Ron Paul on Edward Snowden’s indictment

page: 3
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 



Even if what the NSA is doing is illegal, it does not excuse him doing what he did in the manner that he did it. I'm not going to forgive one sin just because it reports another.


Well honestly there is a philosophical question that must be asked then.

If something is legal but blatantly unethical, should it be an accepted practice? That being said, if someone does something "illegal" yet arguably ethical to expose the ethical implications of such a legal practice (i.e wiretapping), then does that individual deserve to be condemned by the system that perpetuated the unethical behavior?


Just because you dont agree with something does not make it illegal.


No, but just because something is legal does not necessarily make in ethical and vice versa. I in no way will follow a law that I believe infringes upon my rights or the rights of others, it is one of the most basic forms of protest against a government who routinely uses coercion and the "rule of law" to control its populace and implement unethical policies.




posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by flyswatter
 



Even if what the NSA is doing is illegal, it does not excuse him doing what he did in the manner that he did it. I'm not going to forgive one sin just because it reports another.


Well honestly there is a philosophical question that must be asked then.

If something is legal but blatantly unethical, should it be an accepted practice? That being said, if someone does something "illegal" yet arguably ethical to expose the ethical implications of such a legal practice (i.e wiretapping), then does that individual deserve to be condemned by the system that perpetuated the unethical behavior?


Just because you dont agree with something does not make it illegal.


No, but just because something is legal does not necessarily make in ethical and vice versa. I in no way will follow a law that I believe infringes upon my rights or the rights of others, it is one of the most basic forms of protest against a government who routinely uses coercion and the "rule of law" to control its populace and implement unethical policies.


You're right in the fact that there is a moral and ethical dilemma here. I have tried my best to keep my personal view separate from the argument, but just for the sake of disclosure - I also believe the snooping in the US steps over the line, and that that line needs to be brought back a bit from where it currently sits.

But as I said before, even if you presume him innocent when talking about the snooping on US citizens and the disclosure of that information, he has other issues that he needs to worry about.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Wow his analytical political mind really has no parallel, except Noam. Thanks, RP blows me away again.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 




You're right in the fact that there is a moral and ethical dilemma here. I have tried my best to keep my personal view separate from the argument, but just for the sake of disclosure - I also believe the snooping in the US steps over the line, and that that line needs to be brought back a bit from where it currently sits.


This is why I don't understand your defense of the rhetoric used by the State which brands him a "criminal". The man is no more a criminal then Daniel Ellsberg or any other conscientious objector.


he has other issues that he needs to worry about


Yeah, like being the witch in a witch hunt.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by flyswatter
 




You're right in the fact that there is a moral and ethical dilemma here. I have tried my best to keep my personal view separate from the argument, but just for the sake of disclosure - I also believe the snooping in the US steps over the line, and that that line needs to be brought back a bit from where it currently sits.


This is why I don't understand your defense of the rhetoric used by the State which brands him a "criminal". The man is no more a criminal then Daniel Ellsberg or any other conscientious objector.


he has other issues that he needs to worry about


Yeah, like being the witch in a witch hunt.


Simple, he broke the law. I've said it many times, even if you completely disregard the information he leaked dealing with the in-country snooping, he still leaked other information that made what he did a criminal act. The three things that he was charged with were very appropriate. This doesnt in any way excuse the NSA for doing what they are doing - I am only making a point that he needs to answer for what he did just like anyone else.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


Well so sorry to be that guy but let me give you a hypothetical.

Should a man in Iran who is ordered to stone a women by rule of law be punished for disobeying the law and freeing the women?
edit on 27-6-2013 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by flyswatter
 


Well so sorry to be that guy but let me give you a hypothetical.

Should a man in Iran who is ordered to stone a women by rule of law be punished for disobeying the law and freeing the women?
edit on 27-6-2013 by Openeye because: (no reason given)


Based on what? The laws there, the laws here, my personal opinion, or what is morally acceptable? I think the answer is pretty obvious for each of those, but which to choose really depends on how you want to base the question.

Laws there? Yes. Laws here? No. Personal opinion? No. Morally acceptable? No.

But then again, my main issue with what Snowden did has to do with things that ARE permitted by US law, and things that I do not have any issue with. My main issues have nothing to do with the NSA snooping information.
edit on 27-6-2013 by flyswatter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


I'm going to wholly disregard your first two statements as I can see zero relationship between either of those controversial subjects as they would relate to surveillance, espionage and cyber espionage.

In terms of espionage taking place via agents physically within the target country, there is no diplomatic immunity whatsoever. They can and will be dealt with whatever impunity and laws that the host country decides regardless of residential status. That is the definition of persona non grata.

Yep and I actually looked over it. However, what the scope of the act is intended for and what has been suggested by what has been revealed by PRISM is that the latter's scope was far broader in information accumulation than what the act itself provided for. Plus there are the issues in regards to the information collection on US citizens--regardless of whether that information was actively read by an agent or not. According to FISA from the link you provided, the Attorney General is supposed to engage in what is called "minimization procedures", which the code itself defines as such:


(4) "Minimization procedures" with respect to physical search,
means -
(A) specific procedures, which shall be adopted by the
Attorney General, that are reasonably designed in light of the
purposes and technique of the particular physical search, to
minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the
dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning
unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need of
the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign
intelligence information;


So, the broad acquisition and collection of cell phone records, emails and whatnot should have been falling under "minimization" but the question is, did they? From the various news reports and the future data storage center in Utah, it sure as hell doesn't seem like they are engaging in minimizing procedures.

Additionally, from a diplomatic standpoint, it was a freaking disaster waiting to happen because, either at home or abroad, it has a distinct potentiality of being viewed as a grotesque abuse of power. The absence of international cyber espionage law in terms of surveillance is no excuse for the lack of diplomatic judgment. The EU, Canada, Russia, and China are all distinctly uncomfortable with us right now and it is truly our own doing. It would seem that the desire to acquire as much information as possible about everyone allowed for a prolific lack of foresight of which there will be probable repercussions. We were already not the world's favorite neighbor on the block and this really didn't help matters.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 



Laws there? Yes.


Why!? Because it is the law? You know how absurd that sounds right?

Again just because something is law does not mean it deserves to be followed, nor is it said governments "right" to condemn such a person for breaking unethical laws. The only thing that gives them that "right" is not some moral authority, its because they have the freaking guns!



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
*Double Post*
edit on 27-6-2013 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
What snowden did was wrong, he's a traitor plane & simple


Selling secrets to Russia & China



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhiteAlice
reply to post by flyswatter
 


I'm going to wholly disregard your first two statements as I can see zero relationship between either of those controversial subjects as they would relate to surveillance, espionage and cyber espionage.

In terms of espionage taking place via agents physically within the target country, there is no diplomatic immunity whatsoever. They can and will be dealt with whatever impunity and laws that the host country decides regardless of residential status. That is the definition of persona non grata.

Yep and I actually looked over it. However, what the scope of the act is intended for and what has been suggested by what has been revealed by PRISM is that the latter's scope was far broader in information accumulation than what the act itself provided for. Plus there are the issues in regards to the information collection on US citizens--regardless of whether that information was actively read by an agent or not. According to FISA from the link you provided, the Attorney General is supposed to engage in what is called "minimization procedures", which the code itself defines as such:


(4) "Minimization procedures" with respect to physical search,
means -
(A) specific procedures, which shall be adopted by the
Attorney General, that are reasonably designed in light of the
purposes and technique of the particular physical search, to
minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the
dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning
unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need of
the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign
intelligence information;


So, the broad acquisition and collection of cell phone records, emails and whatnot should have been falling under "minimization" but the question is, did they? From the various news reports and the future data storage center in Utah, it sure as hell doesn't seem like they are engaging in minimizing procedures.

Additionally, from a diplomatic standpoint, it was a freaking disaster waiting to happen because, either at home or abroad, it has a distinct potentiality of being viewed as a grotesque abuse of power. The absence of international cyber espionage law in terms of surveillance is no excuse for the lack of diplomatic judgment. The EU, Canada, Russia, and China are all distinctly uncomfortable with us right now and it is truly our own doing. It would seem that the desire to acquire as much information as possible about everyone allowed for a prolific lack of foresight of which there will be probable repercussions. We were already not the world's favorite neighbor on the block and this really didn't help matters.


As far as the resident vs. non-resident spy goes, this is mostly what I was speaking of:
"A legal resident spy operates in a foreign country under official cover (e.g. from his country's embassy). He is an official member of the consular staff, such as a commercial, cultural or military attaché. Thus he has diplomatic immunity from prosecution and cannot be arrested by the host country if suspected of espionage. The most the host country can do is send him back to his home country as persona non grata."
"An illegal resident spy operates under a non-official cover; thus, he cannot claim immunity from prosecution when arrested. He may operate under a false name and has documents making him out to be an actual national or from a different country to that which he is spying for.[1] Examples of such illegals include Rudolf Abel who operated in the United States; and Gordon Lonsdale who was born in Russia, claimed to be Canadian and operated in Britain. Famous Soviet "illegals" include Richard Sorge[4], Walter Krivitsky, Alexander Ulanovsky, and Anna Chapman."

And when I say things that are covered by the FISA, I'm not speaking at all about anything dealing with the NSA issues in the US. I'm speaking strictly of the activities outside of the US - those that deal with China, North Korea, Iran, etc. I cant see any justification of broad scope US monitoring by the NSA that would be covered by the FISA. In my opinion, the NSA and those charged with power over the NSA screwed up when authorizing PRISM and the related goings on dealing with in-country monitoring.

And you're right, the US isnt seen in such a favorable light by many. We're the lone remaining superpower and we're a bit stuck in our ways in regards to and because of that.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by flyswatter
 



Laws there? Yes.


Why!? Because it is the law? You know how absurd that sounds right?

Again just because something is law does not mean it deserves to be followed, nor is it said governments "right" to condemn such a person for breaking unethical laws. The only thing that gives them that "right" is not some moral authority, its because they have the freaking guns!


Heh, no no no. I dont agree with the law at all, and I dont personally think it should be followed. I was simply putting myself in the shoes of someone who follows those laws and only those laws, and follows them to the letter. If you want an answer based only on their laws, of course it will happen. That doesnt make it right - it only makes it lawful in that particular country. Different strokes for different folks, right?



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 



Simple, he broke the law. I've said it many times, even if you completely disregard the information he leaked dealing with the in-country snooping, he still leaked other information that made what he did a criminal act.

you have yet to show that anything he leaked was a legally classified document. i've asked many times, and i've said many times that he hasn't broken any law.

the three things he is being charged with are not applicable due to the nature of what he released: illegal actions, both domestic and abroad.

i was hoping this thread would stay on the second page as long as possible so people could read it and see the flaws in your argument, and that you just go in circles. i have posed to you a question, to demonstrate that he broke the law by leaking documents that were of legal programs. only then could you make any legal case against him.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter
 



Simple, he broke the law. I've said it many times, even if you completely disregard the information he leaked dealing with the in-country snooping, he still leaked other information that made what he did a criminal act.

you have yet to show that anything he leaked was a legally classified document. i've asked many times, and i've said many times that he hasn't broken any law.

the three things he is being charged with are not applicable due to the nature of what he released: illegal actions, both domestic and abroad.

i was hoping this thread would stay on the second page as long as possible so people could read it and see the flaws in your argument, and that you just go in circles. i have posed to you a question, to demonstrate that he broke the law by leaking documents that were of legal programs. only then could you make any legal case against him.


I told you exactly what he did that was illegal, broke it down based on incident and complete with dates, and gave you the FISA which explicitly permits the types of actions that were taken overseas in the CI operations. I am sorry that you dont agree with it, but thats really not my problem. If you have issues with those things, I suggest you take it up with your local representative and work your way through Congress in an attempt to get FISA repealed.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
HERE IS THE LAW

Amendment IV

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.


....The ship is sinking and the deckhands are arguing about how to arrange the furniture



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival
HERE IS THE LAW

Amendment IV

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.


....The ship is sinking and the deckhands are arguing about how to arrange the furniture


And that applies to the NSA's in-country activities that deal with US citizens. That has nothing to do with the overseas activities that were also leaked.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter
Whether he was morally right or wrong in leaking information is largely irrelevant. He violated signed agreements and broke the law, and just like anyone else, he deserves to be held accountable for doing so. I dont put him on a pedestal above others and I dont scream "Kill him!" at the top of my lungs - I am looking at this from a purely legal standpoint.


You swear an oath, to defend your country ... against all enemies, FOREIGN and DOMESTIC.

At this point, you need to define what your country is.

Mr. George Bush, or Obama Bin Laden ... are NOT Kings of America, where YOU are a peasant who is renting a small place on THEIR country.

The country, in a Democracy ... are the PEOPLE.

So, if the government deems the PEOPLE their enemy, and disclosing information (which is legally correct to do, under the Information act) to the public to be espionage.

THEN THE GOVERNMENT IS THE DOMESTIC ENEMY



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by flyswatter
Whether he was morally right or wrong in leaking information is largely irrelevant. He violated signed agreements and broke the law, and just like anyone else, he deserves to be held accountable for doing so. I dont put him on a pedestal above others and I dont scream "Kill him!" at the top of my lungs - I am looking at this from a purely legal standpoint.


You swear an oath, to defend your country ... against all enemies, FOREIGN and DOMESTIC.

At this point, you need to define what your country is.

Mr. George Bush, or Obama Bin Laden ... are NOT Kings of America, where YOU are a peasant who is renting a small place on THEIR country.

The country, in a Democracy ... are the PEOPLE.

So, if the government deems the PEOPLE their enemy, and disclosing information (which is legally correct to do, under the Information act) to the public to be espionage.

THEN THE GOVERNMENT IS THE DOMESTIC ENEMY


This kiddo was not military that was employed by the NSA, he was a contractor working for them. He takes no such oath, sir


But I thank you kindly for the anti-government rant.





new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join