I was just following your character lead....you know, regulating your answers because according to you that's OK
And now you can see why I ignore most of senders posts.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Cicero's convoluted logic is running away with him again.
Can Feinstein be right in calling a whistle blower's actions 'treasonous'? Yes. Can the data mining program be 'legal'? Yes.
Cissy has a problem with logic. In his mind these two statements can't co exist.
It can only be treasonous if you believe the American people are an enemy of the government, and that the American people knowing about their electronic communications being collected, stored, and profiled will aid the American people (the enemy) against their own government.
And if the American people's communications are legally being stored and profiled by the government, then Americans should be aware of this law. You can't have law aimed at collecting the communication of the American people, then claim to say it's "legal", if the American people were never given the details of how the law is being implemented.
And if the American people's communications are legally being stored and profiled by the government, then Americans should be aware of this law. If they read the fine print, they'd know it was legal when they signed up for a phone.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
You can't have law aimed at collecting the communication of the American people, then claim to say it's "legal", if the American people were never given the details of how the law is being implemented.
Ummmm Yes you can. If the legislature passes a law on collecting phone data, and that law doesn't infringe on citizens rights... the law is "legal". "The American people were never given the details of how the law is being implemented..." but their elected officials were, as they wrote the law.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
In a Pew Research Center/Washington Post poll, majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents all supported the NSA monitoring, but Democrats were by far the most likely to do so. Sixty-four percent of Democrats called the surveillance acceptable, compared with 53 percent of independents and 52 percent of Republicans.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
"The American people were never given the details of how the law is being implemented..." but their elected officials were, as they wrote the law.
No they weren't. Only the people appointed the intelligence committees were given the information. And those that were privy to that information were not allowed to tell their constituents. So how does a democracy work if your representative has information that he/she is not allowed to inform you about? Your logic is bizarre. You are suggesting that your representatives can write laws that violate the privacy of their constituents, and their constituents have no idea how it is being implemented against them.
Box, your authoritarian tendencies know no bounds.
And if the American people's communications are legally being stored and profiled by the government, then Americans should be aware of this law. If they read the fine print, they'd know it was legal when they signed up for a phone.
Can you show me the fine print that informed Americans that their communications were being collected, stored indefinately, and profiled by the NSA.
In a Pew Research Center/Washington Post poll, majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents all supported the NSA monitoring, but Democrats were by far the most likely to do so. Sixty-four percent of Democrats called the surveillance acceptable, compared with 53 percent of independents and 52 percent of Republicans.
How much they support it depends on what party is in office, as expected:
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
Ummmm Yes you can. If the legislature passes a law on collecting phone data, and that law doesn't infringe on citizens rights... the law is "legal".
Collecting private communications and storing them indefinately isn't infringing of the 4th Amendment? How does a citizen challenge their violation of the 4th Amendment in court if they are not aware of how it is being implimented? How can a citizen challenge it if they AREN'T ALLOWED ACCESS TO THE INFOMATION?
You are suggesting that your representatives can write laws that violate the privacy of their constituents, and their constituents have no idea how it is being implemented against them.
Yes. With our system as it is now set up, your statement is true. The exception being any law that violates the Constitutional rights of the citizen. Privacy of calling phone records have, to this date, not been protected by law, so are acceptable data for surveillance.
If you disagree with the law... then change it and stop whining.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Yes. With our system as it is now set up, your statement is true. The exception being any law that violates the Constitutional rights of the citizen. Privacy of calling phone records have, to this date, not been protected by law, so are acceptable data for surveillance.
If you disagree with the law... then change it and stop whining.
You keep on saying phone records. What about Prism, the email data mining? Or the search engine data mining? Or the social media data mining?
My phone records may be released from the storage of my phone service provider if a judge(not a FISA judge, I'm not a foreigner) issues a warrant based on evidence that there is probable cause to believe I committed a crime. Issuing warrants to allow the NSA to collect in real time the electronic communications of all Americans that have been suspected of nothing, store it on a governemnt data base, is not legal.
But I understand your logic, you've dismissed the 4th Amendment a LOOOOONG Time ago.
In a fact sheet released over the weekend, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper described Prism as “an internal government computer system used to facilitate the government’s statutorily authorized collection of foreign intelligence information from electronic communication service providers under court supervision.” Congress added the authority in Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 2008 and it “has been widely known and publicly discussed since,” Mr. Clapper said.
“They are following FISA. They are satisfying the [FISA court] judge, then they are getting the data from the [telecommunications] providers,” Mr. Baker said of the National Security Agency, whose classified slide show about Prism was leaked last week. In addition, the heads of the House and Senate intelligence committees have said the program does not infringe on privacy and has prevented terrorist attacks
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
