Edward Snowden
- Thread starter knewsom
- Start date
Ray,
I've read your links. I'm assuming you're trying to use these links to justify your stance on the Snowden issue. Both articles make some good points, but I don't think either article justifies what the government has been doing.
Our Fourth Amendment reads:
What I think you're arguing is that the NSA has justification, and perhaps a duty, to monitor, collect, and store personal data. If the conversation stopped there, I'd agree with you. I do feel this would be necessary for national security. Where we differ in opinion is how those justifications are made.
You feel it's okay for all data, whether it be phone records, emails, license plate recording, or social media, be collected and stored on all Americans at any given time. I don't. I feel there should be probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This is our Fourth Amendment right and to me is reads pretty plainly.
Your argument is probably going to be, well, it does not work that way. You're going to tell us no one is looking into your data for substance unless you give them probable cause. In other words, if our government is monitoring a known terrorist in another Country and he calls up dchapman in the United States, the government may want to know more about dchapman and why this known terrorist is calling him. From that point they may want to know who else dchapman has been communicating with and where he's traveled to. If a terrorist never contacts dchapman, chances are his information will never be looked at or analyzed.
On the surface, that may sound justifiable. A known terrorist contacted someone in the United States and our government needs to know who, what, when, where and why. I would say that's a reasonable search of your records. But that does not mean they should be able to do it without a warrant. The government does do these searches without a warrant, tough. That's where I see a problem.
What I also find unreasonable is collecting and storing these records prior to the terrorist contacting you. When I make a call from behind a closed door at my home, I'm expecting reasonable privacy -- no one is hearing what I'm saying or who I'm talking to. That's a private conversation and if someone wants to know who I'm talking to or what I'm saying they should need a warrant. Now if I were to make this call in front of a group of people, and these people could overhear my conversation, there would not be any reasonable expectation of privacy there. KATZ v. UNITED STATES
What our government says, though, is totally different. They say by dialing a phone number you have knowingly exposed information to a 3rd party (the telephone company) and assumed the risk of that information will be shared. This goes for emails, web searches, social media, credit records, travel records, your grocery store MVP card, etc, etc, etc... Thus, no warrant is needed. That's horseshit if you ask me. I'm not saying these things should not be admissible in a court of law, but what I am saying is that there should be a warrant required for the government to collect this data and store it for eternity only after proving probable cause.
What our government, and our current President, has said, no where in the Constitution does it say we cannot do this. Well no shit! The Constitution is there to tell our government what they can do, not what they cannot do.
We're a nation of laws. We have checks-and-balances in place with a legislative and judiciary system. Yet, our current government and President feel they have the power to override these systems. For example, the killing of that 16-year old American citizen who was just trying to get something to eat. "Only if he would have had better parents", right?
Another example is the National Defense Authorization Act. This is an Act where the government can detain a US citizen without giving a reason as to why they're being detained; where they're being detained; they do not have to allow a phone call; no right to an attorney; do not have to tell your family members where you're being detained at. Someone in this thread say the military cannot act as a police force against US citizens. Well, guess what. That same person probably never heard Obama's prolonged detention speech, either.
What if we have a division much like the FBI or CIA called the Pre-Crime Department? This is not an original idea and in fact there has been a fictional movie about it. What if these folks analyzed data and arrested you for what they think you're going to do before you ever did it? Just sent you off to a prison camp with no lawyer, no day in court, and no contact with your family. They do this not because you did something wrong, but for what they think you may do. Sounds pretty fucked up to me, that is unless you have a u-haul truck full of diesel fuel and fertilizer in your possession. But that's basically what NDAA can do, and has done. Remember Adam Kokesh getting arrested at a pot rally for not smoking pot? He wasn't sent off to Guantanamo or anything like that, but it was defiantly an abusive display of power by our federal system where he was denied to contact his lawyer, and family members did not know where he was taken for a period of time. Even if Adam Kokesh is a tool-bag, he's still an American citizen.
In the articles you posted it talks about efficiency and how it's much more efficient to collect all this data, store it in one location, and then share this data with other agencies including local police departments. It's justified because it's cheaper and just a better way of doing things. I would agree this sounds like a better way of doing things. But not without a warrant.
The problem is this. John Smith has a phone call with a known terrorist. That links John Smith to the terrorist directly. Well the NSA does not stop at John Smith. Everyone John Smith has ever communicated with is now being targeted, and everyone those people has ever communicated with are now being targeted. This is not speculation, this is fact. So me, you, anyone reading this could be having our records analyzed, without us knowing, because of a conversation between two people we have never even met. But because of the three degrees of separation, we're being targeted.
So where is the line drawn on what this data can be used for? Terrorism? Drug trafficking? Insider trading? Campaign strategies? If the information the NSA is gathering is going to be shared with other agencies, those other agencies may not even care about terrorism. Those other agencies may be investigating something totally different. But that information was gathered, and justified, for counter-terrorism, but is now being used against you for something totally different than terrorism, perhaps on a local level. Maybe you're guilty of a crime, maybe you're not, but that same local department cannot receive your phone records without a warrant, so why is it okay for our government to do it and share that information with the local departments skipping the warrant process altogether? It's just not right.
If you read our Constitution and amendments and read the arguments from the forefathers who developed the Constitution, it's clear to me that something like what the NSA has been doing was not their intent. The Constitution, as written, may not come directly out and say "no, you cannot log data without a warrant". But it does not say that this is the role of our government, either. One might argue that after 225 years things change and the forefathers may not have seen situation like this coming. Well, that's why there is a process to amend the Constitution. Do you honestly think our government could get the Forth Amendment changed to favor what the government is doing? How about the Fifth Amendment? It's not going to happen in our lifetime. What I do see happening in our lifetime, though, is the Patriot Act being repealed, however relevant you feel that may be.
It all sums up like this. Our government, including our President, thinks every call, email, credit transaction, etc in America is relevant to a terrorism investigation. One in a Billion calls may be analyzed for suspected terrorist activity, and all the rest are stored on a hard-drive until one day they get leaked. Who they get leaked to, and what that information is used for, is the real issue.
If you wait until September of 2015, if the Patriot Act is not repealed by then, Section 215 will be.
I've read your links. I'm assuming you're trying to use these links to justify your stance on the Snowden issue. Both articles make some good points, but I don't think either article justifies what the government has been doing.
Our Fourth Amendment reads:
What I think you're arguing is that the NSA has justification, and perhaps a duty, to monitor, collect, and store personal data. If the conversation stopped there, I'd agree with you. I do feel this would be necessary for national security. Where we differ in opinion is how those justifications are made.
You feel it's okay for all data, whether it be phone records, emails, license plate recording, or social media, be collected and stored on all Americans at any given time. I don't. I feel there should be probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This is our Fourth Amendment right and to me is reads pretty plainly.
Your argument is probably going to be, well, it does not work that way. You're going to tell us no one is looking into your data for substance unless you give them probable cause. In other words, if our government is monitoring a known terrorist in another Country and he calls up dchapman in the United States, the government may want to know more about dchapman and why this known terrorist is calling him. From that point they may want to know who else dchapman has been communicating with and where he's traveled to. If a terrorist never contacts dchapman, chances are his information will never be looked at or analyzed.
On the surface, that may sound justifiable. A known terrorist contacted someone in the United States and our government needs to know who, what, when, where and why. I would say that's a reasonable search of your records. But that does not mean they should be able to do it without a warrant. The government does do these searches without a warrant, tough. That's where I see a problem.
What I also find unreasonable is collecting and storing these records prior to the terrorist contacting you. When I make a call from behind a closed door at my home, I'm expecting reasonable privacy -- no one is hearing what I'm saying or who I'm talking to. That's a private conversation and if someone wants to know who I'm talking to or what I'm saying they should need a warrant. Now if I were to make this call in front of a group of people, and these people could overhear my conversation, there would not be any reasonable expectation of privacy there. KATZ v. UNITED STATES
What our government says, though, is totally different. They say by dialing a phone number you have knowingly exposed information to a 3rd party (the telephone company) and assumed the risk of that information will be shared. This goes for emails, web searches, social media, credit records, travel records, your grocery store MVP card, etc, etc, etc... Thus, no warrant is needed. That's horseshit if you ask me. I'm not saying these things should not be admissible in a court of law, but what I am saying is that there should be a warrant required for the government to collect this data and store it for eternity only after proving probable cause.
What our government, and our current President, has said, no where in the Constitution does it say we cannot do this. Well no shit! The Constitution is there to tell our government what they can do, not what they cannot do.
We're a nation of laws. We have checks-and-balances in place with a legislative and judiciary system. Yet, our current government and President feel they have the power to override these systems. For example, the killing of that 16-year old American citizen who was just trying to get something to eat. "Only if he would have had better parents", right?
Another example is the National Defense Authorization Act. This is an Act where the government can detain a US citizen without giving a reason as to why they're being detained; where they're being detained; they do not have to allow a phone call; no right to an attorney; do not have to tell your family members where you're being detained at. Someone in this thread say the military cannot act as a police force against US citizens. Well, guess what. That same person probably never heard Obama's prolonged detention speech, either.
What if we have a division much like the FBI or CIA called the Pre-Crime Department? This is not an original idea and in fact there has been a fictional movie about it. What if these folks analyzed data and arrested you for what they think you're going to do before you ever did it? Just sent you off to a prison camp with no lawyer, no day in court, and no contact with your family. They do this not because you did something wrong, but for what they think you may do. Sounds pretty fucked up to me, that is unless you have a u-haul truck full of diesel fuel and fertilizer in your possession. But that's basically what NDAA can do, and has done. Remember Adam Kokesh getting arrested at a pot rally for not smoking pot? He wasn't sent off to Guantanamo or anything like that, but it was defiantly an abusive display of power by our federal system where he was denied to contact his lawyer, and family members did not know where he was taken for a period of time. Even if Adam Kokesh is a tool-bag, he's still an American citizen.
In the articles you posted it talks about efficiency and how it's much more efficient to collect all this data, store it in one location, and then share this data with other agencies including local police departments. It's justified because it's cheaper and just a better way of doing things. I would agree this sounds like a better way of doing things. But not without a warrant.
The problem is this. John Smith has a phone call with a known terrorist. That links John Smith to the terrorist directly. Well the NSA does not stop at John Smith. Everyone John Smith has ever communicated with is now being targeted, and everyone those people has ever communicated with are now being targeted. This is not speculation, this is fact. So me, you, anyone reading this could be having our records analyzed, without us knowing, because of a conversation between two people we have never even met. But because of the three degrees of separation, we're being targeted.
So where is the line drawn on what this data can be used for? Terrorism? Drug trafficking? Insider trading? Campaign strategies? If the information the NSA is gathering is going to be shared with other agencies, those other agencies may not even care about terrorism. Those other agencies may be investigating something totally different. But that information was gathered, and justified, for counter-terrorism, but is now being used against you for something totally different than terrorism, perhaps on a local level. Maybe you're guilty of a crime, maybe you're not, but that same local department cannot receive your phone records without a warrant, so why is it okay for our government to do it and share that information with the local departments skipping the warrant process altogether? It's just not right.
If you read our Constitution and amendments and read the arguments from the forefathers who developed the Constitution, it's clear to me that something like what the NSA has been doing was not their intent. The Constitution, as written, may not come directly out and say "no, you cannot log data without a warrant". But it does not say that this is the role of our government, either. One might argue that after 225 years things change and the forefathers may not have seen situation like this coming. Well, that's why there is a process to amend the Constitution. Do you honestly think our government could get the Forth Amendment changed to favor what the government is doing? How about the Fifth Amendment? It's not going to happen in our lifetime. What I do see happening in our lifetime, though, is the Patriot Act being repealed, however relevant you feel that may be.
It all sums up like this. Our government, including our President, thinks every call, email, credit transaction, etc in America is relevant to a terrorism investigation. One in a Billion calls may be analyzed for suspected terrorist activity, and all the rest are stored on a hard-drive until one day they get leaked. Who they get leaked to, and what that information is used for, is the real issue.
If you wait until September of 2015, if the Patriot Act is not repealed by then, Section 215 will be.
I will be damned...
An original exploration, and it even comes with it's own point. It's not entirely air tight, but it's there. How much do we owe the flying pigs for that one?
Cheers,
Kennith
An original exploration, and it even comes with it's own point. It's not entirely air tight, but it's there. How much do we owe the flying pigs for that one?
Cheers,
Kennith
Dan-
Thoughtful post; given what I'm hearing around here I'd wholeheartedly agree with one of your major points-even if the Patriot Act is renewed, 215 isn't going to make it out of Congress as it exists now.
The links I posted as it relates to Snowden were actually illustrative of the argument for the 4th Amendment (i.e. specifically not the stance I've taken throughout much of this thread). The other link related to the discussion of the government using elements as a tool of tyranny and/or the hypothesis that the Armed Forces would launch a coup. The coup idea in particular is somewhat absurd but it continues to bounce around at times and was pertinent at that point in the thread.
Where I would disagree with some of your analysis is the idea that this President and this Government are monolithic in this issue, and that the three branches that provide the checks and balances weren't all working in concert (under both of the last two administrations...making this essentially bi partisan). While there may be a valid argument that it isn't what the government should be doing, I don't believe it is accurate to say it is just this President doing this under the nose of the checks and balances that are in place.
What I think will happen is something akin to what you said; the Patriot Act-or at least major provisions of it, are going to sunset and collection posture will change if it doesn't in the face of the fallout of the Snowden leaks in the interim.
The issue I'd take with it is most of the public continues to misunderstand the context and nature of this-as one would expect given that the information is incomplete and being wielded by those who have an agenda on both sides of the aisle. Doesn't make them wrong mind you, just makes them interested in gaining mileage from it.
In the end will we be a better country with it repealed, perhaps. Will be closer in consonance with what the disparate group of people called the Founding Fathers would have wanted? Perhaps. All of that is arguable. Will we be safer? Probably not. Will intelligence gathering for the nation's interest be harder, more expensive, and less complete? Probably.
This will get real interesting when/if we have another catastrophic attack on the US and the public wonders what happened. I hope amidst the mourning and grief the cold comfort of a resilient 4th Amendment keeps people warm. I'd also offer that if that catastrophic attack goes into the truly WMD arena (meaning nuclear, b/c everything else is just stuff for movies) I wonder what our country will do in those moments of fear-b/c I fear it will be far worse than the programs that came to pass after the Patriot Act came into being.
r-
Ray.
Thoughtful post; given what I'm hearing around here I'd wholeheartedly agree with one of your major points-even if the Patriot Act is renewed, 215 isn't going to make it out of Congress as it exists now.
The links I posted as it relates to Snowden were actually illustrative of the argument for the 4th Amendment (i.e. specifically not the stance I've taken throughout much of this thread). The other link related to the discussion of the government using elements as a tool of tyranny and/or the hypothesis that the Armed Forces would launch a coup. The coup idea in particular is somewhat absurd but it continues to bounce around at times and was pertinent at that point in the thread.
Where I would disagree with some of your analysis is the idea that this President and this Government are monolithic in this issue, and that the three branches that provide the checks and balances weren't all working in concert (under both of the last two administrations...making this essentially bi partisan). While there may be a valid argument that it isn't what the government should be doing, I don't believe it is accurate to say it is just this President doing this under the nose of the checks and balances that are in place.
What I think will happen is something akin to what you said; the Patriot Act-or at least major provisions of it, are going to sunset and collection posture will change if it doesn't in the face of the fallout of the Snowden leaks in the interim.
The issue I'd take with it is most of the public continues to misunderstand the context and nature of this-as one would expect given that the information is incomplete and being wielded by those who have an agenda on both sides of the aisle. Doesn't make them wrong mind you, just makes them interested in gaining mileage from it.
In the end will we be a better country with it repealed, perhaps. Will be closer in consonance with what the disparate group of people called the Founding Fathers would have wanted? Perhaps. All of that is arguable. Will we be safer? Probably not. Will intelligence gathering for the nation's interest be harder, more expensive, and less complete? Probably.
This will get real interesting when/if we have another catastrophic attack on the US and the public wonders what happened. I hope amidst the mourning and grief the cold comfort of a resilient 4th Amendment keeps people warm. I'd also offer that if that catastrophic attack goes into the truly WMD arena (meaning nuclear, b/c everything else is just stuff for movies) I wonder what our country will do in those moments of fear-b/c I fear it will be far worse than the programs that came to pass after the Patriot Act came into being.
r-
Ray.
Well, I don't agree there. This is why. Not only has the President used his executive powers to gain total control over our communications (EO 10995), energy (EO 10997), transportation (EO 10990 & 11003 & 11005), banking (EO 11004), and healthcare (EO 11001), but he's also used his executive power to force international regulations and order killings of US citizens. Not to mention Fast and Furious.
We could argue that the Republicans in Congress are just being dicks on a lot of this stuff, and I'd agree. The two parties have locked horns on a lot of, seemingly, common sense things. But for Obama to slip in and exercise executive power to push his agenda because Congress can't get along is a bit fucked up. The pisser is there is nothing we do about it. Impeach Obama and let Biden be President? Ha. The media said it and I'll repeat it, Biden is the only thing keeping Obama in the chair as far as our elected officials are concerned. But there is some truth to that. So Obama will continue to get his way inch-by-inch.
The Patriot Act is not being used in the way it was intended. It's like the whole Stop and Frisk thing that was all over the news reports two years ago. This was a law that would allow police officers to check immigration status on routine patrol stops. The argument was that police officers could then profile suspected illegal immigrants resulting in discriminatory action. It was not the intent of the law to profile illegal immigrants, but in a twisted way it could be justified. Section 215 of the Patriot Act may not have been intended to give the NSA, or the government, the go-ahead on some of the actions they're taking, but it helps to justify them. If the Patriot Act were being used in the way it was intended much of this discussion would have never happened.
Just to be clear, though, I do not agree with the Patriot Act and feel it needs to go away altogether.
Well, if we'd quit pissing off every other Country on this earth maybe we would not have to worry too much about another attack. This does not have much to do with this thread, but it is another part in the process to get things in order. People thought Ron Paul was crazy for saying it during his run at the presidency, and maybe he is a bit of a dreamer. But it is a goal America needs to work towards. It's yet to be seen what's going to happen with N. Korea, Russia, Syria and perhaps China in the next half-dozen years, but our government better learn to start shaking hands and worry about America's needs, first.
Course, if I were President my first action would be to build a fence on the Canadian border. Canadians bother me more than any of this. Well, except maybe the French.
Last edited:
You do realize that the EO you've quoted were signed in 1962 by JFK...
Your naive to think that any of this just started happening (not directed at you Dan, just a general statement), it's just becoming public knowledge because of changes in how information is decimated in the new era of electronic mediums.
And I agree the Patriot Act is being abused...
Your naive to think that any of this just started happening (not directed at you Dan, just a general statement), it's just becoming public knowledge because of changes in how information is decimated in the new era of electronic mediums.
And I agree the Patriot Act is being abused...
Looks like I deleted one of my paragraphs while editing my post to include quotes. I see why my post may be misleading. Ill fix it when I get to a computer and off my phone.