Anyone else watch the Snowden interview on NBC?

[Nick1911]

Was it illegal .
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/19/court-order-that-allowed-nsa-surveillance-is-revealed-for-first-time

Ahh, a country run by secret court orders.  Who's to say anything is legal or illegal at this point?

This must be that transparency I keep hearing about.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Snowden is not safe, and never will be.  He's "put it all on the line" also.

If someone wanted him dead bad enough it would be a done deal.
He's not that important one way or the other. The info he stole is the only thing worth anything here


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[roo_ster]

AJ, I'm not forgetting that.  And unlike rev, I'm not going to/can't comment in detail.  I expressed an opinion, an opinion formed by my experiences and activities.
Too many people haven't dug into this enough to form an educated opinion as to what was being done, and are drawing conclusions based on limited data. 

Most of the points raised could be solved by CHANGING THE *expletive deleted* LAWS.
What snowden did is quite literally the same as "I don't like the law, and I don't think the law is unconstitutional, therefore I'm going to break it, and damn the damage it causes".

What YOU are forgetting is everything he revealed was -technically- legal.  ESPECIALLY the extraterritorial aspects.  Thus, CHANGE THE DAMN LAW if you don't like it.

However, he IS responsible for breaking it.  If you want to commit civil disobedience, fine.  But accept the consequences.

The executive branch and those who join it and take oaths are required to do the right thing by the COTUS.  Even if Congress passed it or another executive agency regulated it so.  Matter of fact, ALL branches are required to do right by the COTUS. 

What is supposed to be a check on the power of fed.gov is that any one of the three can say, "Nope, not constitutional" and either:
1. Rule it unconstitutional/throw out of court the enforcement thereof (judicial).
2. Pass a law against it or refuse to pass a law endorsing it (legislative).
3. Refuse to enforce it (executive).

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Do notice that the COTUS comes first.

Of course, I see youtube video of newly-minted federal workers taking the oath and being unable to hide their mirth by laughing and yukking it up in the middle of their oaths.

[birdman]

Deleted, because F this.

[birdman]

The executive branch and those who join it and take oaths are required to do the right thing by the COTUS.  Even if Congress passed it or another executive agency regulated it so.  Matter of fact, ALL branches are required to do right by the COTUS.  

What is supposed to be a check on the power of fed.gov is that any one of the three can say, "Nope, not constitutional" and either:
1. Rule it unconstitutional/throw out of court the enforcement thereof (judicial).
2. Pass a law against it or refuse to pass a law endorsing it (legislative).
3. Refuse to enforce it (executive).

Do notice that the COTUS comes first.

Of course, I see youtube video of newly-minted federal workers taking the oath and being unable to hide their mirth by laughing and yukking it up in the middle of their oaths.

Deleted, because screw you.

[Balog]

There is a saying in this area though...those who say they know things, don't know *expletive deleted*.

That's an amusing quote, given how often you lecture us on your superior knowledge of the area, and how we should all shut up and accept whatever you say because of your sooper sekrit access.

Did you ever stop to think about why my posts in these snowden threads are completely different than my posts in ALL other threads on this board that may have even the most minor technical content?  Or are you all that *expletive deleted* stupid?

From what I've observed, they're actually pretty consistent. Anytime someone dares to disagree with you or say something negative about a group you are a part of, you lose your bearing and start calling people stupid. So, par for the course really.

[birdman]

That's an amusing quote, given how often you lecture us on your superior knowledge of the area, and how we should all shut up and accept whatever you say because of your sooper sekrit access.

From what I've observed, they're actually pretty consistent. Anytime someone dares to disagree with you or say something negative about a group you are a part of, you lose your *expletive deleted* and start calling people stupid. So, par for the course really.

Yes, that's exactly the situation.
Screw you.

[Balog]

Yes, that's exactly the situation.
Screw you.

You're not really disproving my point.

[birdman]

You're not really disproving my point.

I am not trying to, nor do I believe it to be possible.
PS, screw you,

[Balog]

Oh dear, if I'd have known he was going to take his ball and go home I'd have quoted the whole thing.

I am not trying to, nor do I believe it to be possible.
PS, screw you,

 

[birdman]

Oh dear, if I'd have known he was going to take his ball and go home I'd have quoted the whole thing.

 

Awww, you should have.  After all, you are perfect in every way, and a beautiful little snowflake.

Is that your job here?  Be the opinion police? 

[Balog]

Awww, you should have.  After all, you are perfect in every way, and a beautiful little snowflake.

Is that your job here?  Be the opinion police? 

What are you even talking about? We don't agree with you, so you call us stupid, and then act as though us not agreeing with you makes us rude?

[birdman]

What are you even talking about? We don't agree with you, so you call us stupid, and then act as though us not agreeing with you makes us rude?

I wasn't looking for agreement, I was looking for even the smallest crack in the homogenous opinion that snowden was right.  Given how you all (you in particular) latch on to every little crack in the MSMs portrayal of certain things as signs of bias, one would think you wouldn't be so quick to form an opinion, given that OBVIOUSLY he didn't reveal EVERYTHING, you (nor I for that matter) have access to all the information.

Also, my opinion that the revealing extraterritorial parts ARE treason you met with a load of feel-good drivel about how the governments of those countries should have been informed? A s their citizens don't deserve to be spied on?  Now that IS stupid.  Do you expect all the countries that spy on us (including our western allies) to inform us?  That's retarded.

Personally, I don't care WITH RESPECT TO HIM BEING A TRAITOR whether the domestic stuff was right or wrong, I do care that he publically revealed stuff that has ZERO to do with US citizens, and for that, HE IS A GODDAMN TRAITOR.

Put it this way.
Let's say he didn't reveal the domestic stuff at all, or it didn't exist in the first place, and the extent of what he revealed was the extraterritorial stuff?  Would he be a traitor then?
If you don't think so, then that is the equivalent of donating a million dollars to charity, then shooting an innocent person, and expecting to not be charged for the shooting because the other stuff you did was good.

Do you get it now?

[Balog]

First, you're conflating things I said with things AJ Dual said.

Second, the extra-territorial stuff is intricately tied into the domestic stuff. I don't see how one could be revealed without the other. Do you?

You made the claim that he could have revealed the domestic stuff through appropriate channels. Do you believe that the information would have made it to the public, or that meaningful reform would have happened if he had done that?

I think the fact that he didn't reveal everything is the best mark in his favor.

I wasn't looking for agreement, I was looking for even the smallest crack in the homogenous opinion that snowden was right.  Given how you all (you in particular) latch on to every little crack in the MSMs portrayal of certain things as signs of bias, one would think you wouldn't be so quick to form an opinion, given that OBVIOUSLY he didn't reveal EVERYTHING, you (nor I for that matter) have access to all the information.

Also, my opinion that the revealing extraterritorial parts ARE treason you met with a load of feel-good drivel about how the governments of those countries should have been informed? A s their citizens don't deserve to be spied on?  Now that IS stupid.  Do you expect all the countries that spy on us (including our western allies) to inform us?  That's retarded.

Personally, I don't care WITH RESPECT TO HIM BEING A TRAITOR whether the domestic stuff was right or wrong, I do care that he publically revealed stuff that has ZERO to do with US citizens, and for that, HE IS A GODDAMN TRAITOR.

Put it this way.
Let's say he didn't reveal the domestic stuff at all, or it didn't exist in the first place, and the extent of what he revealed was the extraterritorial stuff?  Would he be a traitor then?
If you don't think so, then that is the equivalent of donating a million dollars to charity, then shooting an innocent person, and expecting to not be charged for the shooting because the other stuff you did was good.

Do you get it now?

[Nick1911]

It appears this thread has gone beyond the realm of civil discourse.