Ecuador 'analysing' Snowden asylum request: FM

[wealth]

You are being sillier than I thought. You think the manhunt is being turned down? Just ask Bin Laden how that worked out for him.

i said tuned down and not turned down.

Will it help? Yes, both sides can compose themselves and relax a little. The Ecuador reaction has shown impact. The eyes are all on America and the UK.

Comparing Snowden with Osama is bit over the top. His handler told us that he died over ten years ago of natural death in a hospital. He was there.

House cleaning is advised.

Some lesser, almost funny issues are here ... it's a felony to fart in public after 6pm in Florida and so forth ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=g-uwbrqFN7M

[FDog]

What Snowden did was a good thing. Some bad practices were exposed. But his travel to China and Russia, 2 countries with some of the worst suppression of individual's rights, is not a good thing.

Would be nice if there were choices of fair places with a backbone but,

As it stands it is not easy to find a country that is not under the thumb of the US

Paid for one way or another with strings attached to "preferential" treatment & grants etc.

Lets face it Snowdens choices were very limited as is anyone's who dare point out

a wrongdoing if a branch of the US govt is the wrongdoer

Especially if one of the multitude of US

secret services are the ones doing the wrongful deeds

Even if he chose a lesser country that agreed with him morally

as a pivot point but that could not defend him he would probably

be a drone statistic by now

Being in Russia & China is his drone safe option.

I take a different approach. He broke a law. That's understood by all. Many countries back each other with regards to criminals. If it was a German that did this in their country, then ran to the US, they'd probably be sent back to Germany. Same with most European countries. Extradition treaties and all.

No matter what you think, the legal system in the US is quite fair. Sometimes too fair. Just look at OJ!

Again, what he did was a good thing, but it did break some laws. For that, he'll have to pay the price.

Snowden will probably suffer and extraordinary rendition at some time anyway. The US Supreme Court has said that someone being kidnapped from another country and brought back to the US to face federal charges does not mean the charges are dismissed because of the kidnapping.

Good old Supreme Court allowing an illegal kidnapping as a normal course of action.

CIA agents kidnapped a guy from Italy in an extraordinary rendition, not to send him to the US, but to some middle east country so he can be tortured. Italy had arrest warrants out for them but the US wouldn't hand them over. The Italian courts found them guilty in absentia, still no word from the US when it will hand them over.

But now it expects other countries to hand Snowden over?

By the way, the US should not, never, pressure countries not to grant asylum to any person. It is a person's right to request asylum anyway, free from interference from any country.

[Naam]

You are being sillier than I thought. You think the manhunt is being turned down? Just ask Bin Laden how that worked out for him.

i said tuned down and not turned down.

Will it help? Yes, both sides can compose themselves and relax a little. The Ecuador reaction has shown impact. The eyes are all on America and the UK.

Comparing Snowden with Osama is bit over the top. His handler told us that he died over ten years ago of natural death in a hospital. He was there.

House cleaning is advised.

Some lesser, almost funny issues are here ... it's a felony to fart in public after 6pm in Florida and so forth ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=g-uwbrqFN7M

Osama is well and alive. he runs a liquor shop in New Jersey

[sustento]

Your government knows all about all of these programs. Take the matter up with the political parties in your own back yard and the respective prime ministers of each of the two major parties in your own country. You can't vote in the United States for the obvious reason. Talk to someone who is directly accountable to you at the ballot box. In the meanwhile, try to stay on topic.

Your government, and if you're a Brit or in a commonwealth country it's not your sovereign government,

Oh please. Not that old chestnut again. Parliament in the UK is sovereign. Parliament is elected by the populace. HM the Queen is a symbolic head of state.

[F430murci]

Again, what he did was a good thing, but it did break some laws. For that, he'll have to pay the price.

I understand but,

I do necessarily agree he broke any laws by doing his patriotic duty

Yes he will pay as all patriots do. I just hope the tyrants also pay.

Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.

― Thomas Jefferson

Doing your patriotic duty is not ending up in China and Russia with 4 lop tops full of top secret NSA data compromising US security. That is simply twisted messed up logic. There is actually nothing logical or sensible about that thought process. This is about as in patriotic as one can get.

No reason to go into the how and why. Been articulated and is in any reputable mews source. Some in this thread keep saying the same stuff over and over and over again.

Thomas Jefferson and crew would have given him a good arse beating before his firing squad. Only a fool would sincerely believe our fore fathers would believe taking lap tops with NSA information to China and Russia is patriotic.

Edited June 28, 2013 by F430murci

[mania]

Some in this thread keeps saying the same stuff over and over and over again.

Yeah I have noticed & the one thing really lacking is the meat of the matter.

The rest is simple...

He had no choice to release the info to the American people locally, Done.

"Obama should send him a thank you note for delivering some of the transparency he promised

in his original run for office." -----Ron Paul

Edited June 28, 2013 by mania

[F430murci]

What Snowden did was a good thing. Some bad practices were exposed. But his travel to China and Russia, 2 countries with some of the worst suppression of individual's rights, is not a good thing.

Would be nice if there were choices of fair places with a backbone but,

As it stands it is not easy to find a country that is not under the thumb of the US

Paid for one way or another with strings attached to "preferential" treatment & grants etc.

Lets face it Snowdens choices were very limited as is anyone's who dare point out

a wrongdoing if a branch of the US govt is the wrongdoer

Especially if one of the multitude of US

secret services are the ones doing the wrongful deeds

Even if he chose a lesser country that agreed with him morally

as a pivot point but that could not defend him he would probably

be a drone statistic by now

Being in Russia & China is his drone safe option.

I take a different approach. He broke a law. That's understood by all. Many countries back each other with regards to criminals. If it was a German that did this in their country, then ran to the US, they'd probably be sent back to Germany. Same with most European countries. Extradition treaties and all.

No matter what you think, the legal system in the US is quite fair. Sometimes too fair. Just look at OJ!

Again, what he did was a good thing, but it did break some laws. For that, he'll have to pay the price.

Snowden will probably suffer and extraordinary rendition at some time anyway. The US Supreme Court has said that someone being kidnapped from another country and brought back to the US to face federal charges does not mean the charges are dismissed because of the kidnapping.

Good old Supreme Court allowing an illegal kidnapping as a normal course of action.

CIA agents kidnapped a guy from Italy in an extraordinary rendition, not to send him to the US, but to some middle east country so he can be tortured. Italy had arrest warrants out for them but the US wouldn't hand them over. The Italian courts found them guilty in absentia, still no word from the US when it will hand them over.

But now it expects other countries to hand Snowden over?

By the way, the US should not, never, pressure countries not to grant asylum to any person. It is a person's right to request asylum anyway, free from interference from any country.

Not when the person has 4 lap tops full of NSA data. Under those facts the US has a profound interest in getting him back as soon as possible. If dude left with no lop tops full of sensitive NSA data, then let him seek what ever he wants. Seriously, think this through before knee jerk bashing.

[F430murci]

Public opinion in Ecuador runs hot and cold on whether the country should extend political asylum to Snowden. While some admire their president for trying to stick it to the United States, others fear economic fallout if Snowden settles in Ecuador.

One Ecuadorean newspaper this week called the leaker a hot potato, while another labeled him a spy.

lite"]http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/28/19175108-no-one-wants-this-fight-ecuadoreans-divided-over-snowden-asylum?lite[/url]

Interesting about spy comment in that Russia media refers to him only as a spy.

Edited June 28, 2013 by F430murci

[F430murci]

These mundane questions interest me partly because the big privacy issues dont seem all that shocking. In more than 34 years of traveling regularly overseas, I have assumed that foreign intelligence services are picking my communications clean; in recent years, commercial Internet companies track most of us everywhere we go electronically. Privacy in the traditional sense doesnt exist.

It bothers me, too, that the programs Snowden leaked seem to have been lawful, enacted by Congress and subject to congressional and court review. Snowden looks these days more like an intelligence defector, seeking haven in a country hostile to the United States, than a whistleblower.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-fallout-from-snowdens-sharing-of-nsa-secrets/2013/06/26/19f78ae4-ddc2-11e2-948c-d644453cf169_story.html

[F430murci]

This is actually a great point:

Lets assume that (like me) you trust the governments discretion with personal information more than that of a commercial concern such as Facebook. But if the government can collect our secret information (even under a lawful procedure), this means that some disgruntled person within the government could decide to leak those secrets to damage an individual, company or nation.

Paradoxically, privacy advocates should have the greatest interest in the governments ability to protect secrets and keep tax and medical records, e-mail traffic and other records private. But the Snowden or WikiLeaks revelations suggest that this is a losing battle. We may trust the U.S. government in the abstract, but the evidence suggests we cant trust the malcontents and self-appointed do-gooders who may get security clearances.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-fallout-from-snowdens-sharing-of-nsa-secrets/2013/06/26/19f78ae4-ddc2-11e2-948c-d644453cf169_story.html

[sustento]

If you're interested in official misuse of data you ought to do a little googling into the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in the UK. It was passed into law allegedly to take account of new technology, the internet and encryption in the war on terrorism.

It finished up being officially used by local councils to check on people whose dogs were shitting on the pavement amongst other things. If you give the government power it will abuse it.

[F430murci]

If you're interested in official misuse of data you ought to do a little googling into the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in the UK. It was passed into law allegedly to take account of new technology, the internet and encryption in the war on terrorism.

It finished up being officially used by local councils to check on people whose dogs were shitting on the pavement amongst other things. If you give the government power it will abuse it.

Here is a quote about Britain along those lines:

Some of Snowdens most damaging revelations concern collection of data moving through Internet backbones. The Guardian revealed a program known as Tempora, run by the British equivalent of the NSA, that was said to be able to survey metadata traveling on 1,500 of the 1,600 high-capacity cables passing through the United Kingdom, and to be actively sharing this information with the NSA.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-fallout-from-snowdens-sharing-of-nsa-secrets/2013/06/26/19f78ae4-ddc2-11e2-948c-d644453cf169_story.html

[FDog]

Would someone enlighten me.

Congress approved the laws and a secret court was set up. Who checks on whether the secret court is actually following the law? I know it may seem a bit over the top to think that a court won't follow the law but I only say this because from what I heard......

The FBI and NSA requested warrants in relation to citizens living in the US. The secret court allowed those warrants. But isn't it illegal for the NSA to get such information about US citizens in the US?

I'm not sure but I don't think the NSA can do this. But if they are, under certain circumstances they may have to immediately stop. I say this because if they get information that is subject to legal privilege between counsel and client then they have to stop. But by then the horse has bolted and an employee of the NSA can use this information if he/she was so minded.

Who decides if they have to stop? Is it the employee, who can just decide to keep things because they may be juicy in years to come if the need arises?

[FDog]

By the way, has anyone actually confirmed he has 4 laptops full of secrets or is that just guessing at the moment.

I would think that if he has that sort of thing, and has the inclination of sharing it then it's a bit late now. But I hear that the Guardian reporter that he has been speaking to said that what he has is encrypted and if he is detained in the US that anything further he has will surface.

But I don't think anyone actually knows what he has for certain, do they?

[F430murci]

Would someone enlighten me.

Congress approved the laws and a secret court was set up. Who checks on whether the secret court is actually following the law? I know it may seem a bit over the top to think that a court won't follow the law but I only say this because from what I heard......

The FBI and NSA requested warrants in relation to citizens living in the US. The secret court allowed those warrants. But isn't it illegal for the NSA to get such information about US citizens in the US?

I'm not sure but I don't think the NSA can do this. But if they are, under certain circumstances they may have to immediately stop. I say this because if they get information that is subject to legal privilege between counsel and client then they have to stop. But by then the horse has bolted and an employee of the NSA can use this information if he/she was so minded.

Who decides if they have to stop? Is it the employee, who can just decide to keep things because they may be juicy in years to come if the need arises?

Not illegal. Circuit Courts and Supreme Court has authority over FISA or secret courts.

The term secret court is what is throwing you off. It is not per se secret. It is just not a matter of public record where you or I could perhaps just call and order a copy of the transcript or show up for a hearing.

I think judges generally try and do the right thing. I may not always agree, but in general they follow the bounds of the law,

Your beef is with Congress and so far no one on here has explained how any warrant issued in any situation was contrary to the law.

People keep saying illegal, but such statements are either ignorant of the law or ignorant of the facts resulting in the warrant.

[Ulysses G.]

But I don't think anyone actually knows what he has for certain, do they?

Only our wonderful, trustworthy allies China and Russia - so far.

[F430murci]

By the way, has anyone actually confirmed he has 4 laptops full of secrets or is that just guessing at the moment.

I would think that if he has that sort of thing, and has the inclination of sharing it then it's a bit late now. But I hear that the Guardian reporter that he has been speaking to said that what he has is encrypted and if he is detained in the US that anything further he has will surface.

But I don't think anyone actually knows what he has for certain, do they?

Yep, for sure it is late now. I think that is why Obama officially backed of yesterday. Damage has been done and sense of urgency present on Sunday has passed.

[FDog]

Would someone enlighten me.

Congress approved the laws and a secret court was set up. Who checks on whether the secret court is actually following the law? I know it may seem a bit over the top to think that a court won't follow the law but I only say this because from what I heard......

The FBI and NSA requested warrants in relation to citizens living in the US. The secret court allowed those warrants. But isn't it illegal for the NSA to get such information about US citizens in the US?

I'm not sure but I don't think the NSA can do this. But if they are, under certain circumstances they may have to immediately stop. I say this because if they get information that is subject to legal privilege between counsel and client then they have to stop. But by then the horse has bolted and an employee of the NSA can use this information if he/she was so minded.

Who decides if they have to stop? Is it the employee, who can just decide to keep things because they may be juicy in years to come if the need arises?

Not illegal. Circuit Courts and Supreme Court has authority over FISA or secret courts.

The term secret court is what is throwing you off. It is not per se secret. It is just not a matter of public record where you or I could perhaps just call and order a copy of the transcript or show up for a hearing.

I think judges generally try and do the right thing. I may not always agree, but in general they follow the bounds of the law,

Your beef is with Congress and so far no one on here has explained how any warrant issued in any situation was contrary to the law.

People keep saying illegal, but such statements are either ignorant of the law or ignorant of the facts resulting in the warrant.

So, in short, the NSA is legally allowed to gather information on US citizens in the US.

[F430murci]

The father of NSA leaker Edward Snowden has told the Justice Department that his son will return home under certain conditions, including no detention before trial and no gag order, NBC News reports.

Snowden's father also said he was concerned about some of the people who have surrounded his son, including WikiLeaks, since he has been on the run.

"I don't want to put him in peril, but I am concerned about those who surround him," he says. "I think WikiLeaks, if you've looked at past history, you know, their focus isn't necessarily the Constitution of the United States. It's simply to release as much information as possible."

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2471273

[JDGRUEN]

What really annoyed me as a non-American about the whole PRISM thing was the assumption by a lot of your countrymen that it was OK for the US to spy on us but not on you.

Are you living in fantasyland? The spy agencies of many countries have been intercepting personal communications of foreigners including US nationals for decades. Would you be shocked to know that the Australian government is spending approx. $160million to construct additional electronic surveillance facilities outside Canberra to cope with the inflow of information from the USA? How about the Canadian government funding a specific agency that includes in its mandate "spying" on US nationals? Why would a small country like Canada have a published budget of $350 million and 1800 employees for its electronic spy agency?

The Government of Canada has defined foreign intelligence in the following terms:

Foreign intelligence refers to intelligence or information concerning the capabilities, intentions or activities of foreign states, corporations, or persons. It may include information of a political, economic, military, scientific, or social nature, and can produce information with security implications

Canada's electronic spy agency is called the CSE. in the United Kingdom, it is called the Government Communications Headquarters; in Australia, it is called the Defence Signals Directorate; and in New Zealand, it is called the Government Communications Security Bureau.

ALL of these agencies can and do intercept the personal communications of US citizens. As such, I wouldn't single out the US government for intercepting other countries communications.

Did you know that Ecuador also spies on its neighbours?

Welcome to reality.

Well, there are some things we can do. Right now I'm on the West Coast of the US. But my IP address says I'm in Skipton, UK. I'm spoofing my mac address.

I have a few business associates that I talk to via vpn. My ordinary emails etc. will just have to go as what they are, but still appearing to come from the UK with spoofed IP address and a spoofed email address. My emails could be figured out but I'll make them work a bit for it.

So you think they are really after you? For what?

My guess is that all this huge amount of data is of no interest to big brother. He could access it at some time, but unless you are planning some terrorist activity, you probably are of no consequence or interest to anybody.

The fact that the NSA is even looking at individual citizens's mail and phone contacts WITHOUT probable cause and WITHOUT a warrant is the Problem ... It is unconstitutional to do that ... this is the crux of the matter...

Edited June 28, 2013 by JDGRUEN

[JDGRUEN]

The regulations governing it were passed by congress. It is legitimate. If you don't like it then have the Act repealed.

I am afraid we live in a world where finding out about people is going to be very, very easy.

The Patriot Act requires warrants issued by a court for surveillance of phone contacts and emails -- this is not being done. Information is being collected on a massive basis and sifted through invading the privacy of millions. This opens up the temptation of spying on political opposition, government officials, bankers, corporate executives, etc. and further temptation to misuse that information - even blackmail ... not to mention spying on everyday citizens who expect by protection of our constitution NOT TO BE SPIED upon

[JDGRUEN]

Would someone enlighten me.

Congress approved the laws and a secret court was set up. Who checks on whether the secret court is actually following the law? I know it may seem a bit over the top to think that a court won't follow the law but I only say this because from what I heard......

The FBI and NSA requested warrants in relation to citizens living in the US. The secret court allowed those warrants. But isn't it illegal for the NSA to get such information about US citizens in the US?

I'm not sure but I don't think the NSA can do this. But if they are, under certain circumstances they may have to immediately stop. I say this because if they get information that is subject to legal privilege between counsel and client then they have to stop. But by then the horse has bolted and an employee of the NSA can use this information if he/she was so minded.

Who decides if they have to stop? Is it the employee, who can just decide to keep things because they may be juicy in years to come if the need arises?

Not illegal. Circuit Courts and Supreme Court has authority over FISA or secret courts.

The term secret court is what is throwing you off. It is not per se secret. It is just not a matter of public record where you or I could perhaps just call and order a copy of the transcript or show up for a hearing.

I think judges generally try and do the right thing. I may not always agree, but in general they follow the bounds of the law,

Your beef is with Congress and so far no one on here has explained how any warrant issued in any situation was contrary to the law.

People keep saying illegal, but such statements are either ignorant of the law or ignorant of the facts resulting in the warrant.

So, in short, the NSA is legally allowed to gather information on US citizens in the US.

Getting a FISA warrant to place surveillance taps is being bypassed and ignored ... and the surveillance has become wholesale scooping up of millions of phone contacts - who is calling who ... all done without warrants ....

Edited June 28, 2013 by JDGRUEN

[F430murci]

Are you living in fantasyland? The spy agencies of many countries have been intercepting personal communications of foreigners including US nationals for decades. Would you be shocked to know that the Australian government is spending approx. $160million to construct additional electronic surveillance facilities outside Canberra to cope with the inflow of information from the USA? How about the Canadian government funding a specific agency that includes in its mandate "spying" on US nationals? Why would a small country like Canada have a published budget of $350 million and 1800 employees for its electronic spy agency?

The Government of Canada has defined foreign intelligence in the following terms:

Foreign intelligence refers to intelligence or information concerning the capabilities, intentions or activities of foreign states, corporations, or persons. It may include information of a political, economic, military, scientific, or social nature, and can produce information with security implications

Canada's electronic spy agency is called the CSE. in the United Kingdom, it is called the Government Communications Headquarters; in Australia, it is called the Defence Signals Directorate; and in New Zealand, it is called the Government Communications Security Bureau.

ALL of these agencies can and do intercept the personal communications of US citizens. As such, I wouldn't single out the US government for intercepting other countries communications.

Did you know that Ecuador also spies on its neighbours?

Welcome to reality.

Well, there are some things we can do. Right now I'm on the West Coast of the US. But my IP address says I'm in Skipton, UK. I'm spoofing my mac address.

I have a few business associates that I talk to via vpn. My ordinary emails etc. will just have to go as what they are, but still appearing to come from the UK with spoofed IP address and a spoofed email address. My emails could be figured out but I'll make them work a bit for it.

So you think they are really after you? For what?

My guess is that all this huge amount of data is of no interest to big brother. He could access it at some time, but unless you are planning some terrorist activity, you probably are of no consequence or interest to anybody.

The fact that the NSA is even looking at individual citizens's mail and phone contacts WITHOUT probable cause and WITHOUT a warrant is the Problem ... It is unconstitutional to do that ... this is the crux of the matter...

Great. If its unconstitutional, cite us a court ruling on point both factually and legally. If no case, then it is nothing more than a personal disagreement.

I am cool with the personal disagreement. I personally disagree. Personal agreement, however, is different than illegal or not legal.

I am afraid you are about 10 years too late. I have been complaining about erosion of the 4th since 2003. Now you come along 10 years later and complain when the only real shot at keeping the 4th in tact was putting a different President in office in 2004.

Now we have laws and a conservative Supreme Court holding such laws are Constitutional.

With no Roberts or Alito on Court (05 and 06) and two justices with liberal views of the 4th in there place, we likely would not being having this discussion. These are Bush gifts that keep on giving so be prepared for much more erosion of the 4th.

Edited June 28, 2013 by F430murci

[wealth]

But I don't think anyone actually knows what he has for certain, do they?

Only our wonderful, trustworthy allies China and Russia - so far.

you must be "rocky fella" stooge to know that they are allies. indeed they (all the rocky fellas) set it up and having a good laugh now. The Mao project was called as the great achievement by David Rockefeller which killed over 70 million people in peace times.

[wealth]

Father of Snowden asks his son to return and not to reveal more. - probably pressed to do so.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/17/exclusive-father-edward-snowden-urges-son-to-stop-leaking-come-home/ - not all of the interview is shown in the 2 weeks old article. We will see that later.

http://www.today.com/news/edward-snowdens-father-my-son-not-traitor-6C10480514

US army censors "The Guardian". - signs of a totalitarian regime

http://www.montereyherald.com/local/ci_23554739/restricted-web-access-guardian-is-army-wide-officials

Obama's former favorite General James Cartwright (former Stuxnet project leader) under investigation for spying.

Snowden's laywer is in contact with Holder to negotiate the conditions for a return and to have Edward decide where he wants to be at court.

Edited June 28, 2013 by wealth

[wealth]

Alternative media is rising over Snowden's revelation

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/439668500/liberty-is-rising-truth-in-media-project-0

[lannarebirth]

The regulations governing it were passed by congress. It is legitimate. If you don't like it then have the Act repealed.

I am afraid we live in a world where finding out about people is going to be very, very easy.

The Patriot Act requires warrants issued by a court for surveillance of phone contacts and emails -- this is not being done. Information is being collected on a massive basis and sifted through invading the privacy of millions. This opens up the temptation of spying on political opposition, government officials, bankers, corporate executives, etc. and further temptation to misuse that information - even blackmail ... not to mention spying on everyday citizens who expect by protection of our constitution NOT TO BE SPIED upon

The regulations in the Patriot Act that pertain to seizure of information without a warrant are unconstitutional. The people who wrote the Patriot Act knew that. Even the legislators and president that voted on yet never read the Patriot Act knew that. The legislation was a kneejerk reaction by a country to an assymetric enemy force. At the time no one knew if we would start getting 9/11 type events every month so all the safeguards went out the window in exchange for a heightened level of security.

Knowing that the provisions contained in the Patriot Act were unconstitutional many legislators, who voted for it, but still disliked it, INSISTED that the worst provisions of the legislation would sunset automatically in a few years. Instead of allowing them to sunset what THIS administartion has done is renewd those provisions and introduced NEW more invasive legislation to curtail citizens personal liberties. It is disingenuous to say that it is within the law, it is not. Even the people who wrote it know it is not. That's why all conversations are couched in terms of "starting a dialogue to find the right balance between what freedoms we will give up in exchange for security". No freedoms at all need be given up. It's the devil's sales pitch.

You'll Never Know if the NSA Is Breaking the Law — or Keeping You Safe

http://news.yahoo.com/youll-never-know-nsa-breaking-law-keeping-safe-131042476.html

Former Stasi Officer: The NSA Domestic Surveillance Program Would Have Been 'A Dream Come True' For East Germany

http://www.businessinsider.com/stasi-talks-about-nsa-surveillance-state-2013-6

Edited June 28, 2013 by lannarebirth

[lannarebirth]

So you think they are really after you? For what?

My guess is that all this huge amount of data is of no interest to big brother. He could access it at some time, but unless you are planning some terrorist activity, you probably are of no consequence or interest to anybody.

The fact that the NSA is even looking at individual citizens's mail and phone contacts WITHOUT probable cause and WITHOUT a warrant is the Problem ... It is unconstitutional to do that ... this is the crux of the matter...

Great. If its unconstitutional, cite us a court ruling on point both factually and legally. If no case, then it is nothing more than a personal disagreement.

I am cool with the personal disagreement. I personally disagree. Personal agreement, however, is different than illegal or not legal.

I am afraid you are about 10 years too late. I have been complaining about erosion of the 4th since 2003. Now you come along 10 years later and complain when the only real shot at keeping the 4th in tact was putting a different President in office in 2004.

Now we have laws and a conservative Supreme Court holding such laws are Constitutional.

With no Roberts or Alito on Court (05 and 06) and two justices with liberal views of the 4th in there place, we likely would not being having this discussion. These are Bush gifts that keep on giving so be prepared for much more erosion of the 4th.

No one needs to supply a court case that it is unconstitutional. it is common law. If you don't accept that, then you need to supply court cases showing it has been done away with.

Edited June 28, 2013 by lannarebirth

[lannarebirth]

Would someone enlighten me.

Congress approved the laws and a secret court was set up. Who checks on whether the secret court is actually following the law? I know it may seem a bit over the top to think that a court won't follow the law but I only say this because from what I heard......

The FBI and NSA requested warrants in relation to citizens living in the US. The secret court allowed those warrants. But isn't it illegal for the NSA to get such information about US citizens in the US?

I'm not sure but I don't think the NSA can do this. But if they are, under certain circumstances they may have to immediately stop. I say this because if they get information that is subject to legal privilege between counsel and client then they have to stop. But by then the horse has bolted and an employee of the NSA can use this information if he/she was so minded.

Who decides if they have to stop? Is it the employee, who can just decide to keep things because they may be juicy in years to come if the need arises?

Not illegal. Circuit Courts and Supreme Court has authority over FISA or secret courts.

The term secret court is what is throwing you off. It is not per se secret. It is just not a matter of public record where you or I could perhaps just call and order a copy of the transcript or show up for a hearing.

I think judges generally try and do the right thing. I may not always agree, but in general they follow the bounds of the law,

Your beef is with Congress and so far no one on here has explained how any warrant issued in any situation was contrary to the law.

People keep saying illegal, but such statements are either ignorant of the law or ignorant of the facts resulting in the warrant.

I'll put you down as a "meh" .

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&ref=opinion&pagewanted=all&

[JDGRUEN]

"This Bush did it" harangue won't cut it. What a joke.

Does the NSA operate independently of the obama Administration? The NSA just does what it wants without regard to the President - Presiden obama?

obama and his operatives called Czars - plus the standard Administrative officers have had ample time to direct, control and rein in the NSA and to make sure the FISA courts actually function to protect the Constitution. Bottom line if the NSA has been overreaching the law - operating at full bore trampling over people's rights as Snowden alleges - then OBAMA is responsible ...

OBAMA has been the PRESIDENT since January 2009 - Bush left office the same day... Who is in charge of the Administration if it is not obama? Bush had no authority to direct the NSA after January 2009 what are you talking about?

Has the NSA been on AUTOPILOT since obama took office?

In my opinion obama and his minions got a full briefing of what NSA could collect if turned loose and they did just that.... The NSA has been under the direction of obama for 4.5 years - when the hell does obama take responsibility for his Administration anyway?

obama has allowed or pushed the NSA to make collect data without regard to the Constitution - either way obama has failed. obama either broke the law or he failed to do his job.

And that is what Snowden reported - that the NSA was out of control - willy nilly collecting data without regard to the Constitution... That is what this whole stick is about ...

Any time in the last 4.5 years obama could have issued Executive orders - even secret ones ordering the NSA and the FISA courts to strictly observe the Constitution and Bill of Rights - BUT HE DIDN'T.

obama is responsible for what the NSA has been doing for 4.5 years. Bush has not been directing the NSA officials for 4.5 years... Congress has not been directing the NSA officials for the last 4.5 years ....

OBAMA was supposed to have been directing the NSA officials for 4.5 years.... Was he or was he not ?

Please stop with the Bush did it - congress did it - cowardly excuse making spin spin spin - it is fast becoming a sad joke.

Read what Snowden alleged .... Dispute his points ...