Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
whether you agree with the searches, or not...whether you 'think' they are legal or illegal...it was NOT SNOWDENS JOB to VIOLATE his oath and conditions of employment.... he is therefore a traitor
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.
Whaddaya think? Were the Founding Fathers clear enough on the matter?
Still trying to figure out why you would care if the government knows who you called? FYI: they are not listening to the actual calls just monitoring who is calling who to identify those that might have terrorist ties in an effort to thwart possible attacks on US Citizens. Funny how the government is evil and going to far until something does happen then every one screams that the government did not do enough, if one cannot please everyone then the best course of action is to do the right thing for the Nation, in this case I am fine with their actions.
Snowden is a Traitor and if caught should either be locked up for life or taken out and hung, he took an oath and if he could not bring himself to keep it he should have found work elsewhere.
You sound like you work for the NSA. Do you think its great that people who took an oath to Hitler kept it no matter what? I suppose that Von Stauffenberg was a traitor.
Snowden should have a statue on the mall in Washington. He's the modern day equivalent to Paul Revere.
Because he is career military, and apparently it is more important to him to follow orders than it is to consider the bigger issues.
Hey I get it. In the military one cannot be questioning every order, especially on a battlefield. But Snowden wasnt on a battlefield. Except maybe the battlefield for the soul of America.
Got a short story to tell. A couple of 4th of July's ago, the one after the controversy broke, there was an entry in our little 4th of July parade. One of our townspeople painted up his van with slogans critical of the NSA and the administration. (wish I had the chops to publish one of the photos I took of that van) Well, one of the papers published a letter from a vet who proclaimed that such a float should not have been permitted to enter the parade because it was unamerican, unpatriotic, and an insult to the people of this country. Needless to say, I and others of like mind had letters published in the paper reminding the high and mighty one that there was no more appropriate place for the expression of first amendment rights than our Independence Day parade.
workingclasshero, God bless you for your service, but just because you are a vet does not mean your's is the only opinion that matters. Several of us have pointed out the protect and defend clauses of those oaths you hold so dear and you refuse to engage on that issue, instead repeating incessantly your opinion that Snowden is a traitor. Our government has been spying on us citizens without proper oversight, and even without congressional authorization. That's not how it works here. That's not how it works in a free society. That's not how it works under the constitution. I love my country too, as do most people I run across, live or internet. I have no doubt Snowden loves Ameerica too. Enough so that he has given up everything in order to reveal the blatant disregard that the NSA and he Administration have for our rights as citizens under the constitution.
Amendment IV
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.
Whaddaya think? Were the Founding Fathers clear enough on the matter?
1. its not about ..not questioning orders...its about what is your OATH...
2. we take an oath to UPHOLD the orders of those appointed above us....and these 'wiretaps' were ORDERED by 3 POTUS's and their attorney general, and their chiefs of NATIONAL SECURITY
the initial start of them:
Clinton Administration Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick: "(T)he Department Of Justice Believes, And The Case Law Supports, That The President Has Inherent Authority To Conduct Warrantless Physical Searches and wiretaps For Foreign Intelligence Purposes And That The President May, As Has Been Done, Delegate This Authority To The Attorney General." (Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. House Of Representatives, Testimony, 7/14/94)
I even said here that I belive these wiretaps go outside of the constitution: Clinton, Gore & Company, who constituted the most wiretap-friendly administration in U.S. history, essentially sought to eliminate the requirement of a warrant for searches from the Fourth Amendment.
President Bill Clinton claimed to possess "inherent authority to conduct warrant-less searches for foreign intelligence purposes." .,...... The Justice Department backed warrant-less (indeed, suspicion-less) drug tests for high-school athletes. ........ The administration requested greater FBI authority to conduct "roving wiretaps," without a court order.
In the same way, Clinton-Gore officials pushed the Communications Assistance Act, which required telephone companies to retrofit their systems to ease police surveillance, supported restrictions on the sale of Internet encryption technology, and requested legislation forcing firms to give the government the "keys" to such technology. (research the clipper chip)
3. snowden took a job and was granted a security clearance by his country (cia, nsa, fba or what ever alphabet entity you with to name)... his JOB was to analyze situations and intell...not STEAL it
whether you agree with the searches, or not...whether you 'think' they are legal or illegal...it was NOT SNOWDENS JOB to VIOLATE his oath and conditions of employment.... he is therefore a traitor
The criminal charges against Snowden ..cited 18 U.S.C. 641 Theft of Government Property, ....18 U.S.C. 793(d) Unauthorized Communication of National Defense Information, and 18 U.S.C. 798(a)(3) Willful Communication of Classified Intelligence Information to an Unauthorized Person; .......
the second and third charges fall under the Espionage Act for “giving national defense information to someone without a security clearance and revealing classified information about communications intelligence,”
according to 18 U.S.C. § 798, “Whoever knowingly and willfully furnishes, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States any classified information” is guilty of espionage."........ It is beyond comprehension that Snowden did not know he was “knowingly and willfully” making available classified information or he would not have went into hiding
U.S. Code is quite clear .....Snowden did, indeed, break the law as well as abuse his security clearance....(((( According to top intelligence officials’ report, the NSA programs Snowden exposed to the world “helped foil more than 50 terrorist plots since Sept. 11, including one to blow up the New York Stock Exchange” ))))...so he aided the enemy.......hurt the USA in our fight against these extremist terrorists
Snowden broke his covenant with the government when he knowingly revealed sensitive information to “unauthorized persons”
a criminal violating three U.S. Code statutes is certainly not what I would call a hero
Webster's definition of traitor:: a person who is not loyal to his or her own country, friends, etc. : a person who betrays a country or group of people by helping or supporting an enemy
4. these wiretaps have been going on for 20 years....and ONLY NOW has ONE judge said its unconstitutional
President Obama's Justice Department has adopted a legal stance identical to, if not more aggressive than, the previous POTUS versions. The Obama Admin argues that the court-forced disclosure of the surveillance programs would cause "exceptional harm to national security" by exposing intelligence sources and methods.
----------------------
I am NOT defending the wiretaps....I am stating that snowden is a traitor, and violated the law, and committed espionage
1. its not about ..not questioning orders...its about what is your OATH...
2. we take an oath to UPHOLD the orders of those appointed above us....and these 'wiretaps' were ORDERED by 3 POTUS's and their attorney general, and their chiefs of NATIONAL SECURITY
but they WERE constitutional when he was working there..... the ONE JUDGE just NOW said these wiretaps are unconstitutional....and the CURRENT potus is ARGUING against the ONE JUDGES ruling
but they WERE constitutional when he was working there..... the ONE JUDGE just NOW said these wiretaps are unconstitutional....and the CURRENT potus is ARGUING against the ONE JUDGES ruling
They were never constitutional. They never make the courts if no one could ever expose them. When history is written many years from now, Snowden will be held in a much higher regard than Obama or Bush here.
They were never constitutional. They never make the courts if no one could ever expose them. When history is written many years from now, Snowden will be held in a much higher regard than Obama or Bush here.
Agreed. The biggest issue when people have tried suing the government over the spying programs which trash the 4th amendment is legal standing. Snowden has helped changed that, irony is the politicians say this is important to be discussed yet the person who started it (Snowden) must be hunted down.
If we are going to argue oaths then I would say if we jail Snowden, throw in Clapper, Alexander, and others who have lied under oath in front of congress about the NSA programs.
You sound like you work for the NSA. Do you think its great that people who took an oath to Hitler kept it no matter what? I suppose that Von Stauffenberg was a traitor.
Snowden should have a statue on the mall in Washington. He's the modern day equivalent to Paul Revere.
Nope but do have ties to the DOD and Military, I believe in using the tools available to fight terror, you obviously do not, well until an attack hits your home town.
They were never constitutional. They never make the courts if no one could ever expose them. When history is written many years from now, Snowden will be held in a much higher regard than Obama or Bush here.
actually they were never UNconstitutional until recently when A NON FEDERAL supreme court judge made a ruling
infact the federal supreme court has REFUSED to hear it, about the current NSA wiretaps
but the supreme court DID rule many times to the constitutionality of
The Supreme Court first considered the constitutionality of wiretapping in the 1928 case of Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928). The Court ruled that governmental wiretapping of telephone conversations fell outside the protection of the Fourth Amendment.
--------------------------
in the 1952 case of On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747 (1952). In On Lee, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the government's use of a wired informant to record his statements. Chin Poy, a friend and former employee of On Lee, went to On Lee's laundry shop secretly wired for sound with a small microphone inside his coat pocket. A federal officer stationed outside the laundry intercepted the conversation between On Lee and Chin Poy. Several days later, the same officer monitored another conversation between On Lee and Chin Poy. During both conversations, On Lee made incriminating statements.
The Court ruled that the government's conduct did not violate On Lee's Fourth Amendment rights
--------------------------
In a trio of cases in the mid-1960s, the Court refused to impose constitutional restrictions on the government's power to employ informants to monitor and record private conversations. In Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427 (1963), the defendant appealed his conviction for the attempted bribery of an Internal Revenue agent who had visited Lopez's business to inquire about the payment of excise taxes. During this visit, Lopez offered the agent a bribe. Several days later, the agent returned to the office secretly equipped with a pocket tape recorder. Pretending to go along with the bribery scheme, the agent recorded his conversation with Lopez, who again made incriminating statements. At trial, the agent's testimony about the bribery conversation and the tape recording of the second conversation were both admitted into evidence.
The Court ruled that Lopez's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.
-------------------------------------
–Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)– The Court asserted that the Fourth Amendment did not grant a "general right of privacy." The amendment "protects individual privacy against certain kinds of governmental intrusion, but its protections go further, and often have nothing to do with privacy at all." The Court explained that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.
-------------------------------
1971 the Court decided United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971), whose facts closely mirrored those of On Lee. At issue in White was whether the testimony of federal officers about conversations between the defendant and a government informant, which were overheard by the officers monitoring the frequency of a radio transmitter carried by the informant, implicated the Fourth Amendment. The Court ruled this form of surreptitious electronic eavesdropping was still permissible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
