Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor?

[TakeYouToTasker]

You're right you didn't, but you launched into the usual warning of Big Brother taking over government and taking away people's rights, when the four century history of this country shows a constant ebb & flow of government actions that trample over basic rights and Constitutional violations, yet only to be brought back in line. I cannot think that what's been going on over the last 12 years is worse than repealing habeas corpus or interning innocent citizens because of their birth legacy. Yet the country survived and got stronger. This is the flip side of the loony left who is perfectly fine in trusting everything that the US government does as long as it fits a warm and fuzzy narrative.

 

I'm too cynical to think that the government as vast as ours is actually ruled by a sinister force whose ultimate goal is to control every aspect of our lives. I think that the government is too big and is populated by way too many unmitigated morons, and any efforts to impose a dictatorial police state would would fail like a main course of retatta at Four Seasons. The checks and balances that were put in place actually work, and the dysfunctional two party system keeps everyone from wandering too far astray.

 

As to the NSA scandal, people still forget that you do not own your telephone number. It is leased to you by a private telephone company with whom you have a ToS to use their network to communicate. The number is theirs, the network is theirs and you agree to use the network to expedite communication. Your choice. You are perfectly free to walk over to your friend and have a private conversation. Once you pick up that phone and dial a connection you lose some of your privacy. The courts have been consistent that phone number data is not private.

 

We also had extensive discussions during the Bush warrantless wiretapping fiasco. The difference there was that they didn't get a FISA judge to sign off on the data. It didn't matter, because the Constitution gave Executive vast powers, and it's very likely that FISA would be overturned if it ever were to stand Constitutional review because it gives Legislative power over Executive rights. But, I kind of like the Legislative overreach because it keeps Executive in check.

 

That's how it's always worked over four centuries. One side oversteps, the other three smack it right back. Seems to have worked well so far.

The difference between the eras of government you're talking about and today are the very real checks that the citizenry had on government because of the absolute lack of disparity between public and private arms, the level of access and accountability we have to and from our ruling class, the incredible differences in rugged survivability betwen our era and theirs, the impact technology has on the governments ability to control us, and the erosion of the seperation of powers.

 

Our law has been permeated by these influences. Those past injustices were righted because the law of the time judged them to be illegal. Our law today does no such thing. There are no strict constructionists. The High Law of the Land is an entirely interpretive document at every level, with courts now having established that no one has the standing to challenge possible administrative misbehavior (the ultimate outcome of the President's handling of his birth certificate). You can't unring the bell, the times won't let us.

 

There is a fantastic book written on the subject called "The Tyranny of Good Intentions." It's been peer reviewed, and excerpts have been reublished by several major law reviews. The argument is quite highly regarded in most circles.

Edited June 14, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[GG]

The difference between the eras of government you're talking about and today are the very real checks that the citizenry had on government because of the absolute lack of disparity between public and private arms, the level of access and accountability we have to and from our ruling class, the incredible differences in rugged survivability betwen our era and theirs, the impact technology has on the governments ability to control us, and the erosion of the seperation of powers.

 

Our law has been permeated by these influences. Those past injustices were righted because the law of the time judged them to be illegal. our law today does no suchj thing. There are no strict constructionists. The High Law of the Land is an entirely interpretive document at every level, with courts now having established that no one has the standing to challenge possible administrative misbehavior (the ultimate outcome of the President's handling of his birth certificate). You can't unring the bell, the times won't let us.

 

There is a fantastic book written on the subject called "The Tyranny of Good Intentions." It's been peer reviewed, and excerpts have been reublished by several major law reviews. The argument is quite highly regarded in most circles.

 

Baloney.

 

While the government has a lot of technological resources, on a relative basis, the populace is much more informed and educated than the great unwashed were 200 years ago. It's a cop out to think that the current situation is worse than anything that preceded it, yet there were far greater abuses of power in the past and the cronyism was far more institutionalized. Just for a simple comparison, can you imagine a Watergate type of a scandal 100 years ago? Aaron Burr was a borderline criminal for heavens sake, yet he was right in contesting that a Treasury Secretary had a virtual monopoly on banking In NY. These are the founding fathers, remember.

 

It's a cop out to think that it was wine and roses in the past, when history shows the opposite and getting more open.

 

My beef is that the political press forgot its role over the last five years and that the government is being dominated more by incompetents, not by megalomaniacs.

[3rdnlng]

The difference between the eras of government you're talking about and today are the very real checks that the citizenry had on government because of the absolute lack of disparity between public and private arms, the level of access and accountability we have to and from our ruling class, the incredible differences in rugged survivability betwen our era and theirs, the impact technology has on the governments ability to control us, and the erosion of the seperation of powers.

 

Our law has been permeated by these influences. Those past injustices were righted because the law of the time judged them to be illegal. our law today does no suchj thing. There are no strict constructionists. The High Law of the Land is an entirely interpretive document at every level, with courts now having established that no one has the standing to challenge possible administrative misbehavior (the ultimate outcome of the President's handling of his birth certificate). You can't unring the bell, the times won't let us.

 

There is a fantastic book written on the subject called "The Tyranny of Good Intentions." It's been peer reviewed, and excerpts have been reublished by several major law reviews. The argument is quite highly regarded in most circles.

 

This is the type of discussion I like to see here. Neither of you have been insulting and you both have good points. I've struggled personally with this issue and have yet to form a firm opinion. On the one hand I side with Tasker's libertarian philosophy, but the realist in me thinks I'm better off in GG's camp. I haven't figured out yet whethor or not I'm a realistic optimist or an optimistic realist. Anyway, keep the discussion on the higher level that it's been.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Baloney.

 

While the government has a lot of technological resources, on a relative basis, the populace is much more informed and educated than the great unwashed were 200 years ago. It's a cop out to think that the current situation is worse than anything that preceded it, yet there were far greater abuses of power in the past and the cronyism was far more institutionalized. Just for a simple comparison, can you imagine a Watergate type of a scandal 100 years ago? Aaron Burr was a borderline criminal for heavens sake, yet he was right in contesting that a Treasury Secretary had a virtual monopoly on banking In NY. These are the founding fathers, remember.

 

It's a cop out to think that it was wine and roses in the past, when history shows the opposite and getting more open.

 

My beef is that the political press forgot its role over the last five years and that the government is being dominated more by incompetents, not by megalomaniacs.

If your argument hinges on the notion that voters are more informed and educated than ever before, then I really want you reflect on it's merits.

 

Changes in voter eligibility laws, and our educational system have moved us farther and farther away from the informed, and intelligent voter. It used to be that only those with a vested interest (a population that shared a sizable overlap with the best educated) had a say in elections and the structure and opperation of our government. Now the homeless are bussed into the polls by political parties to cast their vote in exchange for a meal. Candidates battle for the "low information voter", and there are no high-brow debates over critical issues, because serious discusion isn't a made-for-TV event. We live in the day of the Tweet. 140 characters, or gtfo.

 

Our primary and secondary educational system teaches an unrecognizably revisionist history, no philosophy, and no economics. It teaches our children, as it has for several generations, not to think, but rather to comply. Not to act, but to defer, and to accept. Our post-secondary educational system is comprised of nearly nothing but indoctrination centers. Their graduates have no concept of how to balance their own check-books, and they've been promised a free ride. In the era that the Constitution was drawn up, it was written at what was considered a 4th grade reading level at the time. This test, and others like it, were used as the standard to enter the 8th grade in 1895. I doubt many BA's would pass such a test today.

Edited June 14, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[Rob's House]

 

 

Baloney.

 

While the government has a lot of technological resources, on a relative basis, the populace is much more informed and educated than the great unwashed were 200 years ago. It's a cop out to think that the current situation is worse than anything that preceded it, yet there were far greater abuses of power in the past and the cronyism was far more institutionalized. Just for a simple comparison, can you imagine a Watergate type of a scandal 100 years ago? Aaron Burr was a borderline criminal for heavens sake, yet he was right in contesting that a Treasury Secretary had a virtual monopoly on banking In NY. These are the founding fathers, remember.

 

It's a cop out to think that it was wine and roses in the past, when history shows the opposite and getting more open.

 

My beef is that the political press forgot its role over the last five years and that the government is being dominated more by incompetents, not by megalomaniacs.

There are a few key aspects you're overlooking. First, regardless of abuses, the Fed govt has never been anywhere near as big and pervasive as it is now. Even under FDR the level of Federal involvement that is taken for granted today, even by most conservatives, was highly controversial if not unfathomable.

 

Also, technology changes the landscape entirely. In generations past it was physically impossible to monitor individuals in ways now possible. It is now conceivable that a person's entire life - every phone call, text message, email, IM, web search, web post, etc. can be recorded, logged, and stored such that anyone with access to that database could perform directed searches for anything and everything that could damage that person. Forget unsealed divorce records, damn near anything would be available to destroy anyone who became a problem. Or they could perform directed searches to identify who the problem people are. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Add in camera's everywhere recording everything, with facial recognition software, perhaps audio to go with these tapes so you can scan the database to see where anyone was at any time, what they were saying, etc.

 

These are real possibilities that shouldn't be taken lightly. In the landscape of history, America is very young. It's fairly naive to think our government couldn't become totalitarian over the course of the next century.

[GG]

If your argument hinges on the notion that voters are more informed and educated than ever before, then I really want you reflect on it's merits.

 

Changes in voter eligibility laws, and our educational system have moved us farther and farther away from the informed, and intelligent voter. It used to be that only those with a vested interest (a population that shared a sizable overlap with the best educated) had a say in elections and the structure and opperation of our government. Now the homeless are bussed into the polls by political parties to cast their vote in exchange for a meal. Candidates battle for the "low information voter", and there are no high-brow debates over critical issues, because serious discusion isn't a made-for-TV event. We live in the day of the Tweet. 140 characters, or gtfo.

 

Our primary and secondary educational system teaches an unrecognizably revisionist history, no philosophy, and no economics. It teaches our children, as it has for several generations, not to think, but rather to comply. Not to act, but to defer, and to accept. Our post-secondary educational system is comprised of nearly nothing but indoctrination centers. Their graduates have no concept of how to balance their own check-books, and they've been promised a free ride. In the era that the Constitution was drawn up, it was written at what was considered a 4th grade reading level at the time. This test, and others like it, were used as the standard to enter the 8th grade in 1895. I doubt many BA's would pass such a test today.

 

So now the discussion shifts from a police state to a nanny state? Can we stay on topic?

 

And precisely what changes to voter eligibility are you talking about? Women?

 

Pick your poison. The republic was formed as a compromise. You can't wish for the Jeffersonian views that every man (and eventually woman) should have the right to vote, and his ideal of separation of powers at the same time as advocating Hamilton's restrictions on voter eligibility to a select elite and also empowering a very strong Executive branch. And guess whose system would be far more conducive to influence peddling?

 

I know it's tempting to see that things are much worse now than they were in the past, but that is simply not the case. The Republic survived a massive Civil War, that still has the highest body count in its history. Yet, it got much stronger afterward.

 

Again, this is not to say that the overall government reach shouldn't be curbed. But there's a wide gulf between that and fears of an impending police state.

Edited June 14, 2013 by GG

[TakeYouToTasker]

So now the discussion shifts from a police state to a nanny state? Can we stay on topic?

 

And precisely what changes to voter eligibility are you talking about? Women?

 

Pick your poison. The republic was formed as a compromise. You can't wish for the Jeffersonian views that every man (and eventually woman) should have the right to vote, and his ideal of separation of powers at the same time as advocating Hamilton's restrictions on voter eligibility to a select elite and also empowering a very strong Executive branch. And guess whose system would be far more conducive to influence peddling?

 

I know it's tempting to see that things are much worse now than they were in the past, but that is simply not the case. The Republic survived a massive Civil War, that still has the highest body count in its history. Yet, it got much stronger afterward.

 

Again, this is not to say that the overall government reach shouldn't be curbed. But there's a wide gulf between that and fears of an impending police state.

 

You don't get to be dismissive of me demonstrating a much less informed and less educated population, and accuse me of shifting goal posts when you yourself made the concept of a more educated and informed voter central to your own argument. If you don't like being wrong, then stop being wrong, but don't stoop to dishonest argument. Furthermore, you're either strawmanning, or have no knowledge of the history of the franchise if your really going to assert that I'm speaking to women's sufferage.

 

Diving into the governing philosopies of Jefferson and Hamilton, one absolutely can choose what he believes to be the best of each, and build a better working philosophy. As far as I am aware, there is no law dictating that I adhere rigidly to one against the other, or vice-versa. Hamilton was correct about limiting the franchise as a privlidge to those who have earned a say via merit, as the limited franchise is nessecary to protect the Republic from the masses. Jefferson was correct in his views about the seperation of powers, as this seperation is what protects the Republic from the power elite. The two ideas are entirely reconcilable.

Edited June 14, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[GG]

You don't get to be dismissive of me demonstrating a much less informed and less educated population, and accuse me of shifting goal posts when you yourself made the concept of a more educated and informed voter central to your own argument. If you don't like being wrong, then stop being wrong, but don't stoop to dishonest argument. Furthermore, you're either strawmanning, or have no knowledge of the history of the franchise if your really going to assert that I'm speaking to women's sufferage.

 

Diving into the governing philosopies of Jefferson and Hamilton, one absolutely can choose what he believes to be the best of each, and build a better working philosophy. As far as I am aware, there is no law dictating that I adhere rigidly to one against the other, or vice-versa. Hamilton was correct about limiting the franchise as a privlidge to those who have earned a say via merit, as the limited franchise is nessecary to protect the Republic from the masses. Jefferson was correct in his views about the seperation of powers, as this seperation is what protects the Republic from the power elite. The two ideas are entirely reconcilable.

 

How in the world did you demonstrate that the electorate is not more informed or educated now than it was 100 years ago? By tossing in a random 8th grade test from 19th century? What was the % of 13-year olds who could actually take that test in 1895 vs now? How about this for real data on educational attainment? And that graph only goes to 1940. Care to guess what that graph looked like in 1900?

 

And no, you don't get to pick and choose, because that was the whole basis of the compromise that started the Republic, and that compromise seemed to have worked. Again, if the vote was limited to a select elites, wouldn't that be a far worse form of representation. Funny that a libertarian who decries influence peddling in government supports a voting system where the peddling by an elite empowered class would be institutionalized.

[CosmicBills]

Rob raised the one point you keep sidestepping, GG: Technology.

 

Do you not see the inherent dangers present in our new digital world? People more than ever are dependant upon the 1s and 0s that make up their world, from their personal correspondences to their bank accounts. Over the past two decades we have gleefully surrendered our right to privacy in exchange for lightening fast communications without ever once considering the downside to our electronic dependence.

 

The Executive has become stronger, not more balanced, since the days of Lincoln or FDR. Neither of those men had the ability to read their citizen's (or enemey's) correspondence as readily as they have today. Neither of those men had the ability to wage war with unmanned (and armed) UAVs capable of depriving citizens of their right to due process with a simple push of the button. It's easier than ever for the people with their hands on the wheel of power to eviserate any private citizen they wish -- literally or metaphorically.

 

I just find it interesting that you choose to disregard the elephant in the room when discussing this. I'm guessing it's because you're over the age of 50 and aren't a child of the information age. (and I don't mean that as a shot to your age if I am indeed correct about that)

Edited June 14, 2013 by tgreg99

[GG]

Rob raised the one point you keep sidestepping, GG: Technology.

 

Do you not see the inherent dangers present in our new digital world? People more than ever are dependant upon the 1s and 0s that make up their world, from their personal correspondences to their bank accounts. Over the past two decades we have gleefully surrendered our right to privacy in exchange for lightening fast communications without ever once considering the downside to our electronic dependence.

 

The Executive has become stronger, not more balanced, since the days of Lincoln or FDR. Neither of those men had the ability to read their citizen's (or enemey's) correspondence as readily as they have today. Neither of those men had the ability to wage war with unmanned (and armed) UAVs capable of depriving citizens of their right to due process with a simple push of the button. It's easier than ever for the people with their hands on the wheel of power to eviserate any private citizen they wish -- literally or metaphorically.

 

I just find it interesting that you choose to disregard the elephant in the room when discussing this. I'm guessing it's because you're over the age of 50 and aren't a child of the information age. (and I don't mean that as a shot to your age if I am indeed correct about that)

 

I tangentially addressed it when I said that people also have much greater access to information and technology.

 

It's a two way street. The government possesses a vast tech arsenal, but access to state of the art technology is also much more readily available to the average Joe, as well as to criminals. I can also make an argument that the gulf in available technology between the US government/military and common citizens is much narrower than what it was 100 years ago.

 

These debates have been ongoing since the approval of fingerprinting and social security numbers. You seem to get caught up in technology being a far greater enabler for government misuse. I am indifferent to somebody pushing a button on a drone vs the cavalry riding into town handing out smallpox blankets. Both suck.

 

On a relative basis, the government has the same ability to monitor communication as it always had vs people's ability to protect their privacy. I think that people are armed with much more effective tools as well. Can you imagine a scenario where a 15-yr old kid can take down major communications networks or infiltrate secure networks? It's certainly plausible now. But the equivalent of that scenario is unimaginable in 1900.

[TakeYouToTasker]

How in the world did you demonstrate that the electorate is not more informed or educated now than it was 100 years ago? By tossing in a random 8th grade test from 19th century? What was the % of 13-year olds who could actually take that test in 1895 vs now? How about this for real dataon educational attainment? And that graph only goes to 1940. Care to guess what that graph looked like in 1900?

 

Your "real data" on educational attainment is bunk, as it's an empty comparison of apples to oranges. Who cares what the rates are, when the rates are indicative of different things. Who cares if more people are obtaining an "education" if that education isn't representative of having actually obtained any knowledge. You're pushing a standard where "obtaining an education" is synonymous with "managed to occupy a desk in high school". Looking back on the historical eras we're speaking of, no matter what % of the population could qualify for an 8th grade education, that % had massive overlap with the voting population of land owners. Today the % of the population who votes for president has a large overlap with those who vote for American Idol. But hey, atleast you're no longer denying that you introduced education into the argument, so kudos for that atleast.

 

And no, you don't get to pick and choose, because that was the whole basis of the compromise that started the Republic, and that compromise seemed to have worked. Again, if the vote was limited to a select elites, wouldn't that be a far worse form of representation. Funny that a libertarian who decries influence peddling in government supports a voting system where the peddling by an elite empowered class would be institutionalized.

To your second paragraph: hell of a way to completely misrepresent my argument. You should try arguing against my positions, instead of the strawmen you keep proping up.

 

I absolutely do get to pick and choose, because I'm making my case, not Jefferson's or Hamilton's. You don't get to choose the constraints and confines of my argument; especially when I'm arguing for improvments, and you're arguing for the status quo. It also speaks volumes about your world view when you conflate people with a knowledge of history, mathematics, and philosophy who also hold a vested valuse in the size and scope of our government to be an "elite class". Property or business owners and those with military service records are hardly elite; they've simply earned the privlidge of the franchise. You're going to have to explain to the class how an argument for a more clearly defined seperation of powers, combined with a franchise limited to those with a vested value in the size and scope of government equates to "institutionalized peddling by an elite empowered class", because quite frankly, your Owellian nightmare is exactly what we suffer with today.

[Magox]

It's funny, when I read this thread, it reminds me of bizarro world. People from the left, moving to the right, people from the right, moving to the left. etc. One thing is for certain, if this would have happened under Bush, Bizarro world would cease to exist in this thread, and everyone would have gone back to their predictable corners.

[DC Tom]

This test, and others like it, were used as the standard to enter the 8th grade in 1895. I doubt many BA's would pass such a test today.

 

I wouldn't, if only because I don't know how much a bushel of wheat weighs.

 

The answers on that site aren't right, either. Whoever gave that answer for "case" of a noun wouldn't have passed, either.

[Fan in San Diego]

So, any employee of the CIA (or in this case contractor) can decide what is classified or not? My guess is that it's classified because it is a method of sorting through the billions of calls by the NSA and having the ability of finding that one Detroit area number that keeps calling an Islamabad number and then further investigating it. Once the person guilty of the equivalent of "jaywalking" has outed the methods of finding these people they have the opportunity of changing their MO. That's just a side story to why this is serious. It's serious because he took it on his own to decide what was "jaywalking" classified vs. what was "life or death" classified.

 

If your reading comprehension was up to par you'd understand that the example that I gave re outing deep cover agents was simply to give Tom an example of why you can't differentiate severity of guilt by who you actually gave the information to.

Good point.

[TakeYouToTasker]

It's funny, when I read this thread, it reminds me of bizarro world. People from the left, moving to the right, people from the right, moving to the left. etc. One thing is for certain, if this would have happened under Bush, Bizarro world would cease to exist in this thread, and everyone would have gone back to their predictable corners.

I know I wasn't an active participant on these boards during the Bush Administration, so you'll have to take my word for it; but my argument was exactly the same then as it is now.

[GG]

Your "real data" on educational attainment is bunk, as it's an empty comparison of apples to oranges. Who cares what the rates are, when the rates are indicative of different things. Who cares if more people are obtaining an "education" if that education isn't representative of having actually obtained any knowledge. You're pushing a standard where "obtaining an education" is synonymous with "managed to occupy a desk in high school". Looking back on the historical eras we're speaking of, no matter what % of the population could qualify for an 8th grade education, that % had massive overlap with the voting population of land owners. Today the % of the population who votes for president has a large overlap with those who vote for American Idol. But hey, atleast you're no longer denying that you introduced education into the argument, so kudos for that atleast.

 

 

To your second paragraph: hell of a way to completely misrepresent my argument. You should try arguing against my positions, instead of the strawmen you keep proping up.

 

I absolutely do get to pick and choose, because I'm making my case, not Jefferson's or Hamilton's. You don't get to choose the constraints and confines of my argument; especially when I'm arguing for improvments, and you're arguing for the status quo. It also speaks volumes about your world view when you conflate people with a knowledge of history, mathematics, and philosophy who also hold a vested valuse in the size and scope of our government to be an "elite class". Property or business owners and those with military service records are hardly elite; they've simply earned the privlidge of the franchise. You're going to have to explain to the class how an argument for a more clearly defined seperation of powers, combined with a franchise limited to those with a vested value in the size and scope of government equates to "institutionalized peddling by an elite empowered class", because quite frankly, your Owellian nightmare is exactly what we suffer with today.

 

Are you really arguing that your opinion of education quality is more statistically valid than a US Census data on educational attainment?

 

It's funny, when I read this thread, it reminds me of bizarro world. People from the left, moving to the right, people from the right, moving to the left. etc. One thing is for certain, if this would have happened under Bush, Bizarro world would cease to exist in this thread, and everyone would have gone back to their predictable corners.

 

Very easy to check. Do a search on Bush, FISA and you will see many of the same opinions of participants.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Are you really arguing that your opinion of education quality is more statistically valid than a US Census data on educational attainment?

Are you really arguing that "educational attainment" as presented by the US Census is a valid metric by which we can do comprehensive apples to apples comparisons?

[3rdnlng]

One man's take on Snowden:

NSA Fiasco Is a Snowden Snow Job

By Michael Reagan

There is an interesting bit of reverse symbolism in the Edward Snowden case. Snowden releases top-secret National Security Agency documents revealing phone and Internet surveillance taking place in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Fearing prosecution for his multiple breaches of federal law, Snowden takes refuge in China — one of the most repressive nations in the world. In China there is essentially no Internet freedom and security services monitor its subjects from cradle to grave.

It would be like convicted swindler and televangelist Jim Bakker taking refuge in Saudi Arabia rather than face the music in the U.S..

 

What Snowden did — as former U. N. Ambassador John Bolton pointed out in a Newsmax interview — was not leaking to raise a policy dispute. It's quite simply treason. If Snowden had sent the documents to a Chinese security contact in exchange for money, even the Obama administration and Eric "Hands Off" Holder would have no doubt been motivated enough to charge him with spying, just as earlier administrations charged Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen with treason for spying for the Russians.

But federal prosecutors have trouble coming down equally hard on a spy that releases his information to the world in exchange for fame. The media treats it like a bullying Uncle Sam is coming down on an Internet Robin Hood. Reporters presume a government program that collects information — covertly — must be bad. Therefore, Snowden must be a hero.

As a result, Snowden misses out on receiving money in exchange for the secrets, but China still gets the information, along with Russia, Iran, and various jihadists. Meanwhile, Snowden assumes the mantle of Courageous Whistleblower with all the attendant praise from the left and invitations to appear on MSNBC.

Instead of treason, Snowden will be charged with some offense, less than treason, that still carries a lengthy prison sentence, but has neither the shame — nor the potential death — of a treason verdict.

If Snowden is able to dodge extradition and make his home in the People's Republic of China, one thing is certain: His leaking career is over. China takes treason seriously.

The penalty is a bullet in the back of the head and your relatives are presented with a bill for the ammunition.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Directed to Michael Reagan:

 

"When the President does it, that means it's not illegal," is not a valid argument. Furthermore an oath taken to protect those purperating criminal activity, especially one taken before the knowledge of the presence of criminal activity is no oath at all.

[GG]

Are you really arguing that "educational attainment" as presented by the US Census is a valid metric by which we can do comprehensive apples to apples comparisons?

 

I have no idea of what your idea of apples to apples comparison is, and if you dispute the statistical validity of US Census data relative to a random 8th grade questionnaire from 1895 then it confirms that all you're interested in is preaching from you faux-libertarian soapbox. No need to discuss any further.

 

And as to the other point, the discussion is how things work under the existing Constitutional framework, not a hypothetical scenario on Klaatu. I used to have a sig before a random act of Rubeo rosened the board - it was a quote from Hamilton - "I have thought it my duty to exhibit things as they are, not as they ought to be." I think it's time to resurrect it.

Edited June 14, 2013 by GG