Obama administration charges NSA whistleblower Snowden with espionage

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by Archie

 

I just gave you a star because I completely agree with you.
next

That will be all.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by Moshpet

 

You left out the part where Snowden swore to uphold the Constitution. At least some still take the oath seriously.

Ah the Oath.

I take it seriously, but you don't see me going around breaking the law either.
Just because some laws may be bad it is not acceptable to commit treason.
Defending the Constitution can take many forms, but committing treason is hardly the way it should be done.

All you people so intent on using 'The Oath' hardly ever step up to the plate, when it comes to acting to make sure the bad laws are annulled or rewritten. No, instead all you is sit around whine and complain about 'how his oath more important than following a law."

Well here is the kicker, that same Oath means you have a responsibility to use the legal system to change the laws, rather than sitting on your arse and whining about how unfair, unjust or how Unconstitutional a law may be.

That is what the oath is about. Defending the Constitution, means actively working with the framework of laws and society to do just that.

All I see is just a bunch of anarchist wanna-be's spouting off "He Took an Oath!"
Well guess what, if your Oath means something you need to get off your arse and get active about doing just that.

Otherwise you've already forsworn your oath.
M.

reply to post by Moshpet

oh..... really..........? pfft... a domestic enemy does not just mean some quack or a group of quacks. It was left open ended for a reason. A state can become a domestic enemy The dude that opened the eatery Joe's could become the domestic enemy. Also God forbid..... the government it self can become the domestic enemy as well. Look the first 10 Amendments was meant to work together as a whole to prevent any one government from gaining to much power. As to the oath or Oaths ? Well here is a example.

Military

"that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same," and concludes with, "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The subtle distinction between officer oath and enlisted oath is that officers are bound to disobey any order that violates our Constitution, while enlisted personnel are bound to obey only lawful orders.Similar oaths are taken by state and local elected representatives, and federal, state and local civil servants.

So did Snowden uphold his oath? I myself believe he did. Lets say for example he quit and did not copy any document or mention any specific operation of the government. Only that he could not continue what he believes to be a violation of the constitution. I'm betting like others he would have been made out to be some disgruntled employee and would have disappeared off the face of the earth. He also however would have violated his oath to protect the constitution in my view.


As a example of how the government has become more corrupt.

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This law the 1st Amendment has been violated so many times it's stupid. Not just today but for the past century. Free speech meaning you should not need a permit or permission or to pay any fee's to protest.

Here is the 4th Amendment.

Fourth Amendment
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.

So what is the government doing? Well not only are they searching your records and your communications. They are also seizing those records/papers. Without your consent. The fourth amendment was written so that if a court of law decides you are up to no good a warrant will be issued and you have a right to read that warrant. Have you read the warrant that deems it necessary to search your stuff? Does this warrant have your name on it?

reply to post by darkstar111


I'm sure you would like to think that that Oath gives you the right to use violence or break the laws/regulations, but it doesn't. No where does that Oath state that you have permission or legal authority to carry out acts of violence or break the laws to defend the Constitution.

If an Order or instruction is illegal, you have the right to refuse to carry out that order, and you have the right to seek out the member of Judge Advocate General to present that it was an illegal instruction.

No where does that Oath state you have the right to commit crimes or take violent action against the Government of the United States of America, in order to protect the Constitution. What it does state that you have an obligation to protect the above and to do so carrying out legal, lawful instructions. It's not an either or, you either commit to following the legal orders, regulations and laws; or you don't.

Which means as an 'Oath Keeper' you have a responsibility to use the law to effect changes against laws or members of the government that are violating the Constitution, and by second hand, obeying the laws to do so. There is no blank check exclusion that says violence or breaking the law is permitted when it comes to protecting the Constitution.

That Clause of "Against Enemies Foreign or Domestic" is defining the field of battle and the rules used in such areas.

For example:

In the Foreign Section;
In a time of war, where the Country as a whole is under attack, you would be ordered to kill to prevent the Country from falling, and thus you legally protect and uphold the Constitution.

In the Domestic Section:
In a time of all out civil war, where the country is at risk of falling into collapse and thus nullifying the Constitution by the Country ceasing to exist. You would be authorised to use violence to preserve the Country and thus the Constitution, against your fellow rebelling American Citizens.

In a time of Peace:

In a time of peace, where the Country as a whole is not going to collapse due to an outside agency, and thus nullify the Constitution by force of arms; the Laws of the United States must be adhered to. If such occasion arises to where a person or persons is acting against the Constitution and thus against the Laws of the United States of America you are obligated to use exercise lawful and legal action to protect them both.

There is no 'escape clause' in 'The Oath' stating that illegal actions are permitted or even tolerated.

So if you are going to claim you have sworn an oath, and you are not working to carry out or uphold the intent of that oath in a legal and just manner; then your oath is meaningless and you've already forsworn it.

M.

reply to post by Moshpet

I do believe this is a escape clause.
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is directly supported by this.... IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

As both was framed to work together. Escape clause proved and presented...

reply to post by Moshpet


Screw your oaths, people's word means nothing these days. The government is illegaly and directly accessing my computer files while it is in my home, copying them, and storing them. You think you could bring that kind of information to a court by yourself? Seriously? If you do then you have never experienced the legal system.

Does it make you uncomfortable to know that all the "crazy conspiracy nuts" might be more correct than you would like to believe? This is certainly not the only underhanded thing that is going on, in fact, it's probably the most benign and harmless to the avg joe that goes on behind closed doors.

The govt doesn't care what porn sites you visit, who's underage daughters your soliciting, if you and your siblings are planning on murdering your parents for capitol gain or what penis pills you buy, if you're buying your friends food stamps with cash etc....they don't care, they just want the dirt required to smear you on the news if you become a problem for them.

Sitting around bantering about semantics is pointless at this stage, the guy was right to blow the lid off, arguing otherwise is irrational and dangerous.

The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

And we are long overdue, I would rather go through a revolution now, then suffer the next 40 years a slow slip into fascist lethargy and infinite reruns of dancing with the stars.

reply to post by darkstar111


The Second Amendment, does not instruct you to commit a crime does it? It does not instruct you to overthrow a lawful government, nor does it give you permission to attack your fellow citizens or soldiers in the pursuit there of. So if 95% of America likes and approves of the current vision of America or at least tolerates it until the next election; does that give you a moral right to kill or murder them to achieve your vision? No it does not. The Second Amendment established the right of the citizen to bear arms, but not to attack the government or to commit crimes, it was written to allow people to have the means to defend themselves.

Which if the government directly forced you to defend yourself, as in all bullets are in the air, then you could justify firing back at them. However, until the government starts shooting at you, you are bound to be a law abiding citizen. So if there are no violent acts violence, which could be proven as such, for you to take up arms against your country, would be an act of treason or civil war. Not to mention a criminal act.

Then all those people who take their oaths to mean that _lawful defense_ of the Constitution and thus the United States of America, as the only valid interpretation; would be justified in hunting you down and killing you. Or at least cheering on the government as they did it.

Before it was written, the British government was forcing people to board their soldiers in their houses. Forcing, not a choice. They also made a point of trying to confiscate weapons and the like so that the colonists could not resist. Here is a very good article Link discussion how gun confiscation was a primary driver of the American Revolution.

So in that context, and for the time period it was written, the Second Amendment, was not about starting a war with your own government, but to ensure you had the legal means to have such weapons. It was written with the language of that era and time, and it protects on of your many rights, and it's written firmly there as to ensure it'd be understood that it -is- a right.

A well regulated militia, at that time, was an organized group of men that operated as a group, for in a time of troubles they could either fight off the British, indians, the French and the like. More than likely as not, they also made up the bucket brigade as well, because they worked and trained together and could follow instructions. Or so that the group could separate into smaller teams and direct other volunteers.

There is nothing in the Second Amendment that says you or I have a right to overthrow a lawful government. It does state that your right to own a gun/weapon, shall be maintained as your legal right.

So no, the Second Amendment is not carte' blanche to break the law, or overthrow the nation. Even if you are an Oath Keeper, or not.


What constitutes a well regulated militia in this day and age, is up for discussion.
M.

reply to post by Moshpet


What is a militia but the people?

We are certainly WELL regulated. The practical idea of a militia is the same as its always been, armed civilians. There is no other debate on those grounds, simply slight of hand and rich vocabulary.

Originally posted by vind21
reply to post by Moshpet

 

#1 Screw your oaths, /snip
#2 Does it make you uncomfortable to know that all the "crazy conspiracy nuts" /snip
#3 The govt doesn't care what porn sites you visit, who's underage daughters your soliciting,/snip
#4 Sitting around bantering about semantics is pointless at this stage, /snip
#5

The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. /snip

#6 And we are long overdue, I would rather go through a revolution now, then suffer the next 40 years a slow slip into fascist lethargy and infinite reruns of dancing with the stars.

#1 I find your lack of respect to the 'Oaths' that people gave and upheld, to be sadly disturbing. A person that does not uphold his word, or oath or contracts if you will, isn't one I'd be willing to share my friendship or a foxhole with. Much less I would not be able to see what they stood for, nor could I support them. Maybe you are comfortable with not having any personal honor or commitment, and if you are married, how could your wife/husband expect you to uphold that vow as well?

#2 More correct or right? Or more willing to break the law or commit a crime? Then there term the word 'crazy conspiracy nut' Put in the context as you have written it, I should be more afraid of that sort of person. Because if one is unstable and given to subscribe to a dialog condoning violence is to be commended... what does that say about any such group? You can have as many theories as you like, but when you cross the line of legality and support violence and breaking the law; going on to perform such acts. Then you clearly have stepped beyond the line of which I'd support you at. Sure you have freedom of speech, but you don't have a right to commit crimes in expressing your free speech.

#3 Technically you'd be wrong. The Government does not approve of child pornography and there are laws on the books to arrest those criminals that support or create that kind of stuff. Hell, even Anonymous is against child pornography, and if two such different and diverse groups are against it you can likely bet society as a whole is against it. The Government also _Does_ care if you as an adult would be soliciting children / minors for sex; it's not uncommon to think that'd they'd willingly tolerate such people. Need I dare mention that they -do- arrest people for that crime?

#4 You would be even more wrong. If people were not discussing this entire concept and bringing the question of how it interacts with law, society and government; we the people could not determine what is or is not a valid argument or interpretation of the laws. The Fact that the Constitution starts off in the preamble as "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union..." Speaks quite clearly to the fact that every single American has a voice and right to help shape out laws and government. Otherwise the Constitution might start off, "We the Elitist Land Owners and Lawyers...."

#5 That's a great quote, by Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William S. Smith (13 November 1787). and it's often bandied about by people who want nothing more to break the law and start a civil war or break with the government into anarchy. But you are willfully neglecting the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a Lawyer and a proponent of the law. Given such and that he helped to build the frame work of the Constitution; you can be assured that he was not interested in tearing down all that he helped to build. So no he was't talking about foment a revolution. Pulling random parts of a letter our of context doesn't build your case. Go back, read the entire document and understand the whole context of it. Then make a valid statement about it.

#6 That's your opinion, and you are welcome to expose it. But the fact is, you are among the minority; when you contrast it against every single person in America. Much less the world in general. Most if not all rational people want their government to be stable, they want to know what the rules and penalties are going to be when they wake up the next day. Anarchy and rebellion do not provide that stability. You may think people are sheep, but I see people more as dogs in a pack. Yes there is a leader, but if you kick a dog often enough and abuse it, it will bite. There are also dominance struggles, and a pack will hunt together and fight together to ensure the pack endures. But at the end of the day, that pack is going to civil and considerate of the other members in its pack.

M.

Originally posted by vind21
reply to post by Moshpet

 

What is a militia but the people?

We are certainly WELL regulated. The practical idea of a militia is the same as its always been, armed civilians. There is no other debate on those grounds, simply slight of hand and rich vocabulary.

Just being armed doesn't make you organised or even trained, much less regulated... unless you consider your permit as regulated. Personally I don't, because I've seen some real idiots who legally own a gun.

Just because a person is armed, and thought they were in charge during a crisis doesn't make them the leader. Does possession of a weapon make them the best leader in a crisis, not hardly. Let us say there is a flood and people are needed to organize to get a sandbag levee built. If the guy with the gun has no idea how to make that levee, or has never filled a sang bag in his or her life, much less never placed one in a row; who can you expect him to make the right decision?

Would you want an untrained person leading or conducting rescue operations? I would not.

So perhaps well regulated needs to be defined and established in context with todays world.

M.

reply to post by Moshpet


It has been. No need to rehash what has been rehashed to death already.

"Well regulated" means "in proper working order". If you are trying to infer any additional meaning, it goes beyond the scope of what the framers intended. "Well regulated" was a well known term at that time, and was commonly known to mean, "in good repair" or "in working order".

What is to redefine? I keep my guns oiled, i target shoot several times a month.

THis is what is wrong with modern people: you presume that you know more than your ancestors. It is this little ego thing we humans have going. we shouldn't have to nail down and narrowly define everything The fact that we have to is worse than the fact that laws are needed in the first place.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Moshpet

 

It has been. No need to rehash what has been rehashed to death already.

"Well regulated" means "in proper working order". If you are trying to infer any additional meaning, it goes beyond the scope of what the framers intended. "Well regulated" was a well known term at that time, and was commonly known to mean, "in good repair" or "in working order".

What is to redefine? I keep my guns oiled, i target shoot several times a month.

THis is what is wrong with modern people: you presume that you know more than your ancestors. It is this little ego thing we humans have going. we shouldn't have to nail down and narrowly define everything The fact that we have to is worse than the fact that laws are needed in the first place.

edit on 24-6-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

Actually I do know more than the average person of the 1700's, so do you.

You have had more exposure to science, mathematics and information than they could have conceived of.
As humans advance in technology we need to be having this discussion, and be nailing down the facts and definitions, we are not barbarians or illiterate are we? So yes there is room to do just this, sitting down and taking issues and peacefully quantifying them and determining how they fit into our world.

Does that mean we'll all agree, hardly, but that too is part of the process.

M.

.

Then Snowden should charge the administration with treason .

.

Originally posted by Moshpet

Actually I do know more than the average person of the 1700's, so do you.

You have had more exposure to science, mathematics and information than they could have conceived of.
As humans advance in technology we need to be having this discussion, and be nailing down the facts and definitions, we are not barbarians or illiterate are we? So yes there is room to do just this, sitting down and taking issues and peacefully quantifying them and determining how they fit into our world.

Does that mean we'll all agree, hardly, but that too is part of the process.

M.

No. You and I know different, not more. I would never even think to weigh my mind against that of Francis Bacon or Pythagoras. To consider our ancestors as illiterate barbarians is just not truthful They were humans, with the same hopes, wishes, and desires and you and I. They had science, just with different understandings, sometimes wrong. Just like us.

We are not smarter. We are not better. That is just ego talking. If you took away Google you couldn't tell me a quantification of a hectare, or a quarter section of land. My grandfather could when he was a kid. We just know different, not more.

An analogy that occurs to me: having more information access is the same as having more spaghetti to throw at the wall. Only so much is going to stick. You are trying to tie memory to intelligence without realizing that memory capability is finite.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by SloAnPainful

 

All I know is that Snowden has a pair of stones on him for coming out about this, prolly knowing that this was to come from it.

I'll post more details when they are released.

What do you think ATS?

I think all spies have big stones. It takes stones to violate your oath and throw your country under the bus.

I wouldn’t have a problem with Snowden had he not fled to CHINA and divulged GOD KNOWS WHAT to the Chinese. If he simply exposed the domestic aspect of the NSA I might think differently because in that case he would be honoring his constitutional oath. It becomes rather suspect when you flee to a communist country afterwards (a country that has its own spy network infiltrating US) and act as if you did something patriotic.

Sorry, this doesn’t pass my ‘patriot smell test’!

Ya, stay in the US and get a nice little unknown jail cell somewhere....or meet some little accident, like falling down an elevator shaft and landing on a dozen bullets. No wonder he fled to countries that won't bow to the US, he wants to stay alive.....and who is to say he is giving out US secrets? (this is just a ploy to turn public opinion from Snowden - HE IS GIVING SECRETS TO THE COMMIES trick)

He actually passes the patriot smell test, because he actually did something other then bitch about the government on the internet.


]

reply to post by Moshpet


Actually the Second Amendment was put there for that specific purpose. Sorry to be the messenger of truth, but facts are facts. Anyone who thinks that right was not put there for purpose of making sure the government does not step out of line needs a serious history lesson. Firearms for personal protection and hunting was a given at the time. Otherwise it would not have been written to begin with.

The second amendment was meant to back up the first amendment. There is a reason they are in the order their in. The Constitution was a finalizing document to back up the first which is the Declaration of Independence. The bill of rights back up the Constitution. Each of the first ten amendments back up the preceding amendment up to and including the first.

That is why you are suppose to use all 3 when determining if or not the government has stepped out of line. The you start using those rights to bring balance back to a government for the specific purpose of maintaining governed society by which to prevent Anarchy .A out of control government is anarchy. You my friend are clearly blind to which you do not want to see.

reply to post by Moshpet


Your entire argument is invalid because those who are supposed to uphold the constitution do not. There is no representation of WE THE PEOPLE, it is the representation of those who have the big bucks and are able to contribute to political campaigns.

Go ahead and say "vote them out" - how has that been working out for several decades? Anyone can talk a good game - but every single one of them bails on their promises as soon as they get elected.

reply to post by darkstar111


Ok let us look at the third then.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.[1]

And for reference:

Case law[edit] The Third Amendment is among the least cited sections of the U.S. Constitution.[5] There have been no major Supreme Court cases concerning violations of the Third Amendment, mainly because the quartering it forbids has not been attempted since the American Revolution.

Right to privacy:

The Third Amendment was once invoked as helping establish an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. This happened in the majority opinion by Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965) which cited the amendment as implying a belief that an individual's home should be free from agents of the state.[5]

Ok.... Where exactly does that say you can break the law to oppose our government?

Has the government put a soldier or officer of the law in your home?
No.

As respect to privacy, under the Griswald Vs Connecticut ruling.

I went and looked it up as I wanted to be certain, evidently this case was about martial sexual congress and was about the use of contraception. Here, you can look it up, link

Since then it has also been used in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) struck down a Texas state law that prohibited certain forms of intimate sexual contact between members of the same sex.

It was also used to grant access to abortion clinics....

Unless you can prove the act of invading your privacy is an actual physical attack, you only have the recourse of using law to defend it. No judge is going to take you serious if you kill someone invading your privacy, unless they physically attack your body to do so.

"Your honor, my client is not guilty of murdering the federal agent who read his email, because the federal agent was working in his office in another state when he read the email, and it was a physical intrusion of my clients residence."

Given it's legal history, unless the invasion of privacy is occurring in your bedroom of your residence.... you might have a very difficult time basing your entire justification using violence or breaking the law on the Third Amendment.

On to the Forth Amendment

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.[1]

Ok, where does it state you have a right to break the law or instigate civil war in any part of this? At some point you might claim self defense if they just barged in with no warning or warrant, but beyond that, your only recourse is to sue them.

I'm going to be the devil's advocate here.

Where in the terms and conditions of your Internet usage agreement, does it say that you own any information on Google's (for example) physical servers? If you connect to a server and put a file on it, and the Federal Government raids the Google servers and copies or views that file, how can you claim the government violated your privacy? Did the government break into your house and pull your hard drive? Then if none of your information is lost, and you did not lose any revenue how are you going to claim injury? Also, if you are using their service to store your file, what to say Google can't just dump or lose your information at any time, are they contractually bound to keep your data for you, forever?

Where does a persons private space begin and end? Is your personal space your connection to the Internet? Do you really _own_ a block of data on anyone elses corporately managed servers? Also, given the advent of our technology, are the papers referenced applicable to files you store on Google, or just your computer at home.

For what it is worth, even if your privacy is breached by the Government, by them directly accessing files on Google (or anyone elses servers), it still creates no legal opening for you to break the law or incite a civil war. But it does create legal venue for you to make change.

Sorry, no legal grounds for armed revolt there.
M.

reply to post by KnowledgeSeeker81



You are missing one very key point.................Russia and China don't claim top be democratic. They don't brag of their people having free speech. THAT is why the US comes under so much scrutiny !

The US also acts as if it is the 'world police', so therefore they claim to be above China and Russia, and every other country. When you take to take a step up onto a self proclaimed pedestal, then you cannot complain when extra scrutiny comes your way.

It would be no different to you exposing your local police force for corruption, and then being targeted by that police force for exposing their lies and cover ups. The people lying will do whatever it takes to cover up their lies, and the Snowden case is no different. He exposed their ways, and is now the focus of a witch hunt.

Answer me this question, "if the US Government didn't act in the way they did, then what would Snowden [or Manning, or Assange] have to expose" ? What you are doing here, is defending the corrupt police force, and then defending them for targeting the exposer of the corruption, but why would any logical thinking person think this way ? For the stance you have, you are either very ignorant, or perhaps even and alphabet employee doing a very mediocre job !

The US Government will use the same old tricks. First, they will try and discredit his character and personality. If that doesn't succeed they will ruin him financially making it almost impossible to live without the support of friends, family or supporters. If those 2 fail then its either get life in jail, or have life taken in a single car accident, a light plane crash, or overdose on prescription drugs. Yet all this from a Government that claims to be democratic, and the land of the free ?

Originally posted by Moshpet
reply to post by darkstar111

 

Ok let us look at the third then.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.[1]

And for reference:

Case law[edit] The Third Amendment is among the least cited sections of the U.S. Constitution.[5] There have been no major Supreme Court cases concerning violations of the Third Amendment, mainly because the quartering it forbids has not been attempted since the American Revolution.

Right to privacy:

The Third Amendment was once invoked as helping establish an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. This happened in the majority opinion by Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965) which cited the amendment as implying a belief that an individual's home should be free from agents of the state.[5]

Ok.... Where exactly does that say you can break the law to oppose our government?

Has the government put a soldier or officer of the law in your home?
No.

As respect to privacy, under the Griswald Vs Connecticut ruling.

I went and looked it up as I wanted to be certain, evidently this case was about martial sexual congress and was about the use of contraception. Here, you can look it up, link

Since then it has also been used in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) struck down a Texas state law that prohibited certain forms of intimate sexual contact between members of the same sex.

It was also used to grant access to abortion clinics....

Unless you can prove the act of invading your privacy is an actual physical attack, you only have the recourse of using law to defend it. No judge is going to take you serious if you kill someone invading your privacy, unless they physically attack your body to do so.

"Your honor, my client is not guilty of murdering the federal agent who read his email, because the federal agent was working in his office in another state when he read the email, and it was a physical intrusion of my clients residence."

Given it's legal history, unless the invasion of privacy is occurring in your bedroom of your residence.... you might have a very difficult time basing your entire justification using violence or breaking the law on the Third Amendment.

On to the Forth Amendment

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.[1]

Ok, where does it state you have a right to break the law or instigate civil war in any part of this? At some point you might claim self defense if they just barged in with no warning or warrant, but beyond that, your only recourse is to sue them.

I'm going to be the devil's advocate here.

Where in the terms and conditions of your Internet usage agreement, does it say that you own any information on Google's (for example) physical servers? If you connect to a server and put a file on it, and the Federal Government raids the Google servers and copies or views that file, how can you claim the government violated your privacy? Did the government break into your house and pull your hard drive? Then if none of your information is lost, and you did not lose any revenue how are you going to claim injury? Also, if you are using their service to store your file, what to say Google can't just dump or lose your information at any time, are they contractually bound to keep your data for you, forever?

Where does a persons private space begin and end? Is your personal space your connection to the Internet? Do you really _own_ a block of data on anyone elses corporately managed servers? Also, given the advent of our technology, are the papers referenced applicable to files you store on Google, or just your computer at home.

For what it is worth, even if your privacy is breached by the Government, by them directly accessing files on Google (or anyone elses servers), it still creates no legal opening for you to break the law or incite a civil war. But it does create legal venue for you to make change.

Sorry, no legal grounds for armed revolt there.
M.

Its well established that the 2nd Amendment is what gives us a right to revolution.

The constitution doesn't enumerate your rights. It is meant to enumerate the rights of government, with anything not covered in the constitution to remain "hands off" for the government. Since then they have jumped through all manner of hoops to subvert that document.

The precedence of Nuremburg is "Following orders is no excuse"