To be fair I don't think he really cares. Plus I think if he were to go back he'd die an unnatural death pretty quick.

I'm talking about liquid. Rich enough to have your own jet. Rich enough not to waste time. Fifty, a hundred million dollars, buddy. A player. Or nothing. See my Blog & AMA
 

Snowden is nothing of the sort, he has set our intelligence program back significantly. Worst part about is that he's a contract system administrator who makes himself out to be an undercover agent. Pathetic and his day will come of "natural" causes.

 

wait so you're ok with the all programs the us government is currently using? i'm fucking skeeved out that every moment of my life can be on live feed without any legal due process. i mean, i'll probably never be big enough of a fish for the US government to give a shit about my google search results, but nevertheless. shit is a slippery slope.

 

I think what he did was treasonous and wrong but leaving that aside, he breaks the law then runs to China then Russia, not only our enemies (like it or not) but two countries that would have easily executed him without a second though or trialt, and Russia has pulled James Bond like hits on Russian citizens in other countries just for talking bad about the State. There was the polonium guy in London a few years back and some lesser publicized one elsewhere.

So you expose surveillance programs and run to two of the least free places on earth (might as well vacation in N. Korea) where you actively see people following you. If you're going to do that, have the balls to face what you did.

 

They said he was set to go through special forces training, so they must've seen value in him.

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." -IlliniProgrammer "Your grammar made me wish I'd been aborted." -happypantsmcgee
 

When it comes to computers many times education levels mean little compared to what people actually know and can do. Education just formalizes what they know how to do often faster.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

Being currently involved in an IT agency I can tell you that education means NOTHING! I am not an IT guy, but from the people I have talked to it seems the only thing that matters in IT is certifications. Certifications + the ability to obtain a top secret security clearance = valuable candiate.

 
Edmundo Braverman:

Probably already dead. He "disappeared" yesterday.

A selfless act if you ask me and a true patriot. What's crazy is that (in his interview) he seemed accepting of the fact that death was a possibility.

 
Edmundo Braverman:

Probably already dead. He "disappeared" yesterday.

If he was smart, he would have the other information he claimed to have on an auto release cycle if passwords are not entered on a regular basis. With that alone he could buy his life.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 
Edmundo Braverman:

Probably already dead. He "disappeared" yesterday.

If they were going to whack anyone it would have been Manning, I'm going twenty to one this guy's alive and has gone off the radar. Seems he didn't realize that you have to be inside a country to apply for asylum, so I'm thinking he's figuratively (or maybe literally) digging under a wall somewhere to beat Interpol to the punch. You could very well be correct, anything is possible.
Get busy living
 
lasampdoria:

Too visible to be taken out now. CIA is not that stupid.

Looks like he is getting help from Russia.

The only problem with that line of thought is (1) the CIA could claim that same point if they did kill or render him and (2) the information he's purportedly seen as a contractor makes him appear valuable, thus he may be wanted by many people, particularly governments like China and Russia. Point being, if he disappears it could be any number of people behind it, including himself.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
cphbravo96:
lasampdoria:

Too visible to be taken out now. CIA is not that stupid.
Looks like he is getting help from Russia.

The only problem with that line of thought is (1) the CIA could claim that same point if they did kill or render him and (2) the information he's purportedly seen as a contractor makes him appear valuable, thus he may be wanted by many people, particularly governments like China and Russia. Point being, if he disappears it could be any number of people behind it, including himself.

Regards

Good point CHP, having given that a few seconds of thought the CIA could be actively trying to capture him alive.
Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

No strong opinions either way, but kind of sounds like a self-important douche to me.

"For someone to believe he could make decisions on world events and he can shape the world and he alone—not the federal judges, or the attorney general, or the Supreme Court—should be the only one to determine what should be a national secret...That’s a level of arrogance only he can explain."

I think that quote sums up my opinion pretty well. A lot of the people up in arms over this are promulgating their views--along with the rest of their personal lives--through social media outlets like Facebook. The same lady that posts pictures of her new baby's first shit filled diaper is absolutely floored by the notion that someone in the NSA might be spying on a text she sent to her sister regarding her opinion on the newest episode of Glee. Heaven forbid! Let's neglect the fact your personal information has been on sale for over two decades now (remember telephone solicitors? Ever gotten any junk-mail?) I realize I'll piss some people off here, but anyone completely in shock over this should dismount their steed and focus on something worthwhile, in my humble opinion.

 
CaR:

No strong opinions either way, but kind of sounds like a self-important douche to me.

"For someone to believe he could make decisions on world events and he can shape the world and he alone—not the federal judges, or the attorney general, or the Supreme Court—should be the only one to determine what should be a national secret...That’s a level of arrogance only he can explain."

I think that quote sums up my opinion pretty well. A lot of the people up in arms over this are promulgating their views--along with the rest of their personal lives--through social media outlets like Facebook. The same lady that posts pictures of her new baby's first shit filled diaper is absolutely floored by the notion that someone in the NSA might be spying on a text she sent to her sister regarding her opinion on the newest episode of Glee. Heaven forbid! Let's neglect the fact your personal information has been on sale for over two decades now (remember telephone solicitors? Ever gotten any junk-mail?) I realize I'll piss some people off here, but anyone completely in shock over this should dismount their steed and focus on something worthwhile, in my humble opinion.

The primary difference is, of course, that the shitty diaper lady chose to reveal that information and to share it with whomever she allows to see it on FB, which I would argue is pretty near the definition of 'publicly'. If that was the extent to which the NSA was gathering intelligence, then so be it...but it's not.

We have a very important decision to make as Americans with regard to our personal freedoms and our liberties. Admittedly we've ceded a great deal of power to the federal government and may live to regret it. As a society, we have to decide where we draw the line and whether or not some of that authority needs to be revoked.

This becomes a contentious debate because it's about national security, but we can't let fear cloud our judgment. The powers we've given the government with legislation such as the Patriot Act could have dire consequences. I certainly hate to sound like an alarmist, but no one on the face of this earth could convince me that these powers can't or won't be abused. Of course, that's what the administration would have us believe, but as we've seen unfold over the last weeks, there is clearly a lack of oversight when it comes what the federal government does with our information. The fact that a person, or people, at the IRS willfully and illegally provided information about non-profit applicants to outside organizations serves as a very real, very relevant and very timely example that this can, does and will occur, at some point in time.

Also, just look at the way the administration is handling this. On one hand they tell the American people that this isn't a big deal, that we already knew about it because of public discussions regarding the Patriot Act (under Bush, the younger), the extension of the Patriot Act (under Obama) and the expansion of the Patriot Act (also under Obama)...then, out of the other side of their mouth, they bellow about how the release of this information was an act of treason because it's given benefit to our enemies. So which is it? Is it not a big deal because everyone knew about it...or is it a big deal because no one was supposed to know about it?!? Color me confused.

The Verizon phone number collection situation is one thing, the wholesale collection of all the data as taken and stored via the NSA's Prism program is potentially unconstitutional. I say 'potentially' as there is currently some wriggle room. At this point in time, what we would generally see as 'our' information...phone records, credit card statements, etc...aren't considered 'our' property, it belongs to a third party, so to speak, which means the government can potentially access it without probably cause or, at worst, the government would need to get a warrant from a FISA judge.

Which brings me to my last point. As we saw with the James Rosen/DOJ investigation, the DOJ intentionally mislead a judge into believing that Rosen was a criminal conspirator and that he posed a flight risk...which lead to the judge approving the search warrant. Later Eric Holder claimed Rosen was never going to get prosecuted, but just how did he get the warrant approved then? All of that begs the question, "What is stopping them from doing that to someone else?"

At any rate, the important thing to note here is the complete lack of transparency and oversight that surrounds these FISA court orders is their near unanimous approval. Very, very rarely are they ever required to be amended and almost never are they rejected. That makes you wonder whether the government is really, really good at snagging potential terrorists or are the FISA applications essentially rubber stamped??

I'll leave everyone with a couple quotes to ponder...

"There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice." - Charles de Secondat (Montesquieu)

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C. S. Lewis

https://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 

I have mixed emotions on the NSA spying. On one hand, it troubles me that they have access to so much information which the government could use to hurt political opponents. On the other hand, the people most upset about the NSA spying are absolute nobodies who the federal government would have little to no interest in.

My thoughts on Snowden: not a hero. He violated his oath that he literally takes when he obtains a security clearance. You passionately disagree with a piece of policy? Take it to your senator or congressman. There are plenty of legitimate channels to take your concerns. Guys like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would have pounced on it in about 3 seconds and would have brought it to light through the proper channels. Instead of taking it to legit channels, Snowden is now seeking asylum in Russia where they will no doubt offer a quid pro quo--sell out other American secrets for asylum. When your plan is to seek asylum in a country that poisons journalists and imprisons political dissenters then you know you've made a questionable ethical decision.

This isn't patriotic and it's not heroic.

 
DCDepository:
...Take it to your senator or congressman. There are plenty of legitimate channels to take your concerns. Guys like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would have pounced on it in about 3 seconds and would have brought it to light through the proper channels...

How exactly is a Senator able to bring to light Top Secret material??

Also, he presumably took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Does one trump the other?

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
cphbravo96:
Also, he presumably took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Does one trump the other?
DBCooper:
If no one "breaks their oath"...to defend the constitution, from enemies...foreign and DOMESTIC...how will abuse in a top secret program ever see the light of day?
There's a LOT of strong points made on this thread so far and I'm impressed with the level of introspection, and I think this is the heart of this whole thing. Many groups, intelligence, religious, politicaly, military, cultural, economic, or otherwise, try to conflate their agendas and importance as being the same as the Constitution's. But this is not the case and has no legitimacy beyond what they can impose by force or necessity. When people say "just get over it" I look at how willingly they trade in their dignity and freedom for the patronage of others and the only assessment I have is that they don't fully understand their rights or value them.
Get busy living
 
UFOinsider:
cphbravo96:

Also, he presumably took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Does one trump the other?

DBCooper:

If no one "breaks their oath"...to defend the constitution, from enemies...foreign and DOMESTIC...how will abuse in a top secret program ever see the light of day?

There's a LOT of strong points made on this thread so far and I'm impressed with the level of introspection, and I think this is the heart of this whole thing. Many groups, intelligence, religious, politicaly, military, cultural, economic, or otherwise, try to conflate their agendas and importance as being the same as the Constitution's. But this is not the case and has no legitimacy beyond what they can impose by force or necessity. When people say "just get over it" I look at how willingly they trade in their dignity and freedom for the patronage of others and the only assessment I have is that they don't fully understand their rights or value them.

You have your right to your opinion that this program in unconstitutional. I'd venture to guess, however, that you really don't know enough about it to evaluate its constitutionality. The fact is, the courts, 2 justice departments, the President of the United States, the intelligence committees of both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority leader disagree with you, and they are privy to much more detailed information than you are.

This isn't a matter of black and white "constitutional" or "unconstitutional". I'm not a fan of the program, but disagreeing with public policy doesn't give one the moral authority to violate their oath to secrecy, to violate the law and then to defect to Russia(!). There are proper channels to submit your disapproval of public policy. An intelligence analyst with high level security clearance would have gotten the ear of many influential people in Washington who could have put private internal pressure on the proper people.

 
DCDepository:
UFOinsider:

cphbravo96:
Also, he presumably took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Does one trump the other?

DBCooper:
If no one "breaks their oath"...to defend the constitution, from enemies...foreign and DOMESTIC...how will abuse in a top secret program ever see the light of day?

There's a LOT of strong points made on this thread so far and I'm impressed with the level of introspection, and I think this is the heart of this whole thing. Many groups, intelligence, religious, politicaly, military, cultural, economic, or otherwise, try to conflate their agendas and importance as being the same as the Constitution's. But this is not the case and has no legitimacy beyond what they can impose by force or necessity. When people say "just get over it" I look at how willingly they trade in their dignity and freedom for the patronage of others and the only assessment I have is that they don't fully understand their rights or value them.

You have your right to your opinion that this program in unconstitutional. I'd venture to guess, however, that you really don't know enough about it to evaluate its constitutionality. The fact is, the courts, 2 justice departments, the President of the United States, the intelligence committees of both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority leader disagree with you, and they are privy to much more detailed information than you are.

This isn't a matter of black and white "constitutional" or "unconstitutional". I'm not a fan of the program, but disagreeing with public policy doesn't give one the moral authority to violate their oath to secrecy, to violate the law and then to defect to Russia(!). There are proper channels to submit your disapproval of public policy. An intelligence analyst with high level security clearance would have gotten the ear of many influential people in Washington who could have put private internal pressure on the proper people.

You are correct disagreeing with a policy does not give you the right to make a moral judgement like this. However the guise of "terrorism" does not give the government the right to collect massive amount of data about me with out a specific warrant. The author of the PATRIOT Act has said this was not the purpose of the bill, nor does the bill as written authorize this. If you just accept what ever the government does and keep going on your way. You do not deserve the few freedoms we still have. The founders set up the government with the idea that government in any form can not be trusted. The government we have had for the last 100 years is exactly why they set up government as they did.

Not to mention everyone is up in arms about the tracking of phone numbers, this is one of the least egregious forms for tracking. The NSA and government has said again and again that they are not listening into phone calls, however no one is asking what they are doing with the emails they are reading, the social media information they have stored. Anything on the internet by its very nature is content. Someone needs to question this.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 
Best Response
DCDepository:
There are proper channels to submit your disapproval of public policy. An intelligence analyst with high level security clearance would have gotten the ear of many influential people in Washington who could have put private internal pressure on the proper people.
LOL it would seem those mechanisms 1) have failed and 2) are dominated by the aformentioned 'experts'. Aside from what the self annointed 'Supreme' court says, the ultimate arbiter is the court of public opinion from which the govenment derives all of its power. As I recall, this nation was founded by people who's basic attitude to tyrants was "Fuck you". They not only won, they made it clear that we commanded by them to do the same thing when/if the time comes. We're not there yet, but it does seem the government is doing everything they can to push up that timeline.

From my perspective, ethics are being pitted against the law, and the law will usually lose, even if not right away. Laws are simply rules, and rules can be changed. Ethics are the ideas governing the rules, and while abstract, they can not be bent around to suit the will of a tyrant, or anyone for that matter.

Of course he broke the law. The question always comes back to "Is what the NSA and our government ethical, and based on that answer, are this man's actions ethical". If he defects to Russia, well, he becomes a traitor, but even then you kind of have to wonder if the system is so broken here that it's starting to crank out Bennedict Arnolds on a regular basis, maybe it's time to rethink a few things.

Get busy living
 
UFOinsider:

There's a LOT of strong points made on this thread so far and I'm impressed with the level of introspection, and I think this is the heart of this whole thing. Many groups, intelligence, religious, politicaly, military, cultural, economic, or otherwise, try to conflate their agendas and importance as being the same as the Constitution's. But this is not the case and has no legitimacy beyond what they can impose by force or necessity. When people say "just get over it" I look at how willingly they trade in their dignity and freedom for the patronage of others and the only assessment I have is that they don't fully understand their rights or value them.

Well said.

Here's the thing...for an individual, I think 'integrity' is probably the single most important characteristic and one that should be retained at (practically) all costs. In a sense, there is an integrity to our country that is equally important to be maintained. For all practically purposes, that's the Constitution.

As we've seen since 9/11, maintaining the right balance is difficult and a constant struggle. As citizens, we have to be willing to accept some risk in our daily lives or we cease to be the great nation we are (or could be...depending on your personal feelings). It's similar to the concept of 'the ends justifying the means'. As a nation, we have to assess whether that's really the case.

Are we willing to sacrifice the nation's integrity in an effort to be/feel safe? The whole premise of our existence as a nation revolves around freedom and personal liberty. If we knowingly surrender those rights then we cease to be America as the world knows it.

If we try to function in reality for a moment, there is just no way the government could ever provide 100% security, so why are we willing to sacrifice so much privacy? Even if we installed cameras in every house and on every corner, it doesn't stop crime entirely and it doesn't provide unquestionable protection from murder, rape, robbery, etc...it only raises the probability that the perpetrator will be caught.

If we seriously step into a debate about ending all crime we tread into Minority Report territory where we would then have to dispute whether or not a potential crime is actually a crime and whether we can punish someone having an idea about potentially doing something.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 

You guys realize there is a House and Senate intelligence committee, right? The Speaker of the House personally called Obama and the intelligence committees about what was going on when he found out about the program.

With regard to the Constitution, I don't believe the constitution is being violated nor does the court system, the intelligence committees nor the justice departments of the last 2 administrations. There are 1.4 million people with secret security clearances. It's not the job or right of a lone individual to be judge and jury with his interpretation of very gray areas of the constituion. We aren't talking about black and white constitutional issues--we are talking about issues that are the matter of interpretation and debate and I don't think a high school drop out and Obama voter is the arbiter of what's constitutional and not.

 
DCDepository:

You guys realize there is a House and Senate intelligence committee, right? The Speaker of the House personally called Obama and the intelligence committees about what was going on when he found out about the program.

With regard to the Constitution, I don't believe the constitution is being violated nor does the court system, the intelligence committees nor the justice departments of the last 2 administrations. There are 1.4 million people with secret security clearances. It's not the job or right of a lone individual to be judge and jury with his interpretation of very gray areas of the constituion. We aren't talking about black and white constitutional issues--we are talking about issues that are the matter of interpretation and debate and I don't think a high school drop out and Obama voter is the arbiter of what's constitutional and not.

The whole point of the leak was to make the American people aware of what the government was doing behind our backs. Taking this to the Intelligence Committee wouldn't have made us aware since the material is still TS and can't be discussed publicly...so no, he couldn't have achieved his objective by going another route.

And some would argue this is not a gray area and that it directly violates the Fourth Amendment. Just because the various authorities deem it okay does not make it so. It was once said that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Snowden did what he thought was right.

I find it laughably ironic that you say it's "not the job or right of a lone individual to be judge and jury..." yet that is precisely what is occurring with these FISA cases, etc. There is A judge that determines your potential guilt based on a case that is presented when you aren't there to defend yourself. Or take drone strikes...which can be unilaterally authorized by the POTUS with no approval process...again a so called, "lone wolf."

Lastly, please explain why his level of education is relevant? Obama is a Harvard-educated Constitutional lawyer, yet has had a number of decisions that are, at the very least, constitutionally questionable.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 

The thing is, terrorism already won. We have people in washington who run around and shout terrorism every time someone puts a camera in their face. We have lost our rights, dignity, billions of dollars, and apperently our ability to trust our fellow citizens. This pretty much means terrorism won.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

If this PRISM thing worked we would have not had the Boston Bombing.

2 guys with Chechen roots, who visited Chechnya, who had the Russian govt warning us, who were posting islamic shit on twitter. Yet these clowns slip through the net.

Yeah, PRISM is shit.

 
TNA:

If this PRISM thing worked we would have not had the Boston Bombing.

2 guys with Chechen roots, who visited Chechnya, who had the Russian govt warning us, who were posting islamic shit on twitter. Yet these clowns slip through the net.

Yeah, PRISM is shit.

That's an incredibly arrogant statement. Do you know how many attacks you haven't heard of because of PRISM? I don't either.

 

from the president himself: "You can't have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we're going to have to make some choices as a society."

between all the torture debates and this PRISM shit i feel like we've been struggling to find that balance since 9/11 and haven't succeeded

 

What's frustrating to me about this program is that it may or may not be effective and it is of questionable constitutionality when the reality is we wouldn't have to potentially abuse everyone's civil liberties if we set aside political correctness. That means we get control of our southern border; we deport illegal aliens who commit other crimes (e.g. theft, DUI, rape, assault, drugs); we deport those who stay in the U.S. past Visa expiration; we limit or exclude legal immigration from Muslim dominated nations; and we profile people at airports rather than randomly searching 2-year-old girls or elderly persons in wheel chairs. I'm a white male under 40 traveling alone--I'm ok with receiving additional scrutiny at security checkpoints because I fit a profile. It's either that or we can have PC security.

Since we can't be rational in our national security things like PRISM are inevitable. You cast a wide net to ensure that no individual has civil liberties compromised. Instead, you compromise everyone else's.

 

Naaa man. The USA doesn't have a right to control immigration or our borders. But we do have a right to intercept all communications "to prevent terrorism".

I respect China. At least they are open about being totalitarian and cocksuckers.

 
TNA:
I respect China. At least they are open about being totalitarian and cocksuckers.
[heavy Chinese accent] Whot you toking about? This People's Democratic Republic, is so free
Get busy living
 
Edmundo Braverman:

^^^ I think private pressure is a big part of the problem. In order to affect any kind of change, it has to be done publicly. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Exactly.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 

I didn't put words in your mouth, wasn't talking about Snowden. I was talking about you, I was putting actions in your mouth. You seem to think that because we have a bunch of people who cream themselves over the idea of more power can have any rational debate on a program that gives them pretty much unlimited power is a joke. Go stick your head in the sand and wait it out.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

does anyone actually have any evidence to show that they are actually reading emails or listening in on calls? it seems like they're just mining numbers and email addresses, not monitiring you with a surveilllance team. cops have been using techniques like that for a while now, and given that we've authorized drone attacks on US citizens without a trial, i'm surprised everyone's getting their panties in a bunch over this of all things

 
idrankmalk:

does anyone actually have any evidence to show that they are actually reading emails or listening in on calls? it seems like they're just mining numbers and email addresses, not monitiring you with a surveilllance team. cops have been using techniques like that for a while now, and given that we've authorized drone attacks on US citizens without a trial, i'm surprised everyone's getting their panties in a bunch over this of all things

So there are really a few things going on here...which is hard to keep straight because there are new 'scandals' rolling out on a daily basis. Essentially, for the purpose of this discussion, there are two things...the Verizon phone records and the PRISM program. The Verizon issue was the NSA data mining their call logs, purportedly at a very high level. They say they are just looking at domestic phone numbers calling phone numbers overseas and then trying to figure out who these potential overseas threats are communicating with in the US.

Then, in an entirely different program/scandal is the PRISM program. This is the NSA capturing, not necessarily analyzing/reading, virtually everything from the large, named companies like Yahoo, Facebook, Gmail, etc. As I mentioned before, I don't think the NSA has the ability to analyze all the data they are collecting, but there is concern about why they are collecting it and whether they are actually allowed to do so.

A few issues at hand are (1) just how does the Fourth Amendment apply to this activity and (2) what is the 'status' of the data they are collecting. One problem we run into is that the Supreme Court has ruled that our phone bills and credit card bills and the like are not OUR property, therefor the seizing of such documents wouldn't necessarily be a violation of the Fourth Amendment...so this is one of the mechanism being used to allow the government to do this.

Another mechanism being used, more so in the Verizon case, is the Patriot Act, which allows for spying on foreigners, however, in this case, those foreigners happen to be communicating with Americans.

One of my biggest qualms is the government is made up of a bunch of human beings that operate in a range from stable to insane. As we've most recently seen in the IRS scandal, government agents were giving away confidential information...in this case the applications...of folks seeking to start non-profits while agendas and/or political views that were counter to the government agent's. What was done in this case is completely illegal, but as we've seen thus far, no one is being charged with a crime or prosecuted for breaking the law.

Now we have the administration telling us to trust them and that they aren't doing anything illegal, etc., but my guess is that would have also been their stance a few weeks ago before the IRS and the DOJ scandals broke.

Hopefully that gives you a little better idea of what's happening.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 

This also makes me wonder just how foreign national this is focused when you consider the number of domestic plots that have been claimed to have been stopped.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 
heister:

This also makes me wonder just how foreign national this is focused when you consider the number of domestic plots that have been claimed to have been stopped.

That's one of the major questions, and a point that DCDepository seems to missing. These programs haven't been properly vetted and the 'approvals' that he keeps listing are meaningless. The concept of gathering some data isn't the constitutional question, it's the sheer amount that is the crux of the constitutionality of the program.

The Fourth Amendment demands probable cause in order to violate my privacy and search or confiscate me or my personal effects, respectively. "There might be a terrorist out there somewhere" is in no way, shape or form 'probable cause'...which plainly means the PRISM program is violating the Constitution...or at least that's the argument.

heister raises another great question...though probably much more of a legal gray area...what really constitutes 'foreign', etc.? As has been pointed out by various pundits, the Fourth Amendment and the subsequent case law and court findings is aimed at stopping a 'dragnet' search. The authorities shouldn't be allowed to rape your life in an effort to find you guilty of something, hence the requirement for probable cause.

With some of these programs, particularly the FISA stuff, what is the burden of proof for probable cause? Could the NSA just say we believe a certain telephone number might be connected to a terrorist in a particular country and that Joe T. in Denver has called that number several times, which means he might be involved in a plot of some sort?

Of course, that's a rhetorical question because the FISA rulings are classified and done in secret, so we have no clue...we just have to trust that they are being done right.

My problem is virtually no government entity can even balance a budget properly, hell our government thought for weeks and weeks that the Benghazi attack was the result of a riot because of a video...but the numbers for the FISA applications are nearly 100%?!? Call me skeptical.

We have a secret court determining a person's potential guilt and that court is being briefed by a government that controls an agency that has been shown to lie to judges in an effort to get a search warrant for an individual which it later stated they never intended to prosecute (case of James Rosen) which has also been shown to target individuals/organizations based on their political beliefs and who illegally sold their information to what could be described as those individual's/organization's political enemies. Sound legit.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 

Aut quibusdam nostrum et ex eos. Hic ut autem tempore cumque. Ut fugiat vel amet quia cumque aut. Sit ut sit quia sed perspiciatis voluptate. At quod illum placeat sint quis.

Sit recusandae reprehenderit deleniti doloremque odit numquam dolorem. Impedit doloribus nemo minima ex qui dolores quibusdam.

Consequatur vero accusamus earum voluptate. Perferendis voluptatem expedita deserunt aliquam est rerum corporis. In doloremque non vel eos magni itaque. Deleniti corporis ea incidunt ut. Cupiditate excepturi inventore ipsam velit voluptas unde.

Voluptas et aut laboriosam officia fugiat. Expedita voluptatem sunt illo non hic itaque autem. Est enim voluptatem laboriosam ut unde. Adipisci facilis eaque dolor et perspiciatis est expedita.

Get busy living
 

Sed ea fugit officia in quia natus. Labore similique a nulla corporis sapiente est et. Dolores et porro eos inventore qui.

Quibusdam a nemo cum tenetur est. Quo consequatur consequatur sit rerum reprehenderit. Inventore dolor voluptatum voluptatem eaque quia. Sunt eum molestiae expedita excepturi veritatis aliquam.

Nulla maxime voluptatem maiores dolores. Et qui eos recusandae nesciunt voluptas dolorem deleniti.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 

Voluptatem cumque aliquid quia sit atque sequi autem molestias. Omnis autem ut voluptatem expedita accusamus. Quos incidunt quibusdam quos.

Dolorem ut odit rerum tempora deleniti alias voluptates. Ea non aperiam quaerat optio at. Maiores aut porro rem necessitatibus facere pariatur.

 

Deserunt perferendis doloremque soluta. Nihil vero aspernatur repellendus nulla aut quae occaecati. Voluptate earum nisi ipsum dolore maxime. Dolorem rem sequi eius aperiam earum. Voluptatem dicta dolorem est qui. Saepe dolores quo qui tempora sit necessitatibus dolorum itaque.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”