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.
You are correct, however divulging classified information that shows illegal, unconstitutional and obviously unethical practices supersedes the classified restriction.
This is a woeful breach of 4th amendment rights, which needs to be brought to light. Labeling something classified to avoid any and all scrutiny and legal challenges is right from the playbook of fascism.
Whether it be Snowden or Wikileaks, these people were given a Top Secret Clearance and entrusted with classified information. Their decision to go public and become "super heroes" and then taking off so they won't suffer the consequences of their actions, indicates to me they are cowards interested in their own fame, not the American people as they claim. Thanks to these idiots, and many like them in the past and present, our troops and national security is at stake. One has to wonder what other "secrets" he gave to foreign governments.
Whether it was done for his own 'fame' or the true benefit of the normal populous of citizens doesn't really matter, because it should have been known to the general public and debated.
The logic you have is completely baffling to me. You isolate the "entrusting" term to only the people far down the line of power. Whoever deemed this entire project lawful, classified and only accessible to a handful of people is where the "entrusting" of officials went deeply unconstitutional and unethical in its scope.
Substitute the digital act of discretely thumbing through your digital life, with the physical equivalent. Imagine if everyday when you made phone calls or emails, you had an official that you had to hand your phone to, or let sit at your computer desk and back-check your previous usage.
This is so patently wrong, and I have to say this was so obvious to the 'conspiracy crowd' which has now officially moved from 'conspiracy' to 'fact'.
I'd bet he was long gone before the video and interview appeared over the weekend. He was CIA and knows how they work. Probably has many contacts around the world.
Actually, I've never been told that and I've had multiple clearances (previously secret now TS), at least "sloppy handling" does not explicitly carry this penalty IIRC. My interviewer was a pretty cool cucumber and not such a weirded out control freak. Guess it depends on whom interviews you. Also, in my field candidates are very hard to come by so they have to be careful with how threatening they are or they would lose out on the very limited talent pool.
My "interviewers" were CPOs from NavSecGru back around 1970. Might be another organization these days. It's been awhile.
Come on people quit arguing about Dem did that Repub did this. It's not about that anymore hasn't been about that in a long time. This shows both parties are seriously screwed up and screwing you over. Both are guilty. Now what?
Agreed that's why as a conservative I support the Obama's administration extension of this program started under Bush.
And under this new provisions all business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, or educational records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the library. This is an enormous expansion of authority, under a law that provides only minimal judicial supervision.
Under this provision, the government can apparently go on a fishing expedition and collect information on virtually anyone. All it has to allege in order to get an order for these records from the court is that the information is sought for an investigation of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence gathering. That’s it. On that minimal showing in an ex parte application to a secret court, with no showing even that the information is relevant to the investigation, the government can lawfully compel a doctor or hospital to release medical records, or a library to release circulation records. This is a truly breathtaking expansion of police power.
There is a process to changing the law. Before this court was created in the 1970s the government was opening our letters and reading our mail, and there was no one to stop it. So this court was created so we would have someone to review and authorize government surveillence actions, but since 911, this court has rubber stamped every request that arrives on their desk.
You can't change something you don't know is happening.
As far as I'm concerned big central governments are a barbaric relic of the past. Get rid of them. They've slaughtered more people in the past century than any terrorists or common criminals could.
"In the secret FISC court, the government doesn’t need to establish probable cause to get a warrant or court order, and it has a lower burden of proof than usually required by the Fourth Amendment."
Here is a little something for the sheep to ponder on.
I can't help but wonder what the framers of the Constitution and fourth amendment would think about "secret courts" and "lower burdens of proof"?
It is time to impeach and remove from office every federal judge in existence. They have perverted justice by all measure.
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.
