Pelosi booed for saying NSA leaker Snowden violated the law!! BOOOOO!!!

reply to post by Moshpet

Likely one of the bigger investigations will be on just how the heck a zero like Snowden could get that information.

That someone like Snowden was able to leak such sensitive data is precisely what worries me about the govt. hoarding my information. I DO have things that I want to hide, nothing anti government but I don't want my neighbor to know what kind of weird things I look up online just because some vindictive bitch I used to date gets a job at the NSA.

Im somewhat OK with having a select few people with the power to tap into any sort of communication and monitor it. I don't want to be a fish in the dragnet though. If you have some good reason to spy on an individual and his contacts, go for it. I see the allure of hoarding all data for eternity from a high ups perspective, but that's not the country I want to live in or believe we are.

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by Moshpet

 

Go ahead, be angry; but don't expect the government to invalidate the rule of law just because it suits your moral indignation.

With all due respect, government has been invalidating rule of law for a while now... when and where it suits them, not us... moral indignation withstanding.

If you can build a firm case for the Government having worked outside the rule of law, with the evidence to back it up, go ahead and seek to prosecute them. Please, exercise your rights and make the case in a court of law; otherwise all you are doing is venting.

Heck I double dog dare you.
M.

reply to post by starfoxxx

Pelosi is the traitor..

They're all traitors ! And beyond them lay the true perps. Tri=lateral commission, CFR, Builderberg, NSA ,CIA,
The FBI yi yi, the UN, and the you're a peon common market. All are populated by iluminati satnic blood lines.
Not humans, not leaders but some type of hybrid thatt have set them selves up as our rulers. They are both
alien to us and demonic in spirit. They are the wicked and will soon delight in watching the blood flow.

You better believe that truth, is much stranger than fiction. Because fiction, has to make sense.

Pelosi should be booed every time she opens her mouth.

The fact that she has achieved such prominence in our government says a lot about everything that's wrong with America today.

Originally posted by pteridine
Eddie Snowden got his panties in a twist and decided to spill his guts. He started believing that he was some kind of hero.

A bigger hero then some people on this board will EVER be!! Pelosi has shown her true colors, and the people are finally picking it up!! This is what the threads about, Pelosi being put in her place.. The only person I see here wanting to be the center of attention is Pelosi spouting her hate for Snowden and wanting to see him fried and calling him GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY without him EVER setting place in a courthouse!!! The ladies off the rockers

Originally posted by Moshpet

Originally posted by Shadowphile

Originally posted by Moshpet
/snip
Just because there is a moral hook to those cases, it does not excuse their crimes.

Go ahead, be angry; but don't expect the government to invalidate the rule of law just because it suits your moral indignation.

M.

edit on 23-6-2013 by Moshpet because: M+A+T+H = 42

So, when is the NSA facing justice for it?

Are they not breaking the law and claiming that it is to protect us just like snowden did?
Odd how you did not even give that any mention given your stance on the circumstances.

Not odd, it wasn't the overall theme or topic of the thread. Which from what it looks like, a free ride for the traitor Snowden.

That is a bit puzzling considering that that was the main reason why pelosi got boo'ed at in the first place namely , hypocrisy.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


yes, what she failed to say was that the law itself has become corrupt and there is no more freedom to fight the system with the system.

Originally posted by Moshpet

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by Moshpet

 

Go ahead, be angry; but don't expect the government to invalidate the rule of law just because it suits your moral indignation.

With all due respect, government has been invalidating rule of law for a while now... when and where it suits them, not us... moral indignation withstanding.

If you can build a firm case for the Government having worked outside the rule of law, with the evidence to back it up, go ahead and seek to prosecute them. Please, exercise your rights and make the case in a court of law; otherwise all you are doing is venting.

Heck I double dog dare you.

M.

That is all fine and wonderful of you to say but realistically, how far do you expect him to get if he did that?

I mean like you said yourself:

Do I expect we'll ever see all the inside view points of those investigations, no, as they are a part of national security.

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

---- Ben Franklin


Hang the treasonous traitors...

They swore an oath to not undermine our freedoms

Enough of this bull$hit

Originally posted by Shadowphile

Originally posted by Moshpet

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by Moshpet

 

Go ahead, be angry; but don't expect the government to invalidate the rule of law just because it suits your moral indignation.

With all due respect, government has been invalidating rule of law for a while now... when and where it suits them, not us... moral indignation withstanding.

If you can build a firm case for the Government having worked outside the rule of law, with the evidence to back it up, go ahead and seek to prosecute them. Please, exercise your rights and make the case in a court of law; otherwise all you are doing is venting.

Heck I double dog dare you.

M.

That is all fine and wonderful of you to say but realistically, how far do you expect him to get if he did that?

I mean like you said yourself:

Do I expect we'll ever see all the inside view points of those investigations, no, as they are a part of national security.

Even if we don't see inside, I expect there will be a civil trial of some sort. Likely the EFF and the like with a huge amount of supporters, will be able to force a challenge to how our data is treated.

But if an individual has evidence of criminal wrong doing, and the the key word is evidence, then it should be established in a court of law and reviewed by lawmakers who can either kick it up a level into a higher court. Or on appeal move it to a higher court. The issue is, any Joe Blow can cry foul and vent their spleen over an issue, crime or invented slight, but when it comes to putting the evidence on the table, real evidence, not myth or hyperbole; then you can get some sort of action taken.

It may not go far, but well, with out real evidence, firmly established and verified evidence, no case is going to even hit the table. Which means if someone has the evidence, they need to put it out there in front of lawyers and judges, otherwise they are guilty of a crime in their own right. Yet, if there is no evidence, or it is just word of mouth, much less vent of spleen, then well, it's just so much bovine excrement in the air.

M.

The fact is he did violate the law....
even though he did the right and courageous thing.

I have read a few places that people wish that the politicians in Washington would show support for Snowden and they are so far not doing it.

Although Ron Paul is no longer a Congressman, he has gone on record as saying that he thinks Snowden is a hero. I believe he would have said the same if he were still a member of Congress and that's why I supported him. He says what he believes and doesn't waver even in the face of ridicule from the press and his so-called peers holding public office.

Nancy Pelosi is one of those people that make me cringe every time I see her speak. She kept saying she understands. I don't think she does. I don't think she gets it at all or she would have shuffled off side stage left and took her propaganda with her.

reply to post by Ghost375

The fact is he did violate the law....

I heard the term used " secret court" residing over the judicial process of the NSA warrantless surveillance. Would this stand up in court as legal and not violating constitutional rights of citizens. If the answer is no, then he cant of violated law because the law itself was constitutional corrupt.

Originally posted by Moshpet

Originally posted by Shadowphile

Originally posted by Moshpet

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by Moshpet

 

Go ahead, be angry; but don't expect the government to invalidate the rule of law just because it suits your moral indignation.

With all due respect, government has been invalidating rule of law for a while now... when and where it suits them, not us... moral indignation withstanding.

If you can build a firm case for the Government having worked outside the rule of law, with the evidence to back it up, go ahead and seek to prosecute them. Please, exercise your rights and make the case in a court of law; otherwise all you are doing is venting.

Heck I double dog dare you.

M.

That is all fine and wonderful of you to say but realistically, how far do you expect him to get if he did that?

I mean like you said yourself:

Do I expect we'll ever see all the inside view points of those investigations, no, as they are a part of national security.

Even if we don't see inside, I expect there will be a civil trial of some sort. Likely the EFF and the like with a huge amount of supporters, will be able to force a challenge to how our data is treated.

But if an individual has evidence of criminal wrong doing, and the the key word is evidence, then it should be established in a court of law and reviewed by lawmakers who can either kick it up a level into a higher court. Or on appeal move it to a higher court. The issue is, any Joe Blow can cry foul and vent their spleen over an issue, crime or invented slight, but when it comes to putting the evidence on the table, real evidence, not myth or hyperbole; then you can get some sort of action taken.

It may not go far, but well, with out real evidence, firmly established and verified evidence, no case is going to even hit the table. Which means if someone has the evidence, they need to put it out there in front of lawyers and judges, otherwise they are guilty of a crime in their own right. Yet, if there is no evidence, or it is just word of mouth, much less vent of spleen, then well, it's just so much bovine excrement in the air.

M.

edit on 24-6-2013 by Moshpet because: Because.

While that all sounds very good on paper it also is a bit idealistic.

Take Mr.Snowden for example. How do you purpose he or anyone else would be able to obtain such evidence in a legal way that would enable him or anyone else to legally present such material even though it is classified as "A matter of national security" ?

Why not just grant Snowden full immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying against the US government?

Folks, We are well past Due Process and using the system to rectify the situation. Voting is more symbolic these days then actually getting anything done what the voters want done. It is however obvious We are on the right track to exposing and further angering the public or general population into a outright demand or else situation.

Originally posted by Shadowphile

Originally posted by Moshpet

Originally posted by Shadowphile

Originally posted by Moshpet

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by Moshpet

 

/snip

While that all sounds very good on paper it also is a bit idealistic.

Take Mr.Snowden for example. How do you purpose he or anyone else would be able to obtain such evidence in a legal way that would enable him or anyone else to legally present such material even though it is classified as "A matter of national security" ?

Well that is the crux of the problem, doing so legally.
Breaking the law, to show evidence of a crime, is still breaking the law.
However, such a legal quandary is ultimately going to have to be discussed, and likely over so many meetings and hearings, spanning several years.

Yet, idealistically as it may or may not seem, we as a nation of diverse people either will have to say 'Yes, there should be a full legal review of such cases.' And present such a case, to a court of law.

Yes the rule of law is often idealistic, but without the rule of law we'd have zero recourse to peacefully settle any issue.

Personally, I support ruling by law and not by violence or corporate fiat. Which means I vote, and you should vote, and get involved with the process to effect change. Join up with like minded political groups, and put a few dollars into their hat to allow them to amass support and lobby for change. But doing nothing but screaming, "They breaking the laws!" With out a legal leg to stand on, isn't going to accomplish anything.

Is our system of government perfect, no, and there has never been a perfect government. But it is what we have, and we have to use that framework to effect change.

Anarchy and violence will not fix America, but it sure as hell can break it.

M.

edit on 24-6-2013 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)

Snowden was certainly not the first person to show that the NSA was eavesdropping on telephony and data lines in major communications firms. Mark Klein, a former AT&T employee , blew the whistle back in 2006 when he proved that the NSA was splitting trunk feeds from AT&T directly into their facilities.

The Story,

There is a plethora of data on the web about this case.

Klein was never prosecuted, because he joined a lawsuit brought to the table by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), when he made his revelation public. Snowden should not be prosecuted either, as he is really revealing many known facts, but in a wider scope.

(your quote is a bit messed up there)

Well that is the crux of the problem, doing so legally.

Yes but that is also where that all ends. Which is why i asked the question "realistically, how far do you think he would get if he did that" Which was of course about taking such government institutes to court for for breaking such laws as you suggested.

There is simply said no way to obtain such evidence in any legal way and as you so admirably say, you are of the opinion that these laws may not be broken even in a effort to expose such crimes.

The crux of that crux if you will is that by supporting that notion you are facilitating crimes being committed by sheer submittance of incompetence. (not to be taken as a insult)
So in fact you will allow them to commit crimes because you cannot legally provide evidence of them.

Proving in fact, the need of people like Mr.Snowden to bring these crimes to our attention in a effort to stop these, and future crimes from being committed.


You see , in my view (and please don't take this the wrong way) i think you are a bit extremist about following the law. You cannot fight and win in a corrupt system by following their rules where they themselves do not need to.

Originally posted by StarsInDust
reply to post by starfoxxx

 

They are working hard to give the illusion that Snowden is bad, and the bad guys are good. Too bad for their little show, few people are buying it.

I find it interesting that the politicians / people running these programs, who also broke the law, don't see a need to hold themselves accountable. Just the person who exposed their illegal activity.

I wish the people of San Francisco would kick Pelosi's ass to the curb where it belongs... Maybe we should look into her husbands investments while we are at it. We can see how much money he made off her inside information.

I will support the prosecution of Snowden ONLY if every single member of the government is prosecuted using the same standards.