Skip to main content

View Diary: Press, polls wrongly conflate Bush and Obama NSA surveillance (189 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So you think one individual has the right to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    allenjo, WinSmith

    commit treason and nullify our laws because a politician didn't do what he said he'd do?!

    •  Treason? He's a patriot. (0+ / 0-)

      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.

      Economic Left/Right: -7.38
      Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
      Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

      by jvance on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:32:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He ADMITTED to committing treason. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens, WinSmith

        This is not my opinion. It's your right to believe that someone who committed treason is a patriot, but you're not entitled to pretend he didn't do what he SAID he did. If you believe in liberty, than at least have the guts to own the fact that you applaud a treasonous act.

        •  You keep using that word. (1+ / 0-)

          I do not think it means what you think it means.

          Economic Left/Right: -7.38
          Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
          Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

          by jvance on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 07:05:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No one has the right to decide for himself (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WinSmith

            which laws to follow and which to break. You seem to think that Snowden does in this case.

            I would not have voted to reauthorize the PA were I in Congress. But the will of the people is the will of the people, and the people have a right to decide how much freedom they're willing to cede in exchange for security. We have decided that, again and again, and we'll continue to adjust the balance over time. That is our right.

            One guy does not have the right to nullify that because he doesn't like the law.

            •  Yes - we all have that duty (1+ / 0-)

              to disobey laws that violate human rights.  Not right - duty.

              Article 12

              No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

              Economic Left/Right: -7.38
              Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
              Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

              by jvance on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 07:43:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But these laws don't violate human rights. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WinSmith

                Human rights have a specific definition under international law. These laws are not relevant to human rights. "Human rights" does not mean what you think it means.  Not even Snowden alleges that these law strip people of their personhood.

                You cite the 4th Amendement prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. Well guess what? We the people get to define what "unreasonable" means, and what its boundaries are. That is what we are doing when we debate and reauthorize the PA. That's what we are doing when we mount court challenges to the law. I don't think the ACLU will get very far, but I support the general idea of asking what those boundaries should be, which is what they're doing through their law suit.

                All of this deliberation is pursuant to the law. Snowden is no different than Bush in the sense that both went outside the law to obtain information that they could use in ways that suited their ideology. Both placed their ideology above the law.

                •  Yes and I cited article 12 (0+ / 0-)

                  of the Declaration of Human Rights.

                  Now how pray tell are "We the People" supposed to debate and give informed consent to this program, when revealing its very existence is prima facie illegal?  Would the ACLU be filing suit if Edward Snowden had not stepped forward?

                  Economic Left/Right: -7.38
                  Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
                  Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

                  by jvance on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 09:26:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What's at issue with the Patriot Act (0+ / 0-)

                    is the 4th Amendment.  But since you mentioned Article 12:

                    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
                    The collection of metadata that the Supreme Court has held is constitutional is not arbitrary interference with privacy. The key word here is privacy. The Supreme Court held that records of calls you make voluntarily to a third-party are not private.

                    If you dial a number provided by a phone company, and make a call on a network owned and operated by that phone company, the record of that phone call, absent any other identifying information, is not private. What is private is the content of that phone call and the fact that you made it. For the government to verify that you made that call and to access its contents, it must obtain a warrant.

                    Snowden disclosed that the NSA has the capability to search billions of records of sensitive information. But capability is not authority.

                    The mere existence of this data and the capability to search it does not, in and of itself, constitute arbitrary interference from privacy.

                    The fact that Snowden maintains that abuse is inevitable is not reason enough to leak national security secrets. If that's the case, then we may as well not have a government because abuse in our government is inevitable. The constitution doesn't guarantee freedom from abuse. What it guarantees is the means of the people to redress those abuses.

                    The people have the right to determine what constitutes "unreasonable search and seizure" and we also have the right to expect that our laws are respected.

                    •  Bullshit, bullshit and more bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                      http://news.cnet.com/...

                      "we also have the right to expect that our laws are respected."

                      I agree 100%.  The NSA is not respecting our laws, and I thank Ed Snowden for doing his patriotic duty by bring that to our attention.

                      Economic Left/Right: -7.38
                      Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
                      Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

                      by jvance on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 12:34:39 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Who asked Snowden to protect "my" privacy (0+ / 0-)

                when I am okay with the laws that he is fighting against?

                •  Now you're presuming to speak for everyone. (0+ / 0-)

                  I thank him for what I might not have been willing to do.  

                  I'm sure that there are plenty of gays right now who are perfectly OK with marriage inequality and unequal protection under the law.  That is not an argument in favor of those things.

                  Economic Left/Right: -7.38
                  Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
                  Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

                  by jvance on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 08:08:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Treason is not disobeying unconstitutional laws. (0+ / 0-)

      Treason is following unconstitutional laws.

      What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

      by happymisanthropy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:48:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And treason? Really? (1+ / 0-)

      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

      What act of war did he commit?  Which enemy is he allying with?  Al Quaeda?  They already know and encrypt their communications.  Prism isn't designed for or capable of going after actual bad guys.

      He has not committed and act of war against the United States, nor has he aided any enemies.  Therefore, not a traitor.

      Well, unless you think like this:


      Economic Left/Right: -7.38
      Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
      Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

      by jvance on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:58:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Come on dude, THINK! (0+ / 0-)

        Secret information is secret because if it wasn't it would AID OUR ENEMIES!

        We bar the public from seeing information that we determine will AID OUR ENEMIES!

        The prosecution in the Manning case reportedly presented evidence that information leaked by Manning was discovered in Bin Laden's compound. If true, that is prima facie evidence that his actions AIDED OUR ENEMY!

        I know Manning probably didn't intend for Bin Laden to collect this information, but Manning also knew the information he leaked was classified, and he knew the reason why. I actually have a good deal more sympathy for Manning than I do Snowden. Manning actually uncovered ambiguously unlawful activity, and so I think his actions can be construed as ethical. Snowden, on the other hand, divulged classified information about programs and capabilities developed pursuant to the law. I'm sorry, but I don't think you have the right to disregard the law because you don't like something legal.

        It doesn't matter what Snowden's intended audience was. What matters are the effects of his actions. If one of those effects is that information he leaked is used against us, then he committed treason. Pure and simple.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site