General Discussion

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

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

Reply to joshcryer (Reply #25)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 01:55 PM

Mar 2014

What is the question?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

147 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Snowden, *by law*, needed to do what he did. [View all] MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 OP

This bulk metadata collection issue will eventually go to the Supreme Court Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #1

Hopefully nt Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #3

It already did. In 1979. jeff47 Mar 2014 #6

Also, we've known about this kind of bulk metadata collection since 2006: Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #10

It's gone on for over 8 years then. Isn't it time we do something about it? Autumn Mar 2014 #63

Why are you mentioning DU? Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #64

Okay, strange but everyone that I know, even the republicans are aware it has been going on. Autumn Mar 2014 #72

Your initial reply to me in this thread was a bit odd and out of place Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #119

How so? You posted that you are still surprised that people act like this is a new revelation Autumn Mar 2014 #123

Not everything posted on DU is about DU. nt Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #125

We often know about crimes for years, murder eg, bank robbery, does it make them any less sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #66

Like I said....it will go to the SC. nt Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #68

Yippee. The SC that gave us Heller and CU and the mandates part of the ACA Doctor_J Mar 2014 #77

Well according to the Constitution... Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #86

I would rather take it up with the Felonious Five and Bush 41 and Bush 43 Doctor_J Mar 2014 #98

Agree, but.... Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #106

SCOTUS ruled on the use of landline metadata in one case involving telephone harassment in 1979. LeftyMom Mar 2014 #35

Stupid is insisting that the ruling was that specific. jeff47 Mar 2014 #52

Telephone technology has changed ever so slightly since 1979. LeftyMom Mar 2014 #80

And if the ruling said it only applied to 1979 technology, you'd have a point. jeff47 Mar 2014 #82

Of course the ruling didn't anticipate technology that didn't exist yet. LeftyMom Mar 2014 #84

It's not that hard to handle jeff47 Mar 2014 #85

+1 Marr Mar 2014 #90

Different facts. Could distinguish the current NSA practice and result in a very different ruling. JDPriestly Mar 2014 #36

I've posted that case a few times with the spy supporters neverforget Mar 2014 #37

I think that our conservative Supreme Court might well distinguish Smith v. Maryland. JDPriestly Mar 2014 #38

Sorry to disappoint. My response was not available at 2:36AM. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2014 #56

wasn't directed at you since I didn't respond to you neverforget Mar 2014 #57

Ah, but I'm one of those evil spy-supporter demons jeff47 Mar 2014 #58

then answer the question since you think it's directed at you. neverforget Mar 2014 #60

The court did not rule that suspicion was required. jeff47 Mar 2014 #62

If the data belongs to the phone company, then the service should be free. Plus they sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #74

The metadata is created as a side-effect of the service. jeff47 Mar 2014 #78

The suspect was an individual suspected of robbery, a criminal offense. That is suspicion. Otherwise neverforget Mar 2014 #96

Doesn't matter. The ruling does not require suspicion. jeff47 Mar 2014 #124

So putting a pen register in 1979 on a single line is now the same as gathering metadata neverforget Mar 2014 #129

The ruling does not differentiate between the two. jeff47 Mar 2014 #130

I remind everyone that at one time, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of slavery. JDPriestly Mar 2014 #112

The ruling is not at all that narrow. jeff47 Mar 2014 #55

A database of the metadata of a huge number of Americans is a political tool. JDPriestly Mar 2014 #111

Actually, it's far beyond a political tool jeff47 Mar 2014 #126

Good points! JDPriestly Mar 2014 #142

What 'warrant' was signed off on? sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #54

Multiple FISA court warrants. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2014 #59

You mean the 'group' warrants that allowed the government access to millions of people's 'affects'? sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #61

It's not your 'affects'. jeff47 Mar 2014 #67

I read my privacy agreement with Verizon. Have you read these agreements? Nowhere did it say sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #71

It doesn't have to say that, because it's not your data. jeff47 Mar 2014 #73

Who is paying for it? My money says, since the SC also ruled that money is speech, that that data sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #76

No, you are paying for phone service. jeff47 Mar 2014 #79

Please, do not insult the intelligence of the people who know when they are being bamboozled. sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #91

And we're back to the same bullshit again. jeff47 Mar 2014 #121

If someone owns something, they need no warrant to access it. Period. sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #146

For the Verizon records. nt Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #65

What did Verizon Customers do to justify a warrant to gain access to their accounts? sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #69

This is metadata of calls. Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #89

I'll stick with Joe Biden on the Meta-Data issue: bvar22 Mar 2014 #137

What I'd love to know ProSense Mar 2014 #2

Distraction, thread hijacking, propaganda: I'd like to know if you know the definitions Corruption Inc Mar 2014 #4

Isn't this a thread about Snowden and what he "needed" to do? ProSense Mar 2014 #7

Re-framing the OP about an oath, distraction, propaganda: do you know the definitions? Corruption Inc Mar 2014 #9

LOL! The "oath" part was to justify what Snowden "needed" to do. ProSense Mar 2014 #13

LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL Corruption Inc Mar 2014 #14

What are you trying to say? ProSense Mar 2014 #15

Seek mental health help if you are indeed human Corruption Inc Mar 2014 #17

I know it's hard when one's "hero" holds up Russia as a protector of human rights. n/t ProSense Mar 2014 #19

Didn't see that. Can you provide a link? Scuba Mar 2014 #47

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service Gravitycollapse Mar 2014 #28

You actually posted your response about how much you "despise" Prosense in this thread Number23 Mar 2014 #31

LOL! ProSense Mar 2014 #32

I respect your vote SunsetDreams Mar 2014 #34

Pathetic (nt) malokvale77 Mar 2014 #138

I agree with Snowden that he was keeping his oath to uphold the Constitution when he JDPriestly Mar 2014 #39

Here. randome Mar 2014 #53

Bookmarking this reponse--note that not a single pro-Snowden poster can touch this.....nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #103

It's a secret program. How do you know what it does or doesn't do. JDPriestly Mar 2014 #113

Fine. But the metadata collection is obtained via legal warrant. randome Mar 2014 #120

they record content also Rumold Mar 2014 #136

Not for American citizens. Where did you get the idea that they do? randome Mar 2014 #144

Optic Nerve Rumold Mar 2014 #145

from todays NYT Rumold Mar 2014 #147

You're slipping - only 840high Mar 2014 #88

You know a guy said the same thing to Manning's judge jberryhill Mar 2014 #5

Oh man, he was two years from retirement? joshcryer Mar 2014 #11

Integrity. DeSwiss Mar 2014 #24

"Birther" and "Integrity"? joshcryer Mar 2014 #25

Yeah, I'm scratching my head on that too Number23 Mar 2014 #27

He believes it is true, and he acted on that belief jberryhill Mar 2014 #97

Yeah, little problem with that theory. jeff47 Mar 2014 #8

"He hasn't actually revealed anything unconstitutional." JDPriestly Mar 2014 #40

Again, the 1979 SCOTUS ruling says it is constitutional. jeff47 Mar 2014 #51

Sorry, you are wrong. truebluegreen Mar 2014 #102

Okay...what makes you think that these programs will produce a distinguishable case from msanthrope Mar 2014 #104

Dislike of the programs jeff47 Mar 2014 #127

And alas, the rub. Well played. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #134

Just wait until members of the Supreme Court find that they have been spied upon. JDPriestly Mar 2014 #114

The Constitution is much like the Bible Fumesucker Mar 2014 #12

Please give some examples of the large print of the Constitution giving and the small print taking JDPriestly Mar 2014 #41

The large print being the actual Constitution and the small print being the interpretation thereof Fumesucker Mar 2014 #46

I love the NSA. Rex Mar 2014 #16

...I love you big brother. zeemike Mar 2014 #22

But..but..that damned 4th Amendment and common decency are sooo 18th century. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #18

It wasn't up to Snowden to INTERPRET the Constitution. OilemFirchen Mar 2014 #20

Thanks lumpy Mar 2014 #30

Snowden would probably respond that his allegiance to the Constitution supersedes and superseded JDPriestly Mar 2014 #42

The Nuremberg trials established that "following orders" is not a valid defense. MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #50

That it doesn't apply here. -nt Bonx Mar 2014 #95

Well then ...let's make the US Constitution a state secret... L0oniX Mar 2014 #70

And that means they need to screen people better. zeemike Mar 2014 #21

K&R DeSwiss Mar 2014 #23

precisely Mr. Goldstein! Thank you. n/t wildbilln864 Mar 2014 #26

talk about oversimplification treestar Mar 2014 #29

And thank you lumpy Mar 2014 #33

At one time, case law said slavery was the law. JDPriestly Mar 2014 #43

I don't think you can count on anything like that from SCOTUS in the near future: struggle4progress Mar 2014 #45

And now knowing that the intelligence community spies on Congress, what kind of action will we get? Scuba Mar 2014 #48

He's in great shape then: he can just come back home, and his lawyer will win struggle4progress Mar 2014 #44

Sadly, as Daniel Ellsberg points out, some other MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #49

Ellsberg ProSense Mar 2014 #75

Strange. You forgot the part about MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #81

No, ProSense Mar 2014 #83

Which is why I understand the leaks on domestic matters Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #87

The NSA gave raw intelligence that included US domestic phone calls to Israel. OnyxCollie Mar 2014 #100

Unfortunately, the Constitution means only what the people who ignore it say it means. LuvNewcastle Mar 2014 #92

AND JUST ONE THING rtracey Mar 2014 #93

suppose we find out? you suppose the NSA/CIA/FBI have been sitting on their collective nuts? frylock Mar 2014 #135

perhaps rtracey Mar 2014 #143

K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations! Enthusiast Mar 2014 #94

BUT ... 9/11 !!! blkmusclmachine Mar 2014 #99

Contractors don't take the oath BeyondGeography Mar 2014 #101

He's rolling.... msanthrope Mar 2014 #105

***************BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL SHIT!!!!****************** uponit7771 Mar 2014 #107

I'm not sure he did take that oath hootinholler Mar 2014 #108

shhhh.... Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #109

No oath...He signed Standard Form 312 BeyondGeography Mar 2014 #110

That article appears to agree with my OP MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #115

lol...apart from that little missing oath detail BeyondGeography Mar 2014 #116

So he didn't actually take Oath of Office (i.e., Appointment Affadavit)? MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #117

What are you claiming BeyondGeography Mar 2014 #118

That's the article's premise MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #122

The article, which is badly in need of an editor, annoyingly never answers that particular question BeyondGeography Mar 2014 #128

The article assumes that the Oath continues to apply MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #132

What a crock! pnwmom Mar 2014 #131

People Need to Concentrate on the Issue now That Info Has Been Exposed fascisthunter Mar 2014 #133

Snowden was a contractor... Jeff In Milwaukee Mar 2014 #139

Our military agencies are being stuffed with right wing nut jobs pragmatic_dem Mar 2014 #140

He must have taken his interpretation of the Constitution and omitting the parts in which he did not Thinkingabout Mar 2014 #141