View Poll Results: If you were a federal juror, what would be your stance on Snowden?

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • I would vote to acquit based on nullification of a dangerous law.

    3 17.65%
  • I would vote to convict, but opt for the lightest sentence.

    5 29.41%
  • I would vote to convict, with no opinion on the sentence.

    3 17.65%
  • I would vote to convict and vote for the strongest sentence.

    6 35.29%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 63

Thread: Snowden Case - Would you nullify?

  1. #41
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=gEB1FSa0Gew

    Glenn Greenwald on How NSA Leaker Edward Snowden Helped Expose a "Massive Surveillance Apparatus"

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Three different cases, the last being completely off the chart different.

    Manning is supposed to have leaked information that was of direct value to Al Quaeda. He will be tried in a military court that is closed to the public. He has a snowball's chance in hell of coming out of that scenario with less than the book thrown at him.

    Snowden leaked information about a global policy of spying on our own citizens. He did not overtly or directly imperil anyone (I know, the NSA will say he did because he tipped off would-be terrorists everywhere that their phone records were being tracked - as if they didn't guess that already!) in the sense that Manning did, who also leaked stuff that was not of the "naming agents int he field" category. I think he will be convicted, if extradited, but I would not be surprised he there is more leniency here.

    The problem is that without proof of these secret practices, the NSA and government in general would just deny and deny. I'm not sure that this stuff gets before the public unless somebody makes themselves a sacrificial lamb.

    I might not disapprove of the meta-analysis of phone data per se, as it could have deterrent value. But I do seriously disapprove of secret policies being formed to do so that are not subject to the scrutiny of the electorate. That's a pretty shabby form of freedom.
    Manning has a judge who has already criticized the Army for his detention and other points. I think he WILL be convicted but with a one person jury it is a crap shoot.
    Snowden. There are many who say he endangered U.S. security by leaking "methods". Plus he signed agreements for non disclosure. He admitted it. Again though, a jury might give him a pass.
    The big point is that the government is now spinning out of control with abuse and control. These have all been itemized by many posters BUT it is now a bit too much on every issue.
    Nassan: This nonsenses has dragged on. Now we have a self defense argument. Just hang him. Or does the Army use injection? It's been 50+ years.

  3. #43
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Manning has a judge who has already criticized the Army for his detention and other points. I think he WILL be convicted but with a one person jury it is a crap shoot.
    Snowden. There are many who say he endangered U.S. security by leaking "methods". Plus he signed agreements for non disclosure. He admitted it. Again though, a jury might give him a pass.
    The big point is that the government is now spinning out of control with abuse and control. These have all been itemized by many posters BUT it is now a bit too much on every issue.
    Nassan: This nonsenses has dragged on. Now we have a self defense argument. Just hang him. Or does the Army use injection? It's been 50+ years.
    Nassan is a mass murderer. His supposed defense is sheer BS and offensive to-boot. He should fry.

    Snowden is a very interesting case. He had to release a sufficient amount of information to negate the usual plausible denials. The question of non-disclosure would apply for acts that are legal/constitutional. If it's shown that the 4th Amendment was violated, I would guess the disclosure is invalidated, as it shouldn't cover illegal acts. Otherwise, the gag order on employees would truly be totalitarian. I keep picturing Robert Redford at the end of Three Days of the Condor dropping off that file to the NY Times. Nameless, faceless bureaucrats running secret operations to spy on our own citizens (regardless the cause) raises serious, serious questions.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Nassan is a mass murderer. His supposed defense is sheer BS and offensive to-boot. He should fry.

    Snowden is a very interesting case. He had to release a sufficient amount of information to negate the usual plausible denials. The question of non-disclosure would apply for acts that are legal/constitutional. If it's shown that the 4th Amendment was violated, I would guess the disclosure is invalidated, as it shouldn't cover illegal acts. Otherwise, the gag order on employees would truly be totalitarian. I keep picturing Robert Redford at the end of Three Days of the Condor dropping off that file to the NY Times. Nameless, faceless bureaucrats running secret operations to spy on our own citizens (regardless the cause) raises serious, serious questions.
    Well now, if it is ruled the government was acting in an unconstitutional manner, someone in the administration should be imprisoned. Someone is guilty of something here somewhere. That person(s) should be nailed.
    BTW, James Clapper, Director of Natl Intel comes across as a liar. I think he perjured himself before Congress.
    As we listen to all these people in power how can anyone have any confidence in this administration. And nobody is getting fired. Disgrace.

  5. #45
    Just saw this: The Russians might be willing to offer Snowden political asylum based on political persecution. This according to Vladimir Putin himself.
    The guy could have lots of info. Time for the hit squad. Sorry. Assassination is a sometimes tool. Apprehend. If resistance - an accident.
    He's been in Hong Kong for 3 weeks. The CIA must be pretty sorry not to be able to get the guy.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Just saw this: The Russians might be willing to offer Snowden political asylum based on political persecution. This according to Vladimir Putin himself.
    The guy could have lots of info. Time for the hit squad. Sorry. Assassination is a sometimes tool. Apprehend. If resistance - an accident.
    He's been in Hong Kong for 3 weeks. The CIA must be pretty sorry not to be able to get the guy.
    He probably has his I-phone on use current location. We can use a drone.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    He probably has his I-phone on use current location. We can use a drone.

    LOL. Not in a city. Hellfire missiles have a large kill radius.
    A room service visit is a possibility.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Really? You should have mentioned "self-destructive" narcissistic fame whore, as he has effectively put the most powerful agencies in the world against him. You seem awfully quick to assume that he sold his country out. One might at least question whether that was in fact what our leaders did when they granted the power to spy on our entire citizenry at will. And we, as a citizenry, were not to know about it. To quote from a non-legal, but relevant source:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

    Who precisely has betrayed their country? Which value is of higher importance? What price are we willing to pay for supposed safety?

    Back in 1776, you would have been railing against Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, George Washington, and Company for being narcissistic fame whores who sold out their own country.
    Give me a friggin break. Snowden got fired from his cushy analyst job that paid 6-figures because he was a lazy dirtbag so he retaliated by doing this leak and trying to turn it into a second career and celebrity. Where in the Bill of Rights does it say the government can't look at our facebook or google searches? People are voluntarily putting their private information on a public for profit website wtf there is 0 legitimate expectation of privacy unlike the home or even telephone.

  9. #49
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by detjetsfan View Post
    Give me a friggin break. Snowden got fired from his cushy analyst job that paid 6-figures because he was a lazy dirtbag so he retaliated by doing this leak and trying to turn it into a second career and celebrity. Where in the Bill of Rights does it say the government can't look at our facebook or google searches? People are voluntarily putting their private information on a public for profit website wtf there is 0 legitimate expectation of privacy unlike the home or even telephone.
    Really? Are you that dumb? Put aside for the moment your obsession with Snowden personally. Your phone records are public? Since when? And when I communicate by email, it's supposed to be password protected for a reason. But hey, it's our friendly Uncle Sam so there's no harm. It doesn't matter to you that this access is done based on a secret law reviewed by a secret court that essentially has rubber stamped every order submitted to it. It doesn't matter to you that none of this was passed or processed in a transparent way? So you love police states because they're safer? You would have loved Franco's Spain. Totalitarian countries have remarkably little crime for a reason.

    The question is: is this a violation of the fourth amendment, not to mention FICA. If the police want my phone records, or my personal letters they have to get a warrant and show probable cause. But the feds can simply swoop in and take what they want in the name of national security? BS.

    And if you really think all they're doing is "meta-data" you're truly nave. These people have no accountability, no transparency, and essentially operate in a secret police state out of the public view. That's not my idea of a democratic republic.

  10. #50
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Just saw this: The Russians might be willing to offer Snowden political asylum based on political persecution. This according to Vladimir Putin himself.
    The guy could have lots of info. Time for the hit squad. Sorry. Assassination is a sometimes tool. Apprehend. If resistance - an accident.
    He's been in Hong Kong for 3 weeks. The CIA must be pretty sorry not to be able to get the guy.
    Good. Now I hope the ACLU drives their case to the Supreme Court. This needs to be reviewed properly. And it is finally in the public view. We can thank Mr. Snowden for that at least. And if you really think the Russians can't figure out how to spy on their own citizens or ours, you must have been born long after the cold war. When your government creates cells that are no longer answerable to the electorate, you no longer live in a democracy. Some people here really don't care about that... which is amazing given how many soldiers have given their lives for precisely this ideal. Sad state of affairs indeed.

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Really? Are you that dumb? Put aside for the moment your obsession with Snowden personally. Your phone records are public? Since when? And when I communicate by email, it's supposed to be password protected for a reason. But hey, it's our friendly Uncle Sam so there's no harm. It doesn't matter to you that this access is done based on a secret law reviewed by a secret court that essentially has rubber stamped every order submitted to it. It doesn't matter to you that none of this was passed or processed in a transparent way? So you love police states because they're safer? You would have loved Franco's Spain. Totalitarian countries have remarkably little crime for a reason.

    The question is: is this a violation of the fourth amendment, not to mention FICA. If the police want my phone records, or my personal letters they have to get a warrant and show probable cause. But the feds can simply swoop in and take what they want in the name of national security? BS.

    And if you really think all they're doing is "meta-data" you're truly nave. These people have no accountability, no transparency, and essentially operate in a secret police state out of the public view. That's not my idea of a democratic republic.
    Your phone records can be easily subpoenea'd by law enforcement via request for pen register and it's subject to far less scrutiny than a wiretap warrant and needs less or no pc. Ofcourse there's this new thing called the "War on Terror" where we are trying to stop terrorists who want destroy this country so yes an intelligence gathering agency like the NSA is not subject to the same rules as the local pd or even the FBI. They are not trying to prosecute you they are trying to prevent a terrorist attack.

    Email has an even lower expectation of privacy. What private .com website do you use to send your "private" emails that are supposedly protected by the 4th amendment? So the douchebag code monkeys who work for gmail.com have a right to see every single email I send but people who are trying to prevent this country from being blown up can't - and best yet I'm a Nazi if I disagree with that.

  12. #52
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by detjetsfan View Post
    Your phone records can be easily subpoenea'd by law enforcement via request for pen register and it's subject to far less scrutiny than a wiretap warrant and needs less or no pc. Ofcourse there's this new thing called the "War on Terror" where we are trying to stop terrorists who want destroy this country so yes an intelligence gathering agency like the NSA is not subject to the same rules as the local pd or even the FBI. They are not trying to prosecute you they are trying to prevent a terrorist attack.

    Email has an even lower expectation of privacy. What private .com website do you use to send your "private" emails that are supposedly protected by the 4th amendment? So the douchebag code monkeys who work for gmail.com have a right to see every single email I send but people who are trying to prevent this country from being blown up can't - and best yet I'm a Nazi if I disagree with that.
    It's very simple. If our representatives in Government, including the President, want to protect us, then pass the law transparently and publicly indicating how that will be done and to whom. When the American electorate is reduced to children having to abide by the secrets of a paternal government, a core value of democracy has been damaged. National security has been the excuse for every abuse by government offices for the last fifty years. The worst thing we can do is look the other way in the name of fighting terrorism. There's always an excuse.
    Last edited by long island leprechaun; 06-12-2013 at 08:24 AM.

  13. #53
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,528
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    LOL. Not in a city. Hellfire missiles have a large kill radius.
    A room service visit is a possibility.
    send the hooker that gave Michael Douglas throat cancer

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Good. Now I hope the ACLU drives their case to the Supreme Court. This needs to be reviewed properly. And it is finally in the public view. We can thank Mr. Snowden for that at least. And if you really think the Russians can't figure out how to spy on their own citizens or ours, you must have been born long after the cold war. When your government creates cells that are no longer answerable to the electorate, you no longer live in a democracy. Some people here really don't care about that... which is amazing given how many soldiers have given their lives for precisely this ideal. Sad state of affairs indeed.


    Of course the Russian know how to spy. (Born at the beginning the Cold War BTW). But every little bit helps. But it's a tit for tat. We're always publicly offering asylum. It's a chance to "stick one in our ear" in front of the world. A FU to the U.S. to embarrass us. And Obama.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post
    send the hooker that gave Michael Douglas throat cancer


    Too slow. Need a hooker on crack who'll whack him.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    It's very simple. If our representatives in Government, including the President, want to protect us, then pass the law transparently and publicly indicating how that will be done and to whom. When the American electorate is reduced to children having to abide by the secrets of a paternal government, a core value of democracy has been damaged. National security has been the excuse for every abuse by government offices for the last fifty years. The worst thing we can do is look the other way in the name of fighting terrorism. There's always an excuse.
    When it comes to core values the majority of Americans will support a lose of privacy over what they perceive as a gain of personal security. Americans support a big military, large police forces and the biggest prison system in the world. Having the government mine their phone calls and e-mails is no more intrusive than Apple or Google doing it which we sign onto with legal disclaimers every day. The people support big government by large majorities on both sides of the aisle. It's just where the bigness is that is in dispute by the two sides of the aisle. In this case the big spy network is bi-partisan, the public is fully represented on both sides of the aisle. The more I listen to our representatives and the lie by Clapper the more I see plausible deniability.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 06-12-2013 at 09:28 AM.

  17. #57
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    When it comes to core values the majority of Americans will support a lose of privacy over what they perceive as a gain of personal security. Americans support a big military, large police forces and the biggest prison system in the world. Having the government mine their phone calls and e-mails is no more intrusive than Apple or Google doing it which we sign onto with legal disclaimers every day. The people support big government by large majorities on both sides of the aisle. It's just where the bigness is that is in dispute by the two sides of the aisle. In this case the big spy network is bi-partisan, the public is fully represented on both sides of the aisle. The more I listen to our representatives and the lie by Clapper the more I see plausible deniability.
    I don't disagree with you overall. Snowden revealed the policies that were signed off on in secret by what we now learn were people in Congress who claim they didn't understand fully what they were signing (and probably didn't, if the NSA could help it). However, I think that many Americans will pay attention when the secret spying suddenly is turned on them. We had plenty of people here who were outraged, outraged to imagine that the U.S. would allow drones to strike at American citizens on our soil if they were identified as terrorists. And I won't even go down the road of what defines a "terrorist." Is the Tea Party a terrorist organization? Who defines that word in action?

    Bottom line: I see absolutely nothing that jeopardizes national security in making the law itself transparent. How the law is carried out operationally can certainly be reviewed and monitored out of the public view, but it had better be done by a decent range of elected officials, not some career government employee, and it should involve legitimate judicial review, not the current kangaroo secret court. How many crises has this country faced that were far greater than isolated acts of terrorism -- threats to our survival -- yet issues of liberty and democracy were held very high -- considered so precious that a level of danger was accepted as necessary to our way of governing.

    P.S. Here's what happens when you try to force these faceless agencies to become transparent... nothing at all. Waiting for Godot.

    http://news.yahoo.com/lawsuits-over-...073317032.html

  18. #58
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,943
    If Snowden broke the law, he should be convicted. Personally, I would prefer a "light" sentence.

    In an age where government power and technology are growing rapidly, there is a need for some sort of counterbalance and transparency when it comes to large, sweeping policies that affect millions of innocent Americans.

    Without people like Snowden and groups like WikiLeaks, the American public would be much less informed about the realities and ways of the world around them. Knowledge is power, and it's something the government is actively trying to suppress all in the name of security. It's a dangerous proposition, one which should be scrutinized to a large degree.

  19. #59
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    If Snowden broke the law, he should be convicted. Personally, I would prefer a "light" sentence.

    In an age where government power and technology are growing rapidly, there is a need for some sort of counterbalance and transparency when it comes to large, sweeping policies that affect millions of innocent Americans.

    Without people like Snowden and groups like WikiLeaks, the American public would be much less informed about the realities and ways of the world around them. Knowledge is power, and it's something the government is actively trying to suppress all in the name of security. It's a dangerous proposition, one which should be scrutinized to a large degree.
    Agreed on the breaking the law part. Comes with the territory.

    Some commentator noted that we need a procedure that is acceptable for whistleblowers to bring such issues to the light of day. Problem here is that this is all under the penumbra of darkness from beginning to end.

  20. #60
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,943
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Some commentator noted that we need a procedure that is acceptable for whistleblowers to bring such issues to the light of day. Problem here is that this is all under the penumbra of darkness from beginning to end.
    The question is how. If the answer is a government agency/entity, then I fear it will continue to be hidden and won't be an effective solution. If the answer is the media, the past couple of months have proven that the government will pursue their involvements aggressively.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us