Snowden, America and human rights

Originally posted by e4chris
I wish Mr Snowden well in Russia, I think they can appreciate his need for some protection.

I had a security type job for a while, which could of led to a very basic data spying role, but I really really didn't want that type of job, it seemed more precarious working for govt then it did in a company. I read up on MI5 & MI6 - the wiki articles on the Dire ...[text shortened]... t sounds like part of him wants that but just does not want to be locked up forever for it.

Hahahahaha yeah you coulda been a spy LOLOLOL
man this site sucks
you were never anything certainly not a james bomb ya kweer

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
Hahahahaha yeah you coulda been a spy LOLOLOL
man this site sucks
you were never anything certainly not a james bomb ya kweer

lololol its a farce its true but life drops you in strange jobs - no word of a lie - I had access to about 25% of the worlds credit cards at one time 😵

I am not totally stupid - have been beating chess progs since a kid , it finally paid off 🙂

Originally posted by e4chris
lololol its a farce its true but life drops you in strange jobs - no word of a lie - I had access to about 25% of the worlds credit cards at one time 😵

I am not totally stupid - have been beating chess progs since a kid , it finally paid off 🙂

yeah an I used to fly B-52's

Oh wait I'm telling teh truth you are just talking chit

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
yeah an I used to fly B-52's

Oh wait I'm telling teh truth you are just talking chit

Interesting. I used to play for them. 😛

Originally posted by Metal Brain
What is your source of information?

It is called the 4th constitutional amendment right...dumbass!

The law has not been overturned, much less overturned based on the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Snowden broke the law. You expose your ignorance here.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Asinine and irrelevant reply. The Supreme Court having bad decisions is a hallmark of the Court. Nevertheless, the Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution. Moreover, Snowden broke the law. No question. Further, what Snowden did was morally wrong.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
yeah an I used to fly B-52's

Oh wait I'm telling teh truth you are just talking chit

i don't need the faith of a retard - but thanks

I used to work in a reptile shop 2 was more interesting

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
Yes he will have a lot better life under Russian observation than he did living in the US and making a quarter million dollars a year I'm sure he will be very happy.
Are you for real?
I've met a dozen or so people over the years that came from the old Soviet Union and a few in more recent times from what's currently Russia.....none of them want to ...[text shortened]... orry little douchebag while he looks over his shoulder and checks behind mirrors for bugs. .

If what you say is even nearly true, then you must agree with the posters who support Snowden's assertion that His actions were driven by principle.

The idea that Moscow is a drab grey Stalinist dystopia is a bit old fashioned, most contemporary reports paint a picture of a socially and economically vibrant city.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
If what you say is even nearly true, then you must agree with the posters who support Snowden's assertion that His actions were driven by principle.

Wow.
Logic and critical thinking isn't your strong suit is it?
There is no connection between what I said and Snowden being driven by principle.
I mean, WTF? How did you even come up with that? It makes no sense at all.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
Wow.
Logic and critical thinking isn't your strong suit is it?
There is no connection between what I said and Snowden being driven by principle.
I mean, WTF? How did you even come up with that? It makes no sense at all.

LMAO.

You cannot be that stupid and still be able to work a key board, unless you have some of that 'speech to text' software, no that can't be it, there is no way that even Obamacare would foot the bill for that kind of tech, not even for the most vulnerable in your society.

I will have to go with the disingenuous jerk option.

Originally posted by moon1969
The law has not been overturned, much less overturned based on the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Snowden broke the law. You expose your ignorance here.

Which law are you referring to? Surely you have one you can point to, right?

Originally posted by moon1969
The law has not been overturned, much less overturned based on the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Snowden broke the law. You expose your ignorance here.

"You expose your ignorance here."

Where is probable cause? It is you that is being ignorant. Either you believe in preserving the constitution or you don't.

YouTube

Are you in favor of amending the constitution to eliminate "probable cause" or is it your position that "probable cause" has been met?

Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., were on their way to the hospital to persuade Ashcroft to reauthorize Bush's domestic surveillance program, which the Justice Department had just determined was illegal."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500864.html

Is it your position that Bush was right and Ashcroft was wrong? If the DOJ determined that Bush's domestic surveillance program was illegal how do you justify your disregard of "probable cause"?

You are known to be a partisan creature to many on this forum. I think it will be interesting to see if you defend Bush in your efforts to defend Obama. I suspect that if Bush were in office right now you would be singing a different tune.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Senator Rand Paul and his father Ron are also sympathetic toward Snowden. Moon1969 is very much a partisan creature. He defends Obama for no other reason than Obama is a democrat. He ignores (or is ignorant) the fact that GW Bush started warrantless wiretapping with an executive order after his minions failed to get John Ashcroft to approve the unconstitutional wiretapping without "probable cause" as the 4th constitutional amendment clearly states as a criteria.

The only way for Moon 1969 to defend Obama for his support of NSA/PRISM is to defend GW Bush and I know it must pain him to do such a thing. I'm reasonably confident that is why he has not offered a rebuttal since I presented the facts he would rather not be confused with. I know he hates the thought of admitting that Obama is not an agent of "change" since Obama's campaign slogan was "change you can believe in".

I suspect that Moon1969 has been humbled by the facts I have flawlessly asserted on this thread even if he will stubbornly avoid admitting it. He is a loyal democrat that is reluctant to admit both major political parties are under control of the imperialists that run my government.

Originally posted by moon1969
Not even Snowden's attorney would make that wild hairbrained legally unsound argument. Read the law dumbass.

So are you saying that publicly disclosing classified information is against the law even if the reason is to blow the whistle on illegal government activity? I guess that would explain why there are so many classified government secrets. It also explains why the government would like to get their hands on him and why Russia has said no.