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.

 

Ron Paul on Edward Snowden’s indictment

page: 4
37
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawg61
I read somewhere yesterday Snowden had the info on a couple of hard rives and the Russians now have them.Make what you will with that but a don't believe you will see this man in an extradition country and may not ever leave Russia.


If he indeed did share the info with the Russians, and Chinese, as has been reported, then he did in fact commit an act of treason and should be punished accordingly... whether we agree with what the NSA is doing or not doesn't change this fact.




posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter

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.


There was nothing "leaked".

This is disclosure from a whistle-blower of global spying on a massive scale. A scale that not
only violates US constitutional law...but violates the precept that all humans have a right to
privacy and dignity.

It is wrong for any human, or any cabal of humans to believe they alone have the right
to every other human's personal communications....it is wrong

exposing wrong is not a crime....not in my heart....ever



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
this man and his 'story' is all over the main stream media.

need we say anymore? really?



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter
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.

you stated some actions that he took, you did NOTHING to show that they were illegal, you merely stated that they were illegal.


On June 9, The Guardian revealed Boundless Informant, a system that "details and even maps by country the voluminous amount of information [the NSA] collects from computer and telephone networks."

a system that collects information from computers and telephones, then categorizes it by country. it's illegal in america and every country we would care to spy on.


On June 12, the South China Morning Post disclosed that the NSA has been hacking into computers in China and Hong Kong since 2009.

the NSA hacks computers in china and hong kong. it is my understanding that hacking isn't needed to obtain information legally.


On June 17, The Guardian reported that the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), a British intelligence agency, had intercepted foreign politicians' communications at the 2009 G-20 London Summit.

this doesn't exactly apply, because he isn't being charged by britain, however even if he were, it is still illegal.


On June 20, The Guardian revealed two secret documents, signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, describing the rules by which the NSA determines whether targets of investigations are foreign or domestic.

illegal protocols


On June 21, The Guardian made further disclosures about 'Tempora,' an 18-month-old British operation by GCHQ to intercept and store mass quantities of fiber-optic traffic.

more illegal acts from the british (violating american and u.k citizen's rights, as well as many others)


On June 23, the South China Morning Post reported that Snowden had said the NSA had hacked Chinese mobile-phone companies to collect millions of text messages and had also hacked Tsinghua University in Beijing and the Asian fiber-optic network operator Pacnet. The newspaper said Snowden provided documents that listed details of specific episodes during a four-year period.

and more illegal hacking of private data by the NSA.

so you literally quoted a bunch of stuff that looks impressive and claimed it was illegally released data (implying that the actions taken were/are legal). yeah....no.

edit on 27-6-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 





your point isn't valid. his leaks are about illegal operations, in-country or not doesn't change that. as we've established, something cannot be classified to hide its illegal aspects.


Proof please. What is illegal? Your ranting has no basis in fact. Until then your simply pontificating. Your argument has no basis in law. Further, fleeing to China or Russia when you worked for the US intelligence community absolutely reeks of common everyday espionage. Snowden is not a hero. If he stayed in the US and faced the consequences i would have more sympathy. We simply do not know what he did, what we do know is, he fled to countries who are diametrically opposed to freedom of the People.

V



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Variable
 



Proof please. What is illegal?

violating the 4th amendment.


your ranting has no basis in fact. Until then your simply pontificating. Your argument has no basis in law.

lots of opinion coming from someone who claims to want facts.


Further, fleeing to China or Russia when you worked for the US intelligence community absolutely reeks of common everyday espionage.

because everyday espionage entails people spilling the beans, not just keeping the documents to sell or supply to another nation.


If he stayed in the US and faced the consequences i would have more sympathy

it's been tried by others in the NSA. they got nowhere, and you've never heard of them. i posted a link to the video in a comment awhile ago. three agents worked in the NSA for decades, attempting to change the system and stop unconstitutional actions. it didn't work.


We simply do not know what he did, what we do know is, he fled to countries who are diametrically opposed to freedom of the People.

like the freedom to be secure in their personal effects, property, papers, etc? if he wanted a country that was opposed to freedom, he wouldn't have left.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 





violating the 4th amendment.


Your argument is simply based on opinion. We all have opinions right? They are like a certain nether region.




The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.


4th amendment

So if a FISA court allowed the action it is legal under law right?.
FISA

Therefore, your argument is wholly invalid. Now, you could argue that the FISA court is invalid but that is a tough road to hoe. Your opinion is simply that, an opinion. Until a court agrees with you you have no basis in law. If, and when, a court agrees with you I will back you whole hardheartedly.

V
edit on 6/27/2013 by Variable because: they are.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Originally posted by flyswatter
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.

you stated some actions that he took, you did NOTHING to show that they were illegal, you merely stated that they were illegal.


On June 9, The Guardian revealed Boundless Informant, a system that "details and even maps by country the voluminous amount of information [the NSA] collects from computer and telephone networks."

a system that collects information from computers and telephones, then categorizes it by country. it's illegal in america and every country we would care to spy on.


On June 12, the South China Morning Post disclosed that the NSA has been hacking into computers in China and Hong Kong since 2009.

the NSA hacks computers in china and hong kong. it is my understanding that hacking isn't needed to obtain information legally.


On June 17, The Guardian reported that the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), a British intelligence agency, had intercepted foreign politicians' communications at the 2009 G-20 London Summit.

this doesn't exactly apply, because he isn't being charged by britain, however even if he were, it is still illegal.


On June 20, The Guardian revealed two secret documents, signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, describing the rules by which the NSA determines whether targets of investigations are foreign or domestic.

illegal protocols


On June 21, The Guardian made further disclosures about 'Tempora,' an 18-month-old British operation by GCHQ to intercept and store mass quantities of fiber-optic traffic.

more illegal acts from the british (violating american and u.k citizen's rights, as well as many others)


On June 23, the South China Morning Post reported that Snowden had said the NSA had hacked Chinese mobile-phone companies to collect millions of text messages and had also hacked Tsinghua University in Beijing and the Asian fiber-optic network operator Pacnet. The newspaper said Snowden provided documents that listed details of specific episodes during a four-year period.

and more illegal hacking of private data by the NSA.

so you literally quoted a bunch of stuff that looks impressive and claimed it was illegally released data (implying that the actions taken were/are legal). yeah....no.

edit on 27-6-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)


I'm not sure how many ways or how many times I can really tell you that you are wrong ... but one more time, you are wrong. This speaks nothing about the activities going on within the US, but the intelligence community has explicit permission to conduct these operations overseas by way of FISA. The 4th amendment means exactly *NOTHING* in regards to these activities. The fact that it might be illegal in another country is irrelevant, as we dont base our activities on their laws, we base it on ours. If we were to do things as you suggest, there would never be another classified document related to spying because it is illegal in ... well, pretty much every country, I'm sure ... and that information could not be classified because of that.

Not. Going. To. Happen. We dont live in a broom closet where we have to ask "Mother, May I" for everything. This is a real world with a lot of real problems, both here and overseas. Countries spy on each other. Been happening since long before you or I were a twinkle in our parents eyes.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   
So what if he broke the law ? He did what was right ... the law be damned ..

Can we discuss something constructive here.... and not debate on if Snowden broke the law or not which is completely useless anyway ...
edit on 28-6-2013 by maddy21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Privateinquotations
 


The problem is we will probably never see anything they are doing bring charges because since 911 and the law changes after that day they have slowly changed things so that they could loop hole these things into existence behind our backs. And here we are.

Been telling my friends and family for almost ten years this was going on and was pretty much told i was missing my tin foil hat and was laughted at and told that i had no idea what i was talking about. Well here we are and now the cat is out of the bag. Probably to late to do anything about it though.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   
just reading this post:

I am in England so i get to look at things maybe without some of the emotional baggage about the 'flag'

my thoughts:

Ron Paul should be leading your country, and every-time i hear this chap or read what he writes or how he got shafted in the last elections from media coverage to generally robbed by corruption and fixing, he is the right guy to make your country great again.

What Edward Snowden did was right!, ethically most definitely, legally you can debate that drivel with petty squabbles all you like, however ethically he exposed your breach of your own rights. do the right thing. (if you still see China and Russia as some invading enemy then you haven't kept up with current affairs and still think combat is done with a sword and shield)

more importantly Manning was also ethically right and legally right as he exposed clearly illegal activities done in your name, Snowden is taking far too much limelight from a more important case, yes you are being listened to, but more importantly people are being fried out... ethically this would be more important

just sayin



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Variable
 



So if a FISA court allowed the action it is legal under law right?. FISA Therefore, your argument is wholly invalid. Now, you could argue that the FISA court is invalid but that is a tough road to hoe. Your opinion is simply that, an opinion. Until a court agrees with you you have no basis in law. If, and when, a court agrees with you I will back you whole hardheartedly.

here, i'll quote the part that you would say is just my "opinion".


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.

so no. it is not legal under the law because a court has allowed it. probable cause is needed that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed. furthermore, the warrant itself must describe a specific area of search, and what they can take.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 



I'm not sure how many ways or how many times I can really tell you that you are wrong ... but one more time, you are wrong.

you keep saying it, but you do nothing to show it.


the intelligence community has explicit permission to conduct these operations overseas by way of FISA.

those other countries would disagree. the U.S is not the sovereign ruler of the planet, and our international actions must follow our laws and international laws.


The fact that it might be illegal in another country is irrelevant, as we dont base our activities on their laws, we base it on ours.

all the data we've taken, and the way it has been taken, isn't congruent with the 4th amendment. probable cause is needed, specifying the person who is being searched and why; the extent of the search, and what can be taken.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 





A gun does not protect you from a plane crashing into your building.


It does if the scumbag trying to hijack an aircraft with a craft knife or two, gets shot with one.



A gun cannot protect you from a bomb in a car.


See above.



A gun cannot protect you from an IED.


See above above.




Terrorists don't go around announcing they are terrorists.


Terrorists tend to be very vocal on what they've done and why. Little point being in the terrorist business if you don't get to set out your agenda and manifesto, condemn whomever it is you're terrorising and why, etc. etc.

It's serial killers and traitors that tend not to shout about what they're up to.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by maddy21
So what if he broke the law ? He did what was right ... the law be damned ..

Can we discuss something constructive here.... and not debate on if Snowden broke the law or not which is completely useless anyway ...
edit on 28-6-2013 by maddy21 because: (no reason given)


I agree, since its absolutely 100% fact he broke the law, there is nothing more to debate on the matter. He also is guilty of treason, no more debate needed there either... so what do you suggest we discuss now that we got the facts out of the way?



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   

the intelligence community has explicit permission to conduct these operations overseas by way of FISA.

those other countries would disagree. the U.S is not the sovereign ruler of the planet, and our international actions must follow our laws and international laws.


The fact that other countries disagree with us having a law that allows it makes no difference. We dont particularly care that they disagree with FISA. No country "allows" the clandestine gathering of sensitive information by other countries. Whether you like it or not, gathering operations overseas are permitted by US law. You dont have to agree with it, but it is a fact.



The fact that it might be illegal in another country is irrelevant, as we dont base our activities on their laws, we base it on ours.

all the data we've taken, and the way it has been taken, isn't congruent with the 4th amendment. probable cause is needed, specifying the person who is being searched and why; the extent of the search, and what can be taken.


Are you actually asking for us to extend 4th Amendment rights to other countries? The Constitution does not apply to everyone on the planet, sir. If you would like it to, I'm sure your Senator would love to hear about it. Good luck with that one.

Your land of glitter and unicorns is a fantasy. I have stated nothing but fact here. If you would like more information about where 4th Amendment rights do and do not apply, I would suggest contacting ... well, pretty much any US Constitutional scholar currently alive and practicing law.

Now, if you want to speak on all of this happening within the borders of the United States, its a completely different ballgame. That's not something that I could rightfully defend the NSA on.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 



It does if the scumbag trying to hijack an aircraft with a craft knife or two, gets shot with one.


So your saying that 9/11 never happened?


See above.


Really? So you shoot at random cars just in case?


See above above.


So your saying that bomb defusal isn't your bag? And how are you supposed to shoot an IED when you don't know that it's there?


Terrorists tend to be very vocal on what they've done and why. Little point being in the terrorist business if you don't get to set out your agenda and manifesto, condemn whomever it is you're terrorising and why, etc. etc.


Usually only after the fact, before the act they keep things on the down low.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
A gun does not protect you from a plane crashing into your building.

A gun cannot protect you from a bomb in a car.

A gun cannot protect you from an IED

Terrorists don't go around announcing they are terrorists.

And pro 2nd Amendment people only see the use of their 2nd Amendment rights to kill their fellow countrymen anyway. Feeling their enemy are Constitutionally elected citizens, and feeling that by killing them, and robbing the public of their Constitutional right to choose the government representatives they want, they are somehow protecting freedom.



ok, so how often do terrorists crash planes into buildings?

as far as i know, it's only been done ONCE (allegedly), and guess what; the government couldn't stop it...

when's the last time a "terrorist" carbombed anyone in this country?

and hey, "terrorists" (allegedly) use IEDs here once as well, and hey, big surprise, the government couldn't stop THAT either, even WITH all the bulls**t "for your own safety" police state nonsense...

how many GENUINE terrorist plots has the government foiled?

you're dead wrong, and dumb as hell...but then again, given that you think people who respect, and value the 2nd amendment are all brain dead losers who just wanna kill people, i can't say i expected much from you in the logic department..



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
A gun does not protect you from a plane crashing into your building.

A gun cannot protect you from a bomb in a car.

A gun cannot protect you from an IED

Terrorists don't go around announcing they are terrorists.

And pro 2nd Amendment people only see the use of their 2nd Amendment rights to kill their fellow countrymen anyway. Feeling their enemy are Constitutionally elected citizens, and feeling that by killing them, and robbing the public of their Constitutional right to choose the government representatives they want, they are somehow protecting freedom.



What does this have to do with Snowden? There are greater threats than a plane crashing into buildings, or an IED, or a supposed terrorist. The US government is a greater threat than all of these. In its present form the US government is a threat to national security, especially the CIA and NSA, followed by the Pentagon. Who are pro 2nd amendment people? I should think that everybody who supports the constitution is pro 2nd amendment. Do you want to repeal it? If you support NSA spying you obviously want to repeal other constitutionally protected freedoms including the right to privacy. Are you a right wing corporatist who wants to repeal the amendment that abolished slavery because that is what the corporations ultimately want to happen. That is why they build plants in China; child slave labor. Judging by your post, you have been successfully brainwashed. I will give you some facts. There never was a threat from planes crashing into buildings on 911. Before PRISM which is in the news now for spying on EVERYONE, ECHELON was in place. This program spied on everyone. The NSA has been spying on everyone since the 1970s. All the communications of the terrorists who carried out 911 were intercepted and recorded. The NSA knew that 911 was going to happen. It is impossible for them not to. This means that it was allowed to happen. Any successful terrorist attack is allowed to happen including the recent Boston bombing. When they want to look good at stopping terrorists they stop it right before it happens. The War on Terror is an illusion. It got the Patriot Act passed. It provides for a whole new department, the Department of Homeland Security. It provides for even more Orwellian tactics. They want cameras in your cable box now to "watch your reaction to advertisements". The new HD TVs already have cameras in them for user face recognition. There are cameras in your computer and smart phones. It is EASY to access all these cameras. Now we have A LOT of drones flying over US cities. Now they are developing insect sized drones. They are also deploying spaced based weapons. No foreign country poses a threat to the US. Iraq didn't. Afghanistan didn't. Libya didn't. Syria, Iran, and North Korea do not pose a threat. China and Russia can actually defend themselves. If they could not we would be told, "We must go to war with China and Russia right now!" The ultimate goal of the real power behind the US government is the conquest of Planet Earth. Every country must submit to US rule. Genghis Khan tried the same thing and failed. Napolean tried and failed. Hitler tried and failed. The US is trying and will fail.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Variable
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 





violating the 4th amendment.


Your argument is simply based on opinion. We all have opinions right? They are like a certain nether region.




The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.


4th amendment

So if a FISA court allowed the action it is legal under law right?.
FISA

Therefore, your argument is wholly invalid. Now, you could argue that the FISA court is invalid but that is a tough road to hoe. Your opinion is simply that, an opinion. Until a court agrees with you you have no basis in law. If, and when, a court agrees with you I will back you whole hardheartedly.

V
edit on 6/27/2013 by Variable because: they are.


you're kidding, right?

the FISA court has no jurisdiction with regards to actions conducted inside the united states.

they are the FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT...

the surveillance they are conducting IS tantamount to a search.....it is a warrantless search....interception of emails, texts, telephonic communications, in addition to receiving delivery of obscene amounts data on private citizens from companies EVERYONE uses, who are supposed to be protecting our information and privacy, not giving it away to the federal government, so it can be cataloged, and possibly used against us later..

you really don't get how any of this works, do you?
edit on 28-6-2013 by Daedalus because: #EpicSpellingWin



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join