Survey on Edward Snowden

[PratchettFan]

2) Is it acceptable for the NSA to spy on Americans to stop terrorism?

A) Yes, acceptable.
B) No, not acceptable.

2. Yes as long as they have probable cause that a US citizen(s) is part of or is plotting an attack and have secured a warrant for the surveillance.

Let's not equivocate. The program in question is blanket surveillance of all emails, phone calls, etc... There's no evidence that the people being spied on are plotting an attack. It's a 'fishing expedition'. We're talking about secret monitoring of our private communications to "keep an eye" on us. Is THAT acceptable?

Yes.

 

[boedicca]

Responses in bold, but I must note that some of the questions presuppose facts not in evidence.


1) Do you believe that former NSA employee Edward Snowden is a hero, a traitor, or something else?

A) Yes, he is a hero.
B) Yes, he is a traitor.
C) He is somewhere in between. (Please explain)
D) We don't have enough information to determine this right now.


2) Is it acceptable for the NSA to spy on Americans to stop terrorism?

A) Yes, acceptable.
B) No, not acceptable.



3) Is James Clapper, U.S. Intelligence Chief, one of the real villains in this issue?

A) Yes.
B) No.



4) Do you trust President Barack Obama and his administration to oversee the NSA's spying activities?

A) Yes.
B) No.
C) Oh hell no.



5) If you had a choice between more spying and less terrorism, or less spying but greater privacy, which would you choose?

A) More spying, less terrorism
B) Less spying, more privacy



6) Does our current government necessitate the existence of people like Edward Snowden?

A) Yes.
B) No.
C) Unsure.
D) Not enough info to make a proper judgement here. We don't know what he is yet - but we do need whistle blowers to be able to come forward without fear of reprisal.


7) Do you think it is fair that Edward Snowden, the man who told the truth, deserves to be treated like a bad man in spite of the fact that it is our very government who has been lying to us?

A) It's fair for him to be treated that way.
B) No, it's unfair.
C) We don't know if he told the truth.


8) Do you believe people should speak truth to power?

A) Yes.
B) No.
_______

 

[candycorn]

I've got a few short questions for you guys about the NSA leaker, Edward Snowden issue.



1) Do you believe that former NSA employee Edward Snowden is a hero, a traitor, or something else?

A) Yes, he is a hero.
B) Yes, he is a traitor.
C) He is somewhere in between. (Please explain)



2) Is it acceptable for the NSA to spy on Americans to stop terrorism?

A) Yes, acceptable.
B) No, not acceptable.



3) Is James Clapper, U.S. Intelligence Chief, one of the real villains in this issue?

A) Yes.
B) No.



4) Do you trust President Barack Obama and his administration to oversee the NSA's spying activities?

A) Yes.
B) No.
C) Oh hell no.



5) If you had a choice between more spying and less terrorism, or less spying but greater privacy, which would you choose?

A) More spying, less terrorism
B) Less spying, more privacy



6) Does our current government necessitate the existence of people like Edward Snowden?

A) Yes.
B) No.
C) Unsure.



7) Do you think it is fair that Edward Snowden, the man who told the truth, deserves to be treated like a bad man in spite of the fact that it is our very government who has been lying to us?

A) It's fair for him to be treated that way.
B) No, it's unfair.



8) Do you believe people should speak truth to power?

A) Yes.
B) No.

See answers in red.

 

[Contumacious]

No. It requires that someone levy war against the United States or to give aid and comfort to its enemies. Since we are not in a declared war, officially we have no current enemies to give aid and comfort to. Snowden, by definition, is not a traitor.

Well, my point precisely.

He swore to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC.

.

. They took a stand and accepted the consequences of their principles. Those who left the country just ran. I have no respect for them at all. I see no reason to veiw Snowden in any other light.

"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. "


George Smith Patton, Jr.
General - United States Army

.

.

 

[dblack]

For those of you answering "yes", it is ok for the NSA to monitor our private communications to stop terrorism, I have a couple of follow up questions:

Would that also extend that to our regular mail and personal documents? What about video surveillance of our private activities (perhaps via webcams and the like)? If not, why not? How are these different? How does this practice not grossly violate the fourth amendment?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

For those of you answering "yes", it is ok for the NSA to monitor our private communications to stop terrorism, I have a couple of follow up questions:

Would that also extend that to our regular mail and personal documents? What about video surveillance of our private activities (perhaps via webcams and the like)? If not, why not? How are these different? How does this practice not grossly violate the fourth amendment?

Sure. If you agre that the government should be able to blanket data mine all americans comms, you probably have no problem with being watched in other activities. Hell, I'd best most of these types wouldn't object to much to blanket property searches to check for questionable items or potential "terrorist" items.

I mean, what difference does it make? If you have nothing to hide then no problem, right?

 

[bendog]

Why would Wyden ask in a public hearing a question he already knew the answer to?

 

[Wake]

Why would Wyden ask in a public hearing a question he already knew the answer to?

Would you please explain what are you referring to?

 

[dblack]

For those of you answering "yes", it is ok for the NSA to monitor our private communications to stop terrorism, I have a couple of follow up questions:

Would that also extend that to our regular mail and personal documents? What about video surveillance of our private activities (perhaps via webcams and the like)? If not, why not? How are these different? How does this practice not grossly violate the fourth amendment?

Sure. If you agre that the government should be able to blanket data mine all americans comms, you probably have no problem with being watched in other activities. Hell, I'd best most of these types wouldn't object to much to blanket property searches to check for questionable items or potential "terrorist" items.

I mean, what difference does it make? If you have nothing to hide then no problem, right?

Yeah. I don't get it. Even if we discount what Snowden's documents claim, and just go with what that administration has acknowledged they're doing (just collecting 'metadata'), PRISM is the equivalent of your mailman keeping a log of the addresses of everyone who sends you mail, and every one you send mail to, and reporting your mail activities to the government once a month.

It gets even trickier when you stop to consider that much of the email we receive goes straight into our spam filters. You could be on some fundamentalist Muslim mailing list and not even realize it. No big deal, until some nut job in your town decides to set off a bomb, and they sweep up everybody in the area with 'ties' to extremist groups.

And since we've apparently decided that accused terrorists don't deserve due process rights, you get zip-tied and hauled off to a secret prison with a bag over your head. No phone call, no lawyer, no day in court. I guess maybe the fans of this policy are hoping their cheerleading for the police state on USMB will be enough to prove their loyalty and clear them. I wouldn't bet on it though.

 

[francoHFW]

He's a naive idiot who broke his oath. FIVE YEARS!!

Obama and Dems have done nothing but add constitutionality, congressional/ judicial oversight, hater dupes.

 

[francoHFW]

For those of you answering "yes", it is ok for the NSA to monitor our private communications to stop terrorism, I have a couple of follow up questions:

Would that also extend that to our regular mail and personal documents? What about video surveillance of our private activities (perhaps via webcams and the like)? If not, why not? How are these different? How does this practice not grossly violate the fourth amendment?

Sure. If you agre that the government should be able to blanket data mine all americans comms, you probably have no problem with being watched in other activities. Hell, I'd best most of these types wouldn't object to much to blanket property searches to check for questionable items or potential "terrorist" items.

I mean, what difference does it make? If you have nothing to hide then no problem, right?

Yeah. I don't get it. Even if we discount what Snowden's documents claim, and just go with what that administration has acknowledged they're doing (just collecting 'metadata'), PRISM is the equivalent of your mailman keeping a log of the addresses of everyone who sends you mail, and every one you send mail to, and reporting your mail activities to the government once a month.

It gets even trickier when you stop to consider that much of the email we receive goes straight into our spam filters. You could be on some fundamentalist Muslim mailing list and not even realize it. No big deal, until some nut job in your town decides to set off a bomb, and they sweep up everybody in the area with 'ties' to extremist groups.

And since we've apparently decided that accused terrorists don't deserve due process rights, you get zip-tied and hauled off to a secret prison with a bag over your head. No phone call, no lawyer, no day in court. I guess maybe the fans of this policy are hoping their cheerleading for the police state on USMB will be enough to prove their loyalty and clear them. I wouldn't bet on it though.

Under W and Darth Cheney, that was true. No longer.

 

[Wake]

He's a naive idiot who broke his oath. FIVE YEARS!!

Obama and Dems have done nothing but add constitutionality, congressional/ judicial oversight, hater dupes.

So instead of having consciousness about the acts Snowden illuminated, he's just a naive idiot who broke an oath.

Forgive me, but I wonder what your reaction would be if we replace the revelation of a surveillance nation with, say, a fact that American politicans were complicit in murdering over 100 citizens, and successfully covered it up. As an example. Would he still be a naive idiot who broke an oath?

 

[PratchettFan]

Well, my point precisely.

He swore to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC.

.

. They took a stand and accepted the consequences of their principles. Those who left the country just ran. I have no respect for them at all. I see no reason to veiw Snowden in any other light.

"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. "


George Smith Patton, Jr.
General - United States Army

.

.

You think Patton would respect a man who ran away from the fight? Man, did you not understand that quote.

 

[PratchettFan]

For those of you answering "yes", it is ok for the NSA to monitor our private communications to stop terrorism, I have a couple of follow up questions:

Would that also extend that to our regular mail and personal documents? What about video surveillance of our private activities (perhaps via webcams and the like)? If not, why not? How are these different? How does this practice not grossly violate the fourth amendment?

You think your regular mail is not monitored? You think your activities are not monitored via webcam? This is happening all of the time and I can't believe you are not aware of it.

Let us take the mail. Do actually believe there are not specific addresses that are flagged and if you send a letter to that address you don't pop up as someone to be observed? The fourth amendment protects you from unreasonable search and seizure, it does not protect you from being observed. So if you send that letter, you are going to be observed. If, as a result of that observation, it is determined you need to be searched then they will get a warrant. If they find something as a result of that, then what they find will be seized. And none of that is unreasonable. If it is determined to be unreasonable, then whatever evidence is found against you will be found inadmissible and you will get off.

The NSA was created in 1952 and it has been monitoring Americans from day one. If you did not already know that, then the problem is that you weren't paying attention. The scandal here is not that they have been doing this, it is that Americans have been living in a dream world.

BTW... right now in the banner at the top of this very screen is an ad for a company I have done business with in the past. They sell motorcycle gear. Isn't it a strange coincidence that I always seem to get those ads rather than from say feminine hygiene products? It couldn't possibly be because I am being monitored, can it?

 

[BlindBoo]

2) Is it acceptable for the NSA to spy on Americans to stop terrorism?

A) Yes, acceptable.
B) No, not acceptable.

2. Yes as long as they have probable cause that a US citizen(s) is part of or is plotting an attack and have secured a warrant for the surveillance.

Let's not equivocate. The program in question is blanket surveillance of all emails, phone calls, etc... There's no evidence that the people being spied on are plotting an attack. It's a 'fishing expedition'. We're talking about secret monitoring of our private communications to "keep an eye" on us. Is THAT acceptable?

That's data collection. To be (used or fished) when they have probable cause and a warrant. It's like having all those camera shots from Boston to look through to find who was where and when. To me that is acceptable. Using this information to protect us from terrorist threats, not using it against a parties political opponents.

Spying on someone specific is different, and I stand by my opinion.

 

[dblack]

For those of you answering "yes", it is ok for the NSA to monitor our private communications to stop terrorism, I have a couple of follow up questions:

Would that also extend that to our regular mail and personal documents? What about video surveillance of our private activities (perhaps via webcams and the like)? If not, why not? How are these different? How does this practice not grossly violate the fourth amendment?

You think your regular mail is not monitored? You think your activities are not monitored via webcam? This is happening all of the time and I can't believe you are not aware of it.

Let us take the mail. Do actually believe there are not specific addresses that are flagged and if you send a letter to that address you don't pop up as someone to be observed? The fourth amendment protects you from unreasonable search and seizure, it does not protect you from being observed. So if you send that letter, you are going to be observed. If, as a result of that observation, it is determined you need to be searched then they will get a warrant. If they find something as a result of that, then what they find will be seized. And none of that is unreasonable. If it is determined to be unreasonable, then whatever evidence is found against you will be found inadmissible and you will get off.

The NSA was created in 1952 and it has been monitoring Americans from day one. If you did not already know that, then the problem is that you weren't paying attention. The scandal here is not that they have been doing this, it is that Americans have been living in a dream world.

So, it sounds like your answer is 'yes' regarding the spying on your regular mail as well. What about the webcam stuff? Like in 1984. Would you be cool with cameras installed in our homes, watching us go about our daily activities? Where would you draw the line?

As to whether they've been doing this along, or whether we 'shoulda known' it's really irrelevant. My other question still remains, how does all this not violate the fourth amendment?

 

[dblack]

He's a naive idiot who broke his oath. FIVE YEARS!!

Obama and Dems have done nothing but add constitutionality, congressional/ judicial oversight, hater dupes.

I sycophant like you really has no business calling anyone a 'dupe'. Is your name 'Smithers' by any chance? Will you swallow pretty much anything your esteemed leaders feed you?

 

[dblack]

2. Yes as long as they have probable cause that a US citizen(s) is part of or is plotting an attack and have secured a warrant for the surveillance.

Let's not equivocate. The program in question is blanket surveillance of all emails, phone calls, etc... There's no evidence that the people being spied on are plotting an attack. It's a 'fishing expedition'. We're talking about secret monitoring of our private communications to "keep an eye" on us. Is THAT acceptable?

That's data collection. To be (used or fished) when they have probable cause and a warrant. It's like having all those camera shots from Boston to look through to find who was where and when. To me that is acceptable. Using this information to protect us from terrorist threats, not using it against a parties political opponents.

Spying on someone specific is different, and I stand by my opinion.

Spying on people at random is ok, but not someone specific? That sure seems backassward to me.

 

[Contumacious]

. They took a stand and accepted the consequences of their principles. Those who left the country just ran. I have no respect for them at all. I see no reason to veiw Snowden in any other light.

"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. "


George Smith Patton, Jr.
General - United States Army

.

.

You think Patton would respect a man who ran away from the fight? Man, did you not understand that quote.

What's your NATIVE language? I'll have it translated for ya'.

The point is DESTROYING the enemy WITHOUT getting destroyed in the process.

Does Obama face the enemy when launches a drone attack?

Are pilots running away from the fight when they drop their bombs and go back to their base?

Shirley, you jest.

.

 

[PratchettFan]

For those of you answering "yes", it is ok for the NSA to monitor our private communications to stop terrorism, I have a couple of follow up questions:

Would that also extend that to our regular mail and personal documents? What about video surveillance of our private activities (perhaps via webcams and the like)? If not, why not? How are these different? How does this practice not grossly violate the fourth amendment?

You think your regular mail is not monitored? You think your activities are not monitored via webcam? This is happening all of the time and I can't believe you are not aware of it.

Let us take the mail. Do actually believe there are not specific addresses that are flagged and if you send a letter to that address you don't pop up as someone to be observed? The fourth amendment protects you from unreasonable search and seizure, it does not protect you from being observed. So if you send that letter, you are going to be observed. If, as a result of that observation, it is determined you need to be searched then they will get a warrant. If they find something as a result of that, then what they find will be seized. And none of that is unreasonable. If it is determined to be unreasonable, then whatever evidence is found against you will be found inadmissible and you will get off.

The NSA was created in 1952 and it has been monitoring Americans from day one. If you did not already know that, then the problem is that you weren't paying attention. The scandal here is not that they have been doing this, it is that Americans have been living in a dream world.

So, it sounds like your answer is 'yes' regarding the spying on your regular mail as well. What about the webcam stuff? Like in 1984. Would you be cool with cameras installed in our homes, watching us go about our daily activities? Where would you draw the line?

As to whether they've been doing this along, or whether we 'shoulda known' it's really irrelevant. My other question still remains, how does all this not violate the fourth amendment?

I have responded to your question on the fourth. Read it again.

What about the webcam stuff. Do you think when you walk into Sears you are not on camera? There are cameras everywhere. Open your eyes.