Thread: NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor?

Just trying to help you all have a good conversation, and make sure you are staying true to the facts. Arguments that rely on falsies will just be laughed away.

So, here is a contribution,,, The wording of the 4th amendment:

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.

See if the argument holds, using the actual wording of the 4th. Let me know if you think it does. Clearly, being written so long ago, no mention of phone calls are there. A cursory take on it from me,,, the records are being taken from phone and internet providers voluntarily, so no warrant is required. ie: no records belonging to an individual are being taken with out warrants.

See what you can come up with t counter an argument like that one. If you have the time. Thanks.

Originally Posted by sivason

You would have to present a more clear case to me of how this all violates the 4th amendment. Perhaps I am not understanding the issues. I also wonder how much you guys are imagining surveillance beyond what has been discussed on the news. It is not like an NSA guy is listening to me talk dirty with my wife. Or am I wrong? Please feel free to make a clear case for the 4th being violated, if you wish. So far, I do not see it.

Do not get me wrong, I was furious when the Bush cronies passed all this anti-terror crap, but it did pass. It is law, so unless it is repealed,,, Snowden is a criminal and the NSA is not.

You can read all sorts of ideals into the constitution, but please stick to explaining how it defies the word of law, not your perceived view of what law should mean.

There is a good chance that the NSA is listening to you talk dirty to your wife. What you just said about the Patriot Act shows that you very well might have said something in the past that got you on a list. Snowden said that he had access to everybody's electronic communications histories. Considering what all he gave up to get that information out there, I believe him. Even if he was lying about that part, the NSA has the records. They just claim they are not looking at or listening to them unless they are a suspect's. That is like having a book of naked pictures of somebody and saying it's okay because you don't look at the pictures. It is a seizure of very private stuff. If they are looking at it, which I have logical, reported, and personal experience reasons to believe they are, they are searching even further than just looking at phone numbers, call times, and locations. Even that alone is a violation of privacy and the 4th Amendment. What if you have a personal and secret relationship with somebody? I never gave my consent to having my records seized by the government, and it is not up to my phone company. That is my private stuff although I am using a company service. The government is required to have probable cause and specified warrants for such things. The Fourth Amendment again with key words in all caps:

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 NSA program is a violation of that very basic foundational rule of our nation. The only question is to what extent they are violating it. Considering the fact that government power has a major history of being abused, I know that we can't trust the government with what they are searching and seizing. What's also messed up is that they had been doing it secretly. The people were never even asked what they thought of it. It is one more reason I think the United States is turning into the Soviet Union.

Originally Posted by sivason

the records are being taken from phone and internet providers voluntarily, so no warrant is required. ie: no records belonging to an individual are being taken with out warrants.

Well obviously all the records are being taken without warrants. Warrants are issued by a judge on a case by case basis, and the only way the judge would issue a warrant is if theres a reason to believe that person is involved with illegal activity. So in order to say warrants were issued, it would mean millions of judges must have labored around the clock for weeks or months and somehow found a connection for each American citizen to terrorism. Which I rather doubt. But it does feel a bit like we're all being treated like terror suspects.

Also, they can't say they had permission from the internet providers or the phone companies - they have no right to make those choices for us! That's like the police saying "We do have the right to search your car even though there's absolutely no sign of anything illegal because the company you bought the car from gave us permission" - see whats wrong with that?

If a cloud of smoke rolls out that smells like Cheech & Chong's van when you open the door and they see bongs laying around, then that's what's called reasonable suspicion and in those cases they don't need a warrant. But with no such evidence they are legally bound not to be able to search your vehicle. If they could, wouldn't that be just like the KGB, just stopping cars at random and arresting people for whatever reason they feel like? This is exactly the kind of thing the constitution is designed to prevent.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

If a cloud of smoke rolls out that smells like Cheech & Chong's van when you open the door and they see bongs laying around, then that's what's called reasonable suspicion and in those cases they don't need a warrant. But with no such evidence they are legally bound not to be able to search your vehicle. If they could, wouldn't that be just like the KGB, just stopping cars at random and arresting people for whatever reason they feel like? This is exactly the kind of thing the constitution is designed to prevent.

The laws on how the 4th Amendment applies to automobiles ignore what the 4th Amendment really says. The Supreme Court magically declared that warrants do not have to apply to automobiles (though states can require them if they decide to) because they are mobile and evidence can disappear when the automobile moves. Also, the standard was lowered to reasonable suspicion from probable cause for pulling people over, although the words "reasonable suspicion" are not in the 4th Amendment and the words "probable cause" are. Beyond that, any cop can pull anybody over for nothing whatsoever and search the car and get away with it because "reasonable suspicion" is such a weak standard. The cop can lie about the reason for pulling the person over. "Oh, he swerved a little." "He was driving too close to another car." Then he can search the car, although even the bullshit laws say he can't. If he finds nothing, you the driver has no legal complaint about a search where nothing was found. If the cop finds something (drugs, that is), the cop can use the fact that he found drugs to back his lie that there was reason to search for drugs, and his word wins. The 4th Amendment does not realistically apply to automobiles any more (except in the few states that require warrants), and it does not Constitutionally apply to the statutes.

I will play devil's advocate as I am bored. If your case is going to be constituently, you are going to have to take the WORDS and make a case for there being corrupted or denied,

Let's see, clearly a guy can argue the cell phones and internet are not mentioned, so are not covered (weak and BS) so that will be tried.

I made one up that sounds very solid. The PAPERS (specific to wording) are being given free by the owner of the records. Claiming ownership of all details relating to phone traffic and yourself, would be hard tto established. They can sure sell your e-mail to other companies. They have files of PAPERS and you have nothing but a memory of calls made. Easy to argue the records/PAPERS are their's.


If we can believe the press, then data was collected only if one member in the conversation was foreign, often both. They owe no 4th anything to those people (legally)


I wil check back to see if anyone goes on, because I am hoping you can convience me at least a little) that the 4th was violated.

Those records relate to and contain information about your "person," and that is why snooping into them is a violation of privacy. A phone service provider has your records/indications of the private facts about your person, but that does not mean they have consent to reveal them to the government. Anybody who picks up your cell phone or computer without your consent and reads about your personal business is infringing on your person(al) privacy and security. When a civilian does it, it's a criminal act of invading your privacy. That proves that it is an invasion of your person. Therefore, when the government does it, it is unconstitutional.

I do not trust what the NSA says about when they snoop. Snowden altered his life way too much for it to be the mere case. Also, I have personal stories about phone and internet snooping and how it has been abused. It has happened to me and people I know. My phone was getting tapped 20 years ago because of who my friends were. I have in recent times gotten comments on the internet that were blatant suggestions that the commenters were government agents because they knew stuff about me they would have no other way of knowing. Government will abuse any power it is given. It cannot be trusted. World history has proven that. I consider world history one big case against the trustworthiness of government. However, I do believe in having government. It is just that it is like a Gremlin. Did you ever see the movie Gremlins? If it is allowed to exceed its limitations, it turns into monsters. If the monsters are not limited correctly, they destroy civilization.

^ This. There have long been precedents to the effect that eavesdropping on personal phone calls is illegal - for instance, if you record a phone conversation you need to inform the other person it's being recorded and you need to have a beep every so many seconds or it's illegal. I'm sure there are similar precedents for internet use, though I don't know what they are. I'm not into this conversation enough to go googling for it just now either.

2 items, if anyone cares.

1) How do you assume the 4th is about privacy, or that the constitution protects privacy specifically. I am not seeing the words.

2) I thought the records were just lists of numbers. Where does anyone say the NSA is wire tapping US citizens?

It's not just a list of numbers - every phone call is being recorded and stored permanently. They're not necessarily listening to all of them of course, but the point is they're recording them so that at any time if they ever want to they can pull up and listen to any call anyone has ever made since the recording began.

Here's a couple of quotes pulled from an article about it:
"The United States’ National Security Agency (NSA) possesses brand new technology that enables one billion cell phone calls a day to be redirected into its data hoards and stored"

"Speaking via Skype to a conference in Chicago, Greenwald mentioned the matter as part of a “globalized system to destroy all privacy”, and the enduring creation of a climate of fear."

"“What we’re really talking about here is a globalised system that prevents any form of electronic communication from taking place without its being stored and monitored by the National Security Agency,” he added. He conceded the NSA is not necessarily listening in on the full one billion calls, but pointed out their technical capability to do so."

Now - if the 4th amendment isn't about privacy, what do you think it is about? Sounds pretty clear to me - the right of American citizens to not be subjected to their personal effects being searched without reasonable suspicion of some form of criminal activity. The NSA is essentially saying "We're not searching through the calls and internet records, we're just storing them all in case we ever want to". But the problem with that is - it makes it so easy for them to instantly listen to any phone call anyone has ever made, they're obviously going to be tempted to go ahead and do it as soon as they decide to turn their attention to any particular person or group of people. Without first getting warrants issued. How do we know they're going to play fair, now that they'e got the system in place that records everything we do? It's almost 24/7 continuous monitoring of everything we say and do, especially when you take into account that they also use drones to spy on citizens now too. I mean, it's one thing to know you're being recorded by security cams when you're in public places, but it's completely something else that they're recording us in our homes now. And take it in conjunction with the fact that the administration is abusing its power on an unprecedented scale, like using the IRS to bully and harass conservative groups! Put it all together and it paints a pretty bleak picture of a government that is turning the private sphere into a constant reality show, except that all the people o reality shows understand beforehand that their lives are going to be recorded and watched by others - they all sign contracts permitting that. Personally I never signed any contract allowing the government to listen in on all my phone calls and track my internet use.

And it's not that I have any big secrets to hide - that's not the point!! Spying on people is inherently uncool. Look at the laws concerning taking pictures or shooting video of people in their homes - it's illegal unless they're out in public, where nobody would expect privacy. Just as recording phone calls without consent is illegal - apparently unless you're the NSA.

I'm repeating this because I really want an answer from you Sivason - if the 4th amendment isn't about privacy, what do you think it is about?

Originally Posted by sivason

1) How do you assume the 4th is about privacy, or that the constitution protects privacy specifically. I am not seeing the words.

Privacy is a matter of being secure in your person, etc., which is what the 4th Amendment addresses. The definition of "search," as agreed by the federal courts, is "intrusion on a person's reasonable expectation of privacy."

Originally Posted by sivason

2) I thought the records were just lists of numbers. Where does anyone say the NSA is wire tapping US citizens?

Edward Snowden revealed it, and the NSA admitted it.

NSA spying flap extends to contents of U.S. phone calls | Politics and Law - CNET News

I also told you about my personal experiences. I post my libertarian views on a lot of websites, and incompetent children abusing their positions have posted messages to fuck with me. I have a Facebook account that I use just for political posts. I have no friends with that account and had, at the time of the foul, never told anybody about it. I had just set it up. I posted a comment on Ron Paul's page. Somebody responded by calling me by my other Facebook account name and making a reference to something obscure I had said on the phone about "Troll the NSA" earlier in the week. What does that tell you? You don't know me, so I can't prove it to you here at this time, but the link I gave you tells you that such a thing can easily happen. My brother was apparently suspected of being a drug dealer recently, and he didn't just have his phone tapped and his Facebook account hacked. He was flat out harassed by crazy phone and internet events such as apparent messages from people who didn't really send them and likes of Facebook pages he never liked. They were suggestions that he was being followed. He had other types of messages that were clearly about causing fear so that sickos could get their kicks. That is the problem with things like this. People can't be trusted with it. I think they are doing this shit to people by the zillions. The system is clearly out of way out of hand, to the point of tyranny and collapse of the country.

When the war on drugs and the war on terror end, the government will be out of excuses for going 1984. Both of those wars are the sources of themselves.

Good job guys! I finally buy it. This is some scary scary stuff and maybe Snowden did what he felt was his patriotic duty. Sadly, his life is ruined.

Originally Posted by sivason

Good job guys! I finally buy it. This is some scary scary stuff and maybe Snowden did what he felt was his patriotic duty. Sadly, his life is ruined.

All right, good deal. But yeah, it is scary. I have hope that we will end up with a better country and administration eventually and Snowden will be pardoned and be able to come back to the U.S.

From the "I couldn't say it better" files, here's a very succinct encapsulation about Snowden, and especially about the climate of fear and intimidation the White House is creating to silence democratic transparency:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-fr...News Video</a>

That's awesome. The government's two biggest fears right now are that too many Americans will learn what the Bill of Rights says and that people inside the government will report the unconstitutional government actions that are taking place.

founders in disbelief.jpg

Well, at least this is happening:

The Switchboard: Ron Paul starts petition for Snowden clemency

Sen Rand Paul sues President Obama over NSA call surveillance — RT USA

And now this heartbleed shit is exposed, holy fucking stazi.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

And now this heartbleed shit is exposed, holy fucking stazi.

NSA Said to Exploit Heartbleed Bug for Intelligence for Years - Bloomberg