True that, Aardy.Aardvark wrote:Personal Opinions Exempted of course
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it doesn't matter. In America, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
True that, Aardy.Aardvark wrote:Personal Opinions Exempted of course
In America, intimidation by Big Government is TYRANNY. There's no other way to cut it with the borders of the USA. It may be acceptable in other countries to people willing to get in the slavery line, but it is not acceptable in America yet. The Left as well as the Right is pushing back, and the Left is at a crossroads because so many Ozombies worship the lies that Obama tells.What the Obama administration wants…is to make it so that everybody is petrified of coming forward with information about what our political officials are doing in the dark that is deceitful, illegal or corrupt. They don’t care about Edward Snowden at this point. He can no longer do anything that he hasn’t already done. What they care about is making an extremely negative example out of him to intimidate future whistle blowers from coming forward because they’ll think they’re going to end up like him. That’s their objective.
Yeah, and Greenwald quoted that dead and gone Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson.Greenwald promised more leaks would be forthcoming, "I will say that there are vast programs of both domestic and international spying that the world will be shocked to learn about, that the NSA is engaged in with no democratic accountability."
It becomes pretty tough to remain mobile when your passport has been revoked. Snowden is literally the "Man Without a Country." Same would be true of any American who decides to renounce their citizenship and loses their passport without having citizenship somewhere else.Bandung_Dero wrote:Snowden doesn't look to be a Hero in many countries eyes, can't find anywhere to hide or at least get there!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-02/s ... ia/4795128
What about the oath his bosses took -- to protect and defend the Constitution? Shouldn't they be held accountable? There are no easy answers here except that one wrong-doing may have led to an action that others perceive as being wrong.bumper wrote:You know the guy took an oath when he signed up. Hell he knew what kind of operation it was when he applied If he couldn't handle what he saw he should have quit and kept is mouth shut I don't know an Oath means something to me.
I have to wonder how many peoples lives he has put in danger?
Maybe none I really don't know.
Bolivia angered as president's plane diverted over suspicions Edward Snowden was on board
Edward Snowden's struggle to find a safe haven has sparked a diplomatic row, after the Bolivian president's plane was diverted to Vienna over suspicions the US fugitive might be on board.
The incident happened hours after president Evo Morales said his country would consider a request for political asylum if Snowden submitted one.
The Bolivian plane had been taking Mr Morales home from Moscow, where Snowden has been holed up in an airport transit since June 23, seeking to avoid US espionage charges for revealing a vast surveillance program.
While in flight, the pilot learned Portugal had refused to allow the plane to land for refuelling.
"I am not a delinquent. This is not a provocation against Evo Morales but against Bolivia and all of Latin America.
Evo Morales
France, Italy and Spain then banned the plane from entering its airspace, forcing it to land in Vienna.
There, police searched the plane and found no sign of the US fugitive, and the European countries reauthorised the use of their airspace...........
............. Latin American leaders outraged
The diversion has also sparked anger from other Latin American leaders, with Argentine president Cristina Kirchner calling the incident "very humiliating".
In a series of tweets on her official account, the president said, "they are definitely all crazy. The head of state and his plane have total immunity."
Ms Kirchner said she had spoken to Uruguayan president Jose Mujica, who was equally outraged.
Organisation of American States chief Jose Miguel Insulza also demanded an explanation about the incident, which he said endangered the president's life.
"Nothing justifies such a disrespectful act toward a country's highest authority," he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-03/b ... ns/4798248
WBU ALUM wrote:What about the oath his bosses took -- to protect and defend the Constitution? Shouldn't they be held accountable? There are no easy answers here except that one wrong-doing may have led to an action that others perceive as being wrong.bumper wrote:You know the guy took an oath when he signed up. Hell he knew what kind of operation it was when he applied If he couldn't handle what he saw he should have quit and kept is mouth shut I don't know an Oath means something to me.
I have to wonder how many peoples lives he has put in danger?
Maybe none I really don't know.
bumper wrote:See he had a clear choice he wasn't forced to take the job.
All of that is true, but the People elect government officials with the idea that they will govern with virtue. They don't elect officials with the idea that they can do anything they wish. Whether used in court or not, the trust of the American People was violated.Which part of the Constitution do you think is being violated. The right to unreasonable search and seizure. As a cop I could have searched without probable cause. Wouldn't mean a thing unless I arrested you and then the courts would decide if I was right or not. You could then file suit against me in a civil action as well.
You know this isn't the same thing. Bin Laden declared war on the US.Was it unreasonable to intercept Bin Ladens e-mails phone calls. More then likely yes. But, that being said was it worth it. In my mind darn right it was.
That's not the issue either. It is wrong whether known or not.Before Snowden came along did anyone think that your e-mails were not monitored?
Yes, I know, and I did.Even when you go into the Military you take an oath to protect your country from enemies both foreign and domestic.
You're entitled to your opinion. I don't have one either way at this point. Said that early on. Only asked a question about the accountability of his bosses.Sorry he is a traitor and a damn stupid one at that.
That's the same argument Ozombies use to justify Obama's lies: "All politicians lie." That still doesn't make it right.Latin America might want to ask Ollie North about that. This is nothing new.
Fourth Amendmentbumper wrote: Which part of the Constitution do you think is being violated. The right to unreasonable search and seizure. As a cop I could have searched without probable cause. Wouldn't mean a thing unless I arrested you and then the courts would decide if I was right or not. You could then file suit against me in a civil action as well.
Bloody scarey.parrot wrote:Preppers, prepare your bomb shelters:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/mo ... l.html?hpw
Article continues at http://fff.org/2013/06/12/who-were-the- ... i-germany/Who Were the Patriots and Traitors in Nazi Germany?
by Jacob G. Hornberger June 12, 2013
Ever since I was a kid, I have heard Americans ask, “How could the German people have allowed the Nazi regime to commit its evil acts?”
Well, here’s the answer to that question: The German people had the same warped and distorted concept of patriotism that American statists have today.
The overwhelming majority of German citizens believed that it was their moral duty to come to the unconditional support of their government in time of crisis, especially when the nation went to war. The good citizen didn’t question whether his government was right or wrong. The good citizen placed his trust in the judgment and decisions of his government officials, especially during crisis and war.
That’s what patriotism meant to the German people during the 1930s and 1940s. The good citizen — the one who deferred to authority — was considered the patriot.
What about German citizens who refused to defer to authority, those who had an independent mindset — those who would examine government policies with a critical eye — those who would question, challenge, and object to wrongful government policies? They were considered bad citizens — traitors.