The government must show that there was “probable cause” for a search to be deemed “Constitutional”.
The crux of your argument is that we don't know whether the government has breached the Fourth Amendment because they've been acting in complete secrecy. Is that in itself not a breach of the Constitution? A complete lack of transparency and accountability? Where's the Congressional oversight here?
In the meantime, are we to believe that 300 Million Americans are suspected terrorists under probable cause? Highly unlikely.
This type of behaviour by the U.S government is exactly why the Amendment was added in the first place.
No, the crux of my argument is that simply saying something is a violation doesn't make it so. To prove it is, you need facts about the use of the program. If you don't have facts, you can't prove a violation. You might have a secrecy issue (transparency, remember?), but you can't simply allege a violation without articulating how. Unfortunately, if the government's operating in secret, we can't very well point to facts that make it unreasonable or violative of the Constitution. Further, it's an incorrect statement of the law to claim that "reasonableness" (within the purview of Fourth Amendment law) rests on whether the government can prove a purpose related to the search. That's an inarticulate generalization at best, and one that doesn't further your claim that the program violates the law. You still need facts to prove how it violates the Fourth Amendment. Quoting the Constitution (unless your Antonin Scalia) does not suffice for an answer.
I want to believe this program is a Fourth Amendment violation. But we need facts to prove that, and under Fourth Amendment law, if the government can show a warrant, or an exception to the warrant requirement (they're are 8 or so, at least two of which could easily be used), then the program does not conflict with the Constitution.
Instead of bringing up issues of about Congressional oversight and government secrecy - a whole separate issue than Fourth Amendment law (transparency, remember?), please point to unimpeachable facts surrounding the use of the program that confirm this is a Fourth Amendment violation. So far, we've got the words of someone we didn't know anything about until weeks ago.
You and I might agree on a lot of things, but I'm not willing to set reason aside just because something smells funny at face value. We lose credibility almost instantly when we do that.
You can do better than this.
Do the people have a right to be secure in their homes, and to possess a degree of privacy, pursuant to any warrant or reasonable cause? If so, then any breach of that right is a violation of the Constitution, whether or not the act is carried out openly and transparently, or in secret. The fact that it's being carried out in secret, and the public have no say in the matter, whether through Congress or otherwise, is an intrusion on their privacy as protected by the Constitution.
The government do not have the authorization to conduct business in complete secrecy. This is why you have a Congress.
[No frothing and I'm not offended. I just didn't write the words that you quoted me as having written. As it would have been much easier to copy and paste into quotes the text you wanted to rebut, rather than editing the quote down to look like it had been written by me, and since it is a trick you have pulled before, I felt it was worth mentioning. And by your reaction I can see that it was dishonest.
Regardless of whether you wrote the words I referred to, you stated clearly that Sullivan had described your conflicting views well. So when I asked you a question based on Sullivan's words - that describe your views well, you have no reason to spit your dummy out and jump on your high horse.
No, not regardless. I stated clearly and repeatedly that Sullivan described my views well, and I pointed to the text that proved Snowden did in fact take his job exactly for the reasons given. However, the words you claimed were mine were not mine. I am not frothing or offended or on a high horse, although I realize it is much easier for you to pretend that is the case rather than give a single inch and say "Hey, my bad."
Keep beating that dead horse my friend. It became boring a long time ago, as did your previous attempt in another thread to paint me as 'prejudiced towards America and all Americans'. You're not fooling me, or anyone else.
In his own words he took the position at Booz Allen specifically for this purpose. How long he has worked in the industry is completely irrelevant.
"My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," he told the Post on June 12. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago."
Really?
I was referring to the question of how long he'd worked in the industry. Keep trying to trip me up. I can see how important it is for you to succeed in that mission.
I stated that was the reason he took the job and you clearly disagreed. Had you simply admitted that he had in fact taken this job specifically for these reasons we would have had no reason to disagree. But go on with Daniel Ellsburg and your attempt to shift the argument.
You stated the reason he took his job was to expose government secrets. You initially didn't refer - when quoting Andrew Sullivan - to his last job at Booz Allen Hamilton, but the part you quoted simply referred to 'his job', which I took to mean his job as a security analyst, notwithstanding any particular company.
As for attempting to shift the argument, how does comparing the case with Daniel Ellsberg constitute shifting the argument? I asked you some valid questions. Instead of accusing me of attempting to shift the argument, why don't you do the honest thing and answer them, instead of trying to evade them, just as I've answered your slippery attacks on my integrity?
Trip you up? Read back through the thread. You initially and incorrectly claimed that Snowden had not taken his job deliberately at Booz Allen specifically for this purpose. You were wrong. That you did not understand the reference was specifically to Booz Allen is fine, but it makes you no less wrong. Ellsburg is a clear attempt to shift the argument rather than admit you had made a mistake. I am not trying to trip you up and my post was not directed at you. I thought Sullivan did a good job of describing why I and perhaps others do feel conflicted about Edward Snowden. You jumped on it.
why does it matter why snowden took the job? are we only to expose violations we just happen to come across in the course of our work or lives? or should be uncover them by proactive means?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I have a problem with anyone taking a job specifically for the purpose of leaking confidential information about their employer. Not just in this case but anytime. It seems...sneaky and dirty. It is complicated here because Snowden did reveal information that I believe we are better off knowing. It in no way diminishes the importance of the information, but it serves a counterbalance to the myth making that has tried to make him a hero. I just would not go that far here. Just my opinion.
Regardless of whether you wrote the words I referred to, you stated clearly that Sullivan had described your conflicting views well. So when I asked you a question based on Sullivan's words - that describe your views well, you have no reason to spit your dummy out and jump on your high horse.
No, not regardless. I stated clearly and repeatedly that Sullivan described my views well, and I pointed to the text that proved Snowden did in fact take his job exactly for the reasons given. However, the words you claimed were mine were not mine. I am not frothing or offended or on a high horse, although I realize it is much easier for you to pretend that is the case rather than give a single inch and say "Hey, my bad."
Keep beating that dead horse my friend. It became boring a long time ago, as did your previous attempt in another thread to paint me as 'prejudiced towards America and all Americans'. You're not fooling me, or anyone else.
Well, good thing I'm not trying to fool anyone about anything then, ain't it?
Trip you up? Read back through the thread. You initially and incorrectly claimed that Snowden had not taken his job deliberately at Booz Allen specifically for this purpose. You were wrong. That you did not understand the reference was specifically to Booz Allen is fine, but it makes you no less wrong.
No, it doesn't make me wrong. Your initial comment that he'd taken his job as a systems analyst in order to reveal State secrets. It made no mention of the specific job he'd held over the past three months. Therefore, i was not wrong in refuting your comment.
Ellsburg is a clear attempt to shift the argument rather than admit you had made a mistake. I am not trying to trip you up and my post was not directed at you. I thought Sullivan did a good job of describing why I and perhaps others do feel conflicted about Edward Snowden. You jumped on it.
Except I made no mistake. My comment was in response to your post. And your post made no mention of Booz Allen.
Trip you up? Read back through the thread. You initially and incorrectly claimed that Snowden had not taken his job deliberately at Booz Allen specifically for this purpose. You were wrong. That you did not understand the reference was specifically to Booz Allen is fine, but it makes you no less wrong.
No, it doesn't make me wrong. Your initial comment that he'd taken his job as a systems analyst in order to reveal State secrets. It made no mention of the specific job he'd held over the past three months. Therefore, i was not wrong in refuting your comment.
Ellsburg is a clear attempt to shift the argument rather than admit you had made a mistake. I am not trying to trip you up and my post was not directed at you. I thought Sullivan did a good job of describing why I and perhaps others do feel conflicted about Edward Snowden. You jumped on it.
Except I made no mistake. My comment was in response to your post. And your post made no mention of Booz Allen.
I have a problem with anyone taking a job specifically for the purpose of leaking confidential information about their employer. Not just in this case but anytime. It seems...sneaky and dirty. It is complicated here because Snowden did reveal information that I believe we are better off knowing. It in no way diminishes the importance of the information, but it serves a counterbalance to the myth making that has tried to make him a hero. I just would not go that far here. Just my opinion.
Firstly, how long had he already worked in the profession before taking a job at Booz Allen?
Secondly, this is someone who had a comfortable life in Hawaii with his girlfriend, and who made a lot of money. He risked all of that to expose the lies and over-reach of his superiors. Yet you try and smear him by claiming he's morally bankrupt and untrustworthy?
Pathetic.
Maybe you can go ahead and tell us all about the huge sacrifices you've made in the attempt to serve the public interest?
I have a problem with anyone taking a job specifically for the purpose of leaking confidential information about their employer. Not just in this case but anytime. It seems...sneaky and dirty. It is complicated here because Snowden did reveal information that I believe we are better off knowing. It in no way diminishes the importance of the information, but it serves a counterbalance to the myth making that has tried to make him a hero. I just would not go that far here. Just my opinion.
Firstly, how long had he already worked in the profession before taking a job at Booz Allen?
Secondly, this is someone who had a comfortable life in Hawaii with his girlfriend, and who made a lot of money. He risked all of that to expose the lies and over-reach of his superiors. Yet you try and smear him by claiming he's morally bankrupt and untrustworthy?
Pathetic.
Maybe you can go ahead and tell us all about the huge sacrifices you've made in the attempt to serve the public interest?
I have a problem with anyone taking a job specifically for the purpose of leaking confidential information about their employer. Not just in this case but anytime. It seems...sneaky and dirty. It is complicated here because Snowden did reveal information that I believe we are better off knowing. It in no way diminishes the importance of the information, but it serves a counterbalance to the myth making that has tried to make him a hero. I just would not go that far here. Just my opinion.
so you admit that the information he exposed is better off being known but you have an issue with him exposing it by purposely targeting the people responsible?
you know what I find sneaky and dirty???? a government secretly (or otherwise)surveilling its own people under the guise of freedom and security and doing so while wiping their arse with the constitution. a document they claim to supposedly uphold.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I have a problem with anyone taking a job specifically for the purpose of leaking confidential information about their employer. Not just in this case but anytime. It seems...sneaky and dirty. It is complicated here because Snowden did reveal information that I believe we are better off knowing. It in no way diminishes the importance of the information, but it serves a counterbalance to the myth making that has tried to make him a hero. I just would not go that far here. Just my opinion.
so you admit that the information he exposed is better off being known but you have an issue with him exposing it by purposely targeting the people responsible?
you know what I find sneaky and dirty???? a government secretly (or otherwise)surveilling its own people under the guise of freedom and security and doing so while wiping their arse with the constitution. a document they claim to supposedly uphold.
Oh absolutely the information he exposed is important. I'm not sure it is quite as important as some have argued, but it is absolutely important. I just don't think Snowden specifically taking the position at Booz Allen because it would grant him access to the NSA servers and then running off to China and then Russia with that information is an entirely heroic act. As I said, I just wouldn't go that far. That doesn't mean I am smearing him or trying to paint him as a villain. He is just a more complex figure than that.
And I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment of the government in this case.
Oh absolutely the information he exposed is important. I'm not sure it is quite as important as some have argued, but it is absolutely important. I just don't think Snowden specifically taking the position at Booz Allen because it would grant him access to the NSA servers and then running off to China and then Russia with that information is an entirely heroic act. As I said, I just wouldn't go that far. That doesn't mean I am smearing him or trying to paint him as a villain. He is just a more complex figure than that.
And I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment of the government in this case.
well when one is in fear for their freedom tis always wise to get the hell out of dodge. im sure youre aware that the reach of the US govt is long so to travel to a country without extradition reciprocity with the US to maintain that freedom is a wise move. especially when the country after you has a habit of flouting the rules of international law and its own laws, it doesn't particularly like. it would serve no ones interest to have snowden languish in some jail cell never to be heard from again and in violation of his rights.
I also think the word hero is too easily bandied about these days.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Meanwhile, the fact that the U.S government was revealed to be lying to the public, and spying on them, in breach of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, gets relegated to the bottom of the page.
Look, I'm very inclined to agree with you about the program being really, really scary, but you still have not articulated how it's illegal. I'm trying to myself, but I can see lots of ways that the program, scary as it is, could also be legal.
If we're going to go after conspiracy and scandal and governmental abuse, let's make sure we've covered all our bases.
Any assessment of whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated requires us to evaluate several elements, many of which we simply don't have. For instance, in what cases was the program used? What circumstances surrounded each "search?" Were there exigencies that allowed the search to happen without a warrant? Were the searches done with a warrant? (No one seems to consider that). Was the information obtained public information anyway? Further, and importantly, have any prosecutions or official actions been taken resulting from the use of the program, which, assuming is violative of the Fourth Amendment, would require us to suppress any evidence gained from the illegal program and used in said actions?
The Fourth Amendment is protection against illegally obtained evidence. "Evidence" is only used to support or buttress official actions, such as criminal prosecutions, detainment, or other government proceedings. If there are no official actions being taken, that doesn't mean the program isn't illegal. But it does become very difficult to determine if a Fourth Amendment violation exists, if for no other reason than there is no discovery process by which we could view the government's evidence gathering procedures (hint: this is why discovery in criminal cases is so crucial). Without being able to look at the government's evidence gathering (again, because who knows if there are any pending actions stemming from evidence gained through the program), we're left to speculate, without more, that the program may be illegal. We're left to take the word of someone whom we knew nothing about until a few weeks ago. Maybe he's telling the truth, maybe he's not. The problem with alleging Fourth Amendment violations here is proving they exist without any known use of the evidence, but also the reality of the solution. The solution, in most cases, for a Fourth Amendment violation is suppression of evidence. Proving that the NSA has overreached and violated the Fourth Amendment with this program means what? They stop the program? By what sanction? There's nothing that stops police officers from violation Miranda on a daily basis. Any evidence gained will simply be suppressed in court. That doesn't mean the officer won't continue to do it in the future (and many do). So ask yourself, even if you can prove it's a violation of the Fourth Amendment, what's the remedy that stops this program?
But if we're going to claim conspiracy and government abuse, don't we owe it to ourselves, for our own credibility on a myriad of other issues, to at least vet this out a bit, and try to articulate why this is an abuse of government power? And if it's not an abuse, either because we can't prove it or because it's actually not, then shouldn't we focus more on issues like government transparency so that we know full well the power the government is using? And (I'm on a roll here) isn't that, in the end, an issue best tackled via election and legislation? (remedies, remember?
So I'll ask again: What facts exist that provide conclusive proof that this violates the Fourth Amendment? (please don't simply link to or paste someone else's article or argument). I too would like to believe that the program is in violation of the Constitution because that would mean a check on government power. But I'm also not willing to bypass scrutiny and consideration in the pursuit of my own beliefs.
what exigent circumstance could exist that would make it so you would not need a warrant for months of surveillance data? The time it takes for a business like Verizon to comply with the request would give ample amount of time to get a warrant. (don't know am asking) Wouldn't exigent circumstances only apply if there was a time table where these records would no exist? If Verizon deleted their records every month on a certain date it seems like it would be exigent circumstances...but they don't. If an impending attack was beleived to be happening their would be justification, but they never have to explain it.
This really wasn't warrantless though. The FISC court granted a court order to the FBI to request the information on behalf of the NSA on the authority of the business records section of the Patriot act. The reasons they request the information, and the justification provided to the FISC court to get the order is IMMUNE from an FOI request (same patriot act). So we are stuck believing that something is legal because they said it was legal. They never have to provide proof to anyone but the FISC as far as I know.
We will never know if it is a true violation of the fourth because things are happening in secrecy. We do need more information. As you said, I am fairly certain that this isn't right. Wouldn't an arrest based on information gathered due to using fruit from a poisonous tree be thrown out in court anyway?
But I don't believe that the NSA is intent on using this to bring charges, but rather to disrupt actions they believe harmful to the United States. To me that is where this gets into scary territory.
Hard to say it is a constitutional violation until we see the legal justification. However, as you know, because something is legal now does not mean it would stand up to a constitutional challenge. And even then, there would very rarely be a 9-0 ruling from the SC. Constitutionality is based on the opinion of the justices when it all boils down to it. Some think gathering DNA on everyone arrested is constitutional, some justices don't. Pretty interesting that constitutionality often comes down to one person's opinion.
This certainly is something that should be handled at the political level, the problem is that the two parties agree that this power is necessary and that they have it. Seems like the only two guys didn't believe it are no longer in office and were marginalized when they were in office. The gov't is like a really bad parent that justifies all they do with, because I said so, even if there is a legitimate reason for it they never feel like they need to share it.
Not sure why the foreign intelligence surveillance court can grant access to domestic to domestic calls of someone not known to be tied in anyway to someone our Gov't has deemed a risk
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Do the people have a right to be secure in their homes, and to possess a degree of privacy, pursuant to any warrant or reasonable cause? If so, then any breach of that right is a violation of the Constitution, whether or not the act is carried out openly and transparently, or in secret. The fact that it's being carried out in secret, and the public have no say in the matter, whether through Congress or otherwise, is an intrusion on their privacy as protected by the Constitution.
The government do not have the authorization to conduct business in complete secrecy. This is why you have a Congress.
They do unless they are living in an area near where a pressure cooker was said to explode or if they happen to drive upon a papers please checkpoint. You know, in the name of safety, right?
Do the people have a right to be secure in their homes, and to possess a degree of privacy, pursuant to any warrant or reasonable cause? If so, then any breach of that right is a violation of the Constitution, whether or not the act is carried out openly and transparently, or in secret. The fact that it's being carried out in secret, and the public have no say in the matter, whether through Congress or otherwise, is an intrusion on their privacy as protected by the Constitution.
The government do not have the authorization to conduct business in complete secrecy. This is why you have a Congress.
Of course, but it's not as simple as just pointing to language in the Constitution. 200 years of SCOTUS case law has carved out exceptions to the warrant requirement, some of which may or may not provide a legal basis for the program. Currently, the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant before a search or seizure happens, exception in certain situations. That is the law of the land, right now, as interpreted by the highest court.
To determine if a search or a seizure is in violation with the law of the land, we need to know the facts surrounding each search or seizure. That's why its called a "fact-intensive" inquiry. By your own admission, this program is being used in secret. That means there are lots of critical facts we don't know. Because we don't know these facts, does that mean the program is legal? Of course not. But it also means we can't prove it's illegal. It might smell unconstitutional, it might be really, really scary, but application of the Fourth Amendment requires evaluating the facts surrounding the purportedly unconstitutional search or seizure, facts which we don't have.
Again, there's a definite concern if the government is carrying out programs like this in secret, because it becomes difficult to ascertain the legality of it. But once again, by your own words, isn't our first concern then the secrecy (the fact of which we do know), and isn't that ultimate a governmental transparency issue? Impuning Congress for dereliction of duty is vastly different than saying the government is using a program unconstitutionally.
I cannot stress this enough: you need facts and details to prove a violation of the Fourth Amendment. If a program is used in secret, how can you have any facts that show it is or isn't constitutional?
We lose credibility when we reach conclusions without first providing evidence and support for it. If a program's used in secret, we simply can't know the details that would confirm or refute the program's constitutionality.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Comments
Exactly. But then all this bullshit comes as no surprise. Because of course anybody who casts those in power in a bad light needs to be denigrated and abused. Meanwhile, the fact that the U.S government was revealed to be lying to the public, and spying on them, in breach of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, gets relegated to the bottom of the page.
As I said, he was. However, the words you attributed to me were not words I had written. That is either dishonest or lazy.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
In his own words he took the position at Booz Allen specifically for this purpose. How long he has worked in the industry is completely irrelevant.
"My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," he told the Post on June 12. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Actually, it's neither. You said he described your conflicting views, and then start frothing at the mouth and pretending to be insulted when I direct a question at you based on his description. Nothing dishonest, or lazy, about that.
Next you'll try turning this thread into a discussion about my 'clear hatred of, and prejudice against, America and Americans'.
Which is exactly what I already stated above.
And like I already stated above, 'so what?' How long did Daniel Ellsberg work as a military analyst before deciding to reveal the Pentagon Papers to the World? Who cares?
Find me one whistle blower who began his career with the sole intention of revealing State secrets and corruption to the World. These people began their careers with good intentions and with faith in their superiors, and in the system as a whole, before becoming disillusioned with all the lies and corruption that they discover in that same system. So what? It's not these individuals that we should be concentrating on, but the information they've chosen to share with us, at great risk to themselves.
No frothing and I'm not offended. I just didn't write the words that you quoted me as having written. As it would have been much easier to copy and paste into quotes the text you wanted to rebut, rather than editing the quote down to look like it had been written by me, and since it is a trick you have pulled before, I felt it was worth mentioning. And by your reaction I can see that it was dishonest.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Really?
I stated that was the reason he took the job and you clearly disagreed. Had you simply admitted that he had in fact taken this job specifically for these reasons we would have had no reason to disagree. But go on with Daniel Ellsburg and your attempt to shift the argument.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Look, I'm very inclined to agree with you about the program being really, really scary, but you still have not articulated how it's illegal. I'm trying to myself, but I can see lots of ways that the program, scary as it is, could also be legal.
If we're going to go after conspiracy and scandal and governmental abuse, let's make sure we've covered all our bases.
Any assessment of whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated requires us to evaluate several elements, many of which we simply don't have. For instance, in what cases was the program used? What circumstances surrounded each "search?" Were there exigencies that allowed the search to happen without a warrant? Were the searches done with a warrant? (No one seems to consider that). Was the information obtained public information anyway? Further, and importantly, have any prosecutions or official actions been taken resulting from the use of the program, which, assuming is violative of the Fourth Amendment, would require us to suppress any evidence gained from the illegal program and used in said actions?
The Fourth Amendment is protection against illegally obtained evidence. "Evidence" is only used to support or buttress official actions, such as criminal prosecutions, detainment, or other government proceedings. If there are no official actions being taken, that doesn't mean the program isn't illegal. But it does become very difficult to determine if a Fourth Amendment violation exists, if for no other reason than there is no discovery process by which we could view the government's evidence gathering procedures (hint: this is why discovery in criminal cases is so crucial). Without being able to look at the government's evidence gathering (again, because who knows if there are any pending actions stemming from evidence gained through the program), we're left to speculate, without more, that the program may be illegal. We're left to take the word of someone whom we knew nothing about until a few weeks ago. Maybe he's telling the truth, maybe he's not. The problem with alleging Fourth Amendment violations here is proving they exist without any known use of the evidence, but also the reality of the solution. The solution, in most cases, for a Fourth Amendment violation is suppression of evidence. Proving that the NSA has overreached and violated the Fourth Amendment with this program means what? They stop the program? By what sanction? There's nothing that stops police officers from violation Miranda on a daily basis. Any evidence gained will simply be suppressed in court. That doesn't mean the officer won't continue to do it in the future (and many do). So ask yourself, even if you can prove it's a violation of the Fourth Amendment, what's the remedy that stops this program?
But if we're going to claim conspiracy and government abuse, don't we owe it to ourselves, for our own credibility on a myriad of other issues, to at least vet this out a bit, and try to articulate why this is an abuse of government power? And if it's not an abuse, either because we can't prove it or because it's actually not, then shouldn't we focus more on issues like government transparency so that we know full well the power the government is using? And (I'm on a roll here) isn't that, in the end, an issue best tackled via election and legislation? (remedies, remember?
So I'll ask again: What facts exist that provide conclusive proof that this violates the Fourth Amendment? (please don't simply link to or paste someone else's article or argument). I too would like to believe that the program is in violation of the Constitution because that would mean a check on government power. But I'm also not willing to bypass scrutiny and consideration in the pursuit of my own beliefs.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Again, I thank you for a well written post
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to uphold the privacy and security of individual persons against subjective invasions by the government and its officials. When the government violates an individual’s “expectation of privacy”, then an unlawful search has occurred. An individual’s “expectation of privacy” can be defined as whether the individual expects their actions will be free from government intrusion.
The Fourth Amendment requires that searches meet a “reasonableness standard.” Reasonableness can weighted on the circumstances surrounding the search and by measuring the search’s overall intrusive nature against the legitimate interests of the government. A search will be unreasonable any time the government cannot prove that it was necessary. The government must show that there was “probable cause” for a search to be deemed “Constitutional”.
The crux of your argument is that we don't know whether the government has breached the Fourth Amendment because they've been acting in complete secrecy. Is that in itself not a breach of the Constitution? A complete lack of transparency and accountability? Where's the Congressional oversight here?
In the meantime, are we to believe that 300 Million Americans are suspected terrorists under probable cause? Highly unlikely.
This type of behaviour by the U.S government is exactly why the Amendment was added in the first place.
Regardless of whether you wrote the words I referred to, you stated clearly that Sullivan had described your conflicting views well. So when I asked you a question based on Sullivan's words - that describe your views well, you have no reason to spit your dummy out and jump on your high horse.
I was referring to the question of how long he'd worked in the industry. Keep trying to trip me up. I can see how important it is for you to succeed in that mission.
You stated the reason he took his job was to expose government secrets. You initially didn't refer - when quoting Andrew Sullivan - to his last job at Booz Allen Hamilton, but the part you quoted simply referred to 'his job', which I took to mean his job as a security analyst, notwithstanding any particular company.
As for attempting to shift the argument, how does comparing the case with Daniel Ellsberg constitute shifting the argument? I asked you some valid questions. Instead of accusing me of attempting to shift the argument, why don't you do the honest thing and answer them, instead of trying to evade them, just as I've answered your slippery attacks on my integrity?
No, the crux of my argument is that simply saying something is a violation doesn't make it so. To prove it is, you need facts about the use of the program. If you don't have facts, you can't prove a violation. You might have a secrecy issue (transparency, remember?), but you can't simply allege a violation without articulating how. Unfortunately, if the government's operating in secret, we can't very well point to facts that make it unreasonable or violative of the Constitution. Further, it's an incorrect statement of the law to claim that "reasonableness" (within the purview of Fourth Amendment law) rests on whether the government can prove a purpose related to the search. That's an inarticulate generalization at best, and one that doesn't further your claim that the program violates the law. You still need facts to prove how it violates the Fourth Amendment. Quoting the Constitution (unless your Antonin Scalia) does not suffice for an answer.
I want to believe this program is a Fourth Amendment violation. But we need facts to prove that, and under Fourth Amendment law, if the government can show a warrant, or an exception to the warrant requirement (they're are 8 or so, at least two of which could easily be used), then the program does not conflict with the Constitution.
Instead of bringing up issues of about Congressional oversight and government secrecy - a whole separate issue than Fourth Amendment law (transparency, remember?), please point to unimpeachable facts surrounding the use of the program that confirm this is a Fourth Amendment violation. So far, we've got the words of someone we didn't know anything about until weeks ago.
You and I might agree on a lot of things, but I'm not willing to set reason aside just because something smells funny at face value. We lose credibility almost instantly when we do that.
You can do better than this.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
No, not regardless. I stated clearly and repeatedly that Sullivan described my views well, and I pointed to the text that proved Snowden did in fact take his job exactly for the reasons given. However, the words you claimed were mine were not mine. I am not frothing or offended or on a high horse, although I realize it is much easier for you to pretend that is the case rather than give a single inch and say "Hey, my bad."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Do the people have a right to be secure in their homes, and to possess a degree of privacy, pursuant to any warrant or reasonable cause? If so, then any breach of that right is a violation of the Constitution, whether or not the act is carried out openly and transparently, or in secret. The fact that it's being carried out in secret, and the public have no say in the matter, whether through Congress or otherwise, is an intrusion on their privacy as protected by the Constitution.
The government do not have the authorization to conduct business in complete secrecy. This is why you have a Congress.
Keep beating that dead horse my friend. It became boring a long time ago, as did your previous attempt in another thread to paint me as 'prejudiced towards America and all Americans'. You're not fooling me, or anyone else.
Trip you up? Read back through the thread. You initially and incorrectly claimed that Snowden had not taken his job deliberately at Booz Allen specifically for this purpose. You were wrong. That you did not understand the reference was specifically to Booz Allen is fine, but it makes you no less wrong. Ellsburg is a clear attempt to shift the argument rather than admit you had made a mistake. I am not trying to trip you up and my post was not directed at you. I thought Sullivan did a good job of describing why I and perhaps others do feel conflicted about Edward Snowden. You jumped on it.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I have a problem with anyone taking a job specifically for the purpose of leaking confidential information about their employer. Not just in this case but anytime. It seems...sneaky and dirty. It is complicated here because Snowden did reveal information that I believe we are better off knowing. It in no way diminishes the importance of the information, but it serves a counterbalance to the myth making that has tried to make him a hero. I just would not go that far here. Just my opinion.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Well, good thing I'm not trying to fool anyone about anything then, ain't it?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
No, it doesn't make me wrong. Your initial comment that he'd taken his job as a systems analyst in order to reveal State secrets. It made no mention of the specific job he'd held over the past three months. Therefore, i was not wrong in refuting your comment.
Except I made no mistake. My comment was in response to your post. And your post made no mention of Booz Allen.
Next...
OK Byrnzie.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Firstly, how long had he already worked in the profession before taking a job at Booz Allen?
Secondly, this is someone who had a comfortable life in Hawaii with his girlfriend, and who made a lot of money. He risked all of that to expose the lies and over-reach of his superiors. Yet you try and smear him by claiming he's morally bankrupt and untrustworthy?
Pathetic.
Maybe you can go ahead and tell us all about the huge sacrifices you've made in the attempt to serve the public interest?
Really? A smear? Please.
Who is beating a dead horse now Byrnzie?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
so you admit that the information he exposed is better off being known but you have an issue with him exposing it by purposely targeting the people responsible?
you know what I find sneaky and dirty???? a government secretly (or otherwise)surveilling its own people under the guise of freedom and security and doing so while wiping their arse with the constitution. a document they claim to supposedly uphold.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Oh absolutely the information he exposed is important. I'm not sure it is quite as important as some have argued, but it is absolutely important. I just don't think Snowden specifically taking the position at Booz Allen because it would grant him access to the NSA servers and then running off to China and then Russia with that information is an entirely heroic act. As I said, I just wouldn't go that far. That doesn't mean I am smearing him or trying to paint him as a villain. He is just a more complex figure than that.
And I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment of the government in this case.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
well when one is in fear for their freedom tis always wise to get the hell out of dodge. im sure youre aware that the reach of the US govt is long so to travel to a country without extradition reciprocity with the US to maintain that freedom is a wise move. especially when the country after you has a habit of flouting the rules of international law and its own laws, it doesn't particularly like. it would serve no ones interest to have snowden languish in some jail cell never to be heard from again and in violation of his rights.
I also think the word hero is too easily bandied about these days.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
what exigent circumstance could exist that would make it so you would not need a warrant for months of surveillance data? The time it takes for a business like Verizon to comply with the request would give ample amount of time to get a warrant. (don't know am asking) Wouldn't exigent circumstances only apply if there was a time table where these records would no exist? If Verizon deleted their records every month on a certain date it seems like it would be exigent circumstances...but they don't. If an impending attack was beleived to be happening their would be justification, but they never have to explain it.
This really wasn't warrantless though. The FISC court granted a court order to the FBI to request the information on behalf of the NSA on the authority of the business records section of the Patriot act. The reasons they request the information, and the justification provided to the FISC court to get the order is IMMUNE from an FOI request (same patriot act). So we are stuck believing that something is legal because they said it was legal. They never have to provide proof to anyone but the FISC as far as I know.
We will never know if it is a true violation of the fourth because things are happening in secrecy. We do need more information. As you said, I am fairly certain that this isn't right. Wouldn't an arrest based on information gathered due to using fruit from a poisonous tree be thrown out in court anyway?
But I don't believe that the NSA is intent on using this to bring charges, but rather to disrupt actions they believe harmful to the United States. To me that is where this gets into scary territory.
Hard to say it is a constitutional violation until we see the legal justification. However, as you know, because something is legal now does not mean it would stand up to a constitutional challenge. And even then, there would very rarely be a 9-0 ruling from the SC. Constitutionality is based on the opinion of the justices when it all boils down to it. Some think gathering DNA on everyone arrested is constitutional, some justices don't. Pretty interesting that constitutionality often comes down to one person's opinion.
This certainly is something that should be handled at the political level, the problem is that the two parties agree that this power is necessary and that they have it. Seems like the only two guys didn't believe it are no longer in office and were marginalized when they were in office. The gov't is like a really bad parent that justifies all they do with, because I said so, even if there is a legitimate reason for it they never feel like they need to share it.
Not sure why the foreign intelligence surveillance court can grant access to domestic to domestic calls of someone not known to be tied in anyway to someone our Gov't has deemed a risk
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
They do unless they are living in an area near where a pressure cooker was said to explode or if they happen to drive upon a papers please checkpoint. You know, in the name of safety, right?
Of course, but it's not as simple as just pointing to language in the Constitution. 200 years of SCOTUS case law has carved out exceptions to the warrant requirement, some of which may or may not provide a legal basis for the program. Currently, the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant before a search or seizure happens, exception in certain situations. That is the law of the land, right now, as interpreted by the highest court.
To determine if a search or a seizure is in violation with the law of the land, we need to know the facts surrounding each search or seizure. That's why its called a "fact-intensive" inquiry. By your own admission, this program is being used in secret. That means there are lots of critical facts we don't know. Because we don't know these facts, does that mean the program is legal? Of course not. But it also means we can't prove it's illegal. It might smell unconstitutional, it might be really, really scary, but application of the Fourth Amendment requires evaluating the facts surrounding the purportedly unconstitutional search or seizure, facts which we don't have.
Again, there's a definite concern if the government is carrying out programs like this in secret, because it becomes difficult to ascertain the legality of it. But once again, by your own words, isn't our first concern then the secrecy (the fact of which we do know), and isn't that ultimate a governmental transparency issue? Impuning Congress for dereliction of duty is vastly different than saying the government is using a program unconstitutionally.
I cannot stress this enough: you need facts and details to prove a violation of the Fourth Amendment. If a program is used in secret, how can you have any facts that show it is or isn't constitutional?
We lose credibility when we reach conclusions without first providing evidence and support for it. If a program's used in secret, we simply can't know the details that would confirm or refute the program's constitutionality.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2