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

reply to post by KeliOnyx


Maybe I've gotten too "liberal" hanging around ATS, but exposing something wrong, no matter how it may benefit the US, is not treason, but doing something inherently right.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


So are you saying that the citizens in other countries don't deserve to be afforded the same rights we SHOULD have? Has anyone ever stopped and thought, wait a minute, the US thinks that they only have to follow the constitution for Americans and the heck to everyone else? Here lets drop a bomb on a handful of innocent kiddies, but hey we caught a terrorist.

To be honest I think the above mentioned crap has to end also. I think a country that follows a constitution should also have to treat the rest of the world the same. I don't think our fore fathers ever intended for our government to be dictators outside of our country. But anymore it is happening inside our country also, but in secret.

reply to post by beezzer


Are you confused? What exactly is wrong about hacking China? You do realize they do it to us 24/7 yes? I won't argue about collecting data on US citizens because it is wrong. And yes this should be a warning to future whistleblowers. Don't release crap unrelated to what you are trying to call attention to. Had Snowden stopped at domestic spying, the only issue would be was breaking his non disclosure agreement acceptable. Anything he hands over outside of that scope is what will now be used to hang him. There are separate issues you can't just say ok you told us this very important thing and get a free pass for whatever you do wrong the rest of your life.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


But the US is using the same data-mining techniques in China as they are in the States! Hacking into "backbones" of servers is how they are spying on us.

To be honest, this debate is unsetting.

It's like arguing that, yes, it is wrong for the government to commit crimes against Americans, but it is okay to commit the same acts against non-Americans.

reply to post by beezzer


It isn't pretty but it is about survival. China has it's own goals, which is great for them I hate unambitious unmotivated people. But they are also willing to do whatever it takes to be the most influential nation on the planet. In all reality we shouldn't be doing business or trading with any country that does not hold the values we are supposed to be holding. Instead we are and in the process finding ourselves in a situation where our Government is devolving to look like theirs.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


Do we draw the line at China?

How about those sneaky Canadians?

The minute we start justifying actions deemed morally objectionable, we've lost any high ground we might have had. And if the only way we can "win" is by cheating, then it's time to quit playing the damned game.

Just my humble opinion, of course.

Every developed country in the world spys on every other country.
We sure in all heck had better be spying on China.
If we weren't .. then our intelligence agency would be doing something wrong.
China wants our downfall. Spying on them alerts us to what they are doing.
I have no problem with the USA spying on China.
If we were not spying on China ... then I'd have a problem ....

Originally posted by elouina
This Proof Can Impeach Obama, Fire 2 NSA Officials, And Possibly Even Clear Snowden

Great. Go tell Congress, the Senate and the Supreme Court. Show them your proof.

Let me know how that works out for you.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I hear you. Can't say I like it though. And the issue I have is that the government is finding justification for spying domestically BASED on the issues going on internationally.

The Patriot Act sounds great, doesn't it? I myself applauded it when it came about under Bush. But seeing it in use (and abuse) has caused me to reflect on my support.

We have to draw the line somewhere. Don't we?

Where do we do it?

As the saying goes. . .

"If not now, when?"

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
Generally you want someone that would go with their conscience. I want to be very clear here, I do not have an issue with his disclosing the domestic spying programs. I don't particularly care for how he did it, but I did appreciate the care put into it.

I'm curious to know why you don't appreciate how he did it.
This is something I have seen a couple of times now, with some even suggesting that he should have gone to the government and that Obama supports whistleblowers... but the statistics don't lie, Obama says he supports whistleblowers, but more have been prosecuted and punished under his government than ALL OTHER PREVIOUS US GOVERNMENTS.

In addition, there have been leaks before, to the US press, and they have been hushed up, silenced, blocked.

If I were a US citizen planning to blow the whistle, I would be gathering as much data as I could and getting on the first plane out of there before leaking it to the Guardian too. I wouldn't trust your police, your government or your media one little bit, and if you still don't understand why after all of this then there's no hope for you. lol

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
However that isn't the only thing he has leaked. And those other things he leaked are more than enough to convict him on treason. I was merely pointing out the fact if you are going to go on the warpath pointing fingers about who is lying or not no one is clean in this situation. It is a bit hypocritical.

I think the only hypocrisy is from Obama and his administration. I haven't seen any hypocrisy from Snowden at all, he saw something wrong, he made it public, just as Obama had once claimed to support. It seems Snowden was well aware of the BS Obama gives the people and chose to take measures to ensure the people were given the truth.

If the government was not acting criminally to start with, no leaking would be required.

they all take the oath - but - only for the sake of the public - ie; me and you and this is a world wide pandemic.
I have no doubt the filed recordings and texts and emails and these blurbs are fully recorded along w/ all websites and any downloads.
hey ATS folks - wadya think of tor linux ?

reply to post by HauntWok

Obstruction of Justice.

"Obama Guilty of Obstruction of Justice As He Blocks Criminal Charges Against Wall Street"

larouchepac.com...

"Obstruction of Justice: DC Judge Rules Obama's Political Appointees Interfered With New Black Panther Case"

townhall.com... er_case

(Anyone who doesn't believe that Obama was directly involved with Obstruction of Justice relating to the Black Panthers is in denial.)

"Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson Testifies Obama, DOJ Covered Up Gunrunning Operation, Obstructed Justice"

sfcmac.wordpress.com...

"OBAMAGATE: The Question of Executive Privilege or Obstructing Justice?"

ireporters.wordpress.com...

This is only a partial list of why Obama should be impeached.

What President takes it upon himself to try and push new laws without proper legislation while also not enforcing current laws on the books and trying to circumvent them?

That's right. OBAMA.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by KeliOnyx

 

Do we draw the line at China?

How about those sneaky Canadians?

The minute we start justifying actions deemed morally objectionable, we've lost any high ground we might have had. And if the only way we can "win" is by cheating, then it's time to quit playing the damned game.

Just my humble opinion, of course.

Not even foreign powers. How about political opposition? Who decided that Romney wasn't a threat to the interests of America, and is it even plausible that they wouldn't use this system to monitor him? Almost anything can be justified under this false and circular logic. It could be argued that the election of Romney could have caused mass unrest with Occupy expanding, so is it then okay to rig an election in favor of Obama - all for "national security"?

How about the collapse of a corporation? If Bank of America was about to fall off a cliff, could the NSA decide that this might cause massive civil unrest and therefore it's justified to hand over $1 trillion of your money to keep the game going?

If the government was guilty of something that it knew would cause mass unrest, that could be deemed a "threat" to security too. It doesn't matter if that civil unrest is justified or not, it can still be claimed that it's a threat to national security.

I can guarantee that the leak of this information has itself been classified as a threat to national security, and there are probably now another ten things the NSA can do that they couldn't get away with last month.

And this is how you get to the point of Assad and Syria, with the state dictating that protesters are "terrorists" because they can now get away with calling anything at all - from an inconvenient embarrassment to a real threat - a threat to national security.

reply to post by HauntWok


Lol. You guys could law yourself to the point of gutting the constitution. It might be pushing it, but I bet some could law themselves to the point of genocide. Sometimes there is a bigger picture.

If there was an attempt to use laws to purposefully bypass the spirit of the constitution, that would be considered treason, even if laws were the tools used.

reply to post by Rocker2013


Exactly.

The "justification" in the name of safety and security is anything but.

Based on the political whims of whomever is in charge could make you, I, anyone a potential target for this kind of abuse.

The NSA has been given a powerful tool. Our political system is incapable of using this "tool" effectively.

This (I hope) tears down the abusive style of government. I am angry at dems and republicans who want this and I hope like hell that punishments follow in the wake of Snowden's actions.

reply to post by KeliOnyx

And those other things he leaked are more than enough to convict him on treason.

Not really. Snowden hasn't "leaked" anything that isn't already public knowledge.

With PRISM, all we got is a new name. More confirmation doesn't seem to have much of an effect on the international community, there was more fuss when cablegate first broke.

The cyberspying is old news too, both governments know it, they talked to each other about it.

The U.S. government doesn’t deny that it engages in cyber espionage. “You’re not waiting for someone to decide to turn information into electrons and photons and send it,” says Hayden. “You’re commuting to where the information is stored and extracting the information from the adversaries’ network.

We are the best at doing it. Period.” The U.S. position is that some kinds of hacking are more acceptable than others—and the kind the NSA does is in keeping with unofficial, unspoken rules going back to the Cold War about what secrets are OK for one country to steal from another.

source

Edward Snowden’s new “bombshell revelation,” only a few days after the Xi-Obama Summit, that the U.S. is hacking into Chinese computer systems is not really “news.” In an interview in 2009, former NSA chief Mike McConnell — and Snowden’s former boss at Booz, Allen & Hamilton — readily admitted as much.

source

The quarrel between the parties seems to be more about the technicalities of what is "fair game".

Ironically, what governments readily admit often dwarfs these leaks by orders of magnitude. China & the US both hiring armies of hackers, and it's no secret that they're not doing it for protection only.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


There is a difference between saying it, and releasing classified documents to support what you are saying. I won't say you are wrong it is and has been no secret that the US and every other major power has been waging a cyber war. It is a different matter for agents to be releasing documents about it.

Originally posted by Rocker2013
Not even foreign powers. How about political opposition? Who decided that Romney wasn't a threat to the interests of America, and is it even plausible that they wouldn't use this system to monitor him?

Before it can be decided, the question must be asked. First, the lawyers would have to craft a FISA warrant. The Attorney General would have to sign off on it. Then they would go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to ask the question. They would have to convince six of eleven judges on the FISC that Romney was an agent of a foreign power and committing a crime. The Court makes the final decision (or the review court, in rare cases). The decision cannot be made by the Executive Branch alone or, as Edward Snowden claimed, a fairly junior IT contractor from Booz-Allen-Hamilton.

The only other way for the NSA to "monitor" Romney, by which I mean gather any kind of identifiable data about him, would be if he called a foreign terrorist's network. In that case, his phone number would show up when NSA ran a query on the actual target. If the NSA was wiretapping the terrorist, they would record Romney's conversations with that terrorist. But they would still have to get a FISA warrant to collect the contents of any of Romney's other communications.

Given the procedural safeguards and nonpartisan safeguards, it seems unlikely that the NSA monitored any of Romney's communications. It is likely, however, that the NSA's surveillance architecture has been penetrated by a foreign intelligence agency and used for their own ends. We know of at least one person with access who has fled to Chinese territory and revealed US intelligence operations against the Chinese. If anyone was monitoring Romney, it would have been this Chinese agent. They do have a history when it comes to US presidential elections.

You all keep saying that lying is not an impeachable offense, but this is simply not true.

Politicians are NOT allowed to lie, and it's ridiculous that you all lay down and take it.

Go read the Constitution again. Understand what a "high crime" is, it doesn't mean murder or treason, although those are at the top of the list.

I'm going to go make a thread on this now to clear this up because posting in someone else's about it is not going to fix the absurd lack of critical thinking. (as in, if you think you know what a high crime is, but aren't sure, perhaps reading about it or looking for information on it would help you understand)

The OP is right and is spot on. These are impeachable offenses with the evidence presented.

~Namaste

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

Exactly right One, and everyone who thinks that it is ok for our President to lie to us should read the definition of faithfully. He took an oath: " I, [President's Name] do solemnly swear, that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. "

this term imports notonly honesty, but also a punctilious discharge of all the duties of the ofiice, requiring competence, diligence, and attention, without any malfeasance or nonfeasance, aside from mere mistakes

Law Dictionary: What is FAITHFULLY? definition of FAITHFULLY (Black's Law Dictionary) thelawdictionary.org...