From the Washington Post article....

Focus on doing the stuff that is legal - and pretend you weren't really spying on anyone domestically in violation of the law.

No one is illegal.


Another direct hit:

http://gawker.com/convicted-pedophil...-ren-610641646

What does this link have to do with the thread?

The US warns of Snowden consequences.

Do we see more and more of these consequences?

Just in another way they tried to threaten.

Will we see more and more people blow the whistle? Uncover the secret dealings and wheelings?
People with a subtile bad conscience, who doubt the legality of their orders, their tasks and their daily routines?

It seems so.

Snowden better not cross any red lines I tell you whut...

Ah yes, the red lines. The proof that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons twice.
The proof that stated two individuals showed signs of exposure, but also stated that there was no evidence of how, when and by who that exposure occurred.

A very good question. What exactly does a claim concering Vatican sex rings have to do with the US spying on its citizens?

Has it been demonstrated that what the NSA did was in violation of the law?

How do you collect volumes of random information without showing probable cause? How does a judge grant a warrant to search the records of countless thousands of people? Probable Cause requires a good reason to suspect someone of a crime. How do you suspect thousands of random citizens?

I would say the Fourth Amendment strictly prohibits this kind of activity.

Well when they did it a decade ago they said it was done by mistake as they were not allowed to do it.
When they were doing it for two years after they were specificly ordered not to they said it was a technical glitch.

Depends on interpretation, which is why laws and amendments are pretty useless (what can be done, will be done):

" .... "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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 constitutional framers did not consider the possibility of stored digital content or electronic communications when they wrote these words. When electronic communications first became widespread early in the 20th century, law enforcement agencies began to use wiretapping in their investigations without obtaining the warrants required for a physical search. The resulting convictions led to to court appeals before the US Congress considered the question of electronic privacy. Thus it fell to the courts to interpret the intent of the framers in determining if warrantless eavesdropping and wiretapping are covered by the Fourth Amendment. The key question is whether wiretapping constitutes a form of "search and seizure". ..."


But it is not only about 'home rule', the NSA b.t.w. wiretapped all foreign cables as well without informing its allies, thus also violating international treaties.
The GCHQ certainly did the same, which is why the current climate between Europe and England also is coming to a state of freeze.

The drone war is also violating international treaties, apart from killing US citizens and bystanders without a trial. Because the killings are ordered without even knowing the person, it is based on 'metadata', like just someone being 'suspicious'.
Not that the US has cared for anything in that regard since the corean war, and those 'small interventions' in Middle and South America.

"We never knew which friends we had", until Manning and Snowden :03:

They're handing out rings at the Vatican?:-?

Digital content and electronic communications are "papers, and effects". I'm not even going to say, "I would argue", no, i'm saying, "They ARE" papers and effects. Words like, "File", and "Document", used commonly in this computer age of ours, were originally used in context of "papers". Furthermore, one's "effects" are personal items, or things that are personal in nature.

The media being used may have changed, but the items being discussed are the same.

I can't say I'm the biggest Ron Paul fan, but I certainly agree with him here.

Aye, that's a good one. :rock: