Questions for those who call Edward Snowden a traitor. LINKS TO CLASSIFIED DOCS

Just another case of the Supreme being wrong.

 

What's funny is what Snowden revealed gave me even more confidence in the Government to have appropriate checks and balances when it comes to secret intelligence gathering. Seems to me they follow the rules, they go through the courts to make sure everything is in line with the law and the Constitution, and they make a more than reasonable effort to protect innocent American citizens privacy.

- - - Updated - - -

That's why we have the Supreme Court, because many people have many different opinions. Not everyone is going to agree on everything.

 

Okay but the expectation was that people captured on the battlefield were terrorists or they would not be there. Since Al Qaeda fighters did not conform to Geneva Convention requirements (but Taliban did http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960) they have not been afforded Geneva Convention guarantees (but the Taliban has).

 

I don't think I can determine what laws are constitutional and what laws aren't, and I don't care whether you agree or not. All I'm saying, is that it CLEARLY states in the constitution, "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." When a NSA worker goes into your phone records, that is an unreasonable search without a warrant or probable cause. It was not Snowden's personal belief that made him speak up, it was the fact that the Constitution clearly states that it is unconstitutional. It's a fact, not a personal belief or ideology.

 

What documents has he shared?
Link?
Other than what has been published about the gov't, I'm sure you're against, is spying on your almost every move.

 

This is why we have courts. Your definition of what "unreasonable" means is simply based on your ideology. The courts ruled that you do not have reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to who you are calling or who is calling you. I love how you call it a "fact", lol.

 

I had a link to a story about earlier whistle blowers, 03 or so, where they told of the spying starting in Oct 01, just after 9/11 and before the passing of the PA. So it was done illegally for a short time until the PA made it legal.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/06/11/inside-nsas-secret-utah-data-center/
You seem like a fox type person, you should have seen this?

 

Try reading the 4th Amendment again.

Every search warrant must be specific. If the NSA wants to track my phone calls then an specific search warrant must be issued based upon my phone number. The court cannot issue a warrant allowing the tracking of every phone call in the United States because that isn't specific. All "Constitutionally" protected Rights related to the Person and the 4th Amendment is no exception. Each individual has the Protected Rights related to search and seizure and each warrant must be based upon this individually protected Right of the Person.

By way of example in addressing organized crime there was a warrant requirement related to every phone that was to be tapped by the FBI. The FBI had to provide probable cause to support the individual phone being tapped. A member of the mafia might use numerous phones but each one that the FBI tapped had to have a warrant issued (albeit numerous phone taps could be authorized based upon the "person" if they owned the phones).

This is not happening and hasn't happened related to the NSA and the FISA courts. As noted, whether the warrant is before or after the "search" it must still pass the Constitutional requirements of the 4th Amendment and those related to protections of the Person from unreasonable Search and Seizure.

 

Snowden is a traitor because he---

broke the laws

by his own admission took the Booze Allen job to get access to NSA info he planned to copy.

he took it to China and shared with them.

he endangered lives.

he gave a heads up to terrorists who have already started to change their ways of communicating.

he may very well soon have blood on his hands.

we didn't elect him to anything.

He's provided China and Russia an excuse to continue what they do and increase.it.

 

In my opinion acquiring the telephone records with only the information of the calling/called number is valid on the surface without a warrant as it does not unreasonably acquire the actual words spoken or texted and that information can reasonably be used to then request a warrant on the grounds of Homeland Security when that kind of record shows probable cause of terrorism.

 

Do opponents to my views deliberately feign ignorance to what I say?

The "premise" was that NSA was spying on millions of Americans. That was wrong.

 

The Patriot Act remains a law of highly dubious Constitutionality because the Executive Branch has successfully skuttled every attempt to bring it before the Supreme Court. We have numerous laws like this such as the War Powers Act that has never been subjected to Constitutional scrutiny by the Court although it's of highly dubious Constitutionality.

This is a serious problem with the US Legislature and Executive Branch because they don't care if the law is actually Constitutional and then they often fight tooth and nail to prevent a Constitutional review by the Court. Their position has been "prove its unconstitutional while we do everything possible to prevent a constitutional review."

 

Uh, well, sort of. I learned that there is a secret court, whose deliberations are of course also secret, which hears requests to spy on us. And I learned that this court had heard over 30,000 requests, and had denied a total of ELEVEN.

After all, who needs genuine oversight when everything is secret, right?

 

Tracking and keeping records of our phone calls and emails is spying on us. What part of that is being missed?

 

How do you KNOW that's wrong? Because those who keep their spying a secret promised to tell you? All we really know, that sees the light of day, is what we can get from people who leak classified information, and from the occasional NSA operative who refused to follow spying orders, and was terminated for it. And even THEN many of them refuse to talk about it, because they're well aware that if they should disappear, the government could never "find" them .

 

Your determining this lack of "genuine oversight" on a fallacy based off 11 out of 30,000 requests being denied. This means that you believed that there should have been more denied requests with out even having the slightest clue of what those denied requests would be. It's purely speculation on your part. The lack of denied requests to me simply means the NSA knows what requests are legal or not and aren't just throwing any name in to the hat hoping to get approval.

 

I really see no way out of this either.
The more and more digital we get, the more and more public we become.
If you do every transaction digitially, you are recorded on transaction you personally do. You leave a digital trail of your life for as long and far as time can see at this point.

- - - Updated - - -

And the court has been around since 1978, if I remember some article/post correctly. I didn't know that either.
This is a long slow process, but gov't has eternity to reach the point of complete control.

 

You do go to extremes to try to justify your opinions. The FISC did have a warrant to collect the phone numbers. They found it constitutional. There was no searching or tracking in gathering data. Warrants were and are needed to search the collection. You are the one who has no understanding about the 4th amendment. You disagree with constitutional lawyers and constitutional lawyers. You have that right according to the Constitution but you do not have the right to determine what is constitutional and neither did Snowden.

 

Only your opinion, not mine and courts have agreed with mine.

- - - Updated - - -

Because courts have said that is wrong.

 

It is refreshing to hear that those against this program have been uninformed for years.

 

Did you ever think to question the government's decisions? No, because you blindly and mindlessly obey the government. Maybe, just maybe, the same government that has the TSA randomly patting down innocent children, elderly, and pregnant women, the same government that is arming the Syrian rebels, who have a noticeable and proven link with Al-Qaeda, the government that murdered Michael Hastings and Andrew Breitbart for THEIR political ideologies, should be questioned, and not mindlessly obeyed. My 'ideology' is to actually look at facts and think things through.

If the court something that was strongly against your morals, would you not question it? Would you say, "This is why we have courts, and my morals and ideology must be wrong"? Would you blindly obey the government, because they have never, ever made a mistake?

 

Link that he took info to China and "shared it with them"?

How are the terrorists communicating now? Smoke signals? Carrier pigeon? (*)(*)(*)(*)... sounds like we just cut off every means of communication possible for the network. That seems like it would disrupt their ability to communicate... which... is a good thing. Existence of these programs has been explored for years... against AQ. Against foreign enemies of the US. All Snowden revealed was how the law was being abandoned and our domestic data is being torn through. Remember?

 

Who was the plaintiff providing the legal arguments against the Constitutionality of the law and actions of government?

Our judicial system is based upon the adversarial process and lacking that there is no constitutional review of the law or actions of government.

 

Lol, you've clearly jumped in to the world of conspiracy. We have a legal system set up. If you don't like the system, become an activist to change it, or try to elect representatives that feel like you do. Just because you can't get enough people to think like you, does not give you the right to determine what is constitutional or not and if you break contracts due to this ideology and give out classified information that has been approved through our legal system, then you will face the consequences of those actions. You don't get to determine what the Founding Fathers meant by "unreasonable" 240 years ago.