Snowden, *by law*, needed to do what he did.

[MannyGoldstein]

He took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Apparently he took that oath seriously.

We all should take it seriously.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. This bulk metadata collection issue will eventually go to the Supreme Court

It's interesting because a Federal judge did sign off on that warrant so the govt will claim what they did was constitutional.

Although most of Snowden's revelations recently reveal US espionage against foreign countries.

I don't think that's unconstitutional .

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. Hopefully nt

[jeff47]

6. It already did. In 1979.

The SCOTUS ruled phone metadata is a run-of-the-mill business record that belongs to the phone company. So there's no 4th amendment protections.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. Also, we've known about this kind of bulk metadata collection since 2006:

Links:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/nsa-has-collected-verizon-phone-records-since-2006-lawmakers-say/2125337

It wasn't just Verizon. It was other companies as well.

That's why I'm still surprised that people act like this is a new revelation.

It's not.

[Autumn]

63. It's gone on for over 8 years then. Isn't it time we do something about it?

It would shock the hell out of me if you could find ONE person on DU, ONE fucking person who thinks this is a new revelation. Your little throw away line should be thrown away.

[Cali_Democrat]

64. Why are you mentioning DU?

My post wasn't specific to DU.

[Autumn]

72. Okay, strange but everyone that I know, even the republicans are aware it has been going on.

I don't know of one person who is surprised by these revelations. Not one.

[Cali_Democrat]

119. Your initial reply to me in this thread was a bit odd and out of place

Kinda seems like you're looking for a food fight with me.

Sorry, I will not oblige.

[Autumn]

123. How so? You posted that you are still surprised that people act like this is a new revelation

and that it's gone on since 2006 . I said if its gone on that long we should do something about it and everyone that I know has long known about it. I did misunderstand and thought you were talking about DU being surprised since that's where we are posting. How is that out of place? I just think that since it's gone on that long perhaps we might fix that nasty little problem before Obama leaves office. I might trust him a very small amount not to misuse it but I sure as hell don't trust a republican as far as I could throw one.

You don't have to oblige me because I'm not looking for a food fight.

[Cali_Democrat]

125. Not everything posted on DU is about DU. nt

[sabrina 1]

66. We often know about crimes for years, murder eg, bank robbery, does it make them any less

of a crime because the perps haven't been arrested yet, or do we leave them alone, admiring their creativity in 'getting away with it'?

I have no idea why you think that simply because we 'knew about a crime' before, when it is exposed again after we thought it had been dealt with, that makes it unimportant?

In fact it makes it WORSE. It means that those with the ability to deal with crime, have been derelict in their duties, or worse, complicit in the crime.

Would you say the same thing, 'oh, we've known about that for years', if a bank robber was finally arrested after ten years, even though it was known that a crime had been committed ten years ago, and authorities had an idea of who the perp was, but because he had some influence, covered for him?

[Cali_Democrat]

68. Like I said....it will go to the SC. nt

[Doctor_J]

77. Yippee. The SC that gave us Heller and CU and the mandates part of the ACA

and a long list of abominations. I can't wait.

[Cali_Democrat]

86. Well according to the Constitution...

The Supreme Court is supposed to have final say in interpretation of the Constitution.

If you don't like that, take it up with the Constitution.

[Doctor_J]

98. I would rather take it up with the Felonious Five and Bush 41 and Bush 43

the entire lot of them are traitors, and those who agree with their "decisions" are nearly all right wing nut jobs.

[Cali_Democrat]

106. Agree, but....

There is no alternative to the Supreme Court when it comes to final say for interpreting the Constitution.

That's why it's so important to GOTV and make sure there is a Dem President in the White House.

Otherwise, you'll have people like Bush appointing Supreme Court justices.

[LeftyMom]

35. SCOTUS ruled on the use of landline metadata in one case involving telephone harassment in 1979.

The data available in the age of smart phones and the internet is entirely different and far more intrusive, and bulk metadata for national security purposes is nothing like the case being cited in any case.

Anybody citing that ruling as having anything to do with the current behavior of the NSA is either stupid or thinks their audience is.

[jeff47]

52. Stupid is insisting that the ruling was that specific.

The ruling was not "landline metadata can be collected on one person".

The ruling was "All telephone metadata is a run-of-the-mill business record that belongs to the phone company, so there is no individual right to privacy regarding telephone metadata".

Feel free to cite where exactly the ruling said it only applied to single cases.

What's also really stupid is insisting that it is already illegal, instead of pushing for Congress to write a law to make telephone metadata private. It's a way to guarantee nothing changes.

[LeftyMom]

80. Telephone technology has changed ever so slightly since 1979.

In 1979 metadata meant what landline number called another landline number at what time and how long the call lasted. That's it. In 2014, telephone metadata has people's locations down a few feet throughout their day, their call records, who they texted, and information about their web browsing. It's not analogous data and it is vastly more intrusive when it is misused. The very specific ruling you are invoking as justification involved a case where a serious crime was known to have been committed and the use of metadata furthered the investigation, yet you are using it to justify a blanket search. Nothing about the ruling indicates that bulk collection is legal and in any case the data involved is not similar.

Nobody is suggesting that the data provider does not own metadata. However the notion that metadata can be collected in a broad net by the government can not be supported by the ownership of that data by a private party.

[jeff47]

82. And if the ruling said it only applied to 1979 technology, you'd have a point.

Unfortunately for your case, the ruling was not that specific.

The very specific ruling you are invoking as justification involved a case where a serious crime was known to have been committed and the use of metadata furthered the investigation, yet you are using it to justify a blanket search.

Because as I already said, nothing in the ruling restricted it to criminal investigation.

The ruling said phone metadata is not private. It is the equivalent of the video tape of a camera pointed at a public street. Collecting one tape is just as legal as collecting 100M tapes.

However the notion that metadata can be collected in a broad net by the government can not be supported by the ownership of that data by a private party.

The ownership part of the ruling just indicates who has control of the data. That's why I keep bringing up the privacy side of the ruling too. Because it's the "not-private" part that makes it legal to collect the data. On any scale. With no requirement for suspicion.

[LeftyMom]

84. Of course the ruling didn't anticipate technology that didn't exist yet.

But you wouldn't try to justify tracking all automobiles based on an old law about stopping trains to check for tickets. It's abusive even if you can probably manage some tortured logic to justify it.

Then again, if Obama did it you probably would.

[jeff47]

85. It's not that hard to handle

The ruling could have specified the metadata that was not private. For example, they could have ruled time, number and duration were not private. Instead, it said all metadata.

But you wouldn't try to justify tracking all automobiles based on an old law about stopping trains to check for tickets.

If the ruling specified trains, then no that would not work. If the ruling said all vehicles, then it would be legal. And fixing that would require a new law.

Then again, if Obama did it you probably would.

Yes, calling for a change in the law to stop both the NSA and private collection clearly means i worship the ground obama walks on.

The fact that the law does not say what you want it to say does not translate to Obama worship.

[Marr]

90. +1

[JDPriestly]

36. Different facts. Could distinguish the current NSA practice and result in a very different ruling.

The prior case, Smith v. Maryland concerned a legitimate business search related to the investigation of, I believe, theft of some kind. The person whose records were obtained was reasonably suspected of committing a crime. The investigators might have been able to argue that there was probably cause to obtain the records in any event.

The court ruled in part:



Given a pen register's limited capabilities, therefore, petitioner's argument that its installation and use constituted a "search" necessarily rests upon a claim that he had a "legitimate expectation of privacy" regarding the numbers he dialed on his phone.

This claim must be rejected. First, we doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. In fact, pen registers and similar devices are routinely used by telephone companies "for the purposes of checking billing operations, detecting fraud, and preventing violations of law." United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S., at 174 -175.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

Here, the NSA is grabbing, saving for potential review, sometimes reviewing, analyzing and also perhaps saving long-term data from people who are not in the least suspected of any wrongdoing, not in any way linked to a criminal investigation. The excuse for collecting the metadata is that it might help catch terrorists. Fact is that it never has helped catch a terrorist.

Obviously, the NSA is ignoring any duty to establish the slightest suspicion, much less a reasonable suspicion and by no means anything approaching probable cause (the language of the Fourth Amendment) before acquiring this megamountain of personal megadata.

What can be done with the metadata in this day of very fast computers with complex programs for analyzing data makes the collection of metadata a very serious matter. Were I arguing the case, I would question whether this phrase applies to the NSA's collection of metadata: "Given a pen register's limited capabilities." A pen register in the hands of the NSA with its huge computer capacity has almost unlimited capabilities to pry into the lives of innocent people. And inevitably, if it isn't already, it will be used to do so.

The collection of metadata threatens to destroy the fabric of the Bill of Rights. Call the ACLU, a gun store, a doctor, transmit health or psychiatric records, talk to your lawyer, communicate via electronic media with anyone, and the NSA and the FBI have your information. Never mind that you are not a criminal, just someone wishing to run for office or, worse yet, someone serving in office including the Supreme Court or Congress, the NSA and maybe the FBI know what you do in your "free" time. They know what church or synagogue or mosque you attend. They know what experts you call. They know whether you call an abortion clinic, a library, a sex shop. They know whether you watch porn or gamble online. They know it all. And anyone in the corporations or NSA or the executive branch can leak information on you, information that may be misinterpreted or falsified or may be misleading (a guest using your phone?) and twisted to harm you, your reputation and your family.

The program is grotesque, out of bounds, way too comprehensive and very dangerous.

The NSA metadata collection would have outraged the Founding Fathers, especially James Madison.

The Third and Fourth Amendments are in the Constitution in part because the British government forced colonial Americans to house British soldiers in their homes against the will of the American colonists. The NSA metadata collection is quite similar to the kinds of intrusions into the privacy of the colonists that the American Revolution was, in part, fought over.

[neverforget]

37. I've posted that case a few times with the spy supporters

and they never respond. Funny how they extrapolate to spying on ALL Americans as being okeydokey from this case.

[JDPriestly]

38. I think that our conservative Supreme Court might well distinguish Smith v. Maryland.

After all, they decided in favor of enforcing the Second Amendment against laws that attempted to place broad limitations on guns. And they have, in my opinion, interpreted the First Amendment far too broadly in Citizens United. This Court, in my opinion, reads the Constitution so as to protect individual rights and limit government.

I first observed that in 1997 when the Court, now somewhat changed but still pretty conservative, overturned a decision allowing a law that prohibited guns in vehicles near schools. (I think those were the facts of the case.) Decisions on stops and searches in public areas have been pretty lenient on the police. But the issues with the NSA surveillance and collection of metadata are not like those in the stop and search decisions in my opinion. The auto searches take place in public. The driver knows he is being stopped. The NSA surveillance is very intrusive. There is no safety-related reason for the surveillance, at least not a very persuasive one. I just think the decision on the NSA surveillance if brought on the right facts at the right time could go against the NSA. It might take a few cases to get the Court to rule against the NSA, but I think it will happen unless we have some sort of coup or horrible event first.

[jeff47]

56. Sorry to disappoint. My response was not available at 2:36AM. (nt)

[neverforget]

57. wasn't directed at you since I didn't respond to you

[jeff47]

58. Ah, but I'm one of those evil spy-supporter demons

who had not replied about the case.

So yes, your literal reply was to someone else. But you appear to be lumping me in with those who "never respond".

[neverforget]

60. then answer the question since you think it's directed at you.

How does a case involving a robber and local police get blown up to being okay to collect metadata on All Americans?

[jeff47]

62. The court did not rule that suspicion was required.

The court ruled there was no expectation of privacy, and that the data was the phone company's, not the subscribers. The court did not rule that suspicion was required. Nor did the court rule that the government can only collect one person's data.

As a result, it's free to collect on anyone and everyone. It's the equivalent of the video tape of a surveillance camera pointed at a public street. Collecting 100M of those tapes is as legal as collecting one. Increasing the scale does not confer privacy protection.

Changing that requires people stop yelling at the NSA, and instead yell at Congress. Because we need a change in the law.

Especially because the phone companies have been selling the metadata to third parties for years. The NSA does not have any special capabilities in processing metadata - it's the kind of thing Google does every day. Those third parties are just as capable of tracking via metadata as the NSA, and stopping only the NSA isn't going to restore privacy.

[sabrina 1]

74. If the data belongs to the phone company, then the service should be free. Plus they

should not have those privacy agreements they provide in order to get our money, promising to protect our privacy.

Why is the service not free if they are working for the Government and not for those who are paying them for that service? Whenever I pay for something, it's mine. Money talks, it is speech, that is what the SC has said. My money says that data is mine.

I've really never heard such ridiculous nonsense in terms of trying to dismiss the law of the land in order to excuse gross violations of the US Constitution by government agencies.

Well not since the distorted, pretzel-like machinations to try to turn 'torture' into 'enhanced interrogation' which airc Democrats saw right through at the time.

Not only does Verizon NOT advertise itself as 'working for the government, not you the customer', when they are questioned about why they so seriously violated their customers' trust, they deny they handed over anything to the government.

When you buy a product it is yours, period. And the ONLY way the government can have access to that product, is to get a warrant that demonstrates probable cause for the intrusion into the life of a citizen. And there is no such thing as a 'group' warrant, or 'group probable cause'. It's hillarious, if you read this in fiction, you'd know it was just fiction. Well we do, most of us anyhow.

[jeff47]

78. The metadata is created as a side-effect of the service.

And you shouldn't be surprised that a company will make money via any means they can find.

should not have those privacy agreements they provide in order to get our money, promising to protect our privacy.

Those agreements only cover situations where Verizon wants to do something with your private data that requires your permission first.

In other words, it is a "privacy policy" in that it documents the ways they will be violating your privacy. It does not offer protection.

Whenever I pay for something, it's mine.

And you have phone service. You can use it to talk to anyone else with a phone.

As a side effect, that phone service generates metadata. Just like a side effect of that service is the purchase of Verizon's trucks. You don't get to drive those, despite paying for them.

And there is no such thing as a 'group' warrant, or 'group probable cause'.

Good thing no such warrant was requested. Because again, it is not your data and it is not private.

[neverforget]

96. The suspect was an individual suspected of robbery, a criminal offense. That is suspicion. Otherwise

why would the police go to the phone company for this one particular individual? He was suspected of robbery. How does that translate into gathering metadata on all Americans?

Justice Marshall dissenting Smith v Maryland:

"But even assuming, as I do not, that individuals “typically know” that a phone company monitors calls for internal reasons,ante at 442 U. S. 743, [Footnote 3/1] it does not follow that they expect this information to be made available to the public in general or the government in particular. Privacy is not a discrete commodity, possessed absolutely or not at all. Those who disclose certain facts to a bank or phone company for a limited business purpose need not assume that this information will be released to other persons for other purposes."

---

"More fundamentally, to make risk analysis dispositive in assessing the reasonableness of privacy expectations would allow the government to define the scope of Fourth Amendment protections. For example, law enforcement officials, simply by announcing their intent to monitor the content of random samples of first-class mail or private phone conversations, could put the public on notice of the risks they would thereafter assume in such communications."

----

"Just as one who enters a public telephone booth is "entitled to assume that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world," Katz v. United States, supra, at 352, so too, he should be entitled to assume that the numbers he dials in the privacy of his home will be recorded, if at all, solely for the phone company's business purposes. Accordingly, I would require law enforcement officials to obtain a warrant before they enlist telephone companies to secure information otherwise beyond the government's reach."

[jeff47]

124. Doesn't matter. The ruling does not require suspicion.

why would the police go to the phone company for this one particular individual? He was suspected of robbery. How does that translate into gathering metadata on all Americans?

Because the SCOTUS ruling says there is no expectation of privacy with phone metadata. The 4th amendment doesn't apply.

That means suspicion is not required. The data is simply not private. Again, it is legally similar to the recording of traffic on a public street.

Justice Marshall dissenting Smith v Maryland

Now all you need is a constitutional amendment to make dissents binding.

[neverforget]

129. So putting a pen register in 1979 on a single line is now the same as gathering metadata

on all Americans? And the cops had 1 person to spy on whereas the NSA is just gathering everything up for whatever reason on ALL Americans. Is that the same thing? Are you okay with that?

Did you even read his dissenting opinion? Justice Thurgood Marshall was prescient in his dissent.

[jeff47]

130. The ruling does not differentiate between the two.

The ruling could have said only number, time and duration were not private. They didn't. As a result, none of it is private.

The larger amount of data available may result in a different ruling today, but the government gets to operate on the existing ruling.

And the cops had 1 person to spy on whereas the NSA is just gathering everything up for whatever reason on ALL Americans

How many times do the words "scale does not make it private" have to pass before your eyes before you read them?

Did you even read his dissenting opinion?

His opinion simply does not matter when you are talking about what is constitutional. It does not matter that you like his opinion. The government abides by the ruling, not the dissent.

And again, you are thinking too small. Stopping the government does not restore privacy to this data. Because stopping the government does not stop Verizon, AT&T and the rest from selling it.

Once again WE NEED A NEW LAW.

[JDPriestly]

112. I remind everyone that at one time, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of slavery.

Supreme Court views change when new facts are presented or when events force rethinking fundamental ideas. I've seen a lot of telephone bills. And when I think of combining that information with e-mails, financial data, etc., there is no privacy for the individual once the metadata is universally collected. Also, groups can be identified according to religion, ideas, health problems, all sorts of things. It is very dangerous to the rights of individuals.

[jeff47]

55. The ruling is not at all that narrow.

Here, the NSA is grabbing, saving for potential review, sometimes reviewing, analyzing and also perhaps saving long-term data from people who are not in the least suspected of any wrongdoing, not in any way linked to a criminal investigation.

And the court did not rule that suspicion was required. The court ruled that there is no expectation of privacy. The court also ruled it's the phone company's data, not the subscriber's data.

As a result, it has no protection. That means it's available for collection regardless of suspicion. It's as free to collect as a surveillance camera pointed at a public street.

If you want that changed, you need to be yelling at Congress, not the NSA. You need a change in law.

Especially because the phone companies have been selling metadata to third parties for years. Those parties are quite capable of performing the same analysis on the metadata. The NSA does not have any capabilities in this area that surpass Google. Blocking the NSA does not restore much privacy.

[JDPriestly]

111. A database of the metadata of a huge number of Americans is a political tool.

If collected as it is, in a secret program to which only the executive branch and selected private companies have access, it is a serious danger to any semblance of democracy. If one can predict from history, a database of that sort could result in a political inquisition by any small clique in the military and executive branch that would scare Pinochet.

This program is the antithesis of democratic and must be first, made open, and second limited in its activities.

And now, with Feinstein's accusation, we may have a constitutional crisis set off by the CIA's alleged tampering with the computers being used by members of Congress in an oversight investigation on the activities of the CIA. That accusation sounds questionable to me. Feinstein is even older than I am and perhaps not very computer savvy. We shall see. If she is correct in her statements, the NSA and/or (executive branch) and Congress have a serious constitutional crisis.

In my amazingly varied career (girls didn't expect to work much when I was growing up so I just took jobs as they became available, jobs of all kinds in spite of my degrees), I was for a while a service representative for a telephone company. I sat at a desk with a file of telephone bills. I know what those bills look like and what they reveal. Combine them with all the other data that the NSA is collecting and, sooner or later you get to information about which people, yes, have an expectation of privacy. Put the information gleaned from the many communications of many people together and you have an inappropriate amount of control over individuals and public opinion.

The Inquisition would have dreamed of this. Think how easily they could have identified anyone who crossed the Catholic Church in any way. We would like to think that could not happen here, but it has happened so many places against so many people by powerful but frustrated governments or religions that this is just too dangerous to mess with.

[jeff47]

126. Actually, it's far beyond a political tool

It's also a marketing gold mine. Which is why the phone companies have been selling it for years.

Which is why I keep going back to the need for a new law to make the information private.

Stopping the NSA program does not fix the problem. It stops the NSA. It does not stop the FBI. It does not stop state police. It does not stop local police. It does not stop Google. It does not stop marketing firms.

[JDPriestly]

142. Good points!

[sabrina 1]

54. What 'warrant' was signed off on?

[jeff47]

59. Multiple FISA court warrants. (nt)

[sabrina 1]

61. You mean the 'group' warrants that allowed the government access to millions of people's 'affects'?

You know there is no such thing as a 'group warrant' on the entire population.

What was the probable cause required to get a warrant, eg, on MY 'affects', in this case my email, phone records etc. I asked Verizon what probable cause there was for them to hand over my records to a government agency. I must have done SOMETHING that aroused suspicion that would result in a warrant. According to our laws anyhow. How a judge could through millions of 'probable causes' in secret no less, is a mystery to most people who are aware of the law and of their rights.

So, how does a judge issue such a warrant, and AFTER the fact also, on millions of people? Are we ALL suspects in some crime? And where is the evidence of the probable cause this judge saw?

[jeff47]

67. It's not your 'affects'.

The 1979 SCOTUS ruling declared that metadata belongs to the phone company. Not the subscriber.

As a result, it's not your 'affects'. It's Verizon's. (Or whoever your phone company is)

in this case my email, phone records etc.

No one has leaked an email collection program directed at US persons. Only phone records.

I must have done SOMETHING that aroused suspicion that would result in a warrant.

Nope, suspicion is not required. Phone metadata is the equivalent of the video tape of a camera pointed at a public street - no expectation of privacy, according to the SCOTUS.

If you don't like it, the people you need to yell at are Congress. Not judges or the NSA. Because you need a change in the law.

After all, Verizon has also been selling the same metadata for years. Stopping the NSA program doesn't stop that. And the NSA does not have any special capabilities regarding metadata - it's what Google does every day, for example.

[sabrina 1]

71. I read my privacy agreement with Verizon. Have you read these agreements? Nowhere did it say

they would be handing over information on every call I made to the Government. If I had seen that in any privacy agreement, I would never have signed it. It is MY 'affects' since I pay for them. These silly attempts to justify these gross violations of rights are shameful, especially since few people are buying them anyhow.

Congress is complicit in saving the criminals who were exposed before during the Bush years, from prosecution. They CHANGED THE LAW, imagine having such influence that if you broke the law, Congress would change it for you and go back to BEFORE you broke, just to save you from prosecution?? But that's what they did, and airc people were OUTRAGED at that time, to see even Democrats who were hoping would not allow Bush/Cheney off the hook like that.

I hope that's not the 'law' you're talking about because you should know how people feel about Congress abusing their power as they did when saved Bush/Cheney from prosecution.

The ACTUAL law of the land forbids spying on the American people, period and no law passed with the intention of covering up the crimes of corrupt leaders is worth the paper it is written on.

[jeff47]

73. It doesn't have to say that, because it's not your data.

They don't need your permission. It's not your data. And it's not private.

Just like every CCTV operator does not need your permission to film you walking down a public street.

It is MY 'affects' since I pay for them.

No, you pay for phone service.

As a side effect, that phone service generates metadata. The metadata belongs to Verizon. They can give it to whomever they please.

They've been giving it to the government. They've also been giving it to anyone who wants to hand them a pile of cash.

These silly attempts to justify these gross violations of rights are shameful, especially since few people are buying them anyhow.

Yeah, damn that pesky Constitution making the SCOTUS have so much power!!!!!

I hope that's not the 'law' you're talking about

You aren't that stupid. Please stop pretending to be.

Because people who are literate understand that "you need a new law" means existing law does not cover it. And you're literate.

The ACTUAL law of the land forbids spying on the American people

And the SCOTUS ruled that this isn't spying. Don't like it? You need a new law.

I eagerly await your next attempt to change the subject to the Bush administration.

[sabrina 1]

76. Who is paying for it? My money says, since the SC also ruled that money is speech, that that data

belongs to me. When the service is free, they can make that ridiculous claim. I pay for it, I own it. Any 'ruling' that says otherwise, is an abuse of power.

[jeff47]

79. No, you are paying for phone service.

And you get phone service. That service has lots of side effects.

One side effect is the generation of metadata.

Another side effect is the purchase of a fleet of trucks with Verizon painted on the side. Do you get to drive those trucks? No? But you paid for them!!!!

[sabrina 1]

91. Please, do not insult the intelligence of the people who know when they are being bamboozled.

I already talked to Verizon and even they didn't try to tell me that fictional story. They simply 'assured me' that my data will not be transferred to anyone without my knowledge and permission. Read their privacy agreement, I have, and so did they.

And you're contradicting yourself. If what you are saying is true, then they would not need a warrant, would they? It's theirs, you say, but otoh, you say they 'got a warrant'.

Are your letters that go through the PO someone else's also? As far as I know, anyone tampering with the mail is committing a felony.

Who owns the data is not in question, what IS in question is how they got a 'group' warrant on millions of people and what probable cause they used to get on each individual.

[jeff47]

121. And we're back to the same bullshit again.

How surprising.

They simply 'assured me' that my data will not be transferred to anyone without my knowledge and permission. Read their privacy agreement, I have, and so did they.

Guess what trumps assurances over the phone? FISA court orders.

And you're contradicting yourself. If what you are saying is true, then they would not need a warrant, would they? It's theirs, you say, but otoh, you say they 'got a warrant'.

Desperate much?

The warrant is sent to Verizon to compel them to turn over the data. Verizon is not obligated to turn the data over to the government without one.

Are your letters that go through the PO someone else's also? As far as I know, anyone tampering with the mail is committing a felony.

Anything on the exterior of the envelope is public. Reading/copying that is legal. Opening the envelope is where you'd trigger mail tampering.

what IS in question is how they got a 'group' warrant on millions of people

Except as I've explained to you multiple times, that did not happen.

What actually happened is the FISA court issued 1 warrant per telephone company for 6 months of their metadata. New warrants were issued every six months.

There was no "group warrant", despite what exists in your fevered dreams. Heck, you understood that just one reply ago. Yet here you are, tossing out the same wrong accusation again.

what probable cause they used to get on each individual.

As explained to you repeatedly, suspicion is not required. The data is not private under current law.

As explained to you repeatedly, you need a change in the law to stop this. You keep ignoring that, because you'd rather scream at the NSA than fix the problem.

[sabrina 1]

146. If someone owns something, they need no warrant to access it. Period.

I actually feel a bit sympathetic to those who are trying to defend this, it's just impossible and that is never a good position to find yourself in.

[Cali_Democrat]

65. For the Verizon records. nt

[sabrina 1]

69. What did Verizon Customers do to justify a warrant to gain access to their accounts?

To issue a legal warrant, there has to be probable cause. No one seems to know what probable cause was presented to the court. Do you? I asked Verizon what I was supposed to have done to justify them handing over my records to the government. They denied it altogether, apparently unaware of what you just said. Maybe because they know it was illegal?

[Cali_Democrat]

89. This is metadata of calls.

The warrant specified that they can't gather customer information such as account number, name, address etc. They never had access to individual accounts with these warrants.

You probably need to educate yourself a bit more before posting. You also seemed to be unaware of the warrant in your post above.

Personally, I think collecting this much data is overkill and provides no useful purpose. I work for a company that aggregates all types of data to be used for risk analysis.

We call this information/data overload. At some point, it just becomes totally useless.

[bvar22]

137. I'll stick with Joe Biden on the Meta-Data issue:

[ProSense]

2. What I'd love to know

is why he was talking about Russia to his colleagues?

Snowden: Giving his colleagues the "front-page test" was "reporting it"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024642573

Wasn't his identity unknown until he revealed himself?

[Corruption Inc]

4. Distraction, thread hijacking, propaganda: I'd like to know if you know the definitions

Because everyone else certainly does. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, it certainly does expose people's motives. I'll await your "LOL" response just as I'm sure Manny awaits your quick, programmed responses to his every post.

[ProSense]

7. Isn't this a thread about Snowden and what he "needed" to do?

My comment is about what he said he did, and why he said he did it.

Why would you consider Snowden's characterization of his motivation: "Distraction, thread hijacking, propaganda"?

[Corruption Inc]

9. Re-framing the OP about an oath, distraction, propaganda: do you know the definitions?

Here ya go, I'll help you with your next 10 posts:

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL

[ProSense]

13. LOL! The "oath" part was to justify what Snowden "needed" to do.

Frankly, Snowden's own words are a series of contradictions and wild claims.

[Corruption Inc]

14. LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL

"Frankly", ProSense's "own words are a series of contradictions and wild claims". Are we having fun yet with all the LOL going on? As long as you're allowed to propagandize this site I'm sure you'll be hearing from actual people like me who's lives you're trying to destroy along with our privacy.

Not that your capable of understanding but fascist countries use information control as a way to manipulate their citizenry. Or, you do understand and you're a truly horrible human being.

Either way, it's not good. LOL, LOL, LOL.

[ProSense]

15. What are you trying to say?

LOL!

"Not that your capable of understanding but fascist countries use information control as a way to manipulate their citizenry."

You mean like Russia?

[Corruption Inc]

17. Seek mental health help if you are indeed human

That's the best advice anyone could give you if you actually care about anything anyone says.

The end.

[ProSense]

19. I know it's hard when one's "hero" holds up Russia as a protector of human rights. n/t

[Scuba]

47. Didn't see that. Can you provide a link?

[Gravitycollapse]

28. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Mon Mar 10, 2014, 10:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Seek mental health help if you are indeed human
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4642878

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Seek mental health" is a genuinely offensive insult and does not belong on DU no matter who it's directed against. Please hide, thank you.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 10, 2014, 10:50 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: context is everything.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Whole pie fight is mutual insults. Voting to leave it brcause of context.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: As much as I despise ProSense, as much as I suspect them to be particularly dubious, it runs contrary to my own conscience for anyone to use the "seek mental help" line as an insult because there's nothing witty or funny about mental health or those who suffer from mental health issues. And it is with a heavy sigh that I vote to hide this post because it is obvious ProSense is trolling this thread. Unfortunately, the poster being alerted to took it hook, line and sinker.

Gravitycollapse.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Number23]

31. You actually posted your response about how much you "despise" Prosense in this thread

And that this person who is insulting her is merely "falling for her trolling" and not actively engaging in name calling because s/he wants to?

[ProSense]

32. LOL!

There is something extremely ironic about comment 6.

[SunsetDreams]

34. I respect your vote

Your overall comment has me a bit confused. Starting with post #2 (ProSense) that was a question, with a link. I don't see any trolling there. I'm not sure how that can be construed as trolling or that the alerted on poster "took it hook, line and sinker". The response to ProSense (#4) is what started this whole line.

Indeed context is everything. The post did not need context, of course, it was hide worthy in and of itself. Thank you for voting the way that you did.

[malokvale77]

138. Pathetic (nt)

[JDPriestly]

39. I agree with Snowden that he was keeping his oath to uphold the Constitution when he

revealed the NSA wrongs. He did take that oath. Please identify and list precisely what you consider to be Snowden's contradictions and wild claims.

[randome]

53. Here.

Snowden claimed that armed with an email address, he could personally spy on anyone, including the President. Makes you wonder why he didn't snatch an email to prove it to us.

Snowden claimed the NSA had 'direct access' to the world's Internet providers. All the companies involved say that's bullshit.

Snowden claimed the NSA can watch our thoughts form as we type. Any evidence they are doing that? No.

Snowden claimed the NSA is downloading the Internet on a daily basis. Any evidence? No.

Snowden said he "saw things" but he has never said what that means.

He was not an Intelligence Analyst so he was never in a position to "see things" in the first place. If he somehow gained access through hook or crook, why didn't he get something to support his claims?

There is a reason China didn't want him and even the Wikileaks attorneys don't want him. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002310173
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

103. Bookmarking this reponse--note that not a single pro-Snowden poster can touch this.....nt

[JDPriestly]

113. It's a secret program. How do you know what it does or doesn't do.

What I am concerned about is that the collection of metadata is in my view very dangerous and will eventually be determined to be a serious violation of our human rights, our innate rights that are protected by the Constitution.

Why in the world would anyone defend the NSA surveillance program on universal or randomly selected US citizens? It is completely incompatible with the concept of life in a free society. They are spying on protected conduct, such as association, speech, the press (broadly defined as the exchange of information we might call "news&quot and on the petty concerns of ordinary non-criminals. There is no reason to do that other than to gain control and identify political activists, religious activists, etc.

I think that the Supreme Court will change its mind about the value of metadata in a program as expansive as that of the NSA. It will take time, but the Supreme Court will either recognize the danger in this kind of spying or we will lose any semblance of democracy. We will become just another military dictatorship probably "lead" by some representative of the oligarchy. We already have two families vying for the honor of becoming "kings and queens" -- the Bushes and the Clintons.

[randome]

120. Fine. But the metadata collection is obtained via legal warrant.

Snowden disagrees with that. I couldn't care less if the collection is stopped tomorrow. But why would he think this was such an emergency that he needed to leave diplomatic incidents in his wake as he fled from country to country?

The answer is his first 'revelation' was about PRISM, which he and Greenwald thought was a way for the NSA to have 'direct access' to everyone's data.

They were wrong. It's long past time for Snowden to admit he was wrong. But he seems constitutionally (heh) unable to do that.

And there is no surveillance on American citizens. That we know of. The metadata is stored in a locked box system that even Carl Bernstein said seemed like it had enough safeguards in place to prevent abuse.

You don't like that the metadata is being collected. I can respect that. But how that equates to 'surveillance on all Americans' is a mystery to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Rumold]

136. they record content also

or are you not aware of that.

[randome]

144. Not for American citizens. Where did you get the idea that they do?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rumold]

145. Optic Nerve

in fact the GCHQ specifically targets american citizens, with the help of the NSA

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo

[Rumold]

147. from todays NYT

For all intents and purposes, once readers realize this program, as reported in this story, was expanded to include the National Counter-terrorism Center, in 2012, this pretty much blows the lid off of the ongoing government lies propaganda that our government has not been capturing massive quantities of domestic call content of its citizens, all along.


note the word "CONTENT"

not meta-data, "CONTENT"

of american citizens communications.

Questions?

[840high]

88. You're slipping - only

one blue link.

[jberryhill]

5. You know a guy said the same thing to Manning's judge

Lt. Col. Terry Lakin



His interpretation of a similar oath led him to refuse to deploy to Afghanistan, on the ground that the Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen.

[joshcryer]

11. Oh man, he was two years from retirement?

I'm not sure whether that is guts or absolute idiocy.

[DeSwiss]

24. Integrity.

A lot of people aren't familiar with the concept since it isn't practiced much anymore.

[joshcryer]

25. "Birther" and "Integrity"?

[Number23]

27. Yeah, I'm scratching my head on that too

[jberryhill]

97. He believes it is true, and he acted on that belief

What is the question?

[jeff47]

8. Yeah, little problem with that theory.

He hasn't actually revealed anything unconstitutional.

All but one of the spying programs he leaked have a 'targeting' component to exclude US persons. That makes those legal, since spying on non-US persons is legal.

The phone metadata program does not. But it has a 1979 SCOTUS decision that makes it legal - the SCOTUS ruled phone metadata is a business record that belongs to the phone company, so the subscriber doesn't have 4th amendment protection over that data.

And if he had actually found something unconstitutional, it's rather odd he didn't bother to avail himself of the multiple routes of reporting such an issue. Including the two that bypass his bosses, or the executive branch completely.

But hey, we shouldn't let little technicalities like that get in the way of a good story. Let's talk about Al Gore inventing the Internet next.

[JDPriestly]

40. "He hasn't actually revealed anything unconstitutional."

The collection and storing of vast amounts of metadata on virtually everyone of us is in my view probably unconstitutional since that practice in this age of super computers and personal dependence on electronic communications for so many of our very personal matters permits an onerous violation of the privacy of nearly every American, every company, every person in the US.

Further, Snowden saw what was going on in the NSA, violations and abuses. And other whistleblowers on the NSA have verified that there were abuses.

As for how Snowden reported the violations, prior NSA employees who used the "legal" channels paid dearly for it. One at least was indicted. Others found there homes searched. They were fired. And the reports by other NSA whistleblowers were pretty much ignored or disbelieved. Snowden, I believe, was the first to present documents, that is irrefutable evidence of the NSA's overreaching.

[jeff47]

51. Again, the 1979 SCOTUS ruling says it is constitutional.

personal dependence on electronic communications for so many of our very personal matters permits an onerous violation of the privacy of nearly every American, every company, every person in the US.

The program collected phone metadata. What number called what other number, and call duration. Not "electronic communications".

As a result, it fits very nicely under the 1979 SCOTUS decision.

If you'd like to change it, you need a new law from Congress.

Further, Snowden saw what was going on in the NSA, violations and abuses.

The abuses he and others reported resulted in punishment of the abusers. And abuse of capabilities is not an NSA program of spying on every American.

As for how Snowden reported the violations, prior NSA employees who used the "legal" channels paid dearly for it.

It's a lovely, completely undocumented story.

It's also cases where people only complained to their bosses. One channel. There's at least 4 other channels, including going directly to Congress, completely bypassing the executive branch. Those were not exercised. Instead, the stories that have been told is of people complaining to their supervisor, or their supervisor's supervisor.

Your summary also ignores a bunch of other details on the story. I'm sure your boss would not fire you if you refused to do the work he assigned you, right?

Snowden, I believe, was the first to present documents, that is irrefutable evidence of the NSA's overreaching.

Except he didn't. Snowden has leaked a bunch of programs that spied on non-US persons. And a program that spied on US Persons but is legal under that 1979 SCOTUS decision.

[truebluegreen]

102. Sorry, you are wrong.

These programs had never been constitutionally tested re US citizens because they were SECRET (and BTW google William Binney, Thomas Drake and Kirk Wiebe if you are so certain they were legal: people with WAY more knowledge than you disagreed). In order to challenge their constitutionality one would have at least allege HARM. In order to do that, one would have to know about the programs. Nice Catch 22, verdad?

Now there are challenges in the courts. Thanks to Snowden. Now--if it makes you feel better--we can find out if they are constitutional.

[msanthrope]

104. Okay...what makes you think that these programs will produce a distinguishable case from

Smith v. Maryland?

[jeff47]

127. Dislike of the programs

Plus, taking a small enough view that only worries about government surveillance. Companies using the same data to track us is A-OK!

[msanthrope]

134. And alas, the rub. Well played. nt

.

[JDPriestly]

114. Just wait until members of the Supreme Court find that they have been spied upon.

And according to one of the high-level whistleblowers, they have been.

Here is a link to the press conference a group of whistleblowers gave after the Obama speech on the NSA spying on Americans:

http://new.livestream.com/accuracy/nsa-rebuttal/videos/39824993

[Fumesucker]

12. The Constitution is much like the Bible

The large print giveth, the small print taketh away.

[JDPriestly]

41. Please give some examples of the large print of the Constitution giving and the small print taking

away. I've read and studied the Constitution some and I cannot agree with you. The Bill of Rights defines some of our innate rights, our inalienable rights, the rights we are born with.

The Bill of Rights in the constitution DOES NOT GIVE US THOSE RIGHTS. It prohibits Congress or our government from taking them away from us.

I strongly but respectfully disagree with your statement.

[Fumesucker]

46. The large print being the actual Constitution and the small print being the interpretation thereof

By the courts, up to and including the SCOTUS.

For instance the "drug war" exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's right against unreasonable search and seizure. The threat to society created by cannabis (and some other drugs (but not different others for some reason)) "justifies" the restriction of rights under Fourth Amendment.

And so on and so on.

[Rex]

16. I love the NSA.

[zeemike]

22. ...I love you big brother.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. But..but..that damned 4th Amendment and common decency are sooo 18th century.

And, we must look forward....to..

?w=585

[OilemFirchen]

20. It wasn't up to Snowden to INTERPRET the Constitution.

That's why we have courts, thank dog.

It was, however, his responsibility to follow Standard Form 312, which he signed:

The SF 312 is a contractual agreement between the U.S. Government and you, a cleared employee, in which you agree never to disclose classified information to an unauthorized person. Its primary purpose is to inform you of (1) the trust that is placed in you by providing you access to classified information; (2) your responsibilities to protect that information from unauthorized disclosure; and (3) the consequences that may result from your failure to meet those responsibilities. Additionally, by establishing the nature of this trust, your responsibilities, and the potential consequences of noncompliance in the context of a contractual agreement, if you violate that trust, the United States will be better able to prevent an unauthorized disclosure or to discipline you for such a disclosure by initiating a civil or administrative action.

Failure to do so:

4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or the termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952, Title 18, United States Code, of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

This one's for funsies. If he financially profits from this illegal disclosure...

5. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, remunerations, and emoluments that have resulted, will result or may result from any disclosure, publication, or revelation of classified information not consistent with the terms of this Agreement.

[lumpy]

30. Thanks

[JDPriestly]

42. Snowden would probably respond that his allegiance to the Constitution supersedes and superseded

his contractual obligation.

[MannyGoldstein]

50. The Nuremberg trials established that "following orders" is not a valid defense.

Only a consideration at sentencing.

What are your thoughts on that?

[Bonx]

95. That it doesn't apply here. -nt

[L0oniX]

70. Well then ...let's make the US Constitution a state secret...

oh and of course a contract removes one from obligations to follow the US Constitution. It's just paper anyway ...just ask Bush and Cheney.

[zeemike]

21. And that means they need to screen people better.

So that they don't get people in those positions that do take the oath seriously...there are plenty of them hear at DU that can rationalize spying on us with any number of bullshit reasons for it...like everyone does it and we already knew they were doing it so it don't matter...and our meta data don't belong to us so they can collect it in case they need it.

Or if a Democratic president does it it is not a crime.

[DeSwiss]

23. K&R

- Thanks Eddie.

[wildbilln864]

26. precisely Mr. Goldstein! Thank you. n/t

[treestar]

29. talk about oversimplification

his flight to China/Russia casts doubt on that being his motive. And that motive doesn't make him right. Everyone thinks they are a constitutional scholar, but in truth, they know little or nothing. Case law was right there to show Eddie was wrong. Come to think of it, if what he did was of such importance, one would think he'd consult a lawyer first.

No, Eddie just did what he thought right, and thinks that his opinions are the law. Typical of most people so ignorant regarding the law that they don't even comprehend its existence. But most of those people don't act on it.

[lumpy]

33. And thank you

[JDPriestly]

43. At one time, case law said slavery was the law.

After all, the slaveowner had entered into a legally binding contract when he bought the slave, and that had to be respected. Can't go around breaking other people's contracts, you know was the attitude.

I believe that the Smith v. Maryland decision will be distinguished from what the NSA is now doing. Maybe not the first times the Supreme Court considers the matter, but eventually.

The NSA program will go very wrong, and people will realize what a horrible idea it is. That is what will happen. Eventually, either the Supreme Court will decide for the people and the innate rights that the Bill of Rights protects including a pretty strict interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, or we will cease to even pretend to be a democracy governed by laws and three separate but equal branches of government.

Among other thins, I think the NSA surveillance is a violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers. The NSA surveillance permits the executive branch to oversee members of Congress. That is upside down. The Congress is supposed to oversee the activities of the executive branch. How does the NSA surveillance violate separation of powers? Because it allows the NSA in the executive branch, whether intentionally or inadvertently, to spy on the electronic communications of members of Congress. That is a very, very serious matter.

[struggle4progress]

45. I don't think you can count on anything like that from SCOTUS in the near future:

reducing or ending metadata collection will require Congressional action

[Scuba]

48. And now knowing that the intelligence community spies on Congress, what kind of action will we get?

[struggle4progress]

44. He's in great shape then: he can just come back home, and his lawyer will win

summary dismissal of all those silly nuisance charges

That might make me sad, though: I've been hoping he'd drop by Gorokhovsky Pereulok No. 12 to ask for asylum there

[MannyGoldstein]

49. Sadly, as Daniel Ellsberg points out, some other

bits of the the Constitution are routinely ignored by this White House, such as the right to due process and the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

[ProSense]

75. Ellsberg

"Sadly, as Daniel Ellsberg points out, some other bits of the the Constitution are routinely ignored by this White House, such as the right to due process and the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment."

...didn't flea the country and never had make comments denying that he turned over information to foreign governments:

Snowden Says The Government Still Has No Idea What He Gave To Reporters

Edward Snowden snuck a little jab at the government into his appearance at SXSW Interactive on Monday.

Asked if it was just a matter of time before the government could decrypt even the best encryption, the former National Security Agency contractor held up his own case as evidence that encryption works to protect data from surveillance.

"The United States government has assembled a massive investigative team" to look into him and his leak of top secret NSA documents, Snowden said. "And they still have no idea what documents were provided to the journalists, what they have, what they don't have. Because encryption works."

Snowden also suggested that encryption has kept the documents he leaked out of the hands of foreign governments, like Russia and China.

<...>

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/snowden-sxsw-documents-encryption

Direct quote:

Ed: Let’s put it this way - the United States government has assembled a massive investigation team into me personally, into my work with journalists and they still have no idea you know what - what documents were provided to the journalists, what they have, what they don’t have. Because of encryption works. Now the only way to get around that, is to have a computer that is so massive and so powerful you can work the entire universe into the energy power into this decryption machine and they still might not be able to do it. Or you break into the computer and try to steal their keys and bypass the encryption. That happens today and that happens every day. That is the way around it.

<...>

Ed: If I could follow up on that I would say the US government’s investigation supports that. We have both public and private acknowledgements that they know at this point the Russian government, the Chinese government any other government has possession of any of this information. And that would be easy for them to find out. Remember these are the guys that are spying on everyone in the world. They have got human intelligence assets embedded in these governments. They have got electronic signal assets in these governments. If suddenly the Chinese government knew everything the NSA is doing we would notice the changes. We would notice the changes, we would see official communicating and our assets will tell us hey somewhere they have a warehouse they put you know, a thousand of their most skilled researchers in there. That has never happened and it is never going to happen.
http://blog.inside.com/blog/2014/3/10/edward-snowden-sxsw-full-transcription-and-video

Snowden: The U.S. Government has no idea what I gave to journalists in Russia and China, but encryption has kept the leaked documents out of the hands of foreign governments, like Russia and China, whose media are state-owned.

Genius!

Ellsberg stayed, fought and prevailed in getting the charges dropped.

Snowden put himself in the position of having to plea bargain based on his actions that were outside the scope of simply leaking information about domestic surveillance.

Snowden Inc. ("The strategy: Attention = bargaining power&quot
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024640825#post188

[MannyGoldstein]

81. Strange. You forgot the part about

Ellsberg emphatically agreeing with Snowden, in particular that he shouldn't come back to the US given today's White House.

[ProSense]

83. No,

"Ellsberg emphatically agreeing with Snowden, in particular that he shouldn't come back to the US given today's White House."

...not "strange." I posted the facts equating the situations. Ellsberg's opinion of Snowden has no bearing on what Snowden did or said.

I'd be happy to hear your rebuttal of the facts.

[Blue_Tires]

87. Which is why I understand the leaks on domestic matters

Last edited Tue Mar 11, 2014, 02:42 PM - Edit history (1)

the many leaks on foreign matters is what makes me scratch my head and question his motivation, since they aren't covered by our constitution...

Snowden is rubbing out the line between "whistleblower" and "extortionist".....But I guess in this case most people believe the means justifies the end...

[OnyxCollie]

100. The NSA gave raw intelligence that included US domestic phone calls to Israel.

Would it be better to not know that?

[LuvNewcastle]

92. Unfortunately, the Constitution means only what the people who ignore it say it means.

I think we've found a flaw in the system.

[rtracey]

93. AND JUST ONE THING

Suppose we find out, that Mr. Snowden gave the information he copied from the NSA to his new home leader..Putin, then what? is he still a hero, or has he "violated the constitution" everyone here basically says he had too follow by stealing the information....

To provide "aid", "to help or furnish with help, support, or relief," and "comfort", "a condition or feeling of pleasurable ease, well-being, and contentment; Solace in time of grief or fear."

[frylock]

135. suppose we find out? you suppose the NSA/CIA/FBI have been sitting on their collective nuts?

do you suppose that they haven't been trying to prove that from jump in order to discredit him? how long has it been now, and where is any evidence that he has given information to "his new home leader?"

[rtracey]

143. perhaps

Perhaps we are seeing some of it now? Do you know?

[Enthusiast]

94. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

Thank you, Manny!

[blkmusclmachine]

99. BUT ... 9/11 !!!

[BeyondGeography]

101. Contractors don't take the oath

He took the oath when he worked for the CIA, not for Booz Allen.

[msanthrope]

105. He's rolling....

[uponit7771]

107. ***************BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL SHIT!!!!******************

Snowden had other avenues to address what was going on, by his own words he was there to "steal" and not to go through those avenues.

Again, snowden supporters give him a pass that others don't get...

Robber = "...officer I robbed that bank because I don't have equal opportunities for jobs...",
SnowGlen supporter = "... that's ok officer, she had no other option... she's free to go.."

[hootinholler]

108. I'm not sure he did take that oath

Was he in the military?

I don't think every fed employee let alone every contractor has to be sworn in. I know I've never been sworn in as a contractor.

[Cali_Democrat]

109. shhhh....

...you're ruining the premise of the OP.

[BeyondGeography]

110. No oath...He signed Standard Form 312

http://www.archives.gov/isoo/security-forms/sf312.pdf

More here:

To begin with, did Snowden sign “an oath…not to disclose classified information”? He says that he did not, and that does not appear to have been contradicted. Snowden told the Washington Post’s Barton Gellman that the document he signed, as what Kaplan calls “a condition of his employment,” was Standard Form 312, a contract in which the signatory says he will “accept” the terms, rather than swearing to them. By signing it, Snowden agreed that he was aware that there were federal laws against disclosing classified information. But the penalties for violating agreement alone are civil: for example, the government can go after any book royalties he might get for publishing secrets.

Snowden had taken an oath—the Oath of Office, or appointment affidavit, given to all federal employees Note:to clarify, this would have been when he was an employee earlier, for the C.I.A...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2014/01/did-edward-snowden-break-his-oath.html

[MannyGoldstein]

115. That article appears to agree with my OP

Thanks.

[BeyondGeography]

116. lol...apart from that little missing oath detail

[MannyGoldstein]

117. So he didn't actually take Oath of Office (i.e., Appointment Affadavit)?

Or it stopped applying once he left the CIA?

Or the oath doesn't state "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."?

Which are you claiming?

[BeyondGeography]

118. What are you claiming

The CIA oath applies in perpetuity? He could get a job as window washer at the Pentagon working for a third party and the oath still applies?

[MannyGoldstein]

122. That's the article's premise

No?

[BeyondGeography]

128. The article, which is badly in need of an editor, annoyingly never answers that particular question

The only moment of clarity that I could detect was in the excerpt I cited. Just using logic here; why bring up the non-disclosure form if the oath applied? Does a government employee's oath automatically carry over to his work as a contractor? I doubt it.

[MannyGoldstein]

132. The article assumes that the Oath continues to apply

Otherwise it would be a very short article - they'd be able to just say it doesn't apply, that's all folks.

[pnwmom]

131. What a crock!

No law at any time required him to leak documents about our spying on the Russians, the Chinese, Iran, etc. And neither did the Constitution.

Snowden didn't just "do" one thing. He leaked many documents, and he's continuing to leak them. Some of them he was well justified in leaking -- those in the beginning about US internal surveillance. But he's not been justified in leaking about our spying on other countries, any more than Robert Hansen was when he shared information with the Soviets.

[fascisthunter]

133. People Need to Concentrate on the Issue now That Info Has Been Exposed

It shouldn't matter who exposed this info, because it's a massive abuse of power those we did not elect.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

139. Snowden was a contractor...

They swear an oath to the annual Profit & Loss Statement.

Snowden was also protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. He actually did have an alternative course of action, and by not taking it, he became a fugitive.

At the end of the day, I'm glad he did what he did, but that doesn't mean that he didn't violate the law.

[pragmatic_dem]

140. Our military agencies are being stuffed with right wing nut jobs

who think this spying shit is OK. Snowden isn't the problem. The problem is a military more to the extreme right than any time in history, to the point that our defense department has become a liability which is revolving around ideological thinking.

Adding to the disaster, the Christian right also continues to gain more and more of foothold in military.

We clearly do not have a political party in America strong enough to stand them down.

[Thinkingabout]

141. He must have taken his interpretation of the Constitution and omitting the parts in which he did not

want to follow. He was given information about espionage but choose to ignore this also. The DOJ also has an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. Ergo, Snowden has been charged with espionage. Because he also decided it was okay to commit theft he is charged with theft. Since Snowden has taken this so seriously the DOJ has taken warrants for his arrest seriously also.