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.

 

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

page: 9
111
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   
I love how Obama apologists will say "But all politicians lie! What did you expect?".

I'm not supposed to hold Obama responsible for anything he campaigned on?

I'm basically supposed to just accept these lies and corruption.

No. Doesn't work that way for me.

The one thing that Obama's election and re-election has taught me is that it doesn't matter what political party you are and that political parties are set up to divide a nation, not bring them together. Imagine what we'd accomplish as citizens of this country if we were not so divided. We'd be powerful beyond measure. Our govt would fear us.




posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Nicks87
 



The comment made by Ghost375 is the entire reason why all this stuff is happening. The fact that people in this country even think like that is disgusting and totally unacceptable.

very true. morality should guide the creation of laws, not the other way around.

it's sad to see lies from our "leaders" become so commonplace that people shrug them off.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   
For those who say that we don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our emails and that they are fair game for govt snooping.....

Do you have a password for your email account?

Why is that?
ETA:
How about your cell phone?
Did you sign up for a party line with your phone company? Would you?
edit on 16-6-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
For those who say that we don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our emails and that they are fair game for govt snooping.....

Do you have a password for your email account?

Why is that?
ETA:
How about your cell phone?
Did you sign up for a party line with your phone company? Would you?
edit on 16-6-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


This is a complete nonsense and anyone who suggest this as a defense should be laughed out of the room. There is NO EXCUSE for any agency, group, government or company to be reading your personal and private communications, this should only be possible under strict legal controls, based on reasonable suspicion of individuals or groups, and the process open to investigation by bodies charged with representing the public interest.

That's it in a nutshell. Anything that deviates from this is a criminal act and a direct attack on the democratic principles of a free society and a free people.

Any politician that defends anything other than this, or is found to be engaged in any activities in violation of this very simple and basic process should be summarily fired and then prosecuted by the people. No hesitations, no pause, no debates about the definitions of laws and arguments over the interests of "security".

Anyone who allows or defends such a breach of this basic premise are themselves an enemy of the population, in my opinion. No one can seriously defend the actions of the US government and the NSA and still maintain that they believe in the democratic process, the rule of law, the freedom of innocent members of society or libertarian values. NO ONE.

Anyone who tries to defend such breaches of this basic idea should be ashamed and embarrassed, for not only believing in and supporting totalitarianism, but for betraying the principles of the free and democratic society. These people are the same breed of ignorant and spineless fool that allowed the Nazis to take control of Germany and plunge the world into war.

If anyone here thinks what has been uncovered is "okay" or "not a big deal", they need to take lessons in democracy, and people should view them with utter disdain.

/rant

edit on 16-6-2013 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocker2013
 


Good rant!

The problem we face is huge. Too many have been brainwashed into believing that the govt needs to do this to protect us. Bigger yet, the people, even if they were 100% united against it, would have no recourse. Short of torches and pitchforks, all we can do is watch, in my opinion.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


So, the typical "it's Bush's fault" is used to defend Mr "it's not my fault" 0bama.

Tis is simple really. Who is in charge now?



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


Video from 2006, I guess it took 7 years for people to catch on?



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by aceamoeba
 





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

There's the amendment in question. There language is very clear..houses, papers, effects...this is very limited. There is no reasonable way to explain this as relating to telephone/internet communications that have to travel "outside" of one's property to work properly.


i've bolded the part you keep mincing around and ignoring, like an elephant in a room
is that you mr.holder?
what part of person[s] are you refusing to understand?



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 



Originally posted by elouina

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by averageGuy505
 


Hey look at the squirrel over there everyone!

Has anyone posted this timeline yet?
edit on 15-6-2013 by MsAphrodite because: (no reason given)


I heard that the compliance of earlier companies was voluntary! How outrageous is that? And it was actually their idea for the court orders so they don't look as eveil as they truely are. So is anyone out to make a new OS for computers with me? We can call it Winblows.
edit on 15-6-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



ROFL note that Apple was added to the list on Oct. 2012
a year after steve jobs passed away
hmmmm...



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Will step in just lightly on the Obama bit
Lying, as pointed out, is not treason.

As far as it being a lie in the first place, its gray. swear to uphold the constitution of the united states yadda yadda...and in the constitution, it speaks specifically about protecting us from enemies, both foreign and domestic, which is what this program (officially) is designed to do. So, its not even a 100% pants on fire lie on the esoteric point..its murky and subjective.

I don't believe you, therefore your lying does not mean its a lie..it just means you don't believe them..



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   


Sec. 1801. Definitions

-STATUTE-
As used in this subchapter:
(a) "Foreign power" means -
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or
not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not
substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign
government or governments to be directed and controlled by such
foreign government or governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities
in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially
composed of United States persons;
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign
government or governments; or
(7) an entity not substantially composed of United States
persons that is engaged in the international proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.

(f) "Electronic surveillance" means -
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other
surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio
communication sent by or intended to be received by a
particular, known United States person who is in the United
States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting
that United States person, under circumstances in which a
person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant
would be required for law enforcement purposes;



This is directly from the 50 USC CHAPTER 36 - FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE. This will help clear up any misunderstandings about FISA's authority to monitor domesticly. Someone living in America who has connection to a terrorist group based outside the U.S can be intentionally targeted, monitored and recorded. FISA has the authority to grant warrants pertaining to domestic surveillance so long as it related to foreign terrorist activity. This is totally legit. The Attorney General also would have to sign off of such activity. PRISM is in no way designed to "snoop" on everyday Americans simply for the sake of doing so, it's most important objective is to prevent terrorism. A conversation with Aunt Mildred about the virtues of being humble and frugal is not the purpose of FISA.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
i hadn't seen video number 2 before, was that under oath? because yeah thats pretty god damn blatant given the revelations we have gotten over the past few weeks.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


The rights contained within the Constitution aren't granted, they are inalienable; inherently part of being a citizen of this nation. Inalienable rights can't be given, nor can they be taken away.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheMagus
reply to post by aceamoeba
 





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

There's the amendment in question. There language is very clear..houses, papers, effects...this is very limited. There is no reasonable way to explain this as relating to telephone/internet communications that have to travel "outside" of one's property to work properly.


i've bolded the part you keep mincing around and ignoring, like an elephant in a room
is that you mr.holder?
what part of person[s] are you refusing to understand?


My understanding of "persons" includes private conversations on the telephone and I'm even willing to extend that to internet matters.

This to not mean very much when a warrant is granted.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


When the FISA court came out with a ruling that the NSA was doing things that violated the Constitution, and the Obama Administration's Justice is attempting to prevent that ruling from becoming public knowledge, isn't that potentially an impeachable offense?

Attempting to cover up violations of the Constitution by the federal government, isn't that enough? How does that abide by his oath of office?



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
SidShady:

The rights contained within the Constitution aren't granted, they are inalienable...and... Inalienable rights can't be given, nor can they be taken away.


I've separated your statement into two distinct clauses, both of which require questioning and clarification.

How are constitutional rights not granted, and how are they inalienable? What exactly does it mean by 'inalienable'?

Constitutional rights are concepts given meaning by ethical and moral perceptions. They are just ideas by which to recruit others with whom one has no direct familial connection in order to gain their support and create a community, or a tribe, or even a nation. For this to happen, certain ideas have to be expressed by which the disparate elements can come together in an holistic agreement.

These ideas are generally common sense perceptions of what is considered both ethical and moral, leading to a form of individual self-censorship that tempers one's behaviour towards others. There is no real consensus regarding the understanding and acceptance of what is ethical and what is moral, especially so between different cultures. Just as much as they can work for you, they can also work against you. They can debilitate you, freeze you when you should act, and unfreeze you when you shouldn't act. They are ideas that should both motivate to action, and to self-censorship in their proper accordance.

The 'rights' expressed from the ideas of ethical and moral perceptions are not in any way 'inalienable'...they are simply self-granted. They are not given to man by some divine higher power (regardless of your belief system). They have no existential reality of their own. They do not exist in their own right. They are simply expressions of virtue that are meant to promote a 'good' amongst members whom adhere to the principles. Such a 'good' may be the forming of a community, a tribe, or a nation, which in such establishing offers a secure and safe environment in which to live one's life, have a family, and rear offspring unfettered and unassailed. It can only work and function whilst the majority of members adhere to the principles and the spirit of the ideas expressed.

Herein lies the problem with human societies, not everyone adheres to the principles. Behaviour from those that do not do so is quite often duplicitous and deceiving, presenting a face of adherence, but underneath the mask, quite injurious to the principles, because they see them as obstacles to their agenda, but they cannot be 'open' about what they are doing, because you would (or should) seek to stop them. The lack of transparency, along with self-persuading acceptance for necessary secrecy, allows for mendacious behaviour by those entrusted to be anything but mendacious. It is the perfect breeding ground for eventual tyranny.

Freedoms, liberties, rights, do not protect themselves, they need protecting by the people whom subscribe to them. Usually, this means that the self-granted rights (leading to freedom and liberty) are protected by laws, which if broken (perceived as a crime), bring punitive punishment upon the offender. For most crimes it is usually enough, but when the offender of the principles are those entrusted with their protection, there is no real defence except that the people rally to remove the entrusted from positions of power; firstly through peaceful protest, and if that does not work, then by violent revolution.

There is no other way. There will be no divine intervention. No super heroes to come to the people's aid. The people themselves will have to lay their lives on the line to redress the wrong made to their cherished ideology. They can do this simply by exact focussing upon the real targets. Withdrawing support accordingly, and impressing force succinctly, without compromise or sentiment. Whichever way is taken, it will be utterly devastating to society, and will lay waste to life and property.

There is always one thought that always serves those enslaved by tyranny...and that is, tyranny requires as its most essential aspect, a slave to serve it. It needs to be waited upon hand and foot. The first step in redressing this obscenity is to simply stop being a slave, return to a belief in the first principles and defend them even with your life. The question to ask yourselves is...am I willing to sacrifice my life for others to enjoy the ethical and moral society I would wish to live in?



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


Isn't it just time for a total reset? Let people be self sufficient for awhile?



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
what is the TLDR version of this?

If anyone feels they have the extra energy to give that to me
Just a friendly request, I dont expect it.


Thanks!



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by elysiumfire
 


Individual rights are not gifts from God or society. They are conditions required by man's nature for his proper survival.
Without property rights, individuals could not translate their other rights into reality. All property and wealth are created by man's mind and labor, and they would cease to exist without the due recognition of their source: individual intelligence.

The only proper purpose of government is to protect rights; a government's only proper functions are: the police; the armed forces; and the courts, to settle disputes by objective law. Government must not initiate force against people.

www.atlassociety.org...

threatening ones rights [or survival, take note, those growing their own food or getting off the grid, regarding ANY threat from the state that seeks to impede] takes things to the level of the highest system of Law: Natural Law, which trumps any and all man made laws and constitutions.

will agree with this


Freedoms, liberties, rights, do not protect themselves, they need protecting by the people whom subscribe to them.

if one is unwilling to defend ones rights to the utmost consequences, they are non existent
the declaration of independence clearly advocates toppling the government when it becomes a threat to the peoples freedoms, a point it passed long ago

edit on 16-6-2013 by TheMagus because: added edit & comment




top topics



 
111
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join