General Discussion

usGovOwesUs3Trillion

(2,022 posts)

57. That wa a whole lot of dancing

Reply to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #56)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 07:07 AM

Jun 2013

To say yes

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can it ever be a crime to expose gov acts that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Daniel Ellsberg - VIDEO [View all] usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 OP

Sure Recursion Jun 2013 #1

according to proto fascists, sure usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #3

Maybe I'm being too literal. Violating any law is a "crime" Recursion Jun 2013 #4

The US Government seems to think so. nt ZombieHorde Jun 2013 #2

So anyone with a security clearance can act as a one man Supreme Court? tritsofme Jun 2013 #5

No Anyone with knowledge & access to proof of unconstitutional acts by the government IS duty bound usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #6

That's an interesting system you propose, but the law specifies what to do in that situation Recursion Jun 2013 #7

More effective than yours, as daylight is the strongest disinfectant usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #10

Well, then you mean something by "crime" that most people don't Recursion Jun 2013 #17

Not at all. usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #20

And the very obvious answer is, "yes, that can really be a crime" Recursion Jun 2013 #21

I would argue, only in a totalitarian state can it be a crime to disclose gov criminal activities usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #24

By your definition every state in history is "totalitarian" Recursion Jun 2013 #25

Nonsense usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #28

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2013 #46

Of course not. I do think they are who decides what is and isn't a "crime", which was the OP Recursion Jun 2013 #47

'Unconstitutional' means different things to different people. That's why we have a Supreme Court. randome Jun 2013 #8

And it's way past time for them to weigh in on this question usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #12

Then you should bring it. OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #14

This case has standing on this question usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #26

What case? OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #27

The Snowden case usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #30

Snowden v. who? OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #36

Let's stick to the topic usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #37

Okay. OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #50

Good. So you are another advocate for the totalitarian point of view usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #51

Another lovely "so" construct. OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #53

"Cases" don't have standing. A person has standing (or doesn't) in a given case. Recursion Jun 2013 #29

Thank you, capt obvious usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #31

What "Snowden case"? He hasn't even been charged, let alone docketed, yet Recursion Jun 2013 #32

We have the President on record criticizing the leaker, among others usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #33

And, for our fellow inerlocutor... OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #45

In this country, all laws are Constitutional. OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #13

not true, as many have been overturned by the SCOTUS usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #15

Thought I just said that. OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #19

Doesn't matter. usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #22

Morally, no. backscatter712 Jun 2013 #9

And I think it can be codified in law as well, it is time for the courts to weigh in on this matter usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #11

I don't think I've seen "the law" typed so many times on DU as I have had Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #16

How can it not be a crime to expose unconstitutional acts by government? Fumesucker Jun 2013 #18

That would be the true definition of a totalitarian state usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #23

Nothing illegal or Unconstitutional was exposed. stevenleser Jun 2013 #34

That does not answer the question usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #35

You didn't raise anything. All of my facts are accurate. nt stevenleser Jun 2013 #38

please stick to the topic, thanks usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #39

I'll write whatever I please, thanks. stevenleser Jun 2013 #42

no kidding usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #44

I think they go out of their way to make that a crime - especially that! kenny blankenship Jun 2013 #40

True usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #58

No, it is not a crime to expose violations of the Constitution by those who took an oath sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #41

The key ProSense Jun 2013 #55

Great interview. I'll stick with Ellberg's opinion. think Jun 2013 #43

What makes you think the NSA is doing something illegal? Recursion Jun 2013 #48

The fact that the Fisa court said the NSA has already violated the law: think Jun 2013 #52

Ellsberg is not a lawyer, the activity was not unconstitutional. There are plenty of appeals court stevenleser Jun 2013 #49

Agreed. I am glad he is still active and willing to speak out on these important issues of our day. usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #54

In our system, the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what is or is not Constituitonal... Agnosticsherbet Jun 2013 #56

That wa a whole lot of dancing usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #57

For some question, both yes and no are false. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2013 #59

Unknown, unknowns, eh... usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #61

No, complex questions require nuanced answeres. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2013 #62

K&R The modus operandi of authoritarian states woo me with science Jun 2013 #60