They’re not limiting individual rights. They’re limiting the rights of the collective.
Does ‘disingenuous’ mean ‘true’ now?
They are limiting the right to privacy of individuals and searches without warrants though treating all individuals indiscriminately in the search to find suspects of plots to cause harm to America. They are protecting the collective from these viable threats.
Yeah, and no, they don’t have the right to do what they have done.
My understanding is the critics wanted more oversight and more timely deletion of "gathered information" so there is less risk of it being used by nefarious people. I agree with making the surveillance operation more safe for everyone. There is almost always room for improvement.
Until I actually hear the US Supreme Court actually rule it is unconstitutional I will treat it as legal. I didn't read the articles since the wording in the link address implies the judge is merely expressing an opinion.
As for Snowden, get real. He is as much a narcissist as Assange. Snowden's father proudly adores Putin in public. It wouldn't surprise me if his father nurtured and urged his son to betray his country. The intent of these American traitors is to bring the young Snowden back to America without facing charges in a court of law for obviously breaking American law while using him as a proxy for Putin to spread his ideals in American Pop Culture, and turning more Americans against America. The reality is unequivocal and for good reason: the US government will never allow the young Snowden back into America without forcing him to face his charges in a court of law. If Snowden believes his actions were constitutional then why isn't he in America defending himself in a court of law? A high profile case like that will assure him a fair process and fair trial since it will be heavily scrutinized for any injustice.
(Bold type mine, for emphasis)
What you are saying here are false and malicious statements. Do you know what "libel" means? And did you know that libel laws extend to the Internet?
The government has the right to limit individual human rights if the collective is seriously threatened.
No, the government's duty is to protect individual rights. Nothing less.
To say they are spying on everyone is disingenuous. They are trying to find suspects that are plotting to cause harm to America, much like trying to find needles in a haystack
They are spying on everyone. This fact has not been disputed.
Comments
They’re not limiting individual rights. They’re limiting the rights of the collective.
Does ‘disingenuous’ mean ‘true’ now?
Yeah, and no, they don’t have the right to do what they have done.
Double post, delete this please
No problem with iPad Air @ 8.0.1, all is well
Until I actually hear the US Supreme Court actually rule it is unconstitutional I will treat it as legal. I didn't read the articles since the wording in the link address implies the judge is merely expressing an opinion.
As for Snowden, get real. He is as much a narcissist as Assange. Snowden's father proudly adores Putin in public. It wouldn't surprise me if his father nurtured and urged his son to betray his country. The intent of these American traitors is to bring the young Snowden back to America without facing charges in a court of law for obviously breaking American law while using him as a proxy for Putin to spread his ideals in American Pop Culture, and turning more Americans against America. The reality is unequivocal and for good reason: the US government will never allow the young Snowden back into America without forcing him to face his charges in a court of law. If Snowden believes his actions were constitutional then why isn't he in America defending himself in a court of law? A high profile case like that will assure him a fair process and fair trial since it will be heavily scrutinized for any injustice.
(Bold type mine, for emphasis)
What you are saying here are false and malicious statements. Do you know what "libel" means? And did you know that libel laws extend to the Internet?
The government has the right to limit individual human rights if the collective is seriously threatened.
No, the government's duty is to protect individual rights. Nothing less.
They are spying on everyone. This fact has not been disputed.