- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
- Messages
- 7,017
- Reaction score
- 2,980
- Location
- The greatest planet in the world.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Deductive reasoning.How we would know unless someone was brave enough to blow the whistle?
Manning stole classified documents and disseminated them illegally. Nothing about that is debatable.From what I understand neither Manning or Snowden released any information that couldn't already be found on the internet or that terrorists didn't already know.
Deductive reasoning.
Manning stole classified documents and disseminated them illegally. Nothing about that is debatable.
how do these instances differ from the disclosure of the pentagon papers?
You're right, that is the problem with most people. However, I teach classified applied math to our military and know how infosec works.
When you take a position requiring trust and break that trust, the consequences should be proportional to the degree of trust that was given. For example, cops breaking the law should receive harsher sentences than civilians. Moreover, an intentional breach is the worst kind. This wasn't like a slip of the tongue. In particular, releasing secrets for enemies is about as unpatriotic as it gets. Lastly, I find life sentences to prison pointless, so just kill him and get it over with.
Are you familiar with "the public trust"? What should happen to those that break the trust given politicians by consent of the people?
Daniel Ellsberg wasn't a member of the Uniformed Services, nor was he ever a member of the CIA.
We've all had a time when daddy had to give you the reason "because I said so", e.g. when you were a little boy asking why you couldn't watch the Playboy channel. Do you have any idea what percentage of the public has no clue about infosec and national security?
but did he not disclose classified information
and share with us how the court ruled, whether his disclosures should be found lawful or not
Was he under UCMJ, or the very strict nondisclosure policies of the NSA?
You're right, that is the problem with most people. However, I teach classified applied math to our military and know how infosec works.
When you take a position requiring trust and break that trust, the consequences should be proportional to the degree of trust that was given. For example, cops breaking the law should receive harsher sentences than civilians. Moreover, an intentional breach is the worst kind. This wasn't like a slip of the tongue. In particular, releasing secrets for enemies is about as unpatriotic as it gets. Lastly, I find life sentences to prison pointless, so just kill him and get it over with.
then your position is that if he had been bound by such provisions he would have been found other than a legal whistleblower?
Is Snowden a patriot for leaking that the NSA was tapping thousands of phone calls without warrants?
You heard it here. The American people are the enemy.
Manning was also found guilty of "wrongfully and wantonly" causing to be published on the internet intelligence belonging to the US, "having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accesible to the enemy". That guilty ruling could still have widest ramifications for news organisations working on investigations relating to US national security.
I'm not an expert on American constitutional law, but I'm pretty sure that the US Constitution guarantees the civil right on privacy of correspondence, like all other constitutions of other civilized nations too.
So the US government violated the Constitution. Snowden is a true patriot for making that known.
Because a true patriot places the Constitution and the people's rights above the current government, and above a party and above a President. That's patriotism.
It doesn't matter what contract Snowden had signed. If that contract was against the Constitution, it was as illegal as it gets in the first place.
The crux of your argument is that the surveillance program is unconstitutional. But until something is found unconstitutional, or a similar law was found unconstitutional, we can consider it to be constitutional.
This law has not been found unconstitutional. A lawsuit against the NSA by the Center for Constitutional Rights was dismissed by the 9th Circuit of Appeals, and they're requesting reconsideration. We'll see how that goes. Maybe they'll decide it is unconstitutional, but it doesn't appear likely.
If wiretapping ALL people at random is not unconstitutional, your Constitution is worth ****.
Please, read more about what the NSA actually does before making impulsive statements. The NSA tracks metadata. Not conversations, and it's certainly not a wiretap program, but they track who you talk to, and how often you talk to them.
A physical example would be for them to see you at a park talking to different people and making a note of that. They don't know what's being said, only that the two people are talking. Its important to note, at this stage, they don't even know who you are. But, if they decide you are a person of interest, they submit a request for a warrant to look into who you are, and, if they are interested in you, they seek permission for a wiretap.
The courts have decided metadata is public information, that decision has been appealed and is heading to the Supreme Court, and we'll see what they say, which will most likely affirm the lower court's decision. I can provide the case name and briefing is requested.
I'm German, citizen of a very close ally of the US, and of a democratic republic. Snowden has made public that the NSA listened to millions of phone conversations in Germany, as well as tracking every bit of information posted online, including emails, not just of Germans, but of American citizens too.
If that's not unconstitutional, your Constitution is worth a flying ****.
:roll:
Snowden made public information that may be used to track terrorists by examining metadata. If they know this, they can change the pattern by which they communicate. Snowden's leak allows them to more confidently secure their communications against monitoring by the NSA. That's the logic for the argument that he helped Al Qaeda.
This ties in very interestingly to Manning's case, and the verdict is, to me, a bit contradictory and I'm not sure what to make of it.
The ruling found Manning innocent of aiding the enemy. But at the same time, he was found guilty under the Espionage Act, therefore making leaking to the press an illegal act.
Additionally, this fascinating tid-bit was included, which would apply to this discussion.
By that fact, I suppose, it seems Snowden would not be happy with the verdict.
I'm pretty sure that terrorists know that their typical communication can easily be tapped. Revealing universal wiretapping is a serious offense and is in no way useful to stopping terrorism. Anytime these administrations get caught doing this stuff they always scream terrorism. It's a scam.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?