Al Gore: NSA Surveillance Program Violates Constitution

[mikey23545]

Al Gore: NSA Surveillance Violates The Constitution


Former Vice President Al Gore broke with many of his fellow Democrats Friday and said that the NSA surveillance programs violate the constitution.

"This in my view violates the constitution. The fourth amendment and the first amendment – and the fourth amendment language is crystal clear," he told The Guardian, which revealed the agency's phone surveillance and reported on its Internet data-mining. "It is not acceptable to have a secret interpretation of a law that goes far beyond any reasonable reading of either the law or the constitution and then classify as top secret what the actual law is."

"I quite understand the viewpoint that many have expressed that they are fine with it and they just want to be safe but that is not really the American way," he added.

Gore called "blanket" surveillance "obscenely outrageous" in a tweet on June 5. Nevertheless, he has mostly criticized Obama over climate change, an issue where the 2000 presidential nominee won a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in 2007.

The revelations have scrambled traditional Democratic and Republican labels. A bill to require the Attorney General to declassify the court opinions used to justify the programs was introduced by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah). Sen Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced Thursday that he planned to take legal action against the programs, after initially introducing his own legislation to prevent the government from collecting data on Americans.

On the other hand, both Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) have said that Edward Snowden, who admitted to leaking documents showing the existence of the programs to The Guardian, committed treason. Congressional leaders in both houses have called for him to be prosecuted, with Boehner going so far as to call Snowden a "traitor."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=politics

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Is it really your property? If you send me an email, I'm free to do what I want with it so at some point it must stop being your property. And what about the metadata? Are you claiming that it's your property too?

I would argue that at least some of my emails are unique, creative works that are technically protected under copyright law. They are absolutely my property.

[RedNeckRaider]

Originally Posted by BigRichard

Yeah, that is freely.

He "freely" choses or else~

[RedNeckRaider]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Is it really your property? If you send me an email, I'm free to do what I want with it so at some point it must stop being your property. And what about the metadata? Are you claiming that it's your property too?

How about your house? If you own it the tax is still due so the government should be able to enter it at anytime because you "really" do not own it. If you are paying a morgage and the lender tells the government they can enter your / their house anytime thats cool right?

[BucEyedPea]

I looked up meta data which is defined as an ambiguous. Per this there is "structural metadata" and "descriptive metadata." The first is "data about the containers of data" the latter has to do with "data content."

So I can see why some use it to hide behind when they just use the term "meta data."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by mikey23545

Goddamit, dude...You just can't admit it is wrong for the government to listen in on your phone calls like this, can you?

You are just too damn egotistical to admit you're wrong. You're making a spectacle of yourself.

Are they listening to my phone calls without a warrant? I doubt it.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Letting the government run amok and unchecked is ALWAYS a great idea.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by RNR

How about your house? If you own it the tax is still due so the government should be able to enter it at anytime because you "really" do not own it. If you are paying a morgage and the lender tells the government they can enter your / their house anytime thats cool right?

Your house is your property as defined by our legal system, despite the fact that it may be collateral on a mortgage and the fact that you probably live in a jurisdiction that taxes real property.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I looked up meta data which is defined as an ambiguous. Per this there is "structural metadata" and "descriptive metadata." The first is "data about the containers of data" the latter has to do with "data content."

So I can see why some use it to hide behind when they just use the term "meta data."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata

"Metadata" is a one word description for something real here that would otherwise take a paragraph or two to describe fully. Unlike the "neocon" label that you're fond of using, it has been defined in dozens of articles on this subject so it shouldn't really lead to any confusion. Metadata is the type of data you might get on your phone bill that tells you the numbers you called, the time the call was made, and the duration, etc., but not what you said during the call.

[AphexPhin]

[planetdoc]

I am Not purposefully trying to bump old threads to spam the frontpage of the D.C forum. I didnt want to start an additional thread regarding surveillance, and this is the only thread that seems would most closely fit the subject below.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...283.html?hp=l9

Originally Posted by article

The U.S. government has acknowledged that it swept up huge volumes of data from emails in the U.S. for several years without any court approval, based solely on the orders of former President George W. Bush.

[theelusiveeightrop]

I can't believe I agree with Al Gore on something.

[Billay]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

Isn't this the same logic behind gun control advocates' argument that the 2nd amendment didn't anticipate what modern arms would be?

Yes Pat is a neo con

[Cochise]

Originally Posted by patteeu

For those of you who believe that you have an inalienable right to keep the metadata of your phone and email conversations (or the contents for that matter) out of the hands of the government, why do you hold that belief?

I can understand why people might think that it's a good idea to keep this data out of the hands of the government, but I don't understand why people think it's a right.

IMO, the government has no reason to collect this data specifically on me, so they shouldn't be doing it.

[planetdoc]

that sounds like a thoughtcrime citizen

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Cochise

IMO, the government has no reason to collect this data specifically on me, so they shouldn't be doing it.

That's a reasonable opinion. Opinions like yours should be considered during the debate by our legislature on how best to proceed, IMO.