Snowden STILL a hero

Socrtease said:
Desh, I have never once heard you denounce the Obama administration for doing the same if not worse. I think what you really hate about Snowden is he exposed Obama and not just questionable government activities. The Obama administration is every bit as culpable for violations of our freedom and killing of innocents overseas as Bush was. Just accept this fact.
Click to expand...

They don't want to, the deep hypocrisy isn't detectable because there is no introspection or thought to the support. They assume agreement in policy because of agreement in the color of Jersey worn by the player.

The reality is Obama doing exactly what they hated Bush for is to be ignored, and the idea that he is doing it at a far deeper level cannot enter the conversation or you are a racist. Yeah, it makes no sense, but logic has no room to exist when support for Obama is needed there is a group who will be ever willing to support, just as there was for Bush. The largest problem is that most of the big media companies seem to be on the side of unconditional support. They don't even seem to care when their own are being eaten by the machine if the star player is wearing a blue jersey.
 
Damocles said:
They don't want to, the deep hypocrisy isn't detectable because there is no introspection or thought to the support. They assume agreement in policy because of agreement in the color of Jersey worn by the player.

The reality is Obama doing exactly what they hated Bush for is to be ignored, and the idea that he is doing it at a far deeper level cannot enter the conversation or you are a racist. Yeah, it makes no sense, but logic has no room to exist when support for Obama is needed there is a group who will be ever willing to support, just as there was for Bush. The largest problem is that most of the big media companies seem to be on the side of unconditional support. They don't even seem to care when their own are being eaten by the machine if the star player is wearing a blue jersey.
Click to expand...

Damocles, I have explained some very significant differences, you have not acknowledged that they exist. I am personally uncomfortable with the Program as it stands under President Obama, but what Bush was doing was on a different level and much worse in my opinion. What Bush was doing was illegal, from what I know about the Program under Obama... its legal, personally objectionable, but made to be legal.

The Current program is not listening into calls, and from what I can tell... in all cases the Administration either got a warrant, or was given the information voluntarily by a third party.
 
Socrtease said:
Desh, I have never once heard you denounce the Obama administration for doing the same if not worse. I think what you really hate about Snowden is he exposed Obama and not just questionable government activities. The Obama administration is every bit as culpable for violations of our freedom and killing of innocents overseas as Bush was. Just accept this fact.
Click to expand...

How is it worse?

What is currently happening is different in that they are not listening to the calls and they are getting warrants for the information or getting it voluntarily from a 3rd party.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I find it ridiculously amusing that for all the whining that the libs did about this 'surveillance' during the Bush years, that now they are ready to string snowden up as a traitor. partisanship at it's finest.
Click to expand...

if he restricts himself to outing the surveillance that is one thing, if he carries out his threat to out other secret material and intelligence personnel, that is another

he strikes me more as a child that has gotten in over his head
 
He is clearly a traitor to our Government.... If he is a traitor to the American people, or the American rule of law... I'm not sure yet.
 
Jarod said:
He is clearly a traitor to our Government.... If he is a traitor to the American people, or the American rule of law... I'm not sure yet.
Click to expand...

yet. if he restricts himself to what he has done so far, i am on his side.

repeal the usa patriot act!

also, why does the government need the phone records of all users rather than just calls to foreign nations or known criminals/terrorists.
 
Jarod said:
Damocles, I have explained some very significant differences, you have not acknowledged that they exist. I am personally uncomfortable with the Program as it stands under President Obama, but what Bush was doing was on a different level and much worse in my opinion. What Bush was doing was illegal, from what I know about the Program under Obama... its legal, personally objectionable, but made to be legal.
Click to expand...

It was not illegal during Bush's tenure to ask for information from those companies, that's silly. The companies would not give it because they knew they would be sued by their customers once it was known the depth of information being gathered. Therefore laws were passed as part of the Patriot Act that exempted those companies from lawsuits over this information so they could be reassured that giving the information the government asked for would not put them at risk for litigation. This did not address the fundamental issue, that the customers would want redress for the unconstitutional information grab that ignored their 4th Amendment right.


The Current program is not listening into calls, and from what I can tell... in all cases the Administration either got a warrant, or was given the information voluntarily by a third party.
Click to expand...

This assumes that the official story being presented to you by the agencies under scrutiny and the government is real and true, to ignore any other source of information because it is not the official government story seems relevant only to those who are champions of the Blue Jersey... If such is the case then Snowden has broken no laws as the only thing "outted" by Snowden is information that was made public in 2006 when the laws were changed to ensure the companies that would give the information could not be sued.

The reality is, if it were Bush in office, you and Desh would be presenting hernias of "this is bad" posts, and would have me with you. If you believe the official story, the only thing that changed is that you can't sue the companies for giving away your information. It didn't make it better.
 
I love it when Damocles loses an argument in one thread and then continues his same old bullshit in another thread a week later as if the earlier discussion never happened.

This is what the Bush Administration was doing, Damo:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."

Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.
Click to expand...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


And, yes, what the government was doing was illegal and the telecoms that cooperated were granted retroactive immunity in 2008 (Obama voted in favor) as part of the FISA Reauthorization bill. It was retroactive because the telecoms did cooperate notwthstanding the illegality. What also passed at the time were laws that made the formerly illegal sureveillance perfectly legal. So when it is done today, it is within the scope of the laws passed by Congress whereas what the government was doing under Bush was quite illegal.

Also, too, the Protect Ameica Act of 2007 legalized much of the formerly illegal conduct of the government, including the dragnet surveillance on phone records.
 
Dungheap said:
I love it when Damocles loses an argument in one thread and then continues his same old bullshit in another thread a week later as if the earlier discussion never happened.

This is what the Bush Administration was doing, Damo:




http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


And, yes, what the government was doing was illegal and the telecoms that cooperated were granted retroactive immunity in 2008 (Obama voted in favor) as part of the FISA Reauthorization bill. It was retroactive because the telecoms did cooperate notwthstanding the illegality. What also passed at the time were laws that made the formerly illegal sureveillance perfectly legal. So when it is done today, it is within the scope of the laws passed by Congress whereas what the government was doing under Bush was quite illegal.

Also, too, the Protect Ameica Act of 2007 legalized much of the formerly illegal conduct of the government, including the dragnet surveillance on phone records.
Click to expand...

Actually we're holding two different conversations, and I had to actually work so I couldn't continue with what we were talking about back then.

And again, it is not illegal to ask for information from a company, any more than it is to simply ask for information from an individual...

And not all of the companies cooperated with the government, which gave cause for them to change the law and give protections for lawsuits removing the objection those who were not cooperating had, that they did it retroactively to protect the ones that previously did cooperate doesn't change that it was done, nor does it change the reason why. Companies that were not cooperating did not because they knew they would be sued.

And again, if you only believe what the current Administration feeds you, it is at the very least the same thing you and I agreed was bad in 2006 but suddenly is okay to you in 2013. The main difference that causes our sudden disagreement.... The color of the jersey.
 
Damocles said:
Actually we're holding two different conversations.

And not all of the companies cooperated with the government, which gave cause for them to change the law and give protections for lawsuits, that they did it retroactively to protect the ones that did cooperate doesn't change that it was done.
Click to expand...

Name a company that refused to comply.


Damocles said:
And again, if you only believe what the current Administration feeds you, it is at the very least the same thing you and I agreed was bad in 2006 but suddenly is okay to you in 2013. The main difference that causes our sudden disagreement.... The color of the jersey.
Click to expand...

Uh, quote me saying its OK. Our only disagreement is whether Obama is doing anything different from Bush and whether Obama doing (legal) things and Bush did (illegally) is "worse."
 
Damocles said:
It was not illegal during Bush's tenure to ask for information from those companies, that's silly. The companies would not give it because they knew they would be sued by their customers once it was known the depth of information being gathered. Therefore laws were passed as part of the Patriot Act that exempted those companies from lawsuits over this information so they could be reassured that giving the information the government asked for would not put them at risk for litigation. This did not address the fundamental issue, that the customers would want redress for the unconstitutional information grab that ignored their 4th Amendment right.




This assumes that the official story being presented to you by the agencies under scrutiny and the government is real and true, to ignore any other source of information because it is not the official government story seems relevant only to those who are champions of the Blue Jersey... If such is the case then Snowden has broken no laws as the only thing "outted" by Snowden is information that was made public in 2006 when the laws were changed to ensure the companies that would give the information could not be sued.

The reality is, if it were Bush in office, you and Desh would be presenting hernias of "this is bad" posts, and would have me with you. If you believe the official story, the only thing that changed is that you can't sue the companies for giving away your information. It didn't make it better.
Click to expand...

if it was public and legal, then why is snowden in hiding?
 
Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein, and King, the better off we all are.

If they had taught a class on how to be the kind of citizen Dick Cheney worries about, I would have finished high school.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top