- Joined
- Jul 27, 2014
- Messages
- 17,226
- Reaction score
- 6,895
- Location
- Mountains
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, no, I'm pretty sure Kal'Stang from www.debatepolitics.com isn't the decision-maker on what's legal and what's not. I think that's actually the courts? In this case the court that actually deals with these things...called the FISA court, actually! How about that! They were given the responsibility of deciding what was legal and what was not and they made those determinations. You just don't like it. That's fine, but you don't get to tell anyone what's legal and what's not. You know that, right? You're not a sheriff out in a Wild West mining town or something, deciding what's legal and what's not based upon your personal preferences...you know that, right?
Okay thank you for your crazy hyperbole. Sorry that what you wish was illegal was not. I again encourage you to write a letter or call in to a talk show.
Ya know, that would be fine if several people here didn't insist that what NSA does is ILLEGAL. Not that they think it should be illegal, but that it it IS. I'm sorry, but that's factually incorrect and what you're seeing is my response to one of them after ample opportunity to correct themselves was given.Just thought I would point out some crazy hyperbole. The "hahahahahahahaha" thing really adds validity to whole post.
It is called debate for a reason. We all have different ideas, thoughts and opinions. Whether it is illegal or not isn't the point. I think the point is that some people disagree. If we are just supposed to agree with you because of what you think is illegal or not then I apologize and will never disagree with you again.
Just thought I would point out some crazy hyperbole. The "hahahahahahahaha" thing really adds validity to whole post.
It is called debate for a reason. We all have different ideas, thoughts and opinions. Whether it is illegal or not isn't the point. I think the point is that some people disagree. If we are just supposed to agree with you because of what you think is illegal or not then I apologize and will never disagree with you again.
I'm sure that you'll be able to provide that ruling then won't you?
To believe that, you have to ignore that he's still in Russia because we made it impossible for him to leave.
He spent a month in the Russian airport. We rescinded his passport.
So if he's cooperating with Putin, and there is no evidence he is
then it's the intelligence community's fault in large part by giving him no other option to avoid what could be a lifetime in solitary confinement in a SuperMax prison. He saw what happened to Manning - he could expect worse treatment.
Smith v Maryland. An individual customer of a telephone company has no right to privacy with regards to the data that the telephone company gathers about its customers’ use of their service, such as the numbers that they connect to.
I don't think that's true,
and the major point is we should be made aware when the secret court issues a secret ruling saying all our data can be vacuumed up under the legal theory that once we hand it over to a private party, our 'expectation' of privacy from then on is ZERO. My "expectation" of privacy wasn't zero. I didn't expect Google or Yahoo to hand over my emails to NSA or for Verizon to let NSA know who and when and where of all my calls.
Now that we KNOW that, we can have a national debate about the privacy of our data. Federal laws make disclosing medical information illegal in most cases. Well, maybe we need federal laws about when it's OK to funnel all the email traffic into an NSA server in Utah. That would be nice.....
That's not the choice
The FISA court granted warrants for that kind of thing, same way courts have granted warrants for other surveillance for hundreds of years. The question is whether the NSA can vacuum up ALL gmail and then use all kinds of means to search through your email and mine for evidence of wrongdoing.
That is the phone company and the phone companies personal use business. We signed agreements with the company which gave them the access. We did not sign such an agreement with the government/NSA. Try again.
That is incorrect - he almost certainly is. The manner and timing of this guys' periodic re-entry's into the news are beneficial to Russian foreign policy out of mere coincidence.
So, Rosa Parks: criminal who eroded the rule if law and the very fabric of our democracy, in your eyes.
"Almost"? So you don't actually know if he is or not
You are just assuming
With people like you around ready to convict without any evidence what so ever its no wonder Snowden ran.
Straw man argument: notice of search warrants are not given to the suspect until the search is about to commence.
No, she was a trained protester who pulled off a very difficult and well-aimed IO campaign. The trick with Civil Disobedience is that you have to be willing to suffer the consequences of breaking the law in order to retain your moral position. Else you are just a criminal with something that every other criminal has - an excuse.
Strawmen don't make the wild-eyed pro-espionage partisans look any less crazy, gonzo.
No, she was a trained protester who pulled off a very difficult and well-aimed IO campaign. The trick with Civil Disobedience is that you have to be willing to suffer the consequences of breaking the law in order to retain your moral position. Else you are just a criminal with something that every other criminal has - an excuse.
Strawmen don't make the wild-eyed pro-espionage partisans look any less crazy, gonzo.
we don't tell Mullah Omar McJihad that we are watching his phone at all, much less prior to doing so.
I gave it to NSA. Actually I gave them full scope for the spring and summer if 2013, a waiver signed and everything- much more that you ever have.Once again the defenders of the NSAs metadata collection program are invited to post their phone bills online to prove that it isn't private information.
Sad people can't come out and just flat admit what the law currently is. Says a lot about where they're arguing from n
With absolute certainty? :lol: man, I don't have absolute certainty you are even a human being, and not some kind of DebateBot under development from google.
If the best you can reach for is that it is technically possible that he isn't - even if it is overwhelmingly probable that he is.... well, I accept that position.
No, I am assessing based off of the available evidence.
:lol: yeah. Because I would have been on the jury.
Snowden ran because he was guilty :shrug: it's pretty hard to deny 4 laptops full of stolen data.
Okay? Thousands of people have broken the law, what's your point? What's the the law right now? Can you say it?Rosa Parks broke the law.
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?