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: 6
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by NXVash
 


The words are Ron Paul's, Rand is his son. We can only hope Rand follows in his fathers footsteps.




posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Trubl
 


not sure i would really call what they have put Manning through as living. Naked in solitary confinement? Shoot the messenger so we can bury our heads back in the sand. Are the Chinese or Russians not humans that fall under the Bill of Rights? Why does it matter where he is? What should matter is what he exposed.

He worked for the NSA i'm sure he knows how effective slander campaigns work. Hell look at Paula Deen she said a derogatory term years ago and look what the media frenzy has done.
edit on 28-6-2013 by Privateinquotations because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter
 



First, no, the Constitution does not apply to everyone on the planet. I did not stutter in saying that. Second, FISA is not a ruling from a court. Part of the law is that it established its own court for the purposes of approving or denying the warrants for these actions.

you aren't addressing the issue. you said "the constitution does not apply to everyone on the planet", but the bill of rights applies to non-citizens. the requirements to gain a search warrant don't change.


That law applies to the United States government in regards to their actions overseas, giving them the right to conduct various types of intelligence gathering operations overseas.

statutory laws cannot establish rights. congress cannot legislate any more powers to the federal government, a constitutional amendment would be necessary.


And when the NSA performs intelligence gathering operations overseas, they are following a law that explicitly grants them the right to do so.

see above.


I'm sorry you dont agree with the fact that they can do it, but they can, and they do.

they can, and they do, and they can do it, however it remains a violation of the 4th amendment.


Read the following excerpt, from www.international.ucla.edu...:
"In 1957, the court changed its position, overturning decades of precedent to declare that American citizens are in fact protected against U.S. government misbehavior by the Bill of Rights even outside the country. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the court limited its ruling to U.S. citizens. Foreigners remained stuck with the old rule that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply abroad."

The Bill of Rights does also apply to some (most) non-citizens within the recognized territories of the United States. It does not provide for rights of Umbubwe Kzetchnicklotu sitting on his pillow over in India.

Can you show me even once instance where the court has determined that the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution applies to a random Joe citizen from another country and in another country?
edit on 28-6-2013 by flyswatter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter
 



First, no, the Constitution does not apply to everyone on the planet. I did not stutter in saying that. Second, FISA is not a ruling from a court. Part of the law is that it established its own court for the purposes of approving or denying the warrants for these actions.

you aren't addressing the issue. you said "the constitution does not apply to everyone on the planet", but the bill of rights applies to non-citizens. the requirements to gain a search warrant don't change.


That law applies to the United States government in regards to their actions overseas, giving them the right to conduct various types of intelligence gathering operations overseas.

statutory laws cannot establish rights. congress cannot legislate any more powers to the federal government, a constitutional amendment would be necessary.


And when the NSA performs intelligence gathering operations overseas, they are following a law that explicitly grants them the right to do so.

see above.


I'm sorry you dont agree with the fact that they can do it, but they can, and they do.

they can, and they do, and they can do it, however it remains a violation of the 4th amendment.


The constitution applies only to usa citizens. The government cannot legally spy on its own citizens thats why they require the help of the uk and australia. the bill of rights is part of the constitution.

Technically its treason that way because they are empowering foreign powers to spy for them.

But spying on the enemy is a gray area. It might be a violation of international law but everyone does it to some extent.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter
 



First, no, the Constitution does not apply to everyone on the planet. I did not stutter in saying that. Second, FISA is not a ruling from a court. Part of the law is that it established its own court for the purposes of approving or denying the warrants for these actions.

you aren't addressing the issue. you said "the constitution does not apply to everyone on the planet", but the bill of rights applies to non-citizens. the requirements to gain a search warrant don't change.


That law applies to the United States government in regards to their actions overseas, giving them the right to conduct various types of intelligence gathering operations overseas.

statutory laws cannot establish rights. congress cannot legislate any more powers to the federal government, a constitutional amendment would be necessary.


And when the NSA performs intelligence gathering operations overseas, they are following a law that explicitly grants them the right to do so.

see above.


I'm sorry you dont agree with the fact that they can do it, but they can, and they do.

they can, and they do, and they can do it, however it remains a violation of the 4th amendment.


The constitution applies only to usa citizens. The government cannot legally spy on its own citizens thats why they require the help of the uk and australia. the bill of rights is part of the constitution.

Technically its treason that way because they are empowering foreign powers to spy for them.

But spying on the enemy is a gray area. It might be a violation of international law but everyone does it to some extent.


The rights provided by the Constitution are also given to some non-citizens in the United States, too. I cant sit here and tell you which, or what the criteria is for determination of which non-citizens are afforded those rights, but you can round up the information out there somewhere. The main point is that it does not apply to non-US citizens outside of our borders.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I hate to say this but were's anonymous when you need them.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


Yes of course. I am suprised bob got it wrong and that is why I corrected him. The constitution applies to the usa and its citizens as well as many non-citizens living within the usa. Its the supreme law of the land.

Every country has its own constitution and the government has to follow that constitution.

International law covers everyone. I am not very familiar with international law.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by flyswatter
 


Yes of course. I am suprised bob got it wrong and that is why I corrected him. The constitution applies to the usa and its citizens as well as many non-citizens living within the usa. Its the supreme law of the land.

Every country has its own constitution and the government has to follow that constitution.

International law covers everyone. I am not very familiar with international law.


Not every country has a constitution, we are a very fortunate people.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Variable

This is simply stupid. Why would a US court need to rule on anything that doesn't have to do with the United States...? What they are doing is trying to correlate calls from outside the US to inside the US. They are trying to see what number in Pakistan of some known person, on some watch list, called in the US, and who that number called for instance. This is basic intelligence. Connecting dots. If the dumb asses in the FBI and NSA had been doing this in 2000 and paid attention, they may have stopped 911.

What do you think our intelligence community does? Why do they exist? Most Americans hope these people are paying attention. THAT IS WHAT WE PAY THEM FOR!

Of course they can go to far, I would never be one to argue that point. If they do, we need to reign them in.

V





edit on 6/28/2013 by Variable because: grammar


This is simply ignorant.

Connecting the dots, and whatnot is all fine and good, but we both know that's not all they were doing...

they weren't just monitoring incoming communications from abroad...they are intercepting ALL domestic communications (email, text, telephonic). and storing the stuff, on top of collecting data from major companies...

this is illegal.

and as to 9/11...we all know what happened with that, but that's for another thread...



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Variable
reply to post by Daedalus
 

There is nothing illegal going on. In fact, it is totally legal. That is why it happens. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. Saying it over and over doesn't do anything. Bring a suit, call the ACLU, call your Congressmen, just because you don't understand the legal system doesn't mean your point is valid.

Were is the ground swell of support? No where. The internet is not reality.


V


It would be "just opinion", if the 4th amendment didn't specifically say that you need a warrant to do a search....intercepting domestic communications of average american citizens, and collecting information about them, is a search. and there's no warrant...

explain to me how it's legal.

and i don't need to bring a suit...other people already are..



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Yes of course. I am suprised bob got it wrong and that is why I corrected him. The constitution applies to the usa and its citizens as well as many non-citizens living within the usa. Its the supreme law of the land. Every country has its own constitution and the government has to follow that constitution. International law covers everyone. I am not very familiar with international law.



"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

any dealings between those inside the u.s. and those outside are bound by our theory of law, that the right to life, liberty, and property are not merely the privileges of citizens, but apply to all individuals.

the requirements for obtaining a warrant, enumerated in the 4th amendment, does not change when dealing with non-citizens. the u.s. government intercepting data between a citizen and non-citizen is bound by the 4th amendment and unalienable rights.


The body of the Constitution tells the federal government what it is allowed to do, and in some places it explains how to do it (election procedures and such). The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it is not allowed to do . . .

www.lewrockwell.com...
edit on 29-6-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Yes of course. I am suprised bob got it wrong and that is why I corrected him. The constitution applies to the usa and its citizens as well as many non-citizens living within the usa. Its the supreme law of the land. Every country has its own constitution and the government has to follow that constitution. International law covers everyone. I am not very familiar with international law.



"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

any dealings between those inside the u.s. and those outside are bound by our theory of law, that the right to life, liberty, and property are not merely the privileges of citizens, but apply to all individuals.

the requirements for obtaining a warrant, enumerated in the 4th amendment, does not change when dealing with non-citizens. the u.s. government intercepting data between a citizen and non-citizen is bound by the 4th amendment and unalienable rights.


The body of the Constitution tells the federal government what it is allowed to do, and in some places it explains how to do it (election procedures and such). The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it is not allowed to do . . .

www.lewrockwell.com...
edit on 29-6-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)


I read that page more than once. Smart guy, well thought out opinion, but the problem is that it is just that ... an opinion article. We all know that the Constitution applies to US citizens both home and abroad, and we know that it applies to some non-citizens within the borders of the US. But can you show me a single instance where the court has extended US Constitutional rights to citizens OF and IN another country?
edit on 29-6-2013 by flyswatter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 



I read that page more than once. Smart guy, well thought out opinion, but the problem is that it is just that ... an opinion article. We all know that the Constitution applies to US citizens both home and abroad, and we know that it applies to some non-citizens within the borders of the US. But can you show me a single instance where the court has extended US Constitutional rights to citizens OF and IN another country?

that's your answer to everything "just an opinion".

your scenario isn't applicable. the 4th amendment sets requirements on obtaining warrants that must be adhered to. does it specify citizens only? no. is it limited to those within the country? no. they are a burden and a restriction on the actions OF u.s entities. the target does not matter.

the 4th amendment is derived from the inalienable rights to liberty and property. these do not apply to only citizens, but to individual humans, as outlined in the declaration of independence. the founding fathers thought that they were so self evident that they almost didn't write the bill of rights.

the flaw in your reasoning is that the court does not extend these rights, but is bound by them.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter
 



I read that page more than once. Smart guy, well thought out opinion, but the problem is that it is just that ... an opinion article. We all know that the Constitution applies to US citizens both home and abroad, and we know that it applies to some non-citizens within the borders of the US. But can you show me a single instance where the court has extended US Constitutional rights to citizens OF and IN another country?

that's your answer to everything "just an opinion".

your scenario isn't applicable. the 4th amendment sets requirements on obtaining warrants that must be adhered to. does it specify citizens only? no. is it limited to those within the country? no. they are a burden and a restriction on the actions OF u.s entities. the target does not matter.

the 4th amendment is derived from the inalienable rights to liberty and property. these do not apply to only citizens, but to individual humans, as outlined in the declaration of independence. the founding fathers thought that they were so self evident that they almost didn't write the bill of rights.

the flaw in your reasoning is that the court does not extend these rights, but is bound by them.


The "just an opinion" answer is spot on because it's the truth. What you have on your side is your opinion and the opinions of others that agree with you. What I have on my side is also my opinion, the opinion of others that agree with me, a Supreme Court opinion that agrees with me, and a law that explicitly allows the foreign surveillance activities. The Supreme Court is the authority charged with interpreting the Constitution. Until such time that you can convince the Supreme Court to change their opinion on the application of the US Constitution, you will continue to be incorrect on this matter.

And as a side note, specifically on FISA and the matter of obtaining warrants:
"The Act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and enabled it to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal police agencies (primarily the F.B.I.) against suspected foreign intelligence agents inside the U.S. The court is located within the Department of Justice headquarters building. The court is staffed by eleven judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States to serve seven-year terms."

So they technically DO get warrants for this type of work.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrimsonGhost

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by flyswatter
 


Yes of course. I am suprised bob got it wrong and that is why I corrected him. The constitution applies to the usa and its citizens as well as many non-citizens living within the usa. Its the supreme law of the land.

Every country has its own constitution and the government has to follow that constitution.

International law covers everyone. I am not very familiar with international law.


Not every country has a constitution, we are a very fortunate people.


Most countries do. I would say relatively few do not. maybe somalia and afghanistan do not. america is not special. never was and never will be. you think too much of america.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


So at what point does international law become relevant? To be honest I have to disagree with your opinion about FOREIGN intelligence gathering. It most likely is a gray area. Before the patriot act it was illegal for the american government to conduct surveillance directly on americans. they used to outsource this to the uk and australia, hence why I said "treason". they might as well be conducting espionage as its a lesser violation by surveilling themselves, eventhough its against the constitution.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


What has any of that have to do with the op's post?

If you want to make an anti gun anti second amendment thread then make it.

you might want to stick to the topic in some one else's thread out of respect. Oh never mind II forgot that you don't respect my second amendment right. Oh well tough ____!

To the op I never have thought of Snowden as a traitor. I still believe he done the right thing.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



So at what point does international law become relevant? To be honest I have to disagree with your opinion about FOREIGN intelligence gathering. It most likely is a gray area. Before the patriot act it was illegal for the american government to conduct surveillance directly on americans. they used to outsource this to the uk and australia, hence why I said "treason". they might as well be conducting espionage as its a lesser violation by surveilling themselves, eventhough its against the constitution.

it still IS illegal for the government to conduct surveillance directly on americans (and anyone else for that matter) without adhering to the 4th amendment.

people forget that congress is capable of creating statutory law, which is inferior to common law.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 



The Supreme Court is the authority charged with interpreting the Constitution.

that is how things are handled, however that does not mean it is congruent with the constitution. the ability to declare things constitutional or unconstitutional is a precedent established by the court itself and has no basis in the constitution.


What you have on your side is your opinion and the opinions of others that agree with you. What I have on my side is also my opinion

it's illogical that you consider us both having opinions on this (that it isn't a given), yet you conclude that my opinion is wrong.


constitutional law supersedes statutory law, so please explain to me how the NSA's actions are constitutional. let me see those warrants...oh that's right... they're classified.


So they technically DO get warrants for this type of work.

really? ok. show me the warrants from FISC, i'll be waiting for them. probably a long, long time.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter
 



The Supreme Court is the authority charged with interpreting the Constitution.

that is how things are handled, however that does not mean it is congruent with the constitution. the ability to declare things constitutional or unconstitutional is a precedent established by the court itself and has no basis in the constitution.


What you have on your side is your opinion and the opinions of others that agree with you. What I have on my side is also my opinion

it's illogical that you consider us both having opinions on this (that it isn't a given), yet you conclude that my opinion is wrong.


constitutional law supersedes statutory law, so please explain to me how the NSA's actions are constitutional. let me see those warrants...oh that's right... they're classified.


So they technically DO get warrants for this type of work.

really? ok. show me the warrants from FISC, i'll be waiting for them. probably a long, long time.


Its not illogical when my opinion is backed up by that of the Supreme Court
That was my point, but maybe I could have worded it better? Blah.

But as I said in a post before, the Supreme Court laid it out long ago that the rights extended by the Constitution extend to Americans overseas, but not foreigners overseas.

I'm really not sure how the process of trying to gain access to warrants issued by the FISC would work. I'm fairly certain that it would be a pain in the rear, but if you want to find out, take a shot. See what you can find out about the process. There's nothing that says they have to show you anything, but I guess it cant hurt to give it a shot.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join