June 23, 2018 Login  

Last Post 06/25/2013 08:42 PM by Joe Rockbottom. 4 Replies.
Printer Friendly
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages


06/25/2013 09:26 AM
This is getting more and more "interesting".


06/25/2013 10:11 AM
Actually what should have been handled discreetly if anything at all has become an embarrassment and another black eye to the justice department,department of state,CIA, Potus. IMO


06/25/2013 03:05 PM
I have not been following this at all and had to go to Wikipedia for a basic briefing. Pretty interesting. Sure looks to me like Snowden is carrying himself in the best tradition of the foundation of this country. I read the Wikipedia, then opened my copy of the Constitution.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, ... promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United Stated of America ..."

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.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

It seems to me that our national security agencies have been treading on all four of these excerpts of out Constitution. Doesn't the No-Fly list affect our Liberty? And cases like the months long jailing of that Portland lawyer incorrectly associated with the Spanish bombing? And many other cases.

Amendment IV talks about security in our homes. I feel far less of it than I knew growing up. I see surveillance helicopters on a regular basis. I've experienced helicopters right over my house. And any communication I have by telephone or E-mail/internet is open to interception, both by "bad guys" (a risk that has always been there) and by the "good guys" (those we pay to protect us but who may well instead arrest us and jail us without giving cause - NSA, CIA and the like with the powers they have been given since 911). (Amendment VI)

Amendment VIII, forbids jailing without charges and cruel and unusual punishment. Isn't the torture we have subjected people to (maybe just non-citizens but I certainly don't think that is a given) in places like Guantanamo and turning over US citizens to foreign agencies for torture in violation of at least the intent of that Amendment?

How does assassination of US citizens with no charges being leveled fit with Amendments VI and VIII? (Assassination by drone, something we do on a near daily basis.) And granted, those living in the homes we demolish by drone aren't US citizens, but they are also being assassinated for harboring these people. Isn't that a case of our country imposing its lawlessness over the rule of law of other countries? How does that work?

I'm not saying Snowden is a saint or that he should not have to answer to charges. But I see him as functioning a lot closer to the intents of those who wrote the Constitution under which we all (except quite obviously these "security" agencies) operate.



06/25/2013 04:46 PM
I'm waiting to see who will play his part in the T.v. movie...

Also take a look at the Patriot Act...


06/25/2013 08:42 PM
The people saying this is constitutional are simply giving self-serving opinions. No court has tested it yet. And it may be that no court ever will. As in the terrorism "trials" of guantanamo detainees the government will argue that taking the issue to open court would expose national security secrets that would harm the country.

Or you can take the case various groups led by the ACLU that sued to stop surveillance of their organizations communication on 1st amendment grounds. That was thrown out because the government would not allow any records to be introduced that would show they were or were not surveilled. So, since the government would not supply evidence one way or the other, the court decided the case could not continue. It did not decide constitutionality. It showed the government can block even the testing of constitutionality by refusing to allow evidence to be introduced on "national security" grounds. Truly bogus on the face of it.

So, we have a government (all administrations do this) that self-deems their own actions constitutional, but refuse to actually open the case for discussion because of "security" concerns. How is this an open, democratic society?

And claiming they can do it because Congress has been "briefed" is absurd. Most in congress are too timid to fight against the largely non-productive national security system for fear they will be seen as weak. The irony is that their inaction simply proves they ARE weak.
You are not authorized to post a reply.

Active Forums 4.1

Latest Forum Posts

Psychology of not improving posted in Training Talk

From Juno Beach, Normandy posted in The Coffee Shop

World Cup talk posted in The Coffee Shop

That was fast! (and precedent?) posted in The Dark Side

No articles match criteria.
  Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy  Copyright 2008-2013 by VeloNation LLC