It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by Terminal1
So what gives you the idea that TESTIFYING in the house has no perjury repercussions?
Originally posted by Terminal1
Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by Terminal1
So what gives you the idea that TESTIFYING in the house has no perjury repercussions?
When the questioning congress members use questions that allow wiggle room for untruths in answers the whole circus is a lie. How often do we hear "I do not recall" when the person uttering the statement is in the position that they should have known? Isn't that a lie by omission? Are there repercussions for these statements? I'd wager it is rare...
From banking CEOs to Pat Tillman and a crapload inbetween. I rarely see any "repercussions" to any lie or omission of truth. Only the small fries tend to get "repercussioned".
Originally posted by elouina
My first contention is that Snowden can't be guilty of treason since he just repeated info that was already whistleblown the proper way by William Binney in 2012. But nothing ever came of it. Why? Because NSA Director, Alexander, perjured himself to the house. So all that Snowden exposed was the perjury!
Originally posted by Terminal1
reply to post by elouina
Just a proof that illustrates exactly what I am saying. When he is repercussioned for his lies (which should include most of congressional members as well) then get back to me and I will bow and admit that 1 in a line of many has been repercussioned.
The circus must go on...
Originally posted by Terminal1
The question should be is why are a lot of people not put under oath as they testify before congress?
Originally posted by elouina
Originally posted by Terminal1
reply to post by elouina
Just a proof that illustrates exactly what I am saying. When he is repercussioned for his lies (which should include most of congressional members as well) then get back to me and I will bow and admit that 1 in a line of many has been repercussioned.
The circus must go on...
No that is not what you said, on the first page, for the world to see. Here is your quote... So can you please explain why you stated this? I am very curious why you made such a definate and false statement.
Originally posted by Terminal1
The question should be is why are a lot of people not put under oath as they testify before congress?
Originally posted by KeliOnyx
Oh and by the way, since you are so keen on the whole lying aspect of this Snowden is himself a liar. He signed non-disclosure agreements. Whether or not you agree with what he did, he did in fact lie.edit on 15-6-2013 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by KeliOnyx
Originally posted by elouina
My first contention is that Snowden can't be guilty of treason since he just repeated info that was already whistleblown the proper way by William Binney in 2012. But nothing ever came of it. Why? Because NSA Director, Alexander, perjured himself to the house. So all that Snowden exposed was the perjury!
That is like saying someone can't be guilty of assault because someone else beat the crap out of you before. One has nothing to do with the other. They do not even have to use the domestic spying program, at this point to get Snowden on treason. He has added a few legitimate nails in that coffin all on his own.
Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by beezzer
I'm not providing any excuse, it's just the facts. Politicians lie. I was under no delusion when I voted for Obama. I am still under no delusion about him. He is a politician, he lies for a living. I don't believe half of what any of them say.
This thread is completely childish, and shows exactly the mentality of the right. They can't make their case using better legislation, or better leadership, so they go after democrats and try and make them look worse.
Obama hasn't committed a high crime or misdemeanor, (at least not in this case) so there is no reason to start impeachment proceedings.
Face it guys, he's gonna be in office till January 20, 2017 And then we are going to get the next liar in office. Your petty attempts at trying to remove him from office based on non existent "evidence" or guilt by association just aren't going to work.edit on 15-6-2013 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by KeliOnyx
Treason is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.
Just look at the rationalization and justification being posted by supporters of this administration!
Is it treason because he saw a violation of the 4th Amendment? Is it treason if he shows proof that the US is/was violating international law?
Every future whistle-blower should pay close attention to all of this.
While the politicians in DC should be facing charges of obstruction, they are actually playing the victim card.
And the whistle-blower? Facing charges of treason when the American public is the actual victim here.
Originally posted by Terminal1
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by KeliOnyx
Treason is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.
Just look at the rationalization and justification being posted by supporters of this administration!
Is it treason because he saw a violation of the 4th Amendment? Is it treason if he shows proof that the US is/was violating international law?
Every future whistle-blower should pay close attention to all of this.
While the politicians in DC should be facing charges of obstruction, they are actually playing the victim card.
And the whistle-blower? Facing charges of treason when the American public is the actual victim here.
Star...
Exactly what is happening. It is why I am very jaded about the whole thing. I get the feeling that nothing will change no matter what the outcry is. Well.. the wording may change but the practice will continue. Business as usual. Too much money has been spent...
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Let's see, impeach a president for backing a government program put in place before he came into office? Of coarse he and every government official out there will downplay their existence - as a SPY program they aren't effective if everyone knows everything about them. Don't read that as a defense of PRISM, just as a reality of how government officials will dance around admitting their existence or how deep they go.
The real impeachable offense should have been levied at the creators of the PRISM program back in 2007 when it was created, and the 'war on terror' lies told to get it into place. The right-wing media hacks knew this all too well, when they began the Republican PR campaigns to guilt legislators into accepting them; Back then, they were screaming how these NSA programs were absolutely critical for America to survive, now they're screaming how they are impeachable offense
The former director of the US National Security Agency has indicated that surveillance programs have "expanded" under Barack Obama's time in office and said the spy agency has more powers now than when he was in command.
Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by Terminal1
Ok so that was a rare and unusual case and it was argued about extensively on the floor. But government employees are not offered such an unusual luxury. That rare and unusual case did not necessitate derailing an entire thread unless you can offer me proof that they were not sworn in as is protocol.