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 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 63

Thread: Snowden Case - Would you nullify?

  1. #21
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,134
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    As soon as this article was posted/printed every bad person threw out their cell phone and started using a different method to communicate. It makes law enforcement's job harder, not impossible, just harder.
    From a strictly practical point of view, if someone was engaged in terrorist communications, wouldn't they use untraceable cell phones, stolen SIMM cards, etc.? And why would they communicate via cell-phone at all if they could do so via some other web-based method that didn't involve actual real-time talking? Couldn't someone just set up an internet site and engage in coded communication that was responded to on another coded website? Unless you knew the two were linked, it would be impossible to surveil.

  2. #22
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    As soon as this article was posted/printed every bad person threw out their cell phone and started using a different method to communicate. It makes law enforcement's job harder, not impossible, just harder.
    You are clearly a smart guy but fundamentally you don't grasp how policing or surveillance works, in terms of at the "mass" level. A group like the NSA has a lot more powers and abilities than just phone tapping or email hacking. Throwing away your phone isn't going to stop the NSA, or indeed most other policing agency, if you are a bad guy. They are going to get you no matter what you do.

  3. #23
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,777
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Soberphobia View Post
    You are clearly a smart guy but fundamentally you don't grasp how policing or surveillance works, in terms of at the "mass" level. A group like the NSA has a lot more powers and abilities than just phone tapping or email hacking. Throwing away your phone isn't going to stop the NSA, or indeed most other policing agency, if you are a bad guy. They are going to get you no matter what you do.
    Catch you before not after the act, that's what is most important.

  4. #24
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,777
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    From a strictly practical point of view, if someone was engaged in terrorist communications, wouldn't they use untraceable cell phones, stolen SIMM cards, etc.? And why would they communicate via cell-phone at all if they could do so via some other web-based method that didn't involve actual real-time talking? Couldn't someone just set up an internet site and engage in coded communication that was responded to on another coded website? Unless you knew the two were linked, it would be impossible to surveil.
    There are many different ways to communicate.

  5. #25
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    From a strictly practical point of view, if someone was engaged in terrorist communications, wouldn't they use untraceable cell phones, stolen SIMM cards, etc.? And why would they communicate via cell-phone at all if they could do so via some other web-based method that didn't involve actual real-time talking? Couldn't someone just set up an internet site and engage in coded communication that was responded to on another coded website? Unless you knew the two were linked, it would be impossible to surveil.
    Its not impossible to watch these people, not with the awesome power of modern computing and surveillance techniques......the background noise of communication is watched globally by the NSA. Its getting to the extent that even mouth to mouth communication between terrorists, even in places as isolated as the Afghani countryside, is not hidden from a group like the NSA. Now what do you think are the powers of the NSA in a place much more accessable to them, like on your own mainland?

  6. #26
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Catch you before not after the act, that's what is most important.
    That's exactly right - it has got to the extent now where they are catching people before the act.

    There are exceptions, but in terms of terrorism, usually the exception happens only the first time, but never a second.

  7. #27
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,134
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Soberphobia View Post
    Its not impossible to watch these people, not with the awesome power of modern computing and surveillance techniques......the background noise of communication is watched globally by the NSA. Its getting to the extent that even mouth to mouth communication between terrorists, even in places as isolated as the Afghani countryside, is not hidden from a group like the NSA. Now what do you think are the powers of the NSA in a place much more accessable to them, like on your own mainland?
    How far are we really from the world of Minority Report? We don't even need to install chips in anybody. Just scan their brain from a satellite and quietly send in a team to "remove" them before they commit a future crime.

  8. #28
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Soberphobia View Post
    You are clearly a smart guy but fundamentally you don't grasp how policing or surveillance works, in terms of at the "mass" level.
    He's a Federal LEO.

    I'm going to venture he knows more about how policing and surveillance works than any of us here do. His take may be utterly biased, but it's a pro take none-the-less.

  9. #29
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Catch you before not after the act, that's what is most important.
    NSA is going to install drone apps on all of our smart phones. All they require is permission to use your current location.

  10. #30
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    How far are we really from the world of Minority Report? We don't even need to install chips in anybody. Just scan their brain from a satellite and quietly send in a team to "remove" them before they commit a future crime.
    I did a thesis on police surveillance way back many years ago, and back then I concluded that what you are describing was either already upon us or extremely likely in the near future. Probably the former, TBH. Maybe not exactly with satelite scanning, more along the lines of technology used for mobile phones etc.

    Of course, allied to that is a humungous apparatus to deny such a thing exists - hence you will have this type of thing associated with freaky conspiracy theories about the moon-landing or whatever.

    I do believe that there is this technology and that it is being used - I also believe that the people using it believe they are doing society a service by doing so. As I said, I have no doubt that many many lives have been saved because of, not only this type of technology, but because of police surveillance in general.

    Now, there is that small issue of privacy etc......

  11. #31
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    He's a Federal LEO.

    I'm going to venture he knows more about how policing and surveillance works than any of us here do. His take may be utterly biased, but it's a pro take none-the-less.
    Maybe, maybe not. However if he's saying that terrorists will avoid surveillance by ditching their phones I think he's way off the mark. If a terrorist is using phone or email, or indeed any form of electronic communication at all to communicate their intentions either explicitly or implicitly, their terrorista days will be extremely short indeed. In other words, terrorists who don't know already to ditch their phones, even before these latest revelations, are likely extremely stupid ones.
    Last edited by Soberphobia; 06-10-2013 at 11:41 AM.

  12. #32
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    I see little differenced between the Snowden case and that of Bradley Manning. They both leaked classified information. Snowden worked for the CIA and I am sure signed agreements. He also worked for a government contractor (Booz Allen) and I am sure signed confidentiality agreements as well.
    It's different than a media outlet publishing info they receive. That is freedom of the press and ok.
    Snowden did it. He admits it. He is guilty. If a jury nails him, who knows.
    Manning is dead meat. Although his is not a jury trial (unusual), the judge would see her career (and pension) terminated unless she finds him guilty.

    He also admitted he did it.

    Major Hassan also admitted he shot all those people at Fort Hood but claimed he was "defending his people" (sound familiar) who were Moslem freedom fighters overseas.

  13. #33
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,777
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Soberphobia View Post
    Maybe, maybe not. However if he's saying that terrorists will avoid surveillance by ditching their phones I think he's way off the mark. If a terrorist is using phone or email, or indeed any form of electronic communication at all to communicate their intentions either explicitly or implicitly, their terrorista days will be extremely short indeed. In other words, terrorists who don't know already to ditch their phones, even before these latest revelations, are likely extremely stupid ones.
    Terrorists and/or criminals make mistakes and the more information we make public the harder it becomes to investigate.

  14. #34
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    I think many would say mass illegal immigration, to the tune of 12-20 million here now illegally, is a National Security issue far in excess of the threat of terrorism in real terms.
    In what way?

  15. #35
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    In what way?
    Well, ignoring all my usual issues of cost/legallity/etc., having 12 to 20 million people here that we do not know are here or who they are or why they're here or to what ends....that certainly seems like an undue risk to me.

  16. #36
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,134
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    I see little differenced between the Snowden case and that of Bradley Manning. They both leaked classified information. Snowden worked for the CIA and I am sure signed agreements. He also worked for a government contractor (Booz Allen) and I am sure signed confidentiality agreements as well.
    It's different than a media outlet publishing info they receive. That is freedom of the press and ok.
    Snowden did it. He admits it. He is guilty. If a jury nails him, who knows.
    Manning is dead meat. Although his is not a jury trial (unusual), the judge would see her career (and pension) terminated unless she finds him guilty.

    He also admitted he did it.

    Major Hassan also admitted he shot all those people at Fort Hood but claimed he was "defending his people" (sound familiar) who were Moslem freedom fighters overseas.
    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.

  17. #37
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,134
    Post Thanks / Like
    Interesting testimony and disclaimer from our NSA friend, Clapper...

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/i...164742798.html

  18. #38
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,762
    Post Thanks / Like
    Snowden is a narcissistic fame whore. Have you seen this clown congratulate himself on worldwide tv last couple days? Friggin little twerp who probably needs to buy prostitutes to lose his virginity and sell out his country to get famous.

  19. #39
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,134
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by detjetsfan View Post
    Snowden is a narcissistic fame whore. Have you seen this clown congratulate himself on worldwide tv last couple days? Friggin little twerp who probably needs to buy prostitutes to lose his virginity and sell out his country to get famous.
    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.
    Last edited by long island leprechaun; 06-11-2013 at 08:25 AM.

  20. #40
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,777
    Post Thanks / Like
    It seems Glenn Greenwald wants to become as important as what he is reporting about, I watched him yesterday morning being interviewed and he's a drama queen.




    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?

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