Obama administration charges NSA whistleblower Snowden with espionage

Your arguments side step the truth and no where do I recall saying armed revolution is the first course of action. You recite court cases, then use those as a means to justify intrusion.That court case is not in any shape or form part of the constitution sorry about your luck.

In order for the government to read my mail that comes to my door a warrant must be issued. Opening that mail by anyone but me is against the law. Same thing applies to my communications I make over the net. That is why the police have to apply for a warrant to tap my phone lines with my name on it. Just because I use email instead of mail makes no difference. It is a private communication between me and whomever I communicate with.


I will make a suggestion for you though. If you truly believe that a strong central government is best then you might not want to be living here. That is not what this country was founded on. That is not how it was set up or intended to be. If you truly believe that you need permission from how much water you should use to take a dump to how much you are allowed to make then you need to move some where else. This is not a slight or a attack on you just a observation based on your posts I have read.


Because I can tell you one thing. I will no way in hell let my boys grow up in a society of political correctness and over bearing social system set up where you cant take a piss without being taxed for the amount that is dispensed.

reply to post by darkstar111


On to the Declaration of Independance.

#1
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.

#2
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.

#3
--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

#4
--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.

#5
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.

#6
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.

#7
--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. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

I've no doubt this may take an extra post to go over.

Ok, for #1 to be valid as a reason to dissolve the government and not via illegal rebellion, you would have to have the entire consent and consensus that the people as a hole had a right to do so.

Just because you, yourself or as a small group, may or may not like the government, unless the rest of this nations peoples agree and support your group, (A super majority 95%+ in all likelihood), the legal sundering of it not going to legally happen.

#2
If you are happy or unhappy, that is on you the Government cannot force you into a mood. But unless the government is trying to kill you, or is physically restraining you illegally... I seriously doubt you can use this as a reason to rebel.

#3 The Consent of the governed. Oh darn it's that pesky governed who has to decide that for themselves. AKA 'We the people." Not Joe Thug the anarchist, but it'd have to be that mass of teeming smelly people, and not just some discontent few.

So does that give you a right to break the law or use violence to attack the government?
Not you by yourself. However if 95% or more of the governed voted to dissolve the nation that is another story. Other wise you are stuck using the rule of law to effect change. O

#4 -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.

Here you may have grounds for action, but, it's again in the hands of 'The People' aka The Governed, all of them.
And again it has to be their choice, not some disgruntled or upset 'relatively' small group. If you don't have enough people willing to legally challenge the laws, or illegally for that matter, you are not going to do anything but get legally punished.

Even then, to you see anything that says you have a right to do so by violence or by insurrection or rebellion?

#5
This one, if I may loosely translate it means, "Unless your cause is real and real harm has been done, do not seek to abolish or change what works."

Basically I would call this the "If it ain't broke, don't break it clause."

see next post.

#6
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.

Now the crux of this whole section hangs "it is their right and their duty."

Once again it is not the disaffected few that must decide this. Not some minority, not some disaffected few or small group or individual. But the greater mass of the governed.

Also if you note, there is no mention of armed insurrection or rebellion in this section.

Then you legally have to prove and generate evidence of a 'long train of abuses' all leading to the same result.

This isn't just oh man I have to pay taxes, or I don't like the color of the President.... But hard factual undeniable evidence you could present to a world court. Nor can it only be about one area, it has to be shown in a cumulative manner that the ultimate result is tyranny or Despotism. Nor can it just be presented piecemeal or out of context from one jump to the next. You can't cherry pick your evidence, or only choose to show one part of the issue / offenses.

Evidence, as in the kind that could be established in a court of law.

#7
--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. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

(Sorry about the extra cut & paste but it was in case someone posted before this post.)

This section is the affirmation of the above #6 and the key bit is "To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

Ok, facts, evidence and the rule of law. Not guns, ammo and pure anarchy because I hate the man.

This was an attempt to show the world (court) that there existed a crime against the totality of the Colonies and that their only just and legal recourse was to to declare their Independence.

"all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

The key word in this bit is absolute.

1. Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
2. Not mixed; pure. See Synonyms at pure.
3.
a. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.
b. Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence. See Usage Note at infinite.
4. Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions: an absolute ruler.
/snip
8. Law Complete and unconditional; final.

tyr·an·ny (tr-n)
n. pl. tyr·an·nies
1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: "I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" (Thomas Jefferson).
4.
a. Use of absolute power.
b. A tyrannical act.
5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.

Ok, now if you were of a mind to gather evidence or build a case that our government is an absolute tyranny, in accordance with the rule of law, you would have a lot of work ahead of you.

1- Are all the laws written to be applied to all the people?
2- Are all the laws written to be fairly applied to all the people?
3- Is there no recourse or method to revoke an unfair law or action?
4- Is the Government constructed in a fashion that the people can not take legal actions, voting lawsuits and the like to change the leadership?

There are a host of other questions and considerations to be taken into account as well but this is just a short list.

In the time of the Declaration of Independance.
1- There were two sets of laws, one for England one for the Colonies.
2- These laws were not applied to the citizens of England (Eg put soldiers in people homes for example.)
3- There was no valid venue to revoke an unfair law.
4- They had no way to vote out an imposed Governor or king.

They firmly built their case of Independence under a legal pretense.

We the people, all of us, have the power to change the laws and to change our government, legally.
The hook is that it, requires a large almost totality of the governed to make it legal. To attempt otherwise, without the consent of the governed, aka We THE PEOPLE; is armed insurrection and treason.

Which only a fool would seek to endeavor to. I am pretty sure you are not a fool, and even if you don't like it, that's pretty much how it works.

M.

Originally posted by darkstar111
#1
Your arguments side step the truth and no where do I recall saying armed revolution is the first course of action. You recite court cases, then use those as a means to justify intrusion.That court case is not in any shape or form part of the constitution sorry about your luck.

#2
In order for the government to read my mail that comes to my door a warrant must be issued. Opening that mail by anyone but me is against the law. Same thing applies to my communications I make over the net. That is why the police have to apply for a warrant to tap my phone lines with my name on it. Just because I use email instead of mail makes no difference. It is a private communication between me and whomever I communicate with.

#3
I will make a suggestion for you though. If you truly believe that a strong central government is best then you might not want to be living here. That is not what this country was founded on. That is not how it was set up or intended to be. If you truly believe that you need permission from how much water you should use to take a dump to how much you are allowed to make then you need to move some where else. This is not a slight or a attack on you just a observation based on your posts I have read.

#4
Because I can tell you one thing. I will no way in hell let my boys grow up in a society of political correctness and over bearing social system set up where you cant take a piss without being taxed for the amount that is dispensed.

#1
I did say I was playing the devils advocate, yes? And do forgive me if I seemed to imply that you would jump right to violence. However there are a lot of people who think that violence is the acceptable way to reform our government.

#2 I agree with you in that that's how I see the mail and my phone. But I do not fool myself into to thinking my email or actions on the net are 100% private and can not be intruded upon easily. Hell Gmail when I use it, often oddly shows me advertising relating to things I discussed in 'presumed' privacy to a friend, or services I am subscribed to. Again I was playing the devil's advocate when I was discussing what was on 'their' servers. I do find the intrusions disturbing, but I do not kid or fool myself into thinking that I 'own' their servers or even a block of data on their servers.

#3 Strong central government. :roll eyes: How about stable government, one where the rules and laws are just fair and in place and rarely randomly vary? One where the laws are evenly applied across the board. I'm fully conversant with what and how this government was enabled, and I actually paid attention in US History.

The United States is considered the first modern federation. After declaring independence from Britain, the U.S. adopted its first constitution, the Articles of Confederation in 1781. This was the first step towards federalism by establishing the confederal Congress. However, Congress was limited as to its ability to pursue economic, military, and judiciary reform. In 1787, the Second Continental Congress drafted the United States Constitution during the Philadelphia Convention. After the ratification of the Constitution by nine states in 1788, the U.S. was officially a federation, but putting the U.S. in a unique position where the central government exists by the sufferance of the individual states rather than the reverse.

Funny, but isn't that exactly what we have?

As for a central government equalling a 'nanny state', please, are you really going there?

If I waste millions of gallons of water by opening my taps and letting the run from nigh unto eternity, I can. But, I'd also pay the penalty for doing so, in that the cost of getting the water to my house would have to be paid. Not to mention I would be committing a crime against humanity if not my neighbors if I was stupid enough to do just that. If I had but my own well, rather than the one I share with the community of El Paso, I'd be even more careful as to how much I used from it.

Water isn't rationed to the point you allude to, in how much I do or do not flush, yet.
While that is a subject worth discussing, it's not germain to the entire thread.

#4. Well that is pretty much on you. However politically incorrect you want to be, is too. Just do not expect society to follow you if they don't want to.

M.

Coming up with a list of grievances would not be hard at all. Thanks to Snowden I can make that list out right now. However lets make a quickie.

Lets start with say... the 14th Amendment.

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Lets look at section 1. (All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state.)

Do you see whats wrong here? In case you don't it says you are now first a United States citizen then a state citizen. Well holy monkey I'm a U.S. citizen so whats wrong with that? To answer that question. Before it was reversed. Say you was a citizen of Kentucky which was part of the United States. not anymore! your are now a U.S. citizen.

The 14th Amendment effectively took power from the states and gave it to the federal government. So much power that now a state has no right to protect it's own borders. Let me tell you what area this affected the most that people do not know. Yes everyone knows it affected roe and wade.... yes it effected immigration enforcement. However what they didn't know is that the states also effectively lost their right to control and raise militia's. Uh oh someone is going to say that is a good thing.... I wonder who that is? Well it has been abused and torn apart. The militia was effectively dismantled and the creation of the National Guard was born. So to be clear, lets list what was violated in this section of the Law alone. ( I smell Illuminati at work here) This also means that the federal government can pass any law and the states have to obey the law.

1. The 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.

2. The 10th Amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So just off the top of my head and not even mentioning anything Snowden has brought fourth I have 2 in 1.




95% ? Majority? Good lord who was your history teacher? The Constitution was written as much to protect the individual as it was the majority.

Where are you getting this anarchy thing from? Are you just assuming that anyone who does not agree with the government to a point where all possibilities and actions must be considered are automatically for Anarchy? you really need to consider the possibility that most are for a peaceful change. I do agree that some think a armed revolution is the only way. I myself think We are close to that point but not yet. There is a process called petitioning that few have even considered.



Do not even get me started on Wells. As recently as in the past 5 years "that I'm aware of when it happened" peoples wells was being condemned while being ordered to have city water hooked up to their house. oh great ya got me started!!

reply to post by darkstar111


Your really reaching if you are trying to say that the The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868. Has been abrogated, it's also been the rule of the land for over 144 years.

Also you are ignoring the fact that it protects the citizen born into this country from abuse.

This has not changed in over 144 years. Not to mention that it protects the constitutional rights of those citizens from abuses that the 'State' might place on them. If there was not an abuse happening a law to protect people would not needed to have been enacted. It's soundly grounded in the Constitution.

You are also missing the fact that there was 90+ years of change between the time that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, & Article 14; which it to say the United States had evolved from just being a collection of colonies or Thirteen States and had become a growing Nation.

-------------------
2nd Ammendment:

People are still allowed to legally own guns, no one has started confiscating them. Laws are enacted to protect the people common good. So the fact that there exists standards that qualify a person for legally owning a gun is not an infringement. If anything I could made a case for that if a criminal, having performed a violent crime against lawful citizens violating their right to 'Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' could clearly be taken that if the criminal has violated that part of the Constitution, they have nullified a goodly portion of their protections under the Constitution, EG the 2nd Amendment. As clearly they can not be trusted with a gun and to uphold the Constitution.

10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 14th Amendment effectively took power from the states and gave it to the federal government.

#1 So much power that now a state has no right to protect it's own borders. Let me tell you what area this affected the most that people do not know. Yes everyone knows it affected roe and wade.... yes it effected immigration enforcement. However what they didn't know is that the states also effectively lost their right to control and raise militia's.

#2 Uh oh someone is going to say that is a good thing.... I wonder who that is? Well it has been abused and torn apart. The militia was effectively dismantled and the creation of the National Guard was born.

#3 So to be clear, lets list what was violated in this section of the Law alone. ( I smell Illuminati at work here) This also means that the federal government can pass any law and the states have to obey the law.

#1 Again, you are jumping way out of context, and no it did not; what it did do was establish that citizens born to this country, in any state, are guaranteed protection under the Constitution.

#2- States have their National Guard. However they do also have their own State Police Forces (AKA State Patrols, Texas Rangers, and the like.) There is no Federal law to prevent them from creating and using a police force, funded by the State to protect their boarder or interests from crimes.

#2a There is also the fact that at the time, the Federal Government had created a standing Army and Navy, made up from people among all the states; of which would have created a duplication of efforts; not to mention a logistics nightmare if a war broke out and the combined forces were needed to work together.

#2b, States also can say 'No, that law will not fly here;' If the Governed (populace) of that State support it. A prime example of this is Colorado and the end to Marijuana Prohibition there. Thats where the Governed people come in, if the change of laws is not countered by the governed, and the governed tolerate or consent to that law, then the law is valid and must be up held. But then it is the governed as a whole and not the Individual or small group; when taking in comparison to the whole of the governed.

#3 - I await your list.

As for the 95% I was using it to illustrate a percentage that demonstrated a clear majority. Which is why every state is needed to Change and overturn Citizen's United. A clear majority of states, not just 52% or better. Eg A very high and complete body governed people enforcing the need for the change, and changing the law.

Maybe I could have phrased it better, but, every time I pointed that there was no legal recourse to use violence or create an insurrection or armed rebellion; I was doing so to present that the rule of law and thus the legal frame work was to be used and upheld. Elections, criminal / civil proceedings and public pressure; rather than an armed horde trying to collapse the government.

(I may be slower to respond today, chores & honey-do's.)
M.

Originally posted by AussieDingus
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.

I understand that, and of course I don't agree with how our government portrays itself in world image, you know that whole NWO world government idea. Here's my thing though, I an assume by your username you are Australian, and the only scrutiny the US government should receive on situations like this is from the US population itself. It's hypocritical for anyone of any other nation to do so because, well put simply, you do it to us.

Originally posted by AussieDingus
reply to post by KnowledgeSeeker81

 

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.

That scenario isn't remotely similar. A better one would be exposing secrets of your local police force to a rival local militia, with the hopes you stay safe. While in theory that should be okay, what if in turn that militia then uses the information given to overthrow said police force and implement there own rogue law. It is the innocent population of people of this hypothetical scenario that are now suffering.

Originally posted by AussieDingus
reply to post by KnowledgeSeeker81

 

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 !

Answer me this, I'm sure we can agree that any and every country the slightest bit in the modern spies on other countries at the governmental level, right? So the US, the so called land of fake freedom is the ONLY country you see this kind of whistleblower stuff from. Why is that? Oh yea, because you can do it like snowden is doing and feel little to no repercussions if your lucky and smart. Do something like that in Russia and you will find a new family member dead every day til you come back and face the music. So please don't accuse me of defending a corrupt system, an imperfect system in need of changes, sure, but I don't buy corrupt. When it's ruled in an American court of law that it is corrupt and illegal, I'll be on your side.

Originally posted by AussieDingus
reply to post by KnowledgeSeeker81

 

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 ?

Showing you I'm no fool or blind government follower, I pretty much agree here. To think these things don't happen is just ignorant, however, it is so tame here in America compared to the rest of the world that I can't help to buy into this whole "America, land of the free thing".

The biggest thing I asked myself looking into all of this snowden/NSA leak story are these few points, a) did i already know or have a strong feeling of all of this surveillance was occurring? Yes. b) have I in anyway ever been affected by this? No, I'm not a psychopath with terroristic intentions, nor are my friends/family. c) was it legal for the government to do this? As far as I've looked into it, yea it is, if not show me please the court case/ruling. d) is it possible what info snowden has could compromise US homeland security, and why is he in china and russia with this info? Yes, thats why I"m against snowden

Great interview with Julian Assange regarding Edward Snowden here.