User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:26:27 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For fuck's sake - I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT SNOWDEN DID OR DIDN'T LEAK. The point is there was no real window of time here where the Russians or the Chinese had the information but we didn't realize it had been compromised. That is a much different scenario than the Russians or Chinese knowing about something, and us not knowing that they know. This is not a hard concept. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And what happens when you don't know it's even "compromised" in the first place? Do you not get that incredibly simple problem? I'm not asserting that there was any significant lag in discovery in the Snowden case in particular, I brought this distinction up to differentiate what Snowden did from what an actual and proficient spy might do. The point is that people can provide information to foreign enemies in lots of ways that are not easily detectable on our end. In fact, that's happened any number of times. Are you disputing that? If you very loudly and publicly "out" these things, then at least the U.S. government knows it's been taken and is out in the clear. If you quietly pass information to a foreign power in a manner that isn't detected, that is materially different. You either don't understand what Snowden actually stole/leaked, don't understand what value it had to its intended consumers (Russia, China), or just don't understand that there is more to clandestine intelligence collection than paying heavily debted tranny lovers to be resident agents inside the USI. For fuck's sake - I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT SNOWDEN DID OR DIDN'T LEAK. The point is there was no real window of time here where the Russians or the Chinese had the information but we didn't realize it had been compromised. That is a much different scenario than the Russians or Chinese knowing about something, and us not knowing that they know. This is not a hard concept. Really? What makes you so certain he wasn't leaking information long before he left to go home to mother Russia? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:35:54 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, basically, you can't back it up. Fine by me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Guardian published on June 5, 2013 with Snowden's information on the metadata program. ACLU v. Clapper, which is the case linked on the last page that ultimately held the program illegal (or, one of the cases anyway) was filed on June 11, 2013 in direct response and because there were enough hard facts to support it. If you go back farther, there was also the Jewel v. NSA case (filed in 2010??) where there were all kinds of standing issues and proof issues, and the government asserting state secrets privilege to try to get it dismissed. When Snowden came around, a lot of those hurdles were removed, although I don't think Jewel's case ultimately succeeded. But that's why the ACLU waited, they had a clean case with Snowden's detailed information. There was another case in DC (Klayman) that was also enabled directly by the detailed information that Snowden provided. The basic problem was that, pre-Snowden, the courts were saying, "well, you don't really have any direct evidence of how this is happening, nor standing because you have no evidence that your communications in particular were affected. The government would have to reveal sensitive secrets for you to fix those problems. So, beat it." The level of detail provided by Snowden removed those obstacles. Not buying it. This is all public info released, right? I want to read it. Then go read it. I gave you case names, dates, and all kinds of terms to look for. Google is right over there ----> So, basically, you can't back it up. Fine by me. No, you're just not willing to read. Also fine. It's not for everyone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:43:21 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, you're just not willing to read. Also fine. It's not for everyone. Hardly. You're the typical American. You're buying into the media bullshit. Keep lapping it up man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:46:13 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hardly. You're the typical American. You're buying into the media bullshit. Keep lapping it up man. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, you're just not willing to read. Also fine. It's not for everyone. Hardly. You're the typical American. You're buying into the media bullshit. Keep lapping it up man. So I point you to three specific cases (all of which I have read), explain the procedural issues with the pre-Snowden one, explain why having details about the programs (that Snowden revealed) fixes those issues ... and that makes me a media lapdog? Ok, sport. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:57:12 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That seems to be the prevailing opinion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If there was an organization that was dedicated to convincing naive and/or vulnerable American soldiers and intel personnel to steal data for the organization which would the selectively leak that which would further their agenda, what would you call it? FSB or Wikileaks? If it was Wikileaks, do you think that the FSB would make it a priority to infiltrate and support their activities? I always assumed wikileaks was just a front for the FSB. That seems to be the prevailing opinion. They would be fools NOT to infiltrate/partner with them. Wait.....who's "they" and who's "them"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:58:35 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How do you figure that? I've proposed hanging Snowden as long as we hang Clapper and his band of domestic spies, too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He's consistent in his inconsistent application of outrage. I wore out the moving goalpost gif in the other threads. How do you figure that? I've proposed hanging Snowden as long as we hang Clapper and his band of domestic spies, too. You need to read the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:59:37 PM EDT
[#7]
All I will say: I trust our government extremely little. Did the harm Snowden do outweigh him alerting us to our gov spying on us? I don't think so in my limited understanding of things. The gov should not be allowed to snoop on "us".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:02:41 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All I will say: I trust our government extremely little. Did the harm Snowden do outweigh him alerting us to our gov spying on us? I don't think so in my limited understanding of things. The gov should not be allowed to snoop on "us". I respect your opinion more than 99% of the posters here. I mean that. I've been in the sigint world for 14 years. He didn't alert us to anything that wasn't already known. I haven't seen any actual "evidence" he provided anywhere that helped us protect ourselves from the government. Is the government doing shit that is blatantly illegal? Absolutely. Do we need someone to provide intel to our adversaries to fix that? I don't think so. If the population at large cared enough to fix it, it would be fixed. The problem IMO, is that most of the population simply doesn't give a fuck. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:03:17 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You need to read the Constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He's consistent in his inconsistent application of outrage. I wore out the moving goalpost gif in the other threads. How do you figure that? I've proposed hanging Snowden as long as we hang Clapper and his band of domestic spies, too. You need to read the Constitution. You seem to have this baffling notion that "treason" - even if Snowden did fit the definition - is the only thing for which people can or should be hanged. High-level government officials who egregiously and systematically violate the Constitution and their oaths to it are worse than any traitor. There's no point in even worrying about damage from foreign enemies or what they are given by "traitors" if the people running the country aren't even following the most basic tenets of its founding document. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:05:55 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You seem to have this baffling notion that "treason" - even if Snowden did fit the definition - is the only thing for which people can or should be hanged. High-level government officials who egregiously and systematically violate the Constitution and their oaths to it are worse than any traitor. There's no point in even worrying about damage from foreign enemies or what they are given by "traitors" if the people running the country aren't even following the most basic tenets of its founding document. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He's consistent in his inconsistent application of outrage. I wore out the moving goalpost gif in the other threads. How do you figure that? I've proposed hanging Snowden as long as we hang Clapper and his band of domestic spies, too. You need to read the Constitution. You seem to have this baffling notion that "treason" - even if Snowden did fit the definition - is the only thing for which people can or should be hanged. High-level government officials who egregiously and systematically violate the Constitution and their oaths to it are worse than any traitor. There's no point in even worrying about damage from foreign enemies or what they are given by "traitors" if the people running the country aren't even following the most basic tenets of its founding document. Your words demonstrate a fundamental ignorance of the Constitution. Again, I recommend you read it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:07:18 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your words demonstrate a fundamental ignorance of the Constitution. Again, I recommend you read it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He's consistent in his inconsistent application of outrage. I wore out the moving goalpost gif in the other threads. How do you figure that? I've proposed hanging Snowden as long as we hang Clapper and his band of domestic spies, too. You need to read the Constitution. You seem to have this baffling notion that "treason" - even if Snowden did fit the definition - is the only thing for which people can or should be hanged. High-level government officials who egregiously and systematically violate the Constitution and their oaths to it are worse than any traitor. There's no point in even worrying about damage from foreign enemies or what they are given by "traitors" if the people running the country aren't even following the most basic tenets of its founding document. Your words demonstrate a fundamental ignorance of the Constitution. Again, I recommend you read it. Oh look, more vague and condescending BULLSHIT from our resident self-appointed warrior-scholar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:11:07 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh look, more vague and condescending BULLSHIT from our resident self-appointed warrior-scholar. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You seem to have this baffling notion that "treason" - even if Snowden did fit the definition - is the only thing for which people can or should be hanged. High-level government officials who egregiously and systematically violate the Constitution and their oaths to it are worse than any traitor. There's no point in even worrying about damage from foreign enemies or what they are given by "traitors" if the people running the country aren't even following the most basic tenets of its founding document. Your words demonstrate a fundamental ignorance of the Constitution. Again, I recommend you read it. Oh look, more vague and condescending BULLSHIT from our resident self-appointed warrior-scholar. You seem like a smart enough fella. I believe you have the ability to comprehend the written word. Therefore I MUST assume that you have never actually read the US Constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:13:22 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You seem like a smart enough fella. I believe you have the ability to comprehend the written word. Therefore I MUST assume that you have never actually read the US Constitution. Nope. Not me. Never ever. The whole 3 years in law school. Never heard of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:13:47 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh look, more vague and condescending BULLSHIT from our resident self-appointed warrior-scholar. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your words demonstrate a fundamental ignorance of the Constitution. Again, I recommend you read it. Oh look, more vague and condescending BULLSHIT from our resident self-appointed warrior-scholar. It's always fun when two people I generally don't agree with argue with each other. In this case, though, you sound mad, and I'm siding with Cincinnatus. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:14:49 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's always fun when two people I generally don't agree with argue with each other. In this case, though, you sound mad, and I'm siding with Cincinnatus. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your words demonstrate a fundamental ignorance of the Constitution. Again, I recommend you read it. Oh look, more vague and condescending BULLSHIT from our resident self-appointed warrior-scholar. It's always fun when two people I generally don't agree with argue with each other. In this case, though, you sound mad, and I'm siding with Cincinnatus. You have a lot of homework to be doing with those cases I told you about, and it's getting late. You might want to get started on those. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:15:02 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. Not me. Never ever. The whole 3 years in law school. Never heard of it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You seem like a smart enough fella. I believe you have the ability to comprehend the written word. Therefore I MUST assume that you have never actually read the US Constitution. Nope. Not me. Never ever. The whole 3 years in law school. Never heard of it. Then we are speaking of willful ignorance. That's unfortunate. Why do you do such a thing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:16:48 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then we are speaking of willful ignorance. That's unfortunate. Why do you do such a thing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You seem like a smart enough fella. I believe you have the ability to comprehend the written word. Therefore I MUST assume that you have never actually read the US Constitution. Nope. Not me. Never ever. The whole 3 years in law school. Never heard of it. Then we are speaking of willful ignorance. That's unfortunate. Why do you do such a thing? Willful ignorance of ... what exactly? The neat thing about the Constitution is that, like many documents, it's organized into Articles and Sections. Or so I'm told, since apparently I've never read it. Why don't you tell us which particular part you think I haven't read. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:28:04 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Willful ignorance of ... what exactly? The neat thing about the Constitution is that, like many documents, it's organized into Articles and Sections. Or so I'm told, since apparently I've never read it. Why don't you tell us which particular part you think I haven't read. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You seem like a smart enough fella. I believe you have the ability to comprehend the written word. Therefore I MUST assume that you have never actually read the US Constitution. Nope. Not me. Never ever. The whole 3 years in law school. Never heard of it. Then we are speaking of willful ignorance. That's unfortunate. Why do you do such a thing? Willful ignorance of ... what exactly? The neat thing about the Constitution is that, like many documents, it's organized into Articles and Sections. Or so I'm told, since apparently I've never read it. Why don't you tell us which particular part you think I haven't read. No. I believe you. I believe you, when you insist that you read it. We're talking about willful ignorance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:30:29 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I respect your opinion more than 99% of the posters here. I mean that. I've been in the sigint world for 14 years. He didn't alert us to anything that wasn't already known. I haven't seen any actual "evidence" he provided anywhere that helped us protect ourselves from the government. Is the government doing shit that is blatantly illegal? Absolutely. Do we need someone to provide intel to our adversaries to fix that? I don't think so. If the population at large cared enough to fix it, it would be fixed. The problem IMO, is that most of the population simply doesn't give a fuck. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
All I will say: I trust our government extremely little. Did the harm Snowden do outweigh him alerting us to our gov spying on us? I don't think so in my limited understanding of things. The gov should not be allowed to snoop on "us". I respect your opinion more than 99% of the posters here. I mean that. I've been in the sigint world for 14 years. He didn't alert us to anything that wasn't already known. I haven't seen any actual "evidence" he provided anywhere that helped us protect ourselves from the government. Is the government doing shit that is blatantly illegal? Absolutely. Do we need someone to provide intel to our adversaries to fix that? I don't think so. If the population at large cared enough to fix it, it would be fixed. The problem IMO, is that most of the population simply doesn't give a fuck. Doing what illegally? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:30:47 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. I believe you. I believe you, when you insist that you read it. We're talking about willful ignorance. Willful ignorance of ... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:32:08 PM EDT
[#21]
It's a rhetorical argument obviously.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:33:34 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Willful ignorance of ... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No. I believe you. I believe you, when you insist that you read it. We're talking about willful ignorance. Willful ignorance of ... It's OK because emails are post cards and therefore they aren't papers or something. So hoovering everything up is kosher. 
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:41:30 PM EDT
[#23]
Real American Patriots don't turn on us and then run off to Russia. Let him stay the fuch there! Let's see the "patriot" pull that same shit on them too while he's there! Hero my fucking ass!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:57:39 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Willful ignorance of ... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No. I believe you. I believe you, when you insist that you read it. We're talking about willful ignorance. Willful ignorance of ... You engage in a moral relevance exercise. You equate someone breaking their oath with Treason. That's dumb. You should know better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:10:40 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You engage in a moral relevance exercise. You equate someone breaking their oath with Treason. That's dumb. You should know better. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. I believe you. I believe you, when you insist that you read it. We're talking about willful ignorance. Willful ignorance of ... You engage in a moral relevance exercise. You equate someone breaking their oath with Treason. That's dumb. You should know better. 1. Nobody being discussed here committed treason. You should know that, and would know that if you studied the various cases involving notorious spies (like the Rosenbergs and Aldrich Ames) and understood why even those people were not charged with treason. Its elements are quite specific and Snowden does not meet them. 2. Irrespective of number 1, I fail to see how advocating for the hanging of both Snowden and people who egregiously and systematically disobeyed the Constitution, to the detriment of every American, somehow means that I'm willfully ignoring some part of the Constitution. Please explain your accusation that I am "willfully ignorant" in a manner that actually supports such a bold accusation. Otherwise, do not ever make it again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:14:15 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. Nobody being discussed here committed treason. You should know that, and would know that if you studied the various cases involving notorious spies (like the Rosenbergs and Aldrich Ames) and understood why even those people were not charged with treason. Its elements are quite specific and Snowden does not meet them. 2. Irrespective of number 1, I fail to see how advocating for the hanging of both Snowden and people who egregiously and systematically disobeyed the Constitution, to the detriment of every American, somehow means that I'm willfully ignoring some part of the Constitution. Please explain your accusation that I am "willfully ignorant" in a manner that actually supports such a bold accusation. Otherwise, do not ever make it again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. I believe you. I believe you, when you insist that you read it. We're talking about willful ignorance. Willful ignorance of ... You engage in a moral relevance exercise. You equate someone breaking their oath with Treason. That's dumb. You should know better. 1. Nobody being discussed here committed treason. You should know that, and would know that if you studied the various cases involving notorious spies (like the Rosenbergs and Aldrich Ames) and understood why even those people were not charged with treason. Its elements are quite specific and Snowden does not meet them. 2. Irrespective of number 1, I fail to see how advocating for the hanging of both Snowden and people who egregiously and systematically disobeyed the Constitution, to the detriment of every American, somehow means that I'm willfully ignoring some part of the Constitution. Please explain your accusation that I am "willfully ignorant" in a manner that actually supports such a bold accusation. Otherwise, do not ever make it again. Asked and answered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:16:43 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Asked and answered. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. I believe you. I believe you, when you insist that you read it. We're talking about willful ignorance.:-) Willful ignorance of ... You engage in a moral relevance exercise. You equate someone breaking their oath with Treason. That's dumb. You should know better. 1. Nobody being discussed here committed treason. You should know that, and would know that if you studied the various cases involving notorious spies (like the Rosenbergs and Aldrich Ames) and understood why even those people were not charged with treason. Its elements are quite specific and Snowden does not meet them. 2. Irrespective of number 1, I fail to see how advocating for the hanging of both Snowden and people who egregiously and systematically disobeyed the Constitution, to the detriment of every American, somehow means that I'm willfully ignoring some part of the Constitution. Please explain your accusation that I am "willfully ignorant" in a manner that actually supports such a bold accusation. Otherwise, do not ever make it again. Asked and answered. You haven't answered a fucking thing, and have quite conspicuously refused to elaborate on your bullshit claim that I'm "willfully ignorant" of the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:20:28 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You haven't answered a fucking thing, and have quite conspicuously refused to elaborate on your bullshit claim that I'm "willfully ignorant" of the Constitution. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:25:36 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doing what illegally? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All I will say: I trust our government extremely little. Did the harm Snowden do outweigh him alerting us to our gov spying on us? I don't think so in my limited understanding of things. The gov should not be allowed to snoop on "us". I respect your opinion more than 99% of the posters here. I mean that. I've been in the sigint world for 14 years. He didn't alert us to anything that wasn't already known. I haven't seen any actual "evidence" he provided anywhere that helped us protect ourselves from the government. Is the government doing shit that is blatantly illegal? Absolutely. Do we need someone to provide intel to our adversaries to fix that? I don't think so. If the population at large cared enough to fix it, it would be fixed. The problem IMO, is that most of the population simply doesn't give a fuck. Doing what illegally? I guess he has me on ignore. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:26:54 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess he has me on ignore. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All I will say: I trust our government extremely little. Did the harm Snowden do outweigh him alerting us to our gov spying on us? I don't think so in my limited understanding of things. The gov should not be allowed to snoop on "us". I respect your opinion more than 99% of the posters here. I mean that. I've been in the sigint world for 14 years. He didn't alert us to anything that wasn't already known. I haven't seen any actual "evidence" he provided anywhere that helped us protect ourselves from the government. Is the government doing shit that is blatantly illegal? Absolutely. Do we need someone to provide intel to our adversaries to fix that? I don't think so. If the population at large cared enough to fix it, it would be fixed. The problem IMO, is that most of the population simply doesn't give a fuck. Doing what illegally? I guess he has me on ignore. No, sorry I had a response typed and I thought I had hit submit. I'm talking about collecting meta on all internal US comms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:29:59 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You haven't answered a fucking thing, and have quite conspicuously refused to elaborate on your bullshit claim that I'm "willfully ignorant" of the Constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You engage in a moral relevance exercise. You equate someone breaking their oath with Treason. That's dumb. You should know better. 1. Nobody being discussed here committed treason. You should know that, and would know that if you studied the various cases involving notorious spies (like the Rosenbergs and Aldrich Ames) and understood why even those people were not charged with treason. Its elements are quite specific and Snowden does not meet them. 2. Irrespective of number 1, I fail to see how advocating for the hanging of both Snowden and people who egregiously and systematically disobeyed the Constitution, to the detriment of every American, somehow means that I'm willfully ignoring some part of the Constitution. Please explain your accusation that I am "willfully ignorant" in a manner that actually supports such a bold accusation. Otherwise, do not ever make it again. Asked and answered. You haven't answered a fucking thing, and have quite conspicuously refused to elaborate on your bullshit claim that I'm "willfully ignorant" of the Constitution. Very well. I am dead wrong and humbly apologize for suggesting that you are ignorant of the Constitution, willful or otherwise. 
On another note, you advocate the hanging of Snowden. Why? What did he do, that you think merits the death penalty? What charge? Please be specific. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:39:48 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Very well. I am dead wrong and humbly apologize for suggesting that you are ignorant of the Constitution, willful or otherwise.
On another note, you advocate the hanging of Snowden. Why? What did he do, that you think merits the death penalty? What charge? Please be specific. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You engage in a moral relevance exercise. You equate someone breaking their oath with Treason. That's dumb. You should know better. 1. Nobody being discussed here committed treason. You should know that, and would know that if you studied the various cases involving notorious spies (like the Rosenbergs and Aldrich Ames) and understood why even those people were not charged with treason. Its elements are quite specific and Snowden does not meet them. 2. Irrespective of number 1, I fail to see how advocating for the hanging of both Snowden and people who egregiously and systematically disobeyed the Constitution, to the detriment of every American, somehow means that I'm willfully ignoring some part of the Constitution. Please explain your accusation that I am "willfully ignorant" in a manner that actually supports such a bold accusation. Otherwise, do not ever make it again. Asked and answered. You haven't answered a fucking thing, and have quite conspicuously refused to elaborate on your bullshit claim that I'm "willfully ignorant" of the Constitution. Very well. I am dead wrong and humbly apologize for suggesting that you are ignorant of the Constitution, willful or otherwise.
On another note, you advocate the hanging of Snowden. Why? What did he do, that you think merits the death penalty? What charge? Please be specific. About a million counts of disclosing classified information. Which, to be specific, is punishable under current law at 10 years each and not death. 18 USC 798. My proposal of executing both Snowden and the domestic spies is obviously not realistic under our actual laws. I made it to demonstrate my willingness to severely punish ALL who did wrong in this situation. Key word capitalized. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:56:37 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All I will say: I trust our government extremely little. Did the harm Snowden do outweigh him alerting us to our gov spying on us? I don't think so in my limited understanding of things. The gov should not be allowed to snoop on "us". I highly doubt it was anything worse than what the Clintons have done, over the years... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:06:04 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, sorry I had a response typed and I thought I had hit submit. I'm talking about collecting meta on all internal US comms. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All I will say: I trust our government extremely little. Did the harm Snowden do outweigh him alerting us to our gov spying on us? I don't think so in my limited understanding of things. The gov should not be allowed to snoop on "us". I respect your opinion more than 99% of the posters here. I mean that. I've been in the sigint world for 14 years. He didn't alert us to anything that wasn't already known. I haven't seen any actual "evidence" he provided anywhere that helped us protect ourselves from the government. Is the government doing shit that is blatantly illegal? Absolutely. Do we need someone to provide intel to our adversaries to fix that? I don't think so. If the population at large cared enough to fix it, it would be fixed. The problem IMO, is that most of the population simply doesn't give a fuck. Doing what illegally? I guess he has me on ignore. No, sorry I had a response typed and I thought I had hit submit. I'm talking about collecting meta on all internal US comms. Yes so am I. Personally I think it's all based in the best of intentions and likely operated as well as can be done humanly. I have no reason to believe the NSA spooks are boogeymen. I really do believe it is what it is purported to be. It's just that pesky Constitution that I can't quite square with it all. I still don't see how this is nothing but a really technically advance version of the general warrants that kicked off the festivities in the late 1700s. All the hand wringing and scary boogeymen in the world just can't seem to make it fit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 6:48:06 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
About a million counts of disclosing classified information. Which, to be specific, is punishable under current law at 10 years each and not death. 18 USC 798. My proposal of executing both Snowden and the domestic spies is obviously not realistic under our actual laws. I made it to demonstrate my willingness to severely punish ALL who did wrong in this situation. Key word capitalized. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
On another note, you advocate the hanging of Snowden. Why? What did he do, that you think merits the death penalty? What charge? Please be specific. About a million counts of disclosing classified information. Which, to be specific, is punishable under current law at 10 years each and not death. 18 USC 798. My proposal of executing both Snowden and the domestic spies is obviously not realistic under our actual laws. I made it to demonstrate my willingness to severely punish ALL who did wrong in this situation. Key word capitalized. So you say Snowden is not a spy, but you advocate hanging him, even though you say that it isn't something that the actual Laws support. AND, you refer to all these "others" as being "spies." Got it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:35:51 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes so am I. Personally I think it's all based in the best of intentions and likely operated as well as can be done humanly. I have no reason to believe the NSA spooks are boogeymen. I really do believe it is what it is purported to be. It's just that pesky Constitution that I can't quite square with it all. I still don't see how this is nothing but a really technically advance version of the general warrants that kicked off the festivities in the late 1700s. All the hand wringing and scary boogeymen in the world just can't seem to make it fit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, sorry I had a response typed and I thought I had hit submit. I'm talking about collecting meta on all internal US comms. Yes so am I. Personally I think it's all based in the best of intentions and likely operated as well as can be done humanly. I have no reason to believe the NSA spooks are boogeymen. I really do believe it is what it is purported to be. It's just that pesky Constitution that I can't quite square with it all. I still don't see how this is nothing but a really technically advance version of the general warrants that kicked off the festivities in the late 1700s. All the hand wringing and scary boogeymen in the world just can't seem to make it fit. Given everything I have seen and read I am still of the opinion that what was claimed regarding the meta programs was grossly overstated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:36:31 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you say Snowden is not a spy, but you advocate hanging him, even though you say that it isn't something that the actual Laws support. AND, you refer to all these "others" as being "spies." Got it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
On another note, you advocate the hanging of Snowden. Why? What did he do, that you think merits the death penalty? What charge? Please be specific. About a million counts of disclosing classified information. Which, to be specific, is punishable under current law at 10 years each and not death. 18 USC 798. My proposal of executing both Snowden and the domestic spies is obviously not realistic under our actual laws. I made it to demonstrate my willingness to severely punish ALL who did wrong in this situation. Key word capitalized. So you say Snowden is not a spy, but you advocate hanging him, even though you say that it isn't something that the actual Laws support. AND, you refer to all these "others" as being "spies." Got it. I'm not sure what problem you're seeing here. If you'd rather put Clapper and the other domestic spies in prison for 10 million years each, I suppose I could live with that. That would be like, what, a couple weeks for every American they spied on? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:38:19 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure what problem you're seeing here. If you'd rather put Clapper and the other domestic spies in prison for 10 million years each, I suppose I could live with that. That would be like, what, a couple weeks for every American they spied on? Why should Snowden go free just because Clapper hasn't been charged? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:44:05 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why should Snowden go free just because Clapper hasn't been charged? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure what problem you're seeing here. If you'd rather put Clapper and the other domestic spies in prison for 10 million years each, I suppose I could live with that. That would be like, what, a couple weeks for every American they spied on? Why should Snowden go free just because Clapper hasn't been charged? Because the government that doesn't hold its own accountable has zero right to punish others. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:45:52 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because the government that doesn't hold its own accountable has zero right to punish others. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure what problem you're seeing here. If you'd rather put Clapper and the other domestic spies in prison for 10 million years each, I suppose I could live with that. That would be like, what, a couple weeks for every American they spied on? Why should Snowden go free just because Clapper hasn't been charged? Because the government that doesn't hold its own accountable has zero right to punish others. So unless all criminals are convicted, all should be free. Probably should have stuck around for a 4th year. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:49:16 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So unless all criminals are convicted, all should be free. Probably should have stuck around for a 4th year. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Because the government that doesn't hold its own accountable has zero right to punish others. So unless all criminals are convicted, all should be free. Probably should have stuck around for a 4th year. Government employees who commit egregious breaches of trust =/= "all criminals." You probably should have stuck around for a 4th year, too. Of grade school. Reading is hard. I've made a completely reasonable proposal to punish EVERYONE involved, and all you bootlickers can do is come up with every fucking wildass excuse imaginable for why Snowden should be punished but the people why systematically spied on Americans should get a pass. Speaks volumes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:50:26 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Government employees who commit egregious breaches of trust =/= "all criminals." You probably should have stuck around for a 4th year, too. Of grade school. Reading is hard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because the government that doesn't hold its own accountable has zero right to punish others. So unless all criminals are convicted, all should be free. Probably should have stuck around for a 4th year. Government employees who commit egregious breaches of trust =/= "all criminals." You probably should have stuck around for a 4th year, too. Of grade school. Reading is hard. So not all criminals, just those up on Federal charges? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:51:47 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So not all criminals, just those up on Federal charges? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because the government that doesn't hold its own accountable has zero right to punish others. So unless all criminals are convicted, all should be free. Probably should have stuck around for a 4th year. Government employees who commit egregious breaches of trust =/= "all criminals." You probably should have stuck around for a 4th year, too. Of grade school. Reading is hard. So not all criminals, just those up on Federal charges? I don't see how my statement is limited to federal charges. Keep reading. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:55:43 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't see how my statement is limited to federal charges. Keep reading. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because the government that doesn't hold its own accountable has zero right to punish others. So not all criminals, just those up on Federal charges? I don't see how my statement is limited to federal charges. Keep reading. Sounds like you're not comfortable with what you really mean. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:56:33 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
........... Government employees who commit egregious breaches of trust =/= "all criminals." You probably should have stuck around for a 4th year, too. Of grade school. Reading is hard. I've made a completely reasonable proposal to punish EVERYONE involved, and all you bootlickers can do is come up with every fucking wildass excuse imaginable for why Snowden should be punished but the people why systematically spied on Americans should get a pass. Speaks volumes. But unlike the Lois Lerner's crimes which were totally fucking political in nature, the NSA's intent is to catch terrorists. So I wouldn't punish them as much as I would the likes of Lerner who truly is the enemy of free people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:57:28 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds like you're not comfortable with what you really mean. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because the government that doesn't hold its own accountable has zero right to punish others. So not all criminals, just those up on Federal charges? I don't see how my statement is limited to federal charges. Keep reading. Sounds like you're not comfortable with what you really mean. Of course I am. See, look, I can completely change the meaning of a sentence with my red crayon, too! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:58:36 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But unlike the Lois Lerner crimes which were totally fucking political in nature, the NSA's intent is to catch terrorists. So I wouldn't punish them as much as I would the likes of Lerner who truly is the enemy of free people.  Yeah, OK. How many terrorists did they catch with the domestic phone data hoovering?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 7:59:16 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, OK. How many terrorists did they catch with the domestic phone data hoovering?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
But unlike the Lois Lerner crimes which were totally fucking political in nature, the NSA's intent is to catch terrorists. So I wouldn't punish them as much as I would the likes of Lerner who truly is the enemy of free people. Yeah, OK. How many terrorists did they catch with the domestic phone data hoovering?
I'm talking about the intent. You don't think they collected all this stuff to just be pricks do you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 8:00:53 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm talking about the intent. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But unlike the Lois Lerner crimes which were totally fucking political in nature, the NSA's intent is to catch terrorists. So I wouldn't punish them as much as I would the likes of Lerner who truly is the enemy of free people. Yeah, OK. How many terrorists did they catch with the domestic phone data hoovering?
I'm talking about the intent. General warrants were intended to catch criminals. If they were still allowed that would certainly make the job of the police easier. Yet the Constitution still specifically doesn't allow them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 8:01:25 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course I am. See, look, I can completely change the meaning of a sentence with my red crayon, too! I didn't change anything. Your belief is that Snowden is entitled to walk free as long as Clapper remains the same. You hold this belief in spite of acknowledging that he willfully and unapologetically committed a grave crime worthy of a lengthy prison term. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
