After have read this article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...r-surveillance

I have been thinking- Would I do the same? If I had the same information.

Propably yes I would. That's easy to say when I'm not in that position.

Markus

Ohh by the way. Do not forget to say a prayer to Osama Bin Laden, if it hadn't been for his attack on USA, these surveillance would most higly never had happened.

Markus

I don't know about that. They started just as soon as the technology to do so became available which makes me think that just about any excuse would have sufficed.

No, he did not falsify records, the charges were dismissed and he disposed of the arrest file as no arrest was occurring, the man was simply detained since his arrest was not processed, so remove the arrest file is tantamount to deleting a draft of an email, as the arrest was not processed(nor should it have been) , much like an email you decided not to send.

How DARE you say the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant you , well ill stop. :/\\!! Really, you have no clue, you simply try to distract from the issue here as always and insult me but you are not even a resident of this country let alone Florida or Northern Florida to be more specific so you have no clue of how things work, because if you did you would know his being an "outsider" affects this process.Also, you would know his personal run in with Governor Scott does have bearing on this. Basically, you are an pro government boot licker who is talking out of your hind quarters as per usual.

Edward Snowden is a a hero and patriot, sadly he will probably have to hide the rest of his life.Hopefully someday, he will be pardoned and praised for doing his duty, just wish more people in the government had guts to stand up to the thugs running things currently.


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/s...204241311.html

And yet Bradley Manning is not... :hmmm:

Umm, the charge against him is that he falsified records. That is what is under investigation. He is alleged to have released the man himself, then whited his name out of the arrest record. This may have been the proper thing to do, and the investigation may result in his reinstatement. It may very well constitute destruction of official records, and the investigation may result in his imprisonment. You don't know what the truth is any more than Tribesman does, so insisting your version is the right one proves nothing, and is nothing more than your opinion.

His implication was obviously that the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant to this case, not to America in general. Even I could see that. If the investigation or trial finds that Sherrif Finch was correct in his actions then his defense citing support of the 2nd will indeed be relevant. If he is found guilty then the 2nd will be irrelevant to the case. Tribesman's assessment was correct as far as it goes, but it was just his opinion, and your comments are just your opinion. It is my continuing hope that someday you will learn to tell the difference.

It seems more to me that he is pointing out that your arguments are highly biased. It could also be said that you are the one distracting from the issue, since this case has nothing to do with the thread topic. Also, can you show a single instance in this thread where he actually insults you? Your argument, yes. I disagree with his assessment, just as I disagree with yours. Yes, he is having fun saying you are wrong and backing it up, but has he insulted you?

And that is a personal insult. One more like that and you will find yourself in trouble again.

My personal opinion is the same as it has always been, that you are too highly biased and too sure of your own rightness to be able to see things clearly, and it always comes back to yelling that you know what's right and everyone who disagrees is an idiot or a lackey of some sort. Please calm down and make reasonable arguments, and prove your case. Shouting about it doesn't make you right.

I don't recall saying he is not but I did intially have some mixed feelings towards Manning as he seemed to just release things to wikileaks which has a bit of an agenda.However, he should not be treated the way he is currently being treated, which is tantamount to torture and did do the right thing, and should be hailed a hero as well. Snowden saw the government violating the constitutional rights of nearly every American citizen and decided to speak up about it, in spite of the danger and the massive interruption to his life.This man put the country and his fellow citizens ahead of himself.Now, if only had more people willing to do this, these jackboot thugs running our country would not be able to get away with such things.

If it is proven that he violated Federal law by betraying his NDAs, then he is a criminal.

Not saying that our opinions are mutually exclusive.

But no, just like with Manning, Snowden had many different approved, legal, and appropriate venues to raise his concerns to. He, like Manning, chose unwisely.

Good intentions make excellent road material.

I'm still at it, Oberon, you have not been forgotten. ;) I got a late visitor announcement for tomorrow, so I must ask you for some more patience. I really try to bring some things into a format easy to the eyes and mind. :) I have the replies to most of your paragraphs ready now, but I want to add some stuff in a following overview. And tomorrow I probably have no time, due to the surprising visit.

:03:

Fair enough. I can't argue with most of that, government and its agencies should be accountable to the people, and it is a sad state of affairs that it is often not, however this is something common to just about every form of government that has existed in history.

Not a problem mate, I'm working the next two nights anyway so I probably won't be in the right frame of mind for much deep thinking until at least Thursday. :03:

A little background to why I wrote as I did

In 2008 or 2009 I saw a documentary on a swedish science channel TV4Fakta(TV4Science) In this program they went behind the attack on USA and some of the new laws that had passed the congress and senat.
In the program they told about a bill-can't remember the name of it-was voted down by more than 2/3 in 1998 or 1999. The bill was put forward again in 2002 and this time more than 2/3 passed it through. It was something about surveillance and it was many more bills regarding surveillance a.s.o

Since then I have been thinking. If it hadn't been for Osama, those laws would never have passed the Congress or the Senate.

Markus

The "appropriate venues" no longer work, the courts are stacked with statists who could give a crap about our rights, look at the most recent Supreme Court decision which says it is okay to take DNA without a warrant, without a conviction, to build a database simply if you are arrested.Scalia and the liberal wing were against it, shows that respect for rights does trump political ideology for some but too many of the lower court judges are also on board.The ahole federal judge who forced verizon to turn over the data to the feds is based in my hometown.The press is in the US is rather subservient and friendly to the government, 75% of it, esp the major networks might are propaganda divisions for the government.

I don't think this is some well mastered conspiracy but it is the sad state of affairs but it only exists because so many of the people are unaware of what has happened.Manning and Snowden did the right thing, I could honestly care less if they violated some stupid NDA.We need more people in a position to expose this crap to do so or nothing will ever change.This is not a Republican or Democrat issue, this is an issue for the citizens, the political class believe they have the right to do things like this.I agree this is the natural course of governments as they are ran by men and that is why our constitution is so valid now as that document was more about keeping the people who make up a government in check as the inevitable course is for it to get out of control, that is why rights are guaranteed so that when the time comes, we have the means to keep things in check.The second amendment is meant for absolute worst cases scenario, but the 4th, 5th and 1st are so vital to this as well and they just keep trying to take more and more away.

I get so angry when I see people accept this like good little drones, SMH.

AFAIK and according to the news here the law that authorized this was enacted in 2008 and reauthorized in 2012.

Personally I am waiting for whatever revolution/civil war comes. As is tensions in the USA are higher than they where when the civil war started in 1861 so something has to snap eventually. Unfortunately the gov is already preparing for that because troops have been doing drills in metropolitan areas.

Now as Bubblehead1980 has pointed out the 1st 4th and 5th are so vital and thats why they are trying to take them way and are continually infringed upon when they cant. Many people are so ignorant to this fact as many don't care who is in office as long as it is someone from their party or those blasted 1 issue voters who don't care as long as it is somebody who is on their side of the issue.