General Discussion

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)

54. A little bit

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 12:28 PM

Jun 2013

I think that this can of worms is one that needs discussion and hopefully will be resolved in the court. The interpretations of the 1st Amendment was expanded in a way I didn't like, and I thought the 2 was interpreted to narrowly. I have no idea how this court would rule on this info, and there has been a court ruling that seems to set precedent. I would hope that this pressure will push congress to pass a law the requires more narrow strict parameters. As I am watching it unfold I'm growing somewhat weary of it. I don't feel threatened and I am hoping that we can get through it with results that put it to rest soon.
I think Snowden is fame seeker and the way he keeps making public and stoking the anger in folks who are most angry makes me question his sincerity. His original motives may have been pure, but the way he has handled himself makes me doubtful now.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So is anyone else conflicted about the whole Snowden affair? [View all] jimlup Jun 2013 OP

It's not the "Snowden affair". It's the "NSA/Booz Allen violation of Constitutional Rights affair". Scuba Jun 2013 #1

Sorry, but there is NO violations as Smith vs. Maryland 1979 decided this 34 years ago. graham4anything Jun 2013 #7

Nonsense - that case from 79 dealt with a single person usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #21

sorry, but it was already decided. Smith vs. Maryland 1979. REASONABLE graham4anything Jun 2013 #23

If you are correct, as a spied on American, JimDandy Jun 2013 #32

I am more concerned about changing the 2nd, as anyone shot loses all their rights. graham4anything Jun 2013 #36

That's not what I asked. I asked if you are JimDandy Jun 2013 #39

I would wait til there is a new court, maybe 6 to 3 coming in say, 2018. graham4anything Jun 2013 #40

Again, I did not ask whether this matter should go through the courts. JimDandy Jun 2013 #43

I want $100 million dollars so I could give $96 million away. However, we deal with SCOTUS graham4anything Jun 2013 #44

I've got your answer anyway JimDandy Jun 2013 #45

Ralph Nader got what he wanted in 2000, didn't he? graham4anything Jun 2013 #46

Non-pertinent, non-committal answers don't interest me. JimDandy Jun 2013 #47

That case does not cover the massive scope of the gov spying happening now including CONTENT usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #53

So, you agree Heller did not decide the 2nd and a reinterpretation is needed to get rid of bullets graham4anything Jun 2013 #55

So they do a batch pull of the info...same thang uponit7771 Jun 2013 #48

Yes. Exactly. djean111 Jun 2013 #10

I'm not. I think he made a very foolish mistake. Since Kahuna Jun 2013 #2

Yeah, apparently the scope of the program is larger than we realized but that is Snowden's jimlup Jun 2013 #5

That, plus Snowden released TOP SECRET documentary evidence usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #37

That's how Snowden wants it. Now he's live-blogging the story. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #49

The scope was realized more than 5 years ago...don't see what's new in Snowdens info uponit7771 Jun 2013 #50

There was a big story about NSA phone spying in 2006 Eric J in MN Jun 2013 #8

Why wouldn't we assume it was still going on? Until I'm told it is no longer Kahuna Jun 2013 #13

Ed Snowden's info that ALL AMERICANS are being spied on JimDandy Jun 2013 #28

Phone logs let the government identify who talked to a journalist. Eric J in MN Jun 2013 #3

Yeah! Thanks that's an important point which I had not considered... jimlup Jun 2013 #11

I am not conflicted. Its a 100% the same thing as the Miami Dade County "riot". Smith vs. Maryland79 graham4anything Jun 2013 #4

Please explain as I am not familiar with that case... jimlup Jun 2013 #9

Smith vs. Maryland, 1979, with REASONABLE/unreasonable being the optimum word graham4anything Jun 2013 #16

Do you have more respect for the constitutional interpretations of William Rehnquist Eric J in MN Jun 2013 #15

shame then that voters did not want LBJ to be reelected in 1968 and let Nixon/Ford/Reagan/Bush/Bush graham4anything Jun 2013 #19

Glad I'm not the only one noting this about Rehnquist and Marshall suffragette Jun 2013 #64

there were other ways warrior1 Jun 2013 #6

3 NSA whistle blowers who tried "other ways" disagree with you. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #22

Where was Snowden's warrant, he collected information without oversight. Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #27

Where was the oversight and security to stop him from collecting that information magellan Jun 2013 #59

He passed security clearance which should become harder for those who has a trail of Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #60

A security clearance is no guarantee of anything magellan Jun 2013 #62

The American citizens had a right to know JimDandy Jun 2013 #38

The potential for abuse seems much higher than the potential for usefulness. GeorgeGist Jun 2013 #12

I'm not conflicted at all. ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #14

A few pros and cons: snot Jun 2013 #17

Yes - very conflicted el_bryanto Jun 2013 #18

Not so much conflicted as I am waiting Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2013 #20

Not a bit. Our government is collecting our information and I have Autumn Jun 2013 #24

+1 forestpath Jun 2013 #56

I am. Skidmore Jun 2013 #25

Thanks . this summarizes my thoughts better than I could have. jimlup Jun 2013 #26

Snowden didn't say that someone listens to "every conversation by every person in the world." NT Eric J in MN Jun 2013 #30

You need to tell that to some of his Skidmore Jun 2013 #41

+1 uponit7771 Jun 2013 #51

I agree totally with all your points. Snowden makes the hair on my neck stand up and I get a funny appleannie1 Jun 2013 #31

They're not literally listening to every call, but they are recording them Catherina Jun 2013 #61

No. I think, if the guy had something to say, there were avenues to say it here in USA. MADem Jun 2013 #29

The other avenues were tried by others to no avail. ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #35

Wacky Rand Paul wasn't in the Senate, on the Intel committee, back then. MADem Jun 2013 #42

This message was self-deleted by its author Iggo Jun 2013 #33

I think he is being used Andy823 Jun 2013 #34

+1 uponit7771 Jun 2013 #52

It doesn't seem to help a Jeb Bush ticket ... jimlup Jun 2013 #58

A little bit loyalsister Jun 2013 #54

I think the entire problem is the way private contractors and subcontractors are used to replace Lint Head Jun 2013 #57

I agree, the use of contractors is something that absolutely should not have been done davidpdx Jun 2013 #67

No, it is clearly black and white nobodyspecial Jun 2013 #63

Wow. So simplistic in so many ways. nt Kahuna Jun 2013 #65

Several points Savannahmann Jun 2013 #66