Of traitors, thieves, and patriots...

[eyer]

If there is a modern-day American traitor, US Army Major Nidal Hansan is he: convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder of his fellow soldiers in the name of Allah and as an act of war against his own country, the native Virginian now awaits final judgement for his betraying deeds; if that sentence is death, a firing squad would be most fitting.

As far as modern-day thieves go, Eric Snowden definitely stole the NSA's golden goose and has made so many of its operational secrets available to the gander. And because his crime has been pre-judged so harsh as treason, and to avoid what he fears would be certain unconstitutional treatment from his own government, he has accepted temporary asylum in Russia; Russia, the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for crying out loud!

Snowden has been tagged a traitor by many, is definitely a thief for what he stole. But how large of an American patriot is he for alerting his fellow countrymen that the Feds are listening, the Feds are listening and, that in many instances, that listening is in direct violation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America?

Was not Paul Revere committing a treasonous crime against his government when he betrayed it by warning his fellow Americans that the Regulars are coming, the Regulars are coming? Yet, Revere is considered a patriot.

And what about the treasonous crime the Sons of Liberty committed against their government that December night when the Destruction of the Tea in Boston went down? 342 chests holding 92 tons of tea, valued in today's dollars @ around $1.7 million - if you committed that same type of rebellious crime against the federal government today, would the feds be after you as bad as they want Snowden? And couldn't you still be called a patriot, too?

If I were President Obama, I would issue a blanket pardon to Eric Snowden, personally invite him to come back home, all the while proclaiming that this is America, and that whenever anyone becomes aware of an entity - especially government - violating the constitutional rights of Americans, it is sacred, honored duty to bring it swiftly and loudly to the attention of our fellow citizens.

Nothing - NOTHING - is more essential to the overall health of a constitutional republic than sticking religiously to the truth of its founding principles. We need desperately to return to that faith, and acknowledging Eric Snowden as a patriot is a very fine way to start.

If President Obama isn't American enough to get that ball rolling, Snowden must suck it up once more for his country, come home, face the music, and trust the American people to have his back.

 

[phrodeau]

When was the 4th Amendment violated?

 

[eyer]

When your daddy got into your mama's drawers?

 

[Boxlicker101]

This is the Fourth Amendment:

Amendment IV

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.

I'm quite sure no warrants were ever issued by anybody for the government to snoop into peoples' emails and eavesdrop on their telephone conversations.

Paul Revere and the Boston Tea Partiers are considered patriots in the US but, to the British Crown, they were traitors and would have been hanged if they had been caught and/or identified.

ETA: For what it's worth, I am inclined to think of Snowden as a whistle-blower, and to be commended, rather than as a criminal.

 

[Dazzle1]

If there is a modern-day American traitor, US Army Major Nidal Hansan is he: convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder of his fellow soldiers in the name of Allah and as an act of war against his own country, the native Virginian now awaits final judgement for his betraying deeds; if that sentence is death, a firing squad would be most fitting.

As far as modern-day thieves go, Eric Snowden definitely stole the NSA's golden goose and has made so many of its operational secrets available to the gander. And because his crime has been pre-judged so harsh as treason, and to avoid what he fears would be certain unconstitutional treatment from his own government, he has accepted temporary asylum in Russia; Russia, the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for crying out loud!

Snowden has been tagged a traitor by many, is definitely a thief for what he stole. But how large of an American patriot is he for alerting his fellow countrymen that the Feds are listening, the Feds are listening and, that in many instances, that listening is in direct violation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America?

Was not Paul Revere committing a treasonous crime against his government when he betrayed it by warning his fellow Americans that the Regulars are coming, the Regulars are coming? Yet, Revere is considered a patriot.

And what about the treasonous crime the Sons of Liberty committed against their government that December night when the Destruction of the Tea in Boston went down? 342 chests holding 92 tons of tea, valued in today's dollars @ around $1.7 million - if you committed that same type of rebellious crime against the federal government today, would the feds be after you as bad as they want Snowden? And couldn't you still be called a patriot, too?

If I were President Obama, I would issue a blanket pardon to Eric Snowden, personally invite him to come back home, all the while proclaiming that this is America, and that whenever anyone becomes aware of an entity - especially government - violating the constitutional rights of Americans, it is sacred, honored duty to bring it swiftly and loudly to the attention of our fellow citizens.

Nothing - NOTHING - is more essential to the overall health of a constitutional republic than sticking religiously to the truth of its founding principles. We need desperately to return to that faith, and acknowledging Eric Snowden as a patriot is a very fine way to start.

If President Obama isn't American enough to get that ball rolling, Snowden must suck it up once more for his country, come home, face the music, and trust the American people to have his back.

Well I am glad you are not advising President Obama.

Snowden and Manning are both traitorous scum who care nothing about the lives they put in jeporady. I also hope we get a chance to arrest terrorist supporter and propgandist Greenwald for his aid to theislamic terrorists.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

It's only treason if you lose.

 

[oggbashan]

Was not Paul Revere committing a treasonous crime against his government when he betrayed it by warning his fellow Americans that the Regulars are coming, the Regulars are coming? Yet, Revere is considered a patriot.

And what about the treasonous crime the Sons of Liberty committed against their government that December night when the Destruction of the Tea in Boston went down? 342 chests holding 92 tons of tea, valued in today's dollars @ around $1.7 million - if you committed that same type of rebellious crime against the federal government today, would the feds be after you as bad as they want Snowden? And couldn't you still be called a patriot, too?

...

At the time there was a substantial body of opinion in England that the 13 Colonies were right to demand parliamentary representation as a requirement for their consent to pay taxes.

Whether that support for the 13 Colonies would eventually have led to representation in the UK Parliament is questionable. If the Twentieth Century attempts by women in the UK to get the vote is comparable - it would have taken many years, far too long, and would have needed a change of the UK government. But it was seriously considered.

The actions of the Sons of Liberty alienated many of the UK supporters for parliamentary representation. The actions in Boston polarised UK opinion - the wrong way.

While Eric Snowden's intentions might have been honourable, the consequences of his actions and the reaction to them have seriously damaged US interests (and had a similar effect in the UK). His actions have polarised opinion and seeking refuge in Russia has not helped his case that he was only acting on behalf of US citizens.

But I think the actions of the US (and UK) governments have been incompetent and have added to the damage already inflicted by Snowden's actions.

Do I trust the US and UK governments less as a result of Snowden's actions? My answer and that of many others must be 'Yes'.

Do I trust the US and UK governments less as a result of their response to Snowden's actions?

Yes, again.

The real question is: How much did I trust them before?

 

[phrodeau]

This is the Fourth Amendment:

Amendment IV

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.

I'm quite sure no warrants were ever issued by anybody for the government to snoop into peoples' emails and eavesdrop on their telephone conversations.

Paul Revere and the Boston Tea Partiers are considered patriots in the US but, to the British Crown, they were traitors and would have been hanged if they had been caught and/or identified.

ETA: For what it's worth, I am inclined to think of Snowden as a whistle-blower, and to be commended, rather than as a criminal.

The Constitution has nothing to say about e-mails and cellphone conversations, which are both transmitted by public utilities.

 

[eyer]

Snowden and Manning are both traitorous scum who care nothing about the lives they put in jeporady.

That hyperbole stumps me...

...specifically, whose "lives" has Snowden's actions "put in jeporady[sic]"?

 

[Boxlicker101]

The Constitution has nothing to say about e-mails and cellphone conversations, which are both transmitted by public utilities.

The Constitution being a living document, such communications are normally held to be covered under the amendment.

 

[eyer]

The Constitution has nothing to say about e-mails and cellphone conversations, which are both transmitted by public utilities.

So, you assert that if the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit government from doing something...

...then government is free to do it?

 

[coastal-boy]

So, you assert that if the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit government from doing something...

...then government is free to do it?

According to the Supreme Court...yes.

 

[eyer]

According to the Supreme Court...yes.

Really?

Which Supreme Court was that?

 

[Ishmael]

According to the Supreme Court...yes.

A realization of what Jefferson referred to as the tyranny of the Judiciary. Unfortunately Jefferson was not part of the Constitutional Convention.

Ishmael

 

[Boxlicker101]

Hasan has been sentenced to death, but he is more likely to die of old age than anything else.

 

[eyer]

So, you assert that if the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit government from doing something...

...then government is free to do it?

According to the Supreme Court...yes.

Really?

Which Supreme Court was that?

Anybody?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The Constitution has nothing to say about e-mails and cellphone conversations, which are both transmitted by public utilities.

Are you suggesting that the framers intentionally withheld Constitutional protection from communications technologies that they knew nothing about or could even rationally contemplate?

Surely not. That would be pretty stupid wouldn't it?

Additionally, there is nothing in the 4th Amendment's itemization of "persons, houses, papers and effects" or in its prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures to suggest that transmission of said items by a "public utility" is in any way relevant to the protections which the Amendment affords.

Of course, the very concept of a public utility was not prevalent at the time of the Constitutional Convention either, so that may be another reason for the omission.

 

[cleaver]

Are you suggesting that the framers intentionally withheld Constitutional protection from communications technologies that they knew nothing about or could even rationally contemplate?

Surely not. That would be pretty stupid wouldn't it?

Additionally, there is nothing in the 4th Amendment's itemization of "persons, houses, papers and effects" or in its prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures to suggest that transmission of said items by a "public utility" is in any way relevant to the protections which the Amendment affords.

Of course, the very concept of a public utility was not prevalent at the time of the Constitutional Convention either, so that may be another reason for the omission.

of course,
the concept and legal framings
of both libel and slander
had been well established.

these were to be the checks upon speech freely transmitted...

hmmm...?

snowden's transmissions on your "public utility" was untruthful in just which instance?

though "patriot" status may be a bit hyperbolic,
so, it would equally seem,
would be the status of "traitor".

it is highly arguable that we as a nation are more... informed
than we would have been else...

is it at all disturbing that a people...
say... egyptian people
can find a place that engenders them with a mandate for ugly change?

are we just consumers of vid-feeds on this?

the Constitution was always a check on the powers of government over its people

 

[Boxlicker101]

of course,
the concept and legal framings
of both libel and slander
had been well established.

these were to be the checks upon speech freely transmitted...

hmmm...?

snowden's transmissions on your "public utility" was untruthful in just which instance?

though "patriot" status may be a bit hyperbolic,
so, it would equally seem,
would be the status of "traitor".

it is highly arguable that we as a nation are more... informed
than we would have been else...

is it at all disturbing that a people...
say... egyptian people
can find a place that engenders them with a mandate for ugly change?

are we just consumers of vid-feeds on this?

the Constitution was always a check on the powers of government over its people

The framers of the Constitution and, especially the Bill of Rights, did not trust government, although they recognized some government was necessary and would continue to be needed. They had just fought a war of revolution against the dictatorial powers of a king and didn't want some kind of elected demagogue replacing him. That's why the Bill of Rights keeps repeating "Congress shall pass no law..."

 

[eyer]

HELLO!

Why you so silent all of a sudden, playdeau?

Here's the query again:

So, you assert that if the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit government from doing something...

...then government is free to do it?

And where did the -boy go after drive-bying this:

According to the Supreme Court...yes.

Still waiting, children...

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Are you suggesting that the framers intentionally withheld Constitutional protection from communications technologies that they knew nothing about or could even rationally contemplate?

Surely not. That would be pretty stupid wouldn't it?

Additionally, there is nothing in the 4th Amendment's itemization of "persons, houses, papers and effects" or in its prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures to suggest that transmission of said items by a "public utility" is in any way relevant to the protections which the Amendment affords.

Of course, the very concept of a public utility was not prevalent at the time of the Constitutional Convention either, so that may be another reason for the omission.

In fairness and as an addendum, it should be noted that the inapplicability of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the warrantless wiretapping of criminal suspects by the federal government was first endorsed by the Supreme Court in the 1928 case of Olmstead v. United States. Justice Taft, writing for a 5 - 4 majority, held that evidence against bootlegger Olmstead obtained through surreptitious electronic wiretapping NOT pursuant to a court ordered search warrant was nonetheless admissible and not in violation of the Fourth Amendment because there had been no physical entry or breech of the defendant's "home" or "person" nor had there been a physical seizure of "papers" or "effects" as was commonly understood by the specific language of the Amendment.

This "physical intrusion" doctrine prevailed as a fundamental precept of Fourth Amendment law until it was overturned by the 1967 case of Katz v. United States.

 

[Ishmael]

In fairness and as an addendum, it should be noted that the inapplicability of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the warrantless wiretapping of criminal suspects by the federal government was first endorsed by the Supreme Court in the 1928 case of Olmstead v. United States. Justice Taft, writing for a 5 - 4 majority, held that evidence against bootlegger Olmstead obtained through surreptitious electronic wiretapping NOT pursuant to a court ordered search warrant was nonetheless admissible and not in violation of the Fourth Amendment because there had been no physical entry or breech of the defendant's "home" or "person" nor had there been a physical seizure of "papers" or "effects" as was commonly understood by the specific language of the Amendment.

This "physical intrusion" doctrine prevailed as a fundamental precept of Fourth Amendment law until it was overturned by the 1967 case of Katz v. United States.

Operative word being 'overturned.'

Ishmael

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Operative word being 'overturned.'

Ishmael

No doubt, but I'm always intrigued by how long it took some of our most cherished freedoms and Constitutional protections to catch on.

 

[Ishmael]

No doubt, but I'm always intrigued by how long it took some of our most cherished freedoms and Constitutional protections to catch on.

Or how quickly they're erased by the most serpentine of logic (or application of foreign law).

Ishmael