Florida State Seminoles

[sardis]

Soviet Union?

I think you mean Russia, but we don't know if he handed anything over to Russians. In fact, the charges brought upon him by the Feds were from giving information to the press, an unauthorized person, not a foreign country.

[Owlman]

I did mean Russia. But we have put spys in jail that gave info to one of our strongest allies (Israel). We certainly will charge him with more if/when he returns. Whether to Russia, Germany, etc. It doesn't matter. As I said before, I can distinguish between the part that would classify as whistle-blowing and treason (Johnathan Pollard).

[sardis]

Jonathan Pollard was not convicted of treason, but pleaded guilty under The Espionage Act. He was the only person convicted under that Act to get a sentence longer than 10 years. Edward Snowden could be guilty under The Espionage Act, but there is no way he is guilty of treason.

[Owlman]

Good, I'll accept that. Jail time baby

[Owlman]

From Wikipedia on Pollard (taken from NY Times): "Pollard is the only person in US history to receive a life sentence for spying for an ally, and the only American citizen convicted of such a crime to be sentenced to more than 10 years in prison. Currently, the punishment for such a crime is set at a maximum of ten years,[10] except if it might "result in the death of an agent of the United States" or if it concerns "nuclear weaponry [...] war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information."

Sounds as though it could possibly be longer than 10 years.

[Bklyn]

Didn't Snowden leak the location of facilities in the UK where the CIA and JIC collaborated on global intel? Now does that remove him from being treasonous if he passed that info to the Guardian and they publish it? That information put intelligence assets at risk and could have easily been used by real foreign threats, not just China or Russia, but terrorist orgs.

If the law says using the press as a proxy for this type of information insulates Snowden from treason charges, so be it. However, if they can get him on the Espionage Act, then I'm like Owlman and am for it. I think that action was reckless and irresponsible...and dangerous.

[eCat]

how about a compromise then

when the people responsible for violating the constitution within the NSA and executive branch get put on charges, then Edward Snowden will face charges.

[10ac]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... adquarters

[10ac]

[Owlman]

how about a compromise then

when the people responsible for violating the constitution within the NSA and executive branch get put on charges, then Edward Snowden will face charges.

Who said it's illegal? The only requirement was getting permission from a special court. The Bush Administration originally wasn't doing that but after it was brought to light, the NSA begin getting mass approval from the court. It was on the edge but is probably legal. The rules need to change, but to call it illegal is probably not correct.

[Bklyn]

Nothing is illegal that the NSA is doing. That's never been the argument...or at least not any that I have seen.

[eCat]

I'd like to see a statute written that allows mass surveillance.

The Patriot Act intended to allow the intelligence communities to access targeted information for specific investigations - not mass surveillance.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

seriously, how hard to you want to argue against that in support of the NSA?

[Bklyn]

My argument has always been in opposition to the Patriot Act. Again, like I said earlier, the Act was written in such a way that major leeway is given to the Agency. I don't think it has been codified in any law that the NSA's powers are limited to targeted, specific investigations. I'd like to see a section in the PA that states that.

The other major point you list that the legal community has decided to maintain as "gray" is the 4th Amendment as it relates to the digital realm. The argument has been everyone's expectation to privacy on the digital platform is diminished, as opposed to expectations to physical privacy. I'm not a lawyer (just married to an ex one), so I can't cite case law for you to point to but I do know that it has not been settled where our line of privacy exists with respect to the internet and by extension phone meta data.

So, all of those things stated above has given the legal community enough wiggle room to advise these security agencies HSA/NSA/CIA/FBI/etc that they pretty much have carte blanche on surveillance until further notice, from my understanding of it all. It's why I keep walking it back to the Patriot Act. I'm not saying I like or agree with the actions of these agencies, I'm just saying it has never been established that it is illegal. If it was, plenty of opportunist politicians or activists would be pushing for specific prosecutorial charges, but the most that has happened is Rand Paul issuing a civil law suit. That should tell you enough there.

We created this monster and we allowed it to be "legal" until someone decides to stop it. Finally, Congress is looking like they may do something, but it's ten years later than it should have been.

[eCat]

I don't see how digital has any bearing on it.

If a van pulls up outside your home, some guy with cheap aviator glasses, a bad haircut and a dark J.C. Penney suit scurries up the telephone pole and clips some wires onto your phone line, how is that any different than intercepting your cell phone calls? It would be a pretty clear violation if the guy was intercepting your phone calls on your land line. Even with wire taps, (at least what I know from watching true crime shit on TV) when they have a warrant, they just can't listen non-stop. ..and I'm sure the NSA is capturing your land line conversations as well as your cell phone.

If he takes a steam iron and opens up your letters you mail to your cousin at NYU, it would be a clear violation, so how is it not when intercepting your emails?

The DMCA makes it pretty clear its theft when someone downloads a movie - so our government has no problem understanding there are no grey areas in digital copyright.

I understand I'm not an expert on this, but I know the intent of the patriot act. There should be people brought up on charges within the NSA and the executive branch of the government, but no one has the balls to do so. Its clear this mentality spans both parties as Obama is just as complicit in it as Bush was.

"The argument has been everyone's expectation to privacy on the digital platform is diminished, as opposed to expectations to physical privacy."

That argument should fail - I don't own the land line I use to communicate, I don't own the mail service that processes my mail, yet our court systems went to great lengths to insure that my privacy was protected in the advent of that type of technology. Just because the technology changes, our expectation to privacy should not.

[Owlman]

The NSA has gotten judicial sanction from the special court used historically. The problem (and a few members of the court talked about this) is that they can only go by what has been provided them by the NSA. Under the patriot act, the reason must only be rationally related to a legitimate govt interest. This is because for many of this type of data entry, it does not fall under the expectation of privacy that should give it a higher scrutiny. Changes to this was part of the recommendations of the President's bipartisan committee.

[eCat]

Rand Paul must read here....


For all these reasons, we have elected to file a class action suit on behalf of all Americans whose rights have been violated by the NSA's unconstitutional spying programs.

We are requesting a ruling confirming that the blanket collection of Americans' telephone metadata without reasonable cause violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and requiring that these programs be halted immediately and that all previously collected data be purged from government databases.

It's time to hold government officials accountable for their habitual trampling on the Constitution and on our rights as individuals. Our case will be an important step down the road of restoring our Constitution and reining in our own overreaching federal government.

[Owlman]

bet it gets thrown out

[Bklyn]

And I bet Rand is cool with that.

[eCat]

"he NSA has gotten judicial sanction from the special court used historically."

replace special with secret and the problem becomes obvious

[Bklyn]

I really don't have a problem with the secrecy of the FISA courts. At least it was seemingly impartial oversight. I thought it was good enough to qualify as legit in the "checks and balances" department. It was surely good enough from 1978 until 2003 that the government wanted to reduce its power. Again, that should tell you something.