This Proof Can Impeach Obama, Fire 2 NSA Officials, And Possibly Even Clear Snowden

Originally posted by aceamoeba
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

Some friendly advice, If you want the kind of security the USPS provides, then by all means, support the USPS!

I'm taking your advice and I'm going to stop posting for a little bit.

I want my Liberty, thank you very much.

If the Federal Government can't protect me with the hundreds of billions of dollars it spends on the military, which is what we PAY for to protect us ALL, then they can give me back my money and I'll certainly take care of my own security my way.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

~Namaste

reply to post by aceamoeba

Obama stated congress was briefed on this program, have any memebers of congress disputed this?

Yes, some have. And it adds to the problem that Senators who have attended the briefings still claim they didn't know about the NSA data-mining.

A recent briefing by senior intelligence officials on surveillance programs failed to attract even half of the Senate, showing the lack of enthusiasm in Congress for learning about classified security programs.


Many senators claimed they were never briefed on the NSA’s surveillance programs when the British newspaper The Guardian caused a media firestorm by reporting their existence earlier this month.

“I’m pretty good about attending meetings; I don’t remember being briefed,” Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) told reporters on June 6, when the public learned the extent of the NSA’s collection of telephone metadata.

He voted for the Patriot Act, but said he did not intend to grant blanket authority to collect millions of phone records.


Read more: thehill.com...

This alone is reason enough why we need people like Snowden to speak out.

reply to post by aceamoeba


Have you seen the things that can land you on a watch list? Being a veteran, owning guns, paying with cash, among other ridiculous things. Ever since the list of things that can land you on a watch list has been put out, I'd say it's highly likely that most of the people on those watchlists have done nothing to deserve being put on it. Who's to say you aren't on on? Do you think you should be?

The point is, it doesn't matter if you have anything to hide or not. The fact that a law abiding citizen can be placed on such a list over such trivial things is inherently wrong. Why can't you admit that?

Ah, there you see now. The crux of the matter, and the reason why TPTB get away with doing what they are doing. The people want those whom they elect to be ethical, and to match their behaviour to the spirit of those ethics we all subject ourselves to, along with the spirit of the law. The thing is, ethics and law, although the former should be enhanced and protected by the latter, they are not.

Politicians act unethically, they often say unethical things, but probably always act just within or right on the fringes of legality. When a president orders the military into some place to quash a rebellion, is he acting ethically, lawfully, both, or not at all? You may not agree with his decision ethically, but as long as he is acting within the law, he needn't be taken to account. If a government reneges on it's electoral promises, many tend to get upset about it, but truly, governments are not about pleasing everyone, just a majority, that's all they need.

When a government turns out to be not what you expected, not what you voted for, because rather than fulfil it's electoral pledges, it acts all utilitarian for a certain strata of society, it is up to you to remove them at the end of office. You won't remove them during office, only at the end of it, once every 4 years is the people's chance to amend their voting choice.

There's no law against lying, or being untruthful with the people, their secret machinations are not going to get them into jail, but once found out, the damage is to reputation, and nothing else. I think they can live with that, and sleep soundly as they do so. A president can come along and re-argue the terms of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights if they want to, because what is contained in those documents are only noble concepts, which need protecting by the people and the laws they fashion. The real protection has to come from society's judiciary that argues with the executive office what can and can't be done, or what can and can't be changed.

New laws and rules are supposed to be debated before they are passed into law, but I doubt if much reading and debating has taken place in Congress or the Senate on especial laws that have come into being in the last few decades. Three areas in society have failed the American people, because all three are supposed to keep vigilance on the backbone of their freedom and liberties and rights: Congress, the Senate, and you...the people.

This trilateral relationship should be more than enough to check and balance the reins of power, but for the last couple of decades neither side of the triangle has been apparent in their presence or opposition to executive power-grabbing, and the unravelling of constitutional principles and rights. In fact, not only have Congress and the Senate not debated these issues, but have actually signed in the laws that have effectively made arguments pretty much moot and redundant.

You the people have had your convictions for your belief in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights tested many times throughout your history, and apart from the sixties, no decade has seen much people power rising up to these tests upon the people's resolve. I'm sorry, but going off the evidence from the last 15 years or so, the strength of the American people's conviction in their constitutional rights is nothing more than a trickle, and drying up fast.

You 'fear' your government and its highly organised and very powerful machinery, and you are not alone, other peoples of other nations equally fear their own, because there is a perception of global conjoinment of governments acting in unison and in collusion with one another. The one world government is already practically here, except it simply needs ratification, and it will happen. Once it does happen, corporate tyranny will run the world openly, abusively, pre-emptively, and it will get evermore draconian as the years go by. Many aspects of Orwell's '1984' is being realised right before our eyes, and it is coming in the guise of what is 'good' for us.

I have probably just enough years left to my natural life to see it all come to fruition, and then wave it goodbye. The younger generations, however, are the one's whom are going to have to live with it.

reply to post by talklikeapirat

Did Obama say all of Congress was briefed? Sensitive intelligence is usually only briefed to the Intelligence Committees, or Congressional leaders. The DNI is required by law to brief the committees, but is not required to brief everybody else. There are many members of Congress I do not want briefed on any classified programs.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
Did Obama say all of Congress was briefed?

Yes. 1:08, 3rd video in the 1st post in this thread.

reply to post by esteay812

If they're allowed to remain on the current path much longer, the Presidential Office will be dead and their task of executing the Presidential Office will be complete!

The presidency is a temporary job, each and every president goes into the job knowing this. There are things they can do, and things they can't do, and everything a president does can be reversed by the next president.

Here's the catch, all you have to do is get someone that the majority of the people want to elect. Someone that is honest, trustworthy, and will do what is right for the country. The paradox is, that sometimes doing what is right for the country isn't always the most popular idea.

reply to post by Ear-Responsible

He has to break the law for us to consider impeachment?

The House of Representatives has to initiate impeachment proceedings. Removal from office has to be done by the senate. With the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acting as judge, after the trial, a majority must vote for removal from office. The people themselves have no real say so in impeaching the president.

The people did not actually elect the president, the popular vote only directs the electoral college for whom to cast their votes. The president is the executive officer of the United States. The people have most control over their representatives in the House, the Senate represents the states themselves.

Do you understand now how separated from the people the President is? This isn't a mistake, it's by design. This country was founded on the idea of separation of powers, even separating the power of the people from the government.

Is that a law?

It's the highest law, the United States Constitution.

If the president decided to sleep all day and play video games and do absolutely nothing else, you're saying we can't bring up impeachment because he isn't breaking any laws?

Actually no, in this case, if the president did absolutely nothing else but sleep all day and play video games, he would be breaking the law, Specifically failing to preform his duty as president and give the State of the Union address.

What? I'd like to duct tape the both of you together and ship you out of this country to any random location. This of course is only my personal opinion

I would be fine, I'm not too sure about Beezzer, course you might want to find a way off the planet when I do get back. I probably wouldn't be in the friendliest of moods.

Obama giving approval on T.V. to allow violations of 4th amendment to commence with his data mining operation. If that isn't impeachable offense I don't know what is. All hail dictator Obama.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

Did Obama say all of Congress was briefed

Yes, he did say that.

Answering a reporter's questions after his speech on healthcare in San Jose, California, the president sought to downplay both the scope of the reported surveillance programs and their secrecy, saying Congress not only knew about them, but overwhelmingly approved both programs.

"These are programs that have been authorized by broad bipartisan majorities repeatedly since 2006," Obama said, adding, "your duly elected representatives have been consistently informed on exactly what we're doing."

He continued: "This program, by the way, is fully overseen not just by Congress, but by the FISA Court," and noted, "every member of Congress has been briefed on this program."


Listen to the full 15 minutes' worth of remarks here.
source

I think you want legislators to know exactly what kind of programs and policies they approve. How can they do what they've been elected to do, if they don't know. This is what Checks and Balances is all about. Full accountability requires full knowledge.

reply to post by aceamoeba

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

There is no probable cause which would justify every American being monitored continually in all phone calls, faxes, emails, western union transfers, and every other electronic communications every day 24 hours. And there is no justification for databases containing vast amounts of personal information on every person either.
There is no justification for databases storing credit card info, purchases, what's in our emails, our health, our visits to the psychologist, or the other myriad things they are monitoring.
They are now doing this with our children in schools through a program called Common Core Standards. They are saving every detail including how the kids react emotionally in class, what they are eating, the financial status and political leanings of their parents.

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by Ghost375

 

Oh I get it, ethics shouldn't apply to a messiah! If you or I lied on the job we would get canned. Besides the point that Obama should be the primary advocate for every American by upholding our constitution. He swore an oath on that one. So no matter what he feels is right or wrong, he broke his sole oath of office and can be impeached.

So if you attempt to say that it doesn't count, may I ask why they have that big inauguration whoop te do over him reciting his oath?

Just an FYI...Nixon lied to the public as well and then participated in a cover-up of the watergate break-in, none of which was proved in a court of law, but he was caught red handed. He resigned before impeachment proceedings began. Others were convicted afterwards in court...we will see what sticks within the next year (yeah, it will probably take almost that long, unless Obama resigns first).

There will be probes into Obama's connection to the NSA scandal as well as the IRS and other scandals surfacing. If he was involved then sooner or later it will get dicey and we will discover the true character of the man.

One question that needs asking is how the court ruling regarding the legality of the NSA activities was swept under the rug. The NSA by itself could not have accomplished this. Look to the DOJ for that smoking gun. The chips are falling all around Obama and soon he will have no protection if this continues. Specially if a high ranking official turns state's witness to save his own butt.

The Op, has put out that Snowden can not be guilty of Treason, and has only repeated what a whistle blower has stated back in 2012.
that the information that was released, was infact a lie that has been told to the congress and the citizens of the United States, and he was merely repeating such over and over.

There are a few things that can be stated on this aspect.

As most of us to pay attention to the news, there has not been a redefining of the law it is still defined as following, in accordence to the Constitution of the USA:
Treason against the United States, shall consist of only levying war against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person, shall be convicted of Treason, unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


Put simply, Snowden did not comitt treason, and thus can not be prosecuted for such. Too many people on both sides of the political spectrum tend to use that term too freely and fail to realize the days of using such to accuse a person are long gone.
And that was in 1952, for actions done during World War II.

But beyond that, and based off of the federal governments response and actions, one can only believe that there is more there than what is being told to the people and the congress, as they appear to be totally caught off guard.

No, if anything Snowden is guilty of violating some laws of the USA, by revealing classified information. To that end, he should be tried in an open court of law and held accountable for his actions. If he is going to follow in the footsteps of Ellsberg, then he needs to do what the man did, and stand up in court and answer for the crimes he is accused of, instead of fleeing to another country. And there are still questions that will come up, including the choice of country that he fled to.

To this point I have seen nothing to indicate that Snowden has done anything treasonous.

If their is anyone on this site that does not realize he is a criminal though you are blind to the reality of getting your clearance. I have said this on multiple other threads and people have defended him as being a patriot. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.

What I know and what can't be disputed or argued away with philosophical theory, as some people have tried on the other threads, is that at this point he is a criminal having release unauthorized classified information. The over 1 million people that have an active Secret or higher clearance and everyone that has an expired clearance have all signed documents clearly stating that "the unauthorized release of classified information is a federal and criminal offense". I am not arguing the reasons why he released that information, if it turns out to be accurate then it seems he did something patriotic. Being Patriotic though does not change the fact that he broke laws he willingly signed up for and agreed to. If I would have released classified information during my time in the defense industry, be it as simple as the domain name for a network , the access number for a modem or something more complex I know that i would have been arrested and sentenced to a long jail term. Like Snowden I willingly and knowingly went through the process to get various levels of clearance and each time more and more restrictions were placed around what I could do, report or say. This is the way it goes in that world and if at any time I would have released that information, even if my intentions were patriotic, I would have expected to be arrested.

If he starts trading information with enemies of the state to better his position then I feel it would be justified to add the label of traitor but to this point I have not read that to be the case. If in the end everything he claims is true and accurate then I think it would be reasonable to find him guilty , label him a criminal and grant him immunity or some other sentence vs hard time.

Originally posted by talklikeapirat
I think you want legislators to know exactly what kind of programs and policies they approve. How can they do what they've been elected to do, if they don't know. This is what Checks and Balances is all about. Full accountability requires full knowledge.

No, I don't want every member of Congress to know everything the Executive Branch does. And neither does Congress. That's why they created committees for oversight, and limited intelligence briefing requirements to the intelligence committees and Congressional leadership. I believe DOD SAP briefing requirements are similarly limited by statute, and I suspect House and Senate protocol limits the audience for other classified briefings as well.

Nor do I think every member of Congress is intellectually capable of handling serious matters like intelligence. Some are intellectual lightweights who couldn't pass a high school geography test, but they got elected so you have to seat them somewhere they can't do too much damage. Do you remember this? "Today, we have two Vietnams, side by side, North and South, exchanging and working. We may not agree with all that North Vietnam is doing, but they are living in peace. I would look for a better human rights record for North Vietnam, but they are living side by side." Does someone who thinks there are still two Vietnams really need to be briefed on sensitive intelligence operations? I don't think so. But maybe the CIA can send her a copy of the World Factbook.

I could care less if our puppet of a president gets impeached, I just want the constant violations of the constitution to stop.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Bilk22

 

Err.. Not to be a stickler...but your note just hit me in that odd way some things do. Clinton could have said he was a choir boy who retained his virginity and Chelsea was a product of emmaculate conception if he'd wanted to. That wouldn't have gotten him anything but hate from the public. Nothing criminal for that stage of it. He did lie under oath and that's what zapped him. Lying when the truth would serve them better. The hallmark of a career politician.

President Clinton was impeached by the House, but acquitted by vote of the Senate. The House approved two articles of impeachment against the President stemming from the President’s response to a sexual harassment civil lawsuit and to a subsequent grand jury investigation instigated by an Independent Counsel. The first article charged the President with committing perjury in testifying before the grand jury about his sexual relationship with a White House intern and his efforts to cover it up;808 the second article charged the President with obstruction of justice relating both to the civil lawsuit and to the grand jury proceedings.

Source

They can lie like a cheap rug, as long as it's not during an official proceeding as I understand it.

Actually you are correct. I forgot he was called to testify in private, before a magistrate or special prosecutor, and lied then. I guess it's the media's portrayal of how things transpired, that has me recalling it that way - when he stood before the cameras and said he did have relations with that girl. That's what they played over and over again.

Originally posted by sean
Obama giving approval on T.V. to allow violations of 4th amendment to commence with his data mining operation. If that isn't impeachable offense I don't know what is. All hail dictator Obama.

BREAKING: The NSA and the White House have reportedly been taken over by low-level employees from Cincinnati. I knew there had to be a logical explanation for all of this!

Sadly, perjury is simply ignored these days until the media 'forgets' about it and moves on.

Just look at the financial sector. Over 800 bankers went to jail during the savings and loan crisis and we have yet to see a single major player go to jail (Bernie Madoff was just a small time Ponzi schemer).

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by elouina

 

This whole issue carries the stink of rot. Decay of the American soul. Our appointed public servants swore to uphold the Constitution and Rights held within it.

They have abused the rights they swore to uphold. Any and every politician who knows/knew of the abuses and failed to stop or defend those rights deserves nothing put a pink slip and a size 13 up their collective asses to kick them out of office.

This is disgusting. I am disgusted. Republicans and democrats who abused our rights deserve nothing but absolute scorn!

so, you're on the fence, tell us what you really think...the corporate and wealthy, in the words of George carlin.."bought and paid for this country a long time ago"

reply to post by jimmyx

Oh lord. Another apologist?

Are you going to say it's okay and not Obama's fault either?