Treason or Whistle Blower?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We just saw the IRS whistle blowers do it the right way. The guy could have had an audience with Rand Pauls' staff in about 5 seconds. Now he is going to go to prison. Idiot.

And Rand Paul could not have done anything about it had that been Snowden's course of action.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No, its not. The patriot act does not legalize this type of data gathering.

Yes it does, that isn't in question. It shouldn't, but it most certainly does.

I really don't think it does, Seawytch.

A warrant requires probable cause that a crime has been committed.

No cause, no warrant...no warrant, no information.

Ergo, illegal.

Holder knows this...another example of the Obama administration attempting to hide the truth...

In the midst of revelations that the government has conducted extensive top-secret surveillance operations to collect domestic phone records and internet communications, the Justice Department was due to file a court motion Friday in its effort to keep secret an 86-page court opinion that determined that the government had violated the spirit of federal surveillance laws and engaged in unconstitutional spying.

Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance | Mother Jones


​

I believe your wrong, no mention of a committed crime is noted in the definition of a Search Warrant.

"search warrant

"a written order by a judge which permits a law enforcement officer to search a specific place (eg. 112 Magnolia Avenue, Apartment 3, or a 1991 Pontiac, Texas license number 123ABC) and identifies the persons (if known) and any articles intended to be seized (often specified by type, such as "weapons," "drugs and drug paraphernalia," "evidence of bodily harm"). Such a search warrant can only be issued upon a sworn written statement of a law enforcement officer (including a prosecutor). The 4th Amendment to the Constitution specifies: "…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." The 14th Amendment applies the rule to the states. Evidence unconstitutionally seized cannot be used in court, nor can evidence traced through such illegal evidence."

Of course the wording of the affidavit must convince the judge that such a request is not a 'fishing expedition' so the request would likely include data collect by an algorithm. It is not posssible for the NSA or anyone to listen to every phone call/e-mail made in a day, and as I understand how the process works 99.9 percent of the information is dumped after 72 hours. It seems the checks for abuse exist and in balance this data collection keeps us safer.

I do understand why some of you are so upset, since much of what is posted here by 'conservatives' is biased against our government and some is so vile, so hate full that it might be them on the radar of LE. One can make a point and speak freely without being so hysterical and over the top.

 

[Bill Angel]

The classified information that Snowden revealed was the extent of data collection that the government is doing to the entire American people. The "enemies" Snowden gave aid and comfort to, are the American people. The reason this is classified information is because the government never wanted the people to know what was being done to them. They might object to having such massive data collection by a government driven insane by paranoia. If the public knew, they might not want their money spent on something like Dark Star. Edward Snowden told, he exposed not only the kind of spying the government is doing, but what it intends to do with programs like Dark Star.

Behold the NSA?s Dark Star: the Utah Data Center - The Daily Beast

Down State News - Behold the NSA’s Dark Star: the Utah Data Center

It’s the ultimate machine of what’s become our Paranoid State. Clive Irving on the Orwellian mass-surveillance data center rising in the Utah desert.

There’s no official explanation of the Utah Data Center’s real mission, except that it’s the largest of a network of data farms including sites in Colorado, Georgia, and Maryland. But it’s obviously been built to vastly increase the agency’s capacity to suck in, digest, analyze, and store whatever the intelligence community decides to collect.

NSA and Google seem to be pursuing similar objectives. NSA is just better at it.
What Google and NSA Snoops Have in Common - Leo Mirani - The Atlantic

"BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU"

 

[Wry Catcher]

We just saw the IRS whistle blowers do it the right way. The guy could have had an audience with Rand Pauls' staff in about 5 seconds. Now he is going to go to prison. Idiot.

And Rand Paul could not have done anything about it had that been Snowden's course of action.

Sure he could have. He could stand before the American People and AQ, telling the world what the NSA was doing. But Rand Paul is all talk, I'll give Snowden his due in that respect even as I believe he ought to go to prison.

 

[asterism]

IF HE HAD DONE IT WHILE BUSH WAS FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERROR, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED TREASONOUS.

The Bush administration ruthlessly intimidated anybody who criticized the way they conducted the war on terror, including people who tried to bring their activities to light. They accused all political opposition as endangering the troops. How do you think they were able to pass the Patriot Act in the first place? They used color-coded terror alerts on every channel; they kept Americans in a constant state of fear and said that Washington was the only solution to that fear; they made sure that every news agency lead every broadcast with the war on terrorism; they wrapped themselves in the flag every time anyone tried to bring their activities to light. It's the oldest political trick in the book: they used fear and patriotism to concentrate money and power in the state apparatus. That's what Republicans do.

They used national security like the old Soviet Union, to build the largest surveillance state that history has ever seen. And now, as Ron Paul said, we're stuck with it.

As for whistleblowers, I don't know, maybe it's a good thing that people undersrand the surveillance bureaucracy that Bush put in place. For those of you who say, "but Obama has continued it" . . . well, you don't understand how government agencies work. Consider this:

FDR's Liberal New Deal government was installed over 50 years ago - and all Republican administrations have tried to kill it. However,it is only grown bigger, even under Republican rule. Why? Because once you put a government agency in place, it only grows bigger.

Meaning: the Bush surveillance sate will only continue to grow because government agencies are the most self-perpetuating things that man has created. Thanks George!

Obama expanded NSA cell phone collection and you blame Bush?

That's just too funny.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We just saw the IRS whistle blowers do it the right way. The guy could have had an audience with Rand Pauls' staff in about 5 seconds. Now he is going to go to prison. Idiot.

And Rand Paul could not have done anything about it had that been Snowden's course of action.

Sure he could have. He could stand before the American People and AQ, telling the world what the NSA was doing. But Rand Paul is all talk, I'll give Snowden his due in that respect even as I believe he ought to go to prison.

Just like Senators Wyden and Udall did?

Regardless, let's assume you're right, what difference would it make? Let's assume Rand Paul gets the information from Snowden and goes public, which his Senate colleagues were not allowed to do, what's the difference from Snowden going public himself?

 

[Katzndogz]

No one working through channels would have been able to do anything. We would never have known about PRISM, or the NSA's secret operation against Americans called Boundless Informant.

 

[asterism]

Bullshit. He had other recourse as has been explained over and over on the news today. The reason he has not been "immediately arrested" is because he went to China. That and his salary with a defense contractor is suspect - how many "regualar guys" with a GED earn $200,000 per year?

If you believe that, you are incredibly naive.

I have some experience in this area.

This was IMO the ONLY way this information was going to have any effect on government operations...by having it so widely publicly disseminated that it could not possibly be quarantined.

And here is the proof, Brother...

From the same article about Holder fighting to have the courts opinion kept secret...

This important case—all the more relevant in the wake of this week's disclosures—was triggered after Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Senate intelligence committee, started crying foul in 2011 about US government snooping. As a member of the intelligence committee, he had learned about domestic surveillance activity affecting American citizens that he believed was improper.



He and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), another intelligence committee member, raised only vague warnings about this data collection, because they could not reveal the details of the classified program that concerned them.



But in July 2012, Wyden was able to get the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassify two statements that he wanted to issue publicly. They were:

* On at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.


* I believe that the government's implementation of Section 702 of FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law, and on at least one occasion the FISA Court has reached this same conclusion.
​

For those who follow the secret and often complex world of high-tech government spying, this was an aha moment.

Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance | Mother Jones

​

So here you go...from a nice left leaning site.

These two Democrat congressmen have been working on this for TWO YEARS...and the administration has been fighting them tooth and nail.

AND WINNING!

Two congressmen couldn't get anything accomplished in two years, what was Snowden going to do within the system to bring this information to light???

The power of the government in this circumstance is all but insurmountable.

A whistlblower's job is to sound the alarm on activities that breach the public trust. Someone successfully got Congressmen involved so the whistle was already blown. There was no need to disclose this classified information to the press, that won't stop the activity if it's already gotten to Congress. If he indeed followed this protocol (doubtful given his work history) then his recourse was to go to more members of Congress, the NSA Ombudsman, the GAO, and the IG of the DOJ. There is even an independent group of former NSA operators that have back-channel access to people that can help in situations like this. If those people cannot get to the bottom of transgressions and enact changes in procedures they would be more than happy to resort to leaking things like this to the press.

This rogue disclosre has done nothing to alleviate the problem and I suspect it has now hampered proper oversight. He does not have the authority to decide if information should be released and he agreed to that when he signed his pledge of secrecy.

As much as I'm enjoying all the hoopla by the Obama fluffers, everyone knows that they raised holy hell merely for legally tracking financial transactions. Now they see that their side is even more effective at presiding over a police state. That doesn't change the principle by which intelligence operations are conducted, and that relies on not making these operations public.

 

[asterism]

And Rand Paul could not have done anything about it had that been Snowden's course of action.

Sure he could have. He could stand before the American People and AQ, telling the world what the NSA was doing. But Rand Paul is all talk, I'll give Snowden his due in that respect even as I believe he ought to go to prison.

Just like Senators Wyden and Udall did?

Regardless, let's assume you're right, what difference would it make? Let's assume Rand Paul gets the information from Snowden and goes public, which his Senate colleagues were not allowed to do, what's the difference from Snowden going public himself?

For starters, saying that nothing was being done is false. These things take time. Do you think that PRISM has been shut down? No. If anything, the operation will continue for longer while the investigation and grandstanding are stretched out for maximum political gain.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And Rand Paul could not have done anything about it had that been Snowden's course of action.

Sure he could have. He could stand before the American People and AQ, telling the world what the NSA was doing. But Rand Paul is all talk, I'll give Snowden his due in that respect even as I believe he ought to go to prison.

Just like Senators Wyden and Udall did?

Regardless, let's assume you're right, what difference would it make? Let's assume Rand Paul gets the information from Snowden and goes public, which his Senate colleagues were not allowed to do, what's the difference from Snowden going public himself?

Some people step up for their beliefs, others simply talk and talk and talk.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

IF HE HAD DONE IT WHILE BUSH WAS FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERROR, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED TREASONOUS.

The Bush administration ruthlessly intimidated anybody who criticized the way they conducted the war on terror, including people who tried to bring their activities to light. They accused all political opposition as endangering the troops. How do you think they were able to pass the Patriot Act in the first place? They used color-coded terror alerts on every channel; they kept Americans in a constant state of fear and said that Washington was the only solution to that fear; they made sure that every news agency lead every broadcast with the war on terrorism; they wrapped themselves in the flag every time anyone tried to bring their activities to light. It's the oldest political trick in the book: they used fear and patriotism to concentrate money and power in the state apparatus. That's what Republicans do.

They used national security like the old Soviet Union, to build the largest surveillance state that history has ever seen. And now, as Ron Paul said, we're stuck with it.

As for whistleblowers, I don't know, maybe it's a good thing that people undersrand the surveillance bureaucracy that Bush put in place. For those of you who say, "but Obama has continued it" . . . well, you don't understand how government agencies work. Consider this:

FDR's Liberal New Deal government was installed over 50 years ago - and all Republican administrations have tried to kill it. However,it is only grown bigger, even under Republican rule. Why? Because once you put a government agency in place, it only grows bigger.

Meaning: the Bush surveillance sate will only continue to grow because government agencies are the most self-perpetuating things that man has created. Thanks George!

You've contradicted your own argument. I see Rs and Ds going along with this spy program, through their vote and their silence on the recent news of the expanding spy program. Wyden, Udall, and Paul are the only ones that I know of who are pushing back.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sure he could have. He could stand before the American People and AQ, telling the world what the NSA was doing. But Rand Paul is all talk, I'll give Snowden his due in that respect even as I believe he ought to go to prison.

Just like Senators Wyden and Udall did?

Regardless, let's assume you're right, what difference would it make? Let's assume Rand Paul gets the information from Snowden and goes public, which his Senate colleagues were not allowed to do, what's the difference from Snowden going public himself?

For starters, saying that nothing was being done is false. These things take time. Do you think that PRISM has been shut down? No. If anything, the operation will continue for longer while the investigation and grandstanding are stretched out for maximum political gain.

For starters, I didn't say that "nothing was being done." Senators Wyden and Udall made public statements, vague though they were, that the American people would be shocked to learn the scope of the administration's spying capabilities. I assume they were working behind the scenes to change it, and that's not nothing.

Regardless, PRISM wouldn't have been shut down, and probably still won't be. This is news for the moment, but it'll blow over eventually and business as usual will resume. But now we know, and it's possible that some people will realize just what their government has become.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No one working through channels would have been able to do anything. We would never have known about PRISM, or the NSA's secret operation against Americans called Boundless Informant.

Nor would those building pressure cooker's and planning the next blast. Then you will blame Obama and the Democrats for not keeping us safe. Remember the "chatter" which existed before 9-11, what if Prism had been in effect in August of 2001?

 

[bendog]

Perhaps we should waterboard him to make sure he's guilty.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sure he could have. He could stand before the American People and AQ, telling the world what the NSA was doing. But Rand Paul is all talk, I'll give Snowden his due in that respect even as I believe he ought to go to prison.

Just like Senators Wyden and Udall did?

Regardless, let's assume you're right, what difference would it make? Let's assume Rand Paul gets the information from Snowden and goes public, which his Senate colleagues were not allowed to do, what's the difference from Snowden going public himself?

Some people step up for their beliefs, others simply talk and talk and talk.

Ok, that has nothing to do with my post. Let's try again.

-- What could Senator Rand Paul, or any Senator really, have done differently, had Snowden gone to him rather than the Guardian, than Senators Wyden and Udall who were not permitted to discuss the program publicly?

-- What difference would it have made had it been Senator Rand Paul putting this information out, after having hypothetically received it from Edward Snowden, rather than Snowden himself?

 

[asterism]

Just like Senators Wyden and Udall did?

Regardless, let's assume you're right, what difference would it make? Let's assume Rand Paul gets the information from Snowden and goes public, which his Senate colleagues were not allowed to do, what's the difference from Snowden going public himself?

For starters, saying that nothing was being done is false. These things take time. Do you think that PRISM has been shut down? No. If anything, the operation will continue for longer while the investigation and grandstanding are stretched out for maximum political gain.

For starters, I didn't say that "nothing was being done." Senators Wyden and Udall made public statements, vague though they were, that the American people would be shocked to learn the scope of the administration's spying capabilities. I assume they were working behind the scenes to change it, and that's not nothing.

Regardless, PRISM wouldn't have been shut down, and probably still won't be. This is news for the moment, but it'll blow over eventually and business as usual will resume. But now we know, and it's possible that some people will realize just what their government has become.

Was that ever a question before?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No one working through channels would have been able to do anything. We would never have known about PRISM, or the NSA's secret operation against Americans called Boundless Informant.

Nor would those building pressure cooker's and planning the next blast. Then you will blame Obama and the Democrats for not keeping us safe. Remember the "chatter" which existed before 9-11, what if Prism had been in effect in August of 2001?

How safe did this program keep us from the first set of pressure cookers?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

For starters, saying that nothing was being done is false. These things take time. Do you think that PRISM has been shut down? No. If anything, the operation will continue for longer while the investigation and grandstanding are stretched out for maximum political gain.

For starters, I didn't say that "nothing was being done." Senators Wyden and Udall made public statements, vague though they were, that the American people would be shocked to learn the scope of the administration's spying capabilities. I assume they were working behind the scenes to change it, and that's not nothing.

Regardless, PRISM wouldn't have been shut down, and probably still won't be. This is news for the moment, but it'll blow over eventually and business as usual will resume. But now we know, and it's possible that some people will realize just what their government has become.

Was that ever a question before?

Was what ever a question before?

 

[asterism]

No one working through channels would have been able to do anything. We would never have known about PRISM, or the NSA's secret operation against Americans called Boundless Informant.

Nor would those building pressure cooker's and planning the next blast. Then you will blame Obama and the Democrats for not keeping us safe. Remember the "chatter" which existed before 9-11, what if Prism had been in effect in August of 2001?

If you are of the opinion that 9-11 could have been stopped using today's collection capabilities then you should take a good hard look at the Gorelick Wall put in place by the Clinton Administration. The information was there, but lack of crosss-agency communication prevented anyone from being able to do anything about it.

 

[asterism]

For starters, I didn't say that "nothing was being done." Senators Wyden and Udall made public statements, vague though they were, that the American people would be shocked to learn the scope of the administration's spying capabilities. I assume they were working behind the scenes to change it, and that's not nothing.

Regardless, PRISM wouldn't have been shut down, and probably still won't be. This is news for the moment, but it'll blow over eventually and business as usual will resume. But now we know, and it's possible that some people will realize just what their government has become.

Was that ever a question before?

Was what ever a question before?

What the government has become.

None of this is new, and that's probably the biggest scandal. The Progressives got elected on being the "adults in charge" and using "government as a force of good." Yeah, not so much actually. The only reason they are worse is because they want to expand government intervention while keeping the authoritarian racket.