Where are the Edward Snowdens of yesteryear?
Gone to Hong Kong, at least for now.
The plot thickens as Edward Snowden, 29—IT guy, apparent Ron Paul supporter and disillusioned Obama-hoper—declares himself as the leaker of the NSA data-collection disclosure and then hot-foots it to Hong Kong because China is such a bastion of free speech and lack of government intrusion (???).
I don’t know whether this guy is telling the truth or not, and whether his real motive is as he says, but I do know his reasons for fleeing to that particular venue seem highly suspicious and/or at the very least highly naive. And correct me if I’m wrong, but whether you think he should have done what he did and is a hero, or whether you think he’s a traitor (or whether you think it’s possible that he’s both simultaneously), isn’t part of the accepted deal with civil disobedience (in this case, violation of a confidentiality pledge) to be willing to face the music and go to prison if you violate it even for conscientious reasons?
I’m no computer expert; I use one a lot, of course but the technical aspects are Greek to me. Nevertheless it seems rather obvious that in the pre-computer past, low level workers like Snowden couldn’t get access to such a huge amount of information. But now:
Mr. Snowden’s announcement likely will reignite questions about the number of federal contractors who are cleared to access troves of classified documents. As of last October, nearly five million people held government security clearances. Of that, 1.4 million held top-secret clearances. More than a third of those with top-secret clearances are contractors, which would appear to include Mr. Snowden.
Mr. Snowden attributed his access to documents seemingly beyond the purview of his job to his work in network security, which would allow him to access a wide variety of secret files.
I also found this interesting and possibly relevant comment at Althouse:
At the NSA office in Hawaii where he was working, he copied the last set of documents he intended to disclose.
Okay, just how in the hell did that happen? How did this copy files out of a secure facility.
I’ve been in secure facilities, which shall remain nameless, and no writable media was let in or out. Guards searched all bags. The PC’s had any writable devices like USBs & DVD-RW disabled (which is easy to do with products like this). The secure network has either no link to the outside internet or one that’s firewalled and logged within an inch of its life.
Either that NSA facility in Hawaii went all tropical loosey-goosey or Snowden had very highly placed help (like e.g. a Congressional staffer who received the briefing).
So whether you’re happy that Snowden did this or angry about it (or both), the issue is whether so many people should have access to so much—and of course whether the next time something will be released that will be a great deal more damaging to national security than this.
[NOTE: If you haven’t read Catch-22, you might not understand the title of this piece.]
What will Snowden sell to the Chinese?
Whistleblowing is not civil disobedience in the Rosa Parks sense. His goal isn’t to end secrets; it’s to reveal a specific particular abuse of secrecy. As he claims to see it – and as it happens, I agree. Secrecy in national security can often be justified in the national interest. When the “national interest” is the interest of the government in illegally screwing the interests of the American people, the American people deserve to know. Sovereignty is supposed to reside in we the people, not in the Democratic Party, as the left prefers to imagine.
I once had a pretty high clearance, whose level I cannot now recall. I was even a custodian of classified documents some of which, the NCOIC cracked, I wasn’t cleared to read.
Being a rules guy anyway, I have always been unwilling to give leakers the benefit of the doubt.
In this case, Snowden is hitting all the buttons. The Manningphiles will melt at some of it and the conservatives at other parts of his public presentation.
All that button-hitting makes me suspicious. Trying to have friends in all corners, except the admin. Which tells you something about how he views the admin.
However, given the last, say, five years, I am having a hard time deciding.
If, forty-five years ago, I had been getting ready to step out into the dark over an enemy city, depending on secrecy for my life, I’d have been confident. Mostly. That’s ’cause I didn’t know as much about the left then as I do now.
Today, not so much.
So there’s that.
Then there’s overclassification.
Then there’s classifying screwing the American people and stiffing our allies and buttkissing our enemies.
And some clown like this with his pre-planned button-pushing doesn’t help.
Where have all the Snowdens gone?
Hong Kong hide outs!
Where have all the Snowdens gone?
Chinese border go!
Where have all the Snowdens gone?
Snipers have picked them off every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
“I am having a hard time deciding.”
Me too. I can see at least two sides to the argument over Snowden: Is he a courageous hero? Is he a traitor? Something in between? Something totally different? [Somewhere today I saw someone opining that he’s a Chinese plant}
I haven’t decided yet what my opinion about him is — it’s still too early for that– but I do believe that what he’s leaked is the truth. And regarding that, I have definitely decided that I am dismayed that our government can and does do this. As I understand it they’re not yet targeting American citizens, but they are storing all the data that gets swept up in this dragnet. That way they can always go back to it if they ever do become interested in you. Or me.
At this point I’m not so much offended that this leaked evidence (of the existence this potential tool of totalitarian oppression) may be tainted by the “poisonous tree” of possible treason as I am appalled at what it says about our government. How long before this database (or one like it) is accessed by in-power political types for “opposition research”?
Carl, I’m with you. Privacy is a major issue. The internet has evolved without proper safeguards being in place. It’s time to rethink how personal data are collected and accessed. No way do I want the Obama admin to have access to data that they can use to intimidate their ‘enemies.’ Internet companies such as Google, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft cannot be trusted. The lack of accountability is predictable but unacceptable. I heard recently about Intel pushing to redefine how personal data is controlled:
http://wethedata.org
Whether or not Snowden is a traitor, the system he exposed can be used as a weapon, and there is no accountability for abuse.
This is an easy decision for me. I’m a recent military officer retiree with former TS/SCI clearance with lots of ‘program’ access and I know and understand the risks involved in putting this level of classified INTEL into the public domain. Snowden knows too! He’s an intelligent guy. He has better knowledge of the situation than you and I. There is no doubt in my mind having lived and worked around people who operate in ‘Sensitive and Complemented’ programs, that his actions to expose what’s really happening are necessary. We need more Snowdens with the guts to put liberty before life! I pray that I would have had the same courage to do what he had just done. He gave his life for your liberty. Think about that. Traitor – – – NOT!
My initial reaction was that any effort to throw a monkey wrench into the police state apparatus is a good thing.
Of course, if he’s giving up secrets and methods to foreign governments, that’s obviously bad.
What if the domestic and foreign surveillance programs have become so intertwined that it’s impossible to do one without also doing the other?
In a nation under the Rule of Law, yes.
In a totalitarian state, you’re likely to be “disappeared”.
For the last several years, the Rule of Law has been looking mighty shaky. It apparently only applies to the peasantry now. (See Jon Corzine.)
Is there not a threshold that, when breeched, cancels obligations, duties and oaths? This government is no longer legitimate, by any reasonable definition of the concept. Obama executes the laws of the land at his discrepancy. Holder has corrupted the principal governmental institution – Justice – into a Kafkaesque black komedy. Federal bureaucracies run roughshod over citizens with regulatory abandon. No one is safe in their person or privacy because the Constitutional guarantor of such has been turned.
A nation may keep secrets from its enemies but what is to be made of a government keeping secrets from the people except to draw the obvious conclusion.
I support Snowden, & consider him brave
he fulfills that oft quoted remark:
Evil will flourish when good men do nothing
and he put some treasure on the line to do this !!!
Over on breitbart some startling *cat out of the bag*
admissions by Jarrett & watters:
Remarks to the effect:
We have *something* in place that will let HIM really go
after the opposition, we ll be able to solidfy this whole process
it won t matter about Congress !!!!
Really, really *chilling stuff*
PS the remarks by J & W
were made surupticiously (sp???)
they spoke last year or last Fall
It’s my understanding that Snowden fled to Hong Kong because he hopes it will prevent his extradition. He appears to be aware that he may have jumped from the proverbial ‘frying pan into the fire’. As he says, none of his options are good.
Is he a hero or a traitor? I say both. In exposing the programs he has effectively rendered “aid and comfort to the enemy”. Yet conversely, he has exposed what shall inevitably be used and, I strongly suspect has already been used, to secure ever greater tyranny upon the people. And of the two, these program’s potential for increasing tyranny is IMO the far greater threat to the nation.
I have read that he had the semi-legal option of going to a Congressman like Rand Paul rather than leaking his information. But I find it problematic that any Congressman could effect fundamental change without also going public.
As for his ability to get classified material out of an NSA facility in Hawaii, where there’s a will, there’s a way.
So many people having access to so much may be unavoidable. The larger issue is I believe liberty versus security and the proper balance thereof.
Geoffrey Britain:
See this.
Also see this.
re:Althouse Comment
He seems to be a systems administrator, definitionally he has network access, physical media is besides the point and location is besides the point. If he was authenticated (likely since he needed it for his job) and authorized. He’s got the data, particularly if he has ‘root’ (system administrator) privileges.
The fact that that ‘the network is the computer’ is what is so troubling about what the NSA is doing.
This seems to be on target.
MollyNH:
I have no idea what you’re referring to. Do you have a link?
I don’t see Snowdon as a hero. I see him as a know it all with no insight into the bigger picture. He may be right about the dangers of all this data collection, but he offered no solutions about dealing with the dangers we face which are not just terrorists but also Chinese hacking and the vulnerability of the collected data to all other sorts of hacking.
It wasn’t too long ago that the dangers of cyberhacking were a concern of many. The timing and the manner of Snowdon’s releases seem to be planned to produce outrage so that a realistic evaluation of how to best protect our liberties could not be held. He made it into an all or nothing propostion.
I’ve always been aware that our country is treading on eggshells with regard to the Patriot Act and the CIA questioning and incarceration of captives. Anyone who doesn’t understand that the Geneva Conventions don’t quite fit the type of conflict we are in is pretty naive, in my mind. That doesn’t mean I have the answers, which is why I don’t see Snowdon as having answers either. In fact, he seems to have given little thought to the messy problems we face.
I would be much happier if we had a government that didn’t cowtow to radical Muslims. I would be much happier if we had a President whose positions and policies weren’t formed by lefty radicals and sleazy political advisors. I would also be happier if I thought that our security agencies were better at putting the IT stuff into a more coherent policy. I don’t think Snowdon is the one who will accomplish this. If he can’t figure that putting himself within reach of the Chinese government or parts thereof is not exactly safe, I question his smarts. I don’t, however, question his ego.
If I recall “Catch 22” correctly, Snowden’s gut spilling was literal and a bit more tragic.
So anyway, I’m obviously no lawyer, but it seems that in a legal sense the courts have held the right to privacy and due process, search and seizure and so on that the issue of the what the goverment is allegedly doing can’t be defended unless you determine that
1. nobody expects privacy with their email and phone calls
2. That a search isn’t a search unless the goverment opens the envelopes it’s seized — nevermind who it is addressed to, the subject, and so on.
I don’t believe he’s demonstrated himself to be a traitor – yet. Leaking information about what most regard as unlawful or unconstitutional or at the best, highly unethical behavior of our government towards its citizens, is different from leaking information to a foreign government about national security. But I have no doubt Obama and his angels will claim that Snowden spilled his guts to endanger national security to a foreign government.
It’s awfully hard to condemn a man like Snowden for treason, when your own goverment has shown itself to be beyond the laws it is sworn to uphold, and will lie, coverup, and abuse power whenever it suits their poitical agenda.
no I don t have a link, it was over at Breitbart
both these women, Jarret & waters remarks were quoted
they both made remarks as if they KNEW from a briefing
or shared information that *something* was in place that would enable O to implement all his *goals* for the country with
impunity, nothing to fear from Congress & *something* that
will/would be available into the *future* to continue this
agenda forward.
I’ll try to locate the exact remarks !
Where it was posted someone even highlighted Maxine Watters, *spilling security secrets*
Southpaw, I had a conversation with my husband just lately where I expressed the same concerns you allude to
This admin, has flagrant lying, rewarding unethical behaviors
(every rule/law breaker gets rewarded ) because they protect
the O agenda, they lie under Oath even, Holder *giving it to the Man* by stonewalling on stuff we know he knows.
And yet they would feign *surprise* that citizens would imitate those behaviors.
There is no integrity at the highest levels THAT will trickle down.
Molly: Is this what you’re referring to?
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/06/09/Breitbart-Flashback-Maxine-Waters-Reveals-Obams-Secret-Data-Base-Filled-With-Voters-Private-Info
The remarks by Maxine waters about O police state were made in Feb to CNN Roland Martin
It is at Breitbart, in Journalism section the thread that Ellsberg sees Snowden as a hero.
It is posted by *335 blues* & the time reference is 4, now possibly 5 hours ago.
There is a response from someone giving Jarretts post election remarks (Nov 2012) where she alludes to getting back at their enemies now that O is in power again !
Judge Napolitano on Fox has called Snowden a *Hero*
neo,
Should have made it clearer, Hong Kong is a gateway to China, which does not have an extradition treaty with the US (not that they can’t hand him over if they decide to) and simultaneously provided easy access to the internet. If Snowden’s now fled to mainland China he’s entirely at their mercy, obviously a problematic choice at best.
I’ve never been a fan of Daniel Ellsberg, so his opinion counts little with me.
expat, some questions;
If Snowden’s right about the danger and doesn’t have a solution, are you saying he should have stayed silent and let the danger continue and even increase? Had he stayed silent, wouldn’t that have been a perfect example of the “banality of evil”, of doing nothing when faced with evil?
Everyone has an ego and his motivations are perhaps, suspect. In order to be a hero, does one’s motivation have to be entirely pure? In the larger scheme of things, if one does the right thing for somewhat impure motives, does that invalidate the heroism of rendering a public service for which he shall certainly have to pay a very high personal cost? Especially as no one else was willing to pay that price.
In going public, he unavoidably provided aid and comfort to our enemies but can we ignore the extenuating circumstance of exposing an arguably even greater threat to our liberties?
Many of us are unhappy with much of what is but it is what it is.
Maxwell: “the guts to put liberty before life!”
Whose life or whose lives? My life? My family’s? My friends’? My community’s? My fellow countrymen’s? The people of my country’s allies?
I find that a very chilling statement coming from a self-descibed “recent military officer retiree” who carried the trust of the American people to protect our lives in, presumably, a position with senior leadership responsibility.
yes, carl. that would be it !
Geoffrey,
Did he even make any attempts to go up the ladder with his concerns? Did he make any attempt to figure out ways to better mesh out security concerns at home with the threats we face? Did he even know enough about Hong Kong and China to make a rational decision about where to flee to? Does he even begin to understand the diplomatic problems that he style of revelations might cause?
I put him in the same category as Fred Phelps, PETA, and radical environmentalists. They know what is right and see no need to consider the harm they will do.
Ace’s post links to a couple of tweets by the Anchoress on our need to have idols. I don’t need an idol. I am happy enough to have decent people trying to do their best.
This is not to say that I believe the collection of all this data is great. But what if great hunks of it could be accessed by others–enough to give our enemies insight into small pieces of our defense capabilities that they could exploit.
The Catholic church requires 3 miracles before someone is canonized a saint. We seem to require 3 days of headlines.
expat,
Whoa. Ok, I’ll answer your questions and then perhaps you’ll be willing to at least consider mine.
I have no idea whether he made any attempts to go up the ladder with his concerns but I do have a very good idea what the highly negative repercussions would have been with this administration.
Mesh out security concerns at home with the threats we face? I rather doubt if he was in any sort of positions to even advise on policy much less influence it. And ultimately it comes down between liberty and security. I’ll take liberty thanks because without liberty, security is but an illusion.
How are personal considerations regarding a safe path to flee… relevant to his decision as to whether or not to leak the info?
What “diplomatic problems” would revelations about domestic spying entail?
An idol? You’re implying we need an idol? What hard evidence is there that Snowden isn’t a decent person trying to do his best? Not saying he is but at this point is the evidence so conclusive that we can proclaim with certainty that his motives are nefarious?
None of this can be accessed by others, the data was physically handed over to the NSA. Yes, it does make the enemy aware that the administration is conducting widespread domestic spying. Which is something they would have expected anyway because we can be certain that our enemies are spying upon their own people. Human nature is to believe of others what is true of ourselves.
Nobody here is canonizing Snowden a saint.
Hint; ultimately, hyperbole makes for a less persuasive argument.
Geoffrey Britain: “without liberty, security is but an illusion.”
That’s backwards.
Geoffrey Britain said: ” have read that he had the semi-legal option of going to a Congressman like Rand Paul rather than leaking his information. But I find it problematic that any Congressman could effect fundamental change without also going public.”
Geoffrey –Who would he talk to? Goober Graham and a lot of other republicans are defending it, as of course are the newly security conscious democrat senators who were adamantly against it pre-Obama. I don’t think Rand Paul is on the same committee with McCain, Feinstein, and Graham, and these are the people who insist it’s all a benign program.
The republicans and democrats defending this are both doing so for political reasons — I would trust Rand Paul up to a point, but he’s not going to risk possible legal trouble for an issue his own party is divided on, and which democrats will side with Obama, no matter how dishonest or disgusting the offense it might be.
Like Neo said, there’s no upside for this kind of thing in Washington. It’s a huge problem to keep your country from going down the toilet when neither party, the press, the justice department, nor the courts agree on what the limits on your government are. According to the Obama-era media and the left, this is all a grey area, all very subjective, and there’s no right answer. It’s the same argument the left always uses, whenever the left wants to ditch the constitution for their own purpose -the argument is put forth that “the framers didn’t envision_______, so it needs to be handled differently”. The constitution just isn’t clear now – apparently privacy isn’t the same same concept because the framers of the constitution didn’t have computers or the internet. So they’re free to improvise, and we’re free to try and stop them. I’d look for a place to hide if I were Snowden too. When the public in overwhelming majorities can’t decide for itself that goverment invading privacy without just cause is a bad thing, there is NO chance they will stop doing it. It is amazing to me that it’s even a debate.
“It’s the same argument the left always uses, whenever the left wants to ditch the constitution for their own purpose -the argument is put forth that “the framers didn’t envision_______, so it needs to be handled differently”. ”
We’ve heard that poppycock over and over again, and just not from leftists unless we should include the likes of McCain & Graham as members of the left. There is no allowance for fishing expeditions under the 4th. Telephone records are to papers and effects as an AR 15 is to arms.
southpaw,
I’m pretty sure that in the Founders’ day, cops were allowed to observe and record whose house a messenger left from, what time he left, and to whose house and what time he delivered the letter.
Eric
“without liberty, security is but an illusion.”
“That’s backwards.
Really? Then I guess you disagree with Ben Franklin, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” that’s your prerogative but I’ll stick with ole Ben.
Eric,
Seriously? And were they allowed to keep a copy of the letter for future investigations if necessary as long as the promised not to open it? Or will you tell me it was only because they didn’t have copy machines?
130 million Americans don’t need their data collected. YOU can turn YOUR email and phone records over voluntarily, but compelling me to do so isn’t your right or anybody else’s just because you think it makes you safe.
If the government suspects me of a crime, they can go to a court, make their case for reasonable suspicion, and get the warrant. Just like the law prescribes and it’s been done and agreed to be done for over 200 years. They have no right to pre-collect potential evidence to be used at a further date, just like the sheriffs didn’t have a right to a copy of Washington’s private mail, as long as they promised not to open them.
Geoffrey,
I wasn’t implying that anyone here is making Snowden into an idol, but the Bradley Manning lovers out there sure are.
I am just not sure that there aren’t enemies out there who would try to get the parts of this data they need by bribing or threatening employees of internet firms. I suspect that this database may be useful in tracking different types of foreign enemies. I take the cyberspying threat very seriously.
Finally, if Snowden didn’t have the info to suggest foreign policy changes, perhaps he should have had the humility to admit he didn’t know what is going on.
southpaw,
Exactly. There’s practically no one he could go to, who would be in a position to pursue it. Any Congressman would take allegations like that to members of the Intelligence Committee, who would have dismissed the very idea, just as they are now. The olde “hurry along, there’s nothing to see here” game.
If I may paraphrase you; When the public in overwhelming majorities can’t decide for itself that goverment invading privacy without just cause is a bad thing, when neither party, the press, the justice department, nor the courts agree on what the limits on government are, there is NO chance of keeping the country from going down the toilet.
I realize that by rearranging your words, I’ve changed your conclusion. That is not meant to promote the idea of giving up but of suggesting that we MAY have reached the state Churchill warned of; “you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. [Yet] There may even be a [still] worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish, than live as slaves.” – Winston Churchill, “The Gathering Storm.”
Permanent security choices:
1. Use state power to down Flight 93, protect America.
2. Use people liberty to down Flight 93, protect America.
1. Use state power to stop shoe bombers that get through airline check points.
2. Use people power to stop shoe bombers that get through strip searches.
1. Use the people to get information on Marathon bombers.
2. Use NSA wiretaps to get information on Marathon bombers, after ignoring bombers.
“How long before this database (or one like it) is accessed by in-power political types for “opposition research”?”
It’s already been done. Why do you think Republicans often do whatever the Left tells them? After putting up the requisite circus fanfare fight at least.
expat,
OK, I too take the cyberspying threat seriously, as I imagine we all do here.
To suggest that a whistleblower must remain silent if they can’t offer solutions, presupposes that the government is trustworthy enough not to extend itself beyond its constitutional limits. Yet the program itself is prima facie evidence demonstrating that presumption to be false.
The question then becomes for the whistleblower where does the greater harm lay?
No doubt our enemies are looking for any advantage enabling them to harm us and the more knowledge of an enemy that one has the greater the potential for harming them. So I am not dismissive of your concerns.
Again the question comes down to security or liberty. I vote for liberty.
Geoffrey Britain:
Apparently the intelligence committees in Congress already knew about the program, and were okay with it (it’s legal, by the way). Snowden could have, however (as Ellsberg originally did, by the way, with Fulbright) go to some other simpatico member of Congress and ask that person to take up the cause. It doesn’t appear that Snowden even tried to do so.
Re Ellsberg and Fulbright:
Government can’t secure our borders but it readily spends billions tracking billions of telephone conversations. Government can’t identify the Boston bombers or Major Hasan but it readily spends billions on frisking old ladies in wheel chairs or little children because they are about to board an airplane. And we’re supposed to trust these bureaucrats and politicians??? Is it any wonder that many of us have little confidence in government finding the correct balance between security and liberty? Liberty should always be the default. position.
neo,
Re: “Apparently the intelligence committees in Congress already knew about the program, and were okay with it (it’s legal, by the way).”
Yes that’s my understanding as well. However knowledge of and condoning something doesn’t make it legal and the administration’s interpretation of the Patriot Act is far more radical than the Bush administration’s.
It is in that far more invasive interpretation wherein the argument for illegality lies. Monitoring all domestic calls is a violation of the 4th amendment, monitoring international calls to and from parties believed to offer probable cause is not.
I don’t think it’s realistic to presume that Snowden going to “some other simpatico member of Congress and ask that person to take up the cause” would have resulted in any positive outcome. That Congressman would have gone to a member of one of the Intelligence Committees and been reassured that everything was fine with “nothing to see here”. Whether Snowden realized this or acted out of pure ideology and self-interest is, in the final analysis, irrelevant to the reality of the situation that any whistleblower on this issue would have faced.
It is of course relevant regarding Snowden’s personal motivations but not regarding the larger issue and his reasonable prospects for bringing this issue to the attention of the American public.
Off topic, but the apparent origin of “Where are the snows of yesteryear?”
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/04/great-lines-ldquowhere-are-the-snows-of-yesteryearrdquo
Geoffrey Britain:
Yes, my point about Snowden going to Congress involves his motivations, not whether it would have worked.
And as I indicated, your opinion about the illegality or unconstitutionality of the program is something you’re entitled to, of course, but it’s irrelevant to the question of whether Snowden is a whistleblower in the legal, technical sense.
There is a difference between monitoring calls in the sense of collecting their content and sweeping up transmission data records.
Eric:
Agreed; just wrote much the same a little while ago here.
“There is a difference between monitoring calls in the sense of collecting their content and sweeping up transmission data records.”
“Agreed; just wrote much the same a little while ago here.”
So its okay for the USPS to report to the NSA the origin of the mail I receive on my front porch or the send to address of the correspondence I put in the mailbox as long as they don’t open the envelopes? I submit that government agencies that will “sweep up transmission data records” will not refrain from opening the envelopes, scanning the contents, and resealing the envelopes.
parker:
Who’s saying it’s okay? On the contrary, I’ve indicated I’m very suspicious of the idea that government can be trusted to refrain from accessing and abusing the data.
I’m talking only about whether it’s been considered legal by the courts. The courts are making the distinction, not me personally.
“I’m talking only about whether it’s been considered legal by the courts.”
No disrespect intended, but courts are staffed by mortals, not angels, and are known to be less than infallible. The Dred Scott decision readily comes to mind along with many SCOTUS decisions over the centuries. I care not for courts or congress or the inhabitants of the oval office. I care for the rule of law. I know right from wrong. I am capable of parsing the plain language of the Constitution. I don’t need Bill Ayers or Bernardine Dohrn to tell me which way the wind blows. 😉
4th: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
This does not require a law degree from the Ivy League to understand. If the courts do not understand this plain language, the courts be damned.
parker:
You’re arguing apples and oranges. You don’t seem to understand what I’m saying.
I haven’t addressed the question of whether I believe the courts have ruled correctly on these issues, or are staffed by brilliant people or idiots. I have merely said what the courts have ruled.
Our legal system functions by precedent and the rule of law. I was addressing what that precedent and law was and is.
Read the decisions and see that, so far, the courts have reasoned that the 4th amendment does not bar this kind of data collection. Again, I don’t have time to look up the exact language right now, but if I recall correctly it hinges on the definition of “unreasonable” and whether data collection of data that is already with the phone companies, etc., and not just in the individual’s possession, constitutes a “search and seizure.”
You may think, like Bumble did, that “the law is a ass,” but that’s your opinion in these cases rather than an absolute truth about which reasonable people cannot differ.
“I haven’t addressed the question of whether I believe the courts have ruled correctly on these issues, or are staffed by brilliant people or idiots. I have merely said what the courts have ruled.”
Ah, but that is the question. I do not respect what courts may rule or congress or BHO may address when they rule against the rule of law as set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which are simple to understand. http://tinyurl.com/eugz4
That’s okay, I sincerely respect your opinion, and 99% of the opinions expressed in the comments on your blog. http://tinyurl.com/6zr6jly I don’t have to feel it, I have to hear it.
“… in these cases rather than an absolute truth about which reasonable people cannot differ.”
Where is absolute truth? What is reasonable? What limits are imposed upon the federal district? When we concede an inch of liberty we give up a mile of security. Can not differ??? I differ greatly. I do not tith to DC; they steal billions.
parker:
Read my sentence again:
You are misunderstanding my point. My point is that whether you are correct that those who consider the NSA data program to be a constitutional and reasonable one are mistaken or stupid, that opinion of yours about them (and its constitutionality) is not an absolute truth about which reasonable people can’t differ. You are the one who is acting as though the program’s unconstitutionality is an absolute truth—that it is absolutely unconstitutional and that anyone who doesn’t see it that way is obviously incorrect and/or stupid.
“because China is such a bastion of free speech and lack of government intrusion”
China doesnt lack government intrusion, but it does lack NSA intrusion. If youre trying to evade an organization known SPECIFICALLY for total informational awareness and espionage, it makes total sense to go to the country with the single largest and most robust firewall against that particular threat. If Snowden had gone to the UK or any other close ally, he would have been traced and found within hours. He wouldnt be able to do anything without the NSA knowing it. Snowden knows what the NSA’s capabilities are, and he knows where their reach is weakest: China. Thats why he went to China. Not to sell them secrets (which he could do from anywhere), but to receive protection from the NSA behind the Great Firewall of China.