Snowden STILL a hero

I guess I need to post this again:

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: Thanks, Scott.

The President confirmed the existence of a highly classified program on Saturday. The program remains highly classified; there are many operational aspects of the program that have still not been disclosed and we want to protect that because those aspects of the program are very, very important to protect the national security of this country. So I'm only going to be talking about the legal underpinnings for what has been disclosed by the President.

The President has authorized a program to engage in electronic surveillance of a particular kind, and this would be the intercepts of contents of communications where one of the -- one party to the communication is outside the United States. And this is a very important point -- people are running around saying that the United States is somehow spying on American citizens calling their neighbors. Very, very important to understand that one party to the communication has to be outside the United States.

Another very important point to remember is that we have to have a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda. We view these authorities as authorities to confront the enemy in which the United States is at war with -- and that is al Qaeda and those who are supporting or affiliated with al Qaeda.

What we're trying to do is learn of communications, back and forth, from within the United States to overseas with members of al Qaeda. And that's what this program is about.

Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.
Click to expand...


You keep pretending that if one person is outside the United States then there is no requirement to get a court order, but that's just not so.



https://www.fas.org/irp/news/2005/12/ag121905.html
 
You fucking conservatives, Damocles included, want to pretend that what Obama is doing is Soooooo much worse than what Bush was doing, in fact Bush had taken it significantly FURTHER, and you fuckers defended him.

Yes I don't like some aspects of what the Obama administration is doing, but I was more upset by what Bush was doing, and not because of the color of anyone's jersey you sanctimonious little prigs.
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
You fucking conservatives, Damocles included, want to pretend that what Obama is doing is Soooooo much worse than what Bush was doing, in fact Bush had taken it significantly FURTHER, and you fuckers defended him.

Yes I don't like some aspects of what the Obama administration is doing, but I was more upset by what Bush was doing, and not because of the color of anyone's jersey you sanctimonious little prigs.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO
 
Jarod said:
You really are not aware of what your hero was doing are you? Seriously, they admitted it.... Are you that much of a dumbfuck?
Click to expand...

am I a dumbfuck if I know what the law says (since 1979) and you don't?.....
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801

(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or
Click to expand...

guess what happens if they are NOT located within the US.......
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
am I a dumbfuck if I know what the law says (since 1979) and you don't?.....
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801



guess what happens if they are NOT located within the US.......
Click to expand...

You said the Bush Administration was not listening into phone calls. It was, it was listening in to Americans on the phone. Are you going to continue to ignore that fact, now that you have stopped denying it. Dumb Fuck!
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
am I a dumbfuck if I know what the law says (since 1979) and you don't?.....
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801



guess what happens if they are NOT located within the US.......
Click to expand...


Uh, that's for radio communications. Telephone calls are typically wire communications covered by paragraph 2:

(2) (2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;
Click to expand...
 
Dungheap said:
Uh, that's for radio communications. Telephone calls are typically wire communications covered by paragraph 2:
Click to expand...

He does not care about the truth, just about appearing to score points for he and Damocles's team.
 
Jarod said:
You said the Bush Administration was not listening into phone calls. It was, it was listening in to Americans on the phone. Are you going to continue to ignore that fact, now that you have stopped denying it. Dumb Fuck!
Click to expand...

lol, my apologies.....I thought we were only referring to things which weren't perfectly legal.....I didn't realize you were also talking about things that they were allowed to do under the law.....
 
Dungheap said:
Uh, that's for radio communications. Telephone calls are typically wire communications covered by paragraph 2:
Click to expand...
oh, you mean THIS paragraph.....
(2) (2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top