RE: first amendment gone awray

RE: first amendment gone awray (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Thegunnysez -> RE: first amendment gone awray (9/1/2015 7:08:09 PM)
quote: Frankly, if you enter employment with the CIA, FBi, or NSA an are completely unaware of all the 'cloak and dagger' stuff; Your and Idiot! Yes, the NSA is all about secrets. And they are very often monitored for their actions by Congress. I haven't mentioned secrets. I have mentioned breaking the law. I am sure you would agree that they are not the same thing.

Thegunnysez -> RE: first amendment gone awray (9/1/2015 7:11:49 PM)
quote: How do we determine if a law was broken? Which felony are you refering to? The one committed by Snowden or the one committed by the NSA?

Thegunnysez -> RE: first amendment gone awray (9/1/2015 7:14:50 PM)
quote: "Does the Ends Justify the Means"? We live in a country that was founded on the violent overthrow of the legally constituted government. Did that means justify the existence of our country?

Real0ne -> RE: first amendment gone awray (9/1/2015 9:11:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether 18 US Code 798 - Disclosure of classified information That carries with it some VERY serious penalties if found guilty of it. Like imprisonment and execution. If Mr. Snowden didn't break any laws, then why isn't he in the United States of America? Or is a US Citizen above the laws of the land? People say he would not get a fair trial. Yet, that is the risk of....ANYONE....in the court system. In the past, the current, and the future. If the man was found guilty, these people would argue he didn't get a fair trial. How do we determine if someone got a fair trial? That is why we have an Appellate Court. They review the case and give a verdict. If still not satisfied, there is the Supreme Court. In the case of a federal law issue, this would be the US Supreme Court. If people are still not happy with the verdict; tough shit. Since the man is to afraid to show up in the United States, let alone a court room to which facts and evidence can be submitted for review; we might never really know. How do we determine if a law was broken? A ) Place it within the realm of 24/7 media 'discussions' that push political agendas B ) Within a court of law Yes, Mr. Snowden and most Americans that side with him, went with Option 'A'. The correct method was Option 'B'. It is one thing to say the government is breaking the law and show public information. It is quite a bit different to say the government is breaking the law and release classified information to the public. Because then it raises the question: xcuse me gunny, but I got a get a piece of this action as well [8D] So Joe, from what I can tell I have never seen such a mismash not even seen coming from some of the lesser informed sovereign citizens that you ridicule, who have been shown to have a better handle on the law than that mess you posted. That said, how about you enlightening us on how and the procedures/steps you would take to bust this huge gubblemint crime syndicate open? In a court, option b like you think no one considered but you apparently?

Thegunnysez -> RE: first amendment gone awray (9/3/2015 5:49:18 AM)
quote: gunny was describing the difference between hole flow and electron flow. When we went from tubes to transistors we changed to hole flow since they are current rather than voltage controlled devices. No "we" did not. Both theories still exist and both theories adequately describe the phenominon.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125