General Discussion

BlindTiresias

(1,563 posts)

120. You misunderstand

Sun May 4, 2014, 08:01 PM

May 2014

I am not saying they do not possess these powers, they do. The question is if they would be utilized and if the information necessary to invoke such protections would be allowed to be presented, which is the legal technicality that helped trap Kiriakou. His status and the current record of whistleblowers in fact -not- being protected by legal channels is where the ambiguity comes in.

It simply not the case that all one has to do is ask, there are very specific conditions required and that is where the ambiguity resides. That you are saying that it is possible to gain immunity has no interaction with the facts of the matter and their resulting ambiguity. In other words, you need to demonstrate that the conditions are in fact present for the immunity to be invoked beyond stating that immunity is possible.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

181 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Everyone is under surveillance now, says whistleblower Edward Snowden [View all] Jesus Malverde May 2014 OP

DU authoritarian multiple choice whatchamacallit May 2014 #1

D) delusional, paranoid magical thyme May 2014 #2

I'm guessing the rationalization du jour will be a combination of A and B Jesus Malverde May 2014 #3

'Snowden is a putinite'? sabrina 1 May 2014 #8

Putinista....get your aspersions right! Jesus Malverde May 2014 #16

Oops, sorry about that! I'm bad with propaganda I admit. But I try! sabrina 1 May 2014 #18

E) None of the above superpatriotman May 2014 #4

One day even the white knights with nothing to hide will come around to say no to the STAZI Jesus Malverde May 2014 #5

Yep, perhaps they just don't understand the technology employed. It is dangerous to RKP5637 May 2014 #126

A until it's proven to be happening, JoeyT May 2014 #21

DU crackpot multiple choice Bobbie Jo May 2014 #77

In your case I think -> E) whatchamacallit May 2014 #79

Not going for the extra points? Bobbie Jo May 2014 #83

+1. cheapdate May 2014 #134

I've been saying every one was under surveillance for the last 40 years. The methods are kelliekat44 May 2014 #136

Shhh ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #151

State surveillance is freedom. woo me with science May 2014 #6

Fear is normal...nt Jesus Malverde May 2014 #7

And 'National Security' remains the lie to create the fear that creates support for throwing sabrina 1 May 2014 #10

You Forgot "Money Is Speech"......nt global1 May 2014 #11

And corporations are people. Jesus Malverde May 2014 #17

+10000 woo me with science May 2014 #37

Snowden is under surveillance.... MADem May 2014 #9

Lol! So it's okay for the US to do what Russia does now? I'm confused, I thought we didn't act sabrina 1 May 2014 #12

Where did I say that? MADem May 2014 #14

Whistle Blower Edward Snowden faces the same persecution all Whistle Blowers are subjected sabrina 1 May 2014 #19

Face the music and dance. MADem May 2014 #20

I'm asking you if you are calling Prison and Torture 'home' in America. sabrina 1 May 2014 #27

How nice that you've appointed yourself judge, jury and executioner! nt MADem May 2014 #28

Got anything to refute anything I said? Personal attacks have zero effect on me, I got used to them sabrina 1 May 2014 #33

Speaking of "personal attacks" all you seem to be doing is telling me what you think I think and MADem May 2014 #42

This thread is about a Whistle Blower. Manning too was a Whistle Blower. YOU implied falsely that US sabrina 1 May 2014 #45

Manning was not a whistle blower, those stolen documents were not read or vetted but given wholesale MADem May 2014 #46

For the sake of argument, let's say that Manning is a thief. JDPriestly May 2014 #52

What do you mean, "for the sake of argument." Manning IS an admitted thief who MADem May 2014 #58

Life isn't fair BlindTiresias May 2014 #59

Don't try to "guess" what you think people mean--you don't do a very good or accurate job at it. MADem May 2014 #61

So say what you mean then BlindTiresias May 2014 #62

I've been very clear. I'm not going to play a hypothetical game with dead children, MADem May 2014 #63

Ok BlindTiresias May 2014 #64

No, you clearly don't get it. MADem May 2014 #65

No I understand BlindTiresias May 2014 #66

There you go, telling me what you think I think....! MADem May 2014 #78

Not what you think BlindTiresias May 2014 #84

Good grief, you're doing it AGAIN!!!! MADem May 2014 #87

? BlindTiresias May 2014 #88

Yet you keep telling me what you bet I think. MADem May 2014 #91

Ok BlindTiresias May 2014 #92

You ate the "Big Lie" with your first sentence. MADem May 2014 #94

Not really that clear cut BlindTiresias May 2014 #95

ENTIRELY clear cut. Ask John Dean. Ask Oliver North. MADem May 2014 #97

Did you even read the link? BlindTiresias May 2014 #98

DUH. You think a contractor can't be granted immunity from prosecution? MADem May 2014 #107

Care to address the arguments in the link then? BlindTiresias May 2014 #109

Your "wait" is over. You won't be happy, though. MADem May 2014 #114

And yet there is stll ambiguity BlindTiresias May 2014 #116

Oh, fachrissake. What part of Immunity From Prosecution are you having difficulty MADem May 2014 #119

You misunderstand BlindTiresias May 2014 #120

He managed to get Dianne Feinstein "ired" with his claims that he could MADem May 2014 #138

Since Obama mistakenly suggested that his directive covered contractors, Vattel May 2014 #176

Look, he could have gotten immunity without leaving, BEFORE Obama said anything. MADem May 2014 #179

It's what is called a "hypothetical." JDPriestly May 2014 #69

Manning was tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. MADem May 2014 #82

My post had two points. JDPriestly May 2014 #96

Agreed BlindTiresias May 2014 #102

Yes. I vaguely recall that when the Patriot Act was being drafted, there was quite a discussion JDPriestly May 2014 #108

Manning had no "higher moral purpose." MADem May 2014 #103

"that last Putin Praising Lalapalooza was just a bridge too far" JDPriestly May 2014 #105

No, I heard the wind up and the pitch of a tee ball coach, easing the ball over the plate MADem May 2014 #110

As I listend, Putin was quite taken aback. He even said something about not understanding the JDPriestly May 2014 #111

No he wasn't. Good grief. That pitch was right over the plate and Pootie hit it outta the park. MADem May 2014 #118

I think he looks bad. JDPriestly May 2014 #135

If by "he" you mean Snowden, I agree. He looks SICK. MADem May 2014 #137

No. Putin looked bad. Putin always looks smug, etc. JDPriestly May 2014 #142

I'm sorry--I am just NOT seeing what you claim to see. MADem May 2014 #145

So touching of eddie to whine about us when he's being watched like a Cha May 2014 #22

If any of the Proud Putin Puffer-Uppers would take the time to read those links, their heads would MADem May 2014 #25

A- they wouldn't read them. And, B- they wouldn't care if they did. All Cha May 2014 #26

Why, we don't live in Russia, we live HERE where we KNOW our government agencies are spying on sabrina 1 May 2014 #29

Not sure where you drew the conclusion that I'm "more concerned about OTHER countries" MADem May 2014 #32

I drew a similar conclusion G_j May 2014 #50

And now you'll explain how you came to that conclusion. nt MADem May 2014 #51

Hahahahaha ---- no, he won't! Major Hogwash May 2014 #162

He's everywhere he wants to be! MADem May 2014 #163

We know that Russia spies on its citizens. That is not new. Russia does not pride itself on its JDPriestly May 2014 #53

Exactly treestar May 2014 #30

You just don't get it, MADem! NanceGreggs May 2014 #39

Now that post would make a superb thesis to start a thread... you hit the nail squarely on the head! MADem May 2014 #40

.. Cha May 2014 #48

The message is in the classified information he stole. Vattel May 2014 #43

Oh, I thought the message was about NanceGreggs May 2014 #44

Don't lie about what I said. Vattel May 2014 #73

And the jury results are in..... aikoaiko May 2014 #86

I should have been more specific. Vattel May 2014 #89

Yeah, that was a ridiculous alert. If anyone deserved an alert there, it was Marr May 2014 #99

I, too, should have been more specific. NanceGreggs May 2014 #101

Correct me if I am wrong, but Obama doesn't even mention the NSA in that speech. Vattel May 2014 #125

In other words ... NanceGreggs May 2014 #128

Lol, nobody ever said that Obama had never Vattel May 2014 #130

And the goalposts get moved yet again. NanceGreggs May 2014 #131

Again, Obama didn't even mention the NSA in that speech. Vattel May 2014 #132

No, you're right. NanceGreggs May 2014 #133

I apologize for being unclear. What I should said is that Obama didn't mention the NSA by name. Vattel May 2014 #140

NSA isn't "law enforcement" like the United States Marine Corps isn't "law enforcement." MADem May 2014 #149

In everything you quoted, there is no mention of a national discussion on NSA surveillance. Vattel May 2014 #150

No offense, but look at the doggone VENUE where he gave the speech. MADem May 2014 #164

No offense, but you seem to be missing my doggone point. Vattel May 2014 #166

His focus was on repairing abuses, not having a national chat about them. MADem May 2014 #171

Great, you agree with me that the other poster was Vattel May 2014 #172

No, I don't agree with you because you keep moving the goalposts all over the field. MADem May 2014 #173

I don't think you have followed the discussion here very closely. Vattel May 2014 #175

I don't agree with that. The "discussion" or "conversation" was already happening. MADem May 2014 #180

So you don't agree with me that Obama wasn't talking about the necessity of a national discussion Vattel May 2014 #181

Thank you for laying this all out in black and white, NanceG.. Cha May 2014 #47

Why do I believe Snowden and disbelieve the NSA? JDPriestly May 2014 #55

LOL Egnever May 2014 #56

My favourite portion of the tripe ... NanceGreggs May 2014 #67

The post you quoted is a demand for greater transparency, not the proving of a negative. /nt Marr May 2014 #100

It IS asking for proof of a negative. NanceGreggs May 2014 #106

No, it isn't. Marr May 2014 #113

Again, how does the NSA 'prove' ... NanceGreggs May 2014 #121

That is the point. The specifics of these programs need to be more widely disclosed. Marr May 2014 #124

So the specifics of a program NanceGreggs May 2014 #129

If you disagree that more transparency is needed, you disagree with Obama's public position. Marr May 2014 #139

And I said no more transparency is needed NanceGreggs May 2014 #141

We need to know what these programs do, specifically-- Marr May 2014 #143

I'm not telling anyone to shut up ... NanceGreggs May 2014 #161

I love a nuanced conversation! MADem May 2014 #174

Well ... NanceGreggs May 2014 #70

Well said, Nance! randome May 2014 #76

+1 COLGATE4 May 2014 #123

K&R. Nance hits it out of the park - again. nt COLGATE4 May 2014 #122

Many people, not everyone though Charlos May 2014 #13

If they use a phone, Verizon et al are 'collecting and storing their data'. So unless people sabrina 1 May 2014 #15

Welcome to technology Egnever May 2014 #54

If you use a car, they are tracking and storing Live and Learn May 2014 #23

�Be it resolved state surveillance is a legitimate defence of our freedoms.� bvar22 May 2014 #24

Those are some radical ideas. Are you sure they didn't come from RT or Al Jazeera? sabrina 1 May 2014 #31

Phony "Left". bvar22 May 2014 #36

They were never left to begin with. BlindTiresias May 2014 #68

Compassionate Conservatives, then? [n/t] Maedhros May 2014 #80

I would say BlindTiresias May 2014 #85

Shameless party mercenaries? [n/t] Maedhros May 2014 #93

Snowden isn't a whistleblower. eom MohRokTah May 2014 #34

Hayden and Dershowitz lost the debate tho... marions ghost May 2014 #35

Well, that settles it then. NanceGreggs May 2014 #115

Yep--it indicates that Greenwald & co won marions ghost May 2014 #144

I still don't know what point you think you're making. NanceGreggs May 2014 #146

The truth marions ghost May 2014 #147

No, the 'truth' is not a matter of popular vote. NanceGreggs May 2014 #157

Everyone has the tendency marions ghost May 2014 #159

What this place has become ... NanceGreggs May 2014 #160

Yes, yes and YES! MADem May 2014 #165

Bravo! Bobbie Jo May 2014 #170

So... Maedhros May 2014 #152

I consider people who take Snowden's "word for it" ... NanceGreggs May 2014 #155

Um...he provided a lot of evidence to support his assertions. Maedhros May 2014 #156

As I am unmoved NanceGreggs May 2014 #158

especially him nt arely staircase May 2014 #38

Meh greytdemocrat May 2014 #41

If the NSA knows who do you love, they know much. Warren DeMontague May 2014 #49

Good lord Egnever May 2014 #57

Maybe the anti-snowden crew BlindTiresias May 2014 #60

True marions ghost May 2014 #148

Seems snowden wasn't geting enough attention so he upped the ante. DCBob May 2014 #71

must be our banks and our phone services who share our phone bill and our bank statements with Sunlei May 2014 #72

Why does this Bozo get so much attention? B Calm May 2014 #74

Sensationalism sells. nt Jamaal510 May 2014 #90

See, this is why Snowden rubs me the wrong way. WatermelonRat May 2014 #75

I've followed this issue very closely since it first arose. Maedhros May 2014 #81

You've seen them all? VanillaRhapsody May 2014 #112

Right marions ghost May 2014 #153

"But then he hypes it up into tall tales like this that his leaks don't support." Maedhros May 2014 #154

Yeah new right wing talking point marions ghost May 2014 #168

Especially Snowden, I'd guess. aquart May 2014 #104

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #117

I hope I bore the assholes to tears. Boomerproud May 2014 #127

I wonder why never talks about private commercial surveillance MrScorpio May 2014 #167

Corporate mass intrusion is related and complicit marions ghost May 2014 #169

I don't think he needs to address all surveillance. That is not where he was working. djean111 May 2014 #178

So if the government is watching everyone... DontTreadOnMe May 2014 #177