Freedom of speech is 'universal' right, Michelle Obama tells China

[JayAtl]

Two words. NSA. Snowden. Hypocrite pigs.

two words , not related ...

freedom of speech has nothing to with snowden or NSA

 

[Hyperion]

You're an uber moron. First Amendement encompasses all.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

two words , not related ...

freedom of speech has nothing to with snowden or NSA

 

[JayAtl]

You're an uber moron. Second Amendement encompasses all.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL we love how some pakistanis tell us one liners and call us uber morons on this. We have one claiming iv amendment , now we have another ( YOU)claiming 2nd amendment.

tell us what part of 2nd amendment, which is about ' the right to keep and bear arms' has to do with NSA or Snowden?

 

[Hyperion]

Sorry, it was first amendment. Not a Yank myself. So I can be forgiven, you, however, one of the leading subverters of freedom of speech, shouldn't be posting such topics.

Now don't get your smelly panties in a twist!

LOL we love how some pakistanis tell us one liners and call us uber morons on this. We have one claiming iv amendment ( at least as something to do with NSA/ Snowden) , now we another ( YOU)claiming 2nd amendment.

tell us what part of 2nd amendment, which is about ' the right to keep and bear arms' has to do with NSA or Snowden?

 

[JayAtl]

I never said that Snowden has proved his claims in court. I said he has provided evidence to support his claims and such evidence will be examined by legal scholars.

The debate we have been having is whether he should face the music in US courts, and I showed in post #85 why his apprehensions of persecution are well-founded based on what happened to others.

what evidence?

Sorry, it was first amendment. Not a Yank myself. So I can be forgiven, you, however, one of the leading subverters of freedom of speech, shouldn't be posting such topics.

Now don't get your smelly panties in a twist!

What part of 1st amendment has to do with NSA or Snowden? where is speech hampered?

If an ISI agent runs off to India with your secrets , would you say he had freedom of speech to do so?

 

[shuttler]

freedom of speech is just one part of the equation
what goes alongside with "freedom of speech" is the "responsilities and the price to pay consequential to the speech"
It is the latter part that is always missing and the whole thing has been cheerleading on by the fools and the manipulators

Anyway michelle obama's speeches are boring.

 

[Developereo]

NYTimes leaked the NSA taps

The issue is not NSA taps per se (which can be perfectly legal) but whether any of them violated amendment IV.

Let me give you an analogy and perhaps it will finally dawn on you. A woman is seen as killing her husband in self defense. You upon reading it call it as a charge of murder and we keep on saying , no there will be no such charge of murder because what she did was in defense of her life.

Whether she is guilty or not, the fact remains that the relevant section of the law is that dealing with manslaughter and murder (in addition to any other statutes).

That is the point: whether NSA is guilty or not, the fourth amendment is the relevant clause -- contrary to your claims that it is not relevant.

Similarly you keep citing the amendment here when we keep telling you the legal scholars have determined that there is no such basis, because the NSA wiretaps were legal and did not fringe upon the IV amendment. Now just because you have snowden and some folks opining about it does not make it otherwise

what part of this are you failing to see? what part of IV as being rejected by legal scholars and no one, not a single person ever has filed a case against the govt on the veracity of your claim, is not clicking with you?

Legal opinion is still divided on whether NSA violated the Fourth Amendment.

Updated: Federal judge finds NSA phone spying likely unconstitutional | Ars Technica

DC-based federal judge has ruled that the National Security Agency spying revealed this summer violates the constitution.

The opinion (PDF) published today by US District Judge Richard Leon is in response to a lawsuit filed byLarry Klayman, a longtime conservative activist.
[...]
They are likely to show the bulk data program is an unreasonable search, and violates the Fourth Amendment

 

[Vinod2070]

Well, in this case I would say that this constant and self-serving self-righteousness of the West (especially the US) impresses no one.

It is used selectively and to blatantly intervene in the domestic issues of sovereign countries.

Their own sense of the Western culture and values being somehow "universal" and using them to further their interests is not hidden from anyone.

So they may blow their trumpet but it is losing its effectiveness every passing day.

 

[JayAtl]

The issue is not NSA taps per se (which can be perfectly legal) but whether any of them violated amendment IV.



Whether she is guilty or not, the fact remains that the relevant section of the law is that dealing with manslaughter and murder (in addition to any other statutes).

That is the point: whether NSA is guilty or not, the fourth amendment is the relevant clause -- contrary to your claims that it is not relevant.



Legal opinion is still divided on whether NSA violated the Fourth Amendment.

Updated: Federal judge finds NSA phone spying likely unconstitutional | Ars Technica

DC-based federal judge has ruled that the National Security Agency spying revealed this summer violates the constitution.

The opinion (PDF) published today by US District Judge Richard Leon is in response to a lawsuit filed byLarry Klayman, a longtime conservative activist.
[...]
They are likely to show the bulk data program is an unreasonable search, and violates the Fourth Amendment

so couple of things in that ruling... it is not on basis of 4th amendment violation in judges own words, he is best unsure and the supreme court case cited in that article ( which was a good nugget I was not aware of )

First the judge:

The Smith case and NSA surveillance are wildly different, so a different analysis must take place. "I cannot possibly navigate these uncharted Fourth Amendment waters using as my North Star a case that predates the rise of cell phones," writes Leon.

But more telling- Supreme court Precedent

Smith v. Maryland. That's the 1979 Supreme Court decision that found there's "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in the actual phone numbers dialed from a telephone, because they are "business records." That's what allows "pen registers" to be installed by police without judicial review, since it's not a "search" in the eyes of courts.

oddly enough , just a couple of days ago, Obama administration said , no " phone numbers of citizens will be collected by the NSA" and that they would go directly to the phone companies. I don't know how they are going to identify which number in the US was called or which number from the US called the terrorist known phone....They have not been clear about it. But they have said they wont house the numbers anymore.

however once again- Snowden still does not have a case on the basis of the 4th amendment in any shape or form- because he stole the files and leaked way more than just NSA taps, that everyone was some what aware of NSA taps... he leaked our intelligence gathering in foreign countries too! This is a very important distinction. he has no moral grounds to stand on.

 

[Developereo]

so couple of things in that ruling...

The only thing to note is that, contrary to your claims,
-- A case has been filed in court against the NSA for violation of privacy.
-- The central issue is the Fourth Amendment.
-- Legal opinion is divided.

however once again- Snowden still does not have a case on the basis of the 4th amendment in any shape or form-.

Nobody here has suggested that Snowden's Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the NSA. He claimed that others' rights were violated.

We've been through this already. No need going back in circles.

 

[JayAtl]

The only thing to note is that, contrary to your claims,
-- A case has been filed in court against the NSA for violation of privacy.
-- The central issue is the Fourth Amendment.
-- Legal opinion is divided.



Nobody here has suggested that Snowden's Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the NSA. He claimed that others' rights were violated.

We've been through this already. No need going back in circles.

-case was filed on privacy issue ( broad )
- judge said he could not use 4th amendment as north star. So 4th is not an issue as a legal argument
- there is no divided legal opinion on 4th because SCOTUS decided " just numbers " is not a violation.
- guy who filed it is no legal scholar, and as I repeatedly said none have never filed on 4th being violated.

Can't change your tune to say " Nobody here has suggested that Snowden's Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the NSA"
- you did say that 4th was the basis of his rights violated , you cited it as his belief and your explicit agreement with it here...

 

[Developereo]

-case was filed on privacy issue ( broad )
- judge said he could not use 4th amendment as north star. So 4th is not an issue as a legal argument
- there is no divided legal opinion on 4th because SCOTUS decided " just numbers " is not a violation.
- guy who filed it is no legal scholar, and as I repeatedly said none have never filed on 4th being violated.

Don't dig a deeper hole for yourself than you already have.
All the judge said is that the SCOTUS ruling does not invalidate this case.
His opinion reiterates that NSA's conduct likely did violate the Fourth Amendment.

The link is there for people to read for themselves. Your reading of legal documents mirrors your pathetic confusion over the Constitution.

Can't change your tune to say " Nobody here has suggested that Snowden's Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the NSA"
- you did say that 4th was the basis of his rights violated , you cited it as his belief and your explicit agreement with it here...

More display of your desperation.

Nowhere did I write that Snowden claimed a direct, personal violation of his own privacy. He made a broad assertion about NSA's violation of privacy of the American public at large.

Readers can read for themselves what was written -- rather than your lies -- notwithstanding your desperate measures to regain some semblance of dignity after you have been shown to be a class-A ignoramus.

Over and over and over.

Stick to commenting about India.

Your pathetic knowledge of anything American continues to be a source of entertainment on this forum.

 

[gambit]

-case was filed on privacy issue ( broad )
- judge said he could not use 4th amendment as north star. So 4th is not an issue as a legal argument
- there is no divided legal opinion on 4th because SCOTUS decided " just numbers " is not a violation.
- guy who filed it is no legal scholar, and as I repeatedly said none have never filed on 4th being violated.

Can't change your tune to say " Nobody here has suggested that Snowden's Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the NSA"
- you did say that 4th was the basis of his rights violated , you cited it as his belief and your explicit agreement with it here...

Let him go.

Like I said, Mr. D here have no problems with China's oppression of its own people but it is America that deserves his condemnation. He probably never spent any real time in the US, but he is a US military 'expert', a US foreign affairs 'expert', and now a US Constitution 'scholar'.

 

[Developereo]

He probably never spent any real time in the US, but he is a US military 'expert', a US foreign affairs 'expert', and now a US Constitution 'scholar'.

This is not a contest of who spent how much time where, but who can support their arguments with specific references, and who is just blowing smoke.

Readers can judge for themselves on that score.

 

[JayAtl]

Let him go.

Like I said, Mr. D here have no problems with China's oppression of its own people but it is America that deserves his condemnation. He probably never spent any real time in the US, but he is a US military 'expert', a US foreign affairs 'expert', and now a US Constitution 'scholar'.

Spot on that... the ADHD in his comments from post to post at first is entertaining, then you take pity on the guy.

Don't dig a deeper hole for yourself than you already have.
All the judge said is that the SCOTUS ruling does not invalidate this case.
His opinion reiterates that NSA's conduct likely did violate the Fourth Amendment.

The link is there for people to read for themselves. Your reading of legal documents mirrors your pathetic confusion over the Constitution.



More display of your desperation.

Nowhere did I write that Snowden claimed a direct, personal violation of his own privacy. He made a broad assertion about NSA's violation of privacy of the American public at large.

Readers can read for themselves what was written -- rather than your lies -- notwithstanding your desperate measures to regain some semblance of dignity after you have been shown to be a class-A ignoramus.

Over and over and over.

Stick to commenting about India.

Your pathetic knowledge of anything American continues to be a source of entertainment on this forum.

You suffer ADHD? you come in and post the amendment 4th as a basis of what you agreed with snowden on... now few pages later you deny it? ROFL READ post#6 where you said this

The highest law of the land in America is the US constitution. Snowden felt that lesser laws violated the supreme law.

Fourth Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

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.

and what is up your pakistani self always trying to be the purveyor of whose american ? stick to your local delights my man and your " I see zionist everywhere" paranoia.