"The conspiracy he revealed is vast." - Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
642 2013-12-12 by [deleted]
-"Readers of this page are well aware of the revelations during the past six months of spying by the National Security Agency (NSA). Edward Snowden, a former employee of an NSA vendor, risked his life and liberty to inform us of a governmental conspiracy to violate our right to privacy, a right guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
-The conspiracy he revealed is vast. It involves former President George W. Bush, President Obama and their aides, a dozen or so members of Congress, federal judges, executives and technicians at American computer servers and telecoms, and the thousands of NSA employees and vendors who have manipulated their fellow conspirators. The conspirators all agreed that it would be a crime for any of them to reveal the conspiracy. Snowden violated that agreement in order to uphold his higher oath to defend the Constitution.
-The object of the conspiracy is to emasculate all Americans and many foreigners of their right to privacy in order to predict our behavior and make it easier to find among us those who are planning harm.
-A conspiracy is an agreement among two or more persons to commit a crime. The crimes consist of capturing the emails, texts and phone calls of every American, tracing the movements of millions of Americans and foreigners via the GPS system in their cellphones, and seizing the bank records and utility bills of most Americans in direct contravention of the Constitution, and pretending to do so lawfully.
-The pretense is that somehow Congress lessened the standard for spying that is set forth in the Constitution. It is, of course, inconceivable that Congress can change the Constitution (only the states can), but the conspirators would have us believe that it has done so.
-The Constitution, which was written in the aftermath of the unhappy colonial experience with British soldiers who executed general warrants upon the colonists, forbids that practice today.
-That practice consists of judges authorizing government agents to search for whatever they want, wherever they wish to look. By requiring a warrant from a judge based on probable cause of criminal behavior on the part of the very person the government is investigating, however, and by requiring judges to describe particularly in the warrants they issue the places to be searched or the persons or things to be seized, the Constitution specifically outlaws general warrants.
-This is more than just a constitutional violation; it is a violation of the natural right to be left alone.
-When that right is violated, when all of our private movements are monitored by the government, the menu of our free choices is reduced, as we surely alter our private behavior to compensate for being watched. And just as surely, the government expands its surveillance, knowing that it is not being watched.
-As a result of these revelations, no one has been fired, except Snowden, and the conspiracy has grown.
-Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is now spying on us. It seems that the FBI, no doubt jealous of the unpunished lawlessness of the NSA, has acquired software that permits it to utilize the tiny cameras in many home computers to observe whoever or whatever may be in front of the computer screen.
-The FBI doesn’t only look at whoever is using the computer screen; it also captures the words and images on the screen. It seems to have an affinity for monitoring online gaming, even the lawful variety.
-In 1949, when George Orwell predicted in his terrifying novel “1984” the future use of television sets to watch us in our homes, many thought he was a delusional paranoid. It turns out that he was just off by a generation. His predictions have come to pass.
-Like many growing conspiracies, this one has spawned others.
-The Washington Post also reported this week that local cops, too, are jealous of the NSA and its ability to break the law with impunity. In an effort to catch bad guys, local police in half a dozen American cities have begun to ask local telecom providers for a “tower dump.” A tower dump consists of digital recordings of all cell phone usage from a given cell tower.
-When some telecoms balked at these requests, the cops went to judges, some of whom unlawfully authorized these dumps and some of whom declined.
-Frustrated that the NSA seems to get whatever it wants, some local police have used their own technology to spy.
They’ve purchased a $400,000 device that mimics cell phone towers, drawing cell phone signals to it and enabling the cops to capture telephone calls without the cooperation of telecoms or permission from federal judges. That’s called hacking; it is a federal crime and in most areas a state crime, as well.
-The assaults on personal freedom never seem to end.
-The very concept of violating the rights of many in order to catch a few -- a practice perfected by tyrannical regimes -- has been prohibited for 222 years by the same Constitution that the perpetrators of these practices and the conspirators in these schemes have sworn to uphold.
-Sometimes, dissents in Supreme Court decisions articulate American values better than majority opinions do.
-Here is one from Justice Louis Brandeis that did: “The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.”
-If we permit the government to destroy that right, we will live under tyrannies similar to the ones we thought we defeated."
122 comments
116 tboner6969 2013-12-12
Excellent piece.
And I've gotta say this: if your knee jerk reaction to this post is to first attack that fact this is posted on Fox News: you are part of the problem. CNN, msnbc, fox, they're all on the same team. And that team is not our team, the ctizenrys' team. Establishment media serves and perpetuates the masters' narratives that cause us harm. But this is not one of those narratives.
Read the text, heed the message.
71 [deleted] 2013-12-12
Napolitano is one of us. Sometimes we get a decent journalist in the mainstream media once in a while. I've been listening to him for years.
10 TibEco 2013-12-12
I do like listening to him when he's on. He really does care and as far as I'm concerned, speaks for us since we have NO voice in both media and Washington.
3 sizzletron 2013-12-12
Me too. On another note re: guys I liked to hear speak, anyone know why Keith Olbermann is still without a platform? I understand he was fired from Current, but is there no way for him to continue to inspire the people? Did he himself quit? Miss that guy's perspective...
3 armleglegarmhead 2013-12-12
hes back on espn. he does a late night sports show on espn2 every weeknight.
2 Sarah_Connor 2013-12-12
He moved from "tough" political commentary to sports?
WHy?
9 shoryukenist 2013-12-12
He started at sports. He is notoriously difficult to work with. That has been the problem.
2 FAP-FOR-BRAINS 2013-12-12
he also has mental problems and was caught pissing under his desk onto the floor several times
1 shoryukenist 2013-12-12
At least use a jar. Man.
1 FAP-FOR-BRAINS 2013-12-12
or a big ole sponge, huh.
-1 jakemasterj 2013-12-12
I feel like he's going to end up dead soon enough.
-13 DamagedHells 2013-12-12
Are you kidding me? He defended JP Morgan Chase when the government went after them with the small fine, saying it was a "government shakedown."
He's another banker shill.
16 [deleted] 2013-12-12
Do you have a transcript of that? I'm gonna need some context for this. I don't care about a short quote and a short explanation of your opinion on that quote.
Edit: Here it is. He's not a "banker shill." And you are an idiot for spreading rumors.
-5 thefuckingtoe 2013-12-12
New York’s attorney general filed a lawsuit against J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. over the sale of mortgage-backed securities by Bear Stearns, which was acquired by J.P. Morgan in 2008.
The state is accusing the bank of widespread fraud, writing in the complaint that, the bank "systematically failed to fully evaluate the loans, largely ignored the defects that their limited review did uncover, and kept investors in the dark about both the inadequacy of their review procedures and the defects in the underlying loans".
J.P. Morgan Chase said it was "disappointed" by the civil action, but vowed to contest the allegations.
Judge Andrew Napolitano discussed the lawsuit this morning on Fox Business Network, specifically the question of whether New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's political ambition is playing into the legal action.
Do you not understand how to use google?
Edit: You found the exact same article that I did. Congratulations on finding it an hour after you asked others to do it for you. You're a big boy now.
7 [deleted] 2013-12-12
That isn't a transcript and yes I know how to use google. I spent a few minutes on it and decided this person should have just provided me with a direct link to the full text of what he said instead of me searching for it and ending up on his facebook page without a direct link to anything.
I guess now that two people failed to provide me with a transcript, and I have an asshole insinuating that I am an idiot by asking if I know how to use a search engine, I'll search for and find the transcript myself.
-9 thefuckingtoe 2013-12-12
You are self-sufficient! Hooray!
5 [deleted] 2013-12-12
Right. Then when I provide the context and explain this, I'm sure either you or that other person will just make up some other vague story that I have to go searching for. Self-sufficient? I just want to spend my time wisely instead of chasing rumors.
-3 thefuckingtoe 2013-12-12
You didn't link to a transcript.
AND you are a psychic?
Jesus, what the fuck are you doing on the internet. Go to Vegas.
3 [deleted] 2013-12-12
I'm not a psychic. I just had a feeling that Napolitano wasn't a "banker shill." I've read a ton of his material and "banker shill" never came to mind as something that was even a remote possibility.
0 thefuckingtoe 2013-12-12
You are right, you are not psychic.
Cheers.
8 whoadave 2013-12-12
Completely agree. However, if anyone wants to try sharing a non-FoxNews source for this article, you can find it here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/11/napolitano-a-conspiracy-so-vast/
6 [deleted] 2013-12-12
Throw that on a few subs?
3 whoadave 2013-12-12
I just tried posting in a few, don't want to submit to too many, but anyone else is welcome to try other subs.
2 Wild2098 2013-12-12
They are not so much on the same team as they are just not on any of our teams. Fox is just a mirror image of the "MSM", same thing, different team.
1 [deleted] 2013-12-12
All mass media is there for profit first, and information second. If they don't get anything out of it, they don't want to share it. Yes, that includes alternative news, not just main stream.
24 nimik 2013-12-12
I love this man. He is probably one of the most well known people on TV that openly ridicules the government for its illegal acts. I often wonder what he really thinks of 9/11, Boston bombing, or Sandy Hook. Does he think there's more to those events but doesn't say anything?
21 aG_Infamous 2013-12-12
I feel like he knows but he doesn't want to be labeled a conspiracy theorist or whatever else. He is pretty respected I'm sure he doesn't want what he says to lose its power
3 R4F1 2013-12-12
He does question the official narrative, just like his Mises Institute colleague Ron Paul. Neither claim to follow a specific "conspiracy theory", but both want a reinvestigation into 9/11, as we should.
Judge Napolitano Exposing 9-11 Cover-Up With Col. Anthony Shaffer
Judge Napolitano says We Should Question the Official Story of 9/11
1 grkirchhoff 2013-12-12
Sandy hook? What is the conspiracy there?
16 whoadave 2013-12-12
Disclaimer: I'm neither buying nor discounting the conspiracy, just sharing what I know of it.
In short, gun control. CIA/FBI/whatever agency finds mentally unstable targets, people on antidepressants, coaxes them into shooting up a school, media makes a scandal about it, hiring crisis actors to give the reactions they want, support for gun control rises.
3 FAP-FOR-BRAINS 2013-12-12
most of the mass/school/mall shooters were on antidepressants
3 reputable_opinion 2013-12-12
alleged shooters.
3 redping 2013-12-12
in the alleged school.
2 reputable_opinion 2013-12-12
with no kids Christmas decorations the week before holidays... yeah.
-1 redping 2013-12-12
Right, and somehow that's proof the entire school never existed and it's all a hoax and hundreds of people in a small town congregated to lie about their children dying in an effort to spread gun control, and nobody came forward with the truth and the government didn't think this was too risky to go ahead with ...
I mean it's totally logical! also at some point somebody reacted to trauma unlike in the movies. Further evidence! Don't forget the triangle you can draw over a picture of a dead kid who's making a hand with his heart. Case is practically closed at this point!
Come on, shit like this is the stuff that actually makes me think there is a legion of trolls here just trying to make conspiracy look bad. How could anybody believe something with such flimsy evidence based on nothing but their distrust of the government? I mean the argument from you guys essentially is "NSA invades my privacy, but I think we should be able to invade the privacy of the parents and ask them questions or have footage of their child being murdered showed globally."
IF there was any evidence, the government would probably do something to try to prevent a conspiracy growing. But it's simply so bizarre and so without any merit, that the argument just falls on its face the second you realise how deluded you would have to be to convince you that faking the deaths of civilian children with the help of their civilian parents in a fake school (in a fake town?) isn't a plan that would immediately bite you in the ass.
3 reputable_opinion 2013-12-12
I ask you the same question. How could anybody believe that there was such a massacre of children given NO evidence, and believe a story of the assault that is clearly impossible?
-2 redping 2013-12-12
Well I don't personally want to see pictures of dead kids or footage of people shooting kids. I am more than happy to take the word of the hundreds of people who were there, the parents who all lost children, the EMT, the police statements, witness statements. Over the idea that "but we didn't get to see the BODIES, therefore obama's gunna take our guns!!"
Don't you think it's going to feel a bit terrible if you sit around demanding proof and they finally release photos of all the dead kids? Or do you not care how it would make the families feel? I know you THINK they're all actors but you can't be sure, right? So if you're wrong, and you are according to all evidence except the lack of dead kid photos, then isn't what you're accusing people of pretty terrible?
I mean you really think the entire town is in on it, and the school staff, and the local police, hospital, hell even friends of friends and all the family connected to the kids at the school (iuncluding relatives in other states, unless you're saying they faked their own deaths to their own family for no reason)
And why would parents and children want to enforce better gun control and go this far to do it? The motive is just nonsensical and the evidence is just gut-feelings based off of small aspects that in no way reflect the reality of the situation (bits of phone calls, interviews with parents, etc)
2 reputable_opinion 2013-12-12
you didn't find it offensive that they interviewed children on TV right after it supposedly happened? and that they continued to exploit the victims on TV.. but I'm a monster for demanding extraordinary evidence of an EXTRAORDINARY claim, that is patently IMPOSSIBLE.
where is your mind?
1 [deleted] 2013-12-12
Do you have links to any of these statements? I'd love to hear some testimony of EMT who were involved with any of the bodies injured in the attack. Please provide links.
1 LS_D 2013-12-12
no the school's real
1 FAP-FOR-BRAINS 2013-12-12
nice call...
2 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2013-12-12
You mean like professional witness Adriana Victoria Munoz?
-3 reputable_opinion 2013-12-12
please grow some balls and stand up for your convictions. are you being intimidated or shamed into not being honest?
5 whoadave 2013-12-12
Are you referring to my disclaimer? I really don't like to make up my mind about these sort of conspiracies when I'm not sure. I certainly wouldn't put it past the CIA or FBI, but I'm not going to make up my mind about it without enough evidence. I prefer to be aware of these conspiracy theories whether or not I fully buy them, so that when the evidence adds up one way or another, I'll be more informed about what to believe or in how I view things.
Ninjaedit: It's certainly possible that there is enough evidence out there to convince me, and I just haven't looked through it yet.
1 reputable_opinion 2013-12-12
well what's the point responding to anything you wrote? do you think it's an objective fact that conspirators coaxed shooters on antidepressants?
there's no evidence for this at all, and by that I mean there's been no evidence produced that Lanza was even AT the school that day.
2 whoadave 2013-12-12
No, I don't think it's a fact, hence the disclaimer.
I was stating the pieces to the conspiracy as I understood them, but just because I'm aware of a conspiracy theory, doesn't mean I know all the details or am convinced as to its truth one way or another.
I was just trying to answer /u/grkirchhoff's question, though I'm certain there are others here who could've answered more informatively.
0 reputable_opinion 2013-12-12
yeah, I guess I don't like disclaimers that seem to protect people from having an opinion.
0 paperzplz 2013-12-12
yep, in sandy hook case its more hoax than coax
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2013-12-12
Harvard Journalism Professor Andrea McCarren claims that the shooters mother was a kindergarten teacher at Sandy Hook. Then the shills/trolls would ridicule anyone who believed silly rumor on the internet that was started by Andrea McCarren's blatant lies. Also, Andrea McCarren is married to Bill McCarren, who is an executive at the National Press Club, a position he was promoted to after the Sandy Hook dust had settled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CilfQSYNC5g&feature=youtube_gdata_player
0 j3nk1ns 2013-12-12
I personally don't think the shooting was orchestrated by TPTB, but it is the perfect opportunity to push forward anti-gun agenda, and the media was all over it.
Some might think it's brain implants or something of that sort. I don't really know any other conspiracies related to SH.
0 paperzplz 2013-12-12
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAVnSIHryFo
has most of the bullet points, you need to watch 4-5 videos to get the full perspective though
essentially a drill played off as a mass shooting by the media/gov/masons/zionists to push the gun control agenda and possibly kidnap/abuse/sacrifice children
-3 thefuckingtoe 2013-12-12
Physics proves 9/11's official narrative is a farce.
Why do 3 controlled demolitions, which were seen by billions, get lumped into the murky waters of Sandy Hook and Boston? How does 29 deaths equal hundreds of thousands of deaths when one includes the knee jerk reaction to 9/11.
I think you're being disingenuous with your groupings.
Edit: grammar
7 nimik 2013-12-12
What? I was stating that I wonder what the Judge thinks about these events. I didn't even say I believe one way or another, just have been curious what he thinks.
-10 thefuckingtoe 2013-12-12
If you don't understand why grouping 29 deaths with 2,996 deaths (not including ground zero post-clean up cancer) is disingenuous I can't help you.
6 No2mad2 2013-12-12
What are you even going on about?
4 nimik 2013-12-12
I don't think you know what disingenuous means... I wasn't being disingenuous.
-8 thefuckingtoe 2013-12-12
I'm not pretending that grouping 2996 and 29 deaths is equal. You are.
3 nimik 2013-12-12
Did I ever say 2996 is equal to 29? I picked out 3 different events that have conspiracy theories about them. Just 3 events that popped into my mind, that is all. I honestly don't know why you are so upset by what I said.
-5 thefuckingtoe 2013-12-12
What difference does it make? WTC7 had 2.5 seconds of free fall during the controlled demolition.
What is a tv personality going to say that will help or hinder that fact?
2 Ambiguously_Ironic 2013-12-12
Dude.. he's on your side. Deep breaths. What are you so pissed off about?
1 demalo 2013-12-12
It's not about deaths, it's about sending a message.
-1 TinHao 2013-12-12
Physics doesn't really prove anything of the sort. In fact, physics would appear to disprove any sort of controlled demolition theory.
-2 DamagedHells 2013-12-12
Physics? You don't understand physics then...
5 Woompus 2013-12-12
Please, enlighten us...
1 reinhardgehlen 2013-12-12
You must learn so much about Physics, Civil Engineering and Architecture while playing your videogames.
I was with a construction foreman during the attacks and when the second building came down the first thing he said was "Bullshit", as in "That building did not collapse due to fire".
0 DamagedHells 2013-12-12
Yes. I'm sure you did.
Also love that little ad hominem at the end.
17 NeoPlatonist 2013-12-12
The third amendment probibits the quartering of troops in private homes. The NSA bypasses this and quarters troops in all your private electronic devices and thus in your mind.
1 reputable_opinion 2013-12-12
the amendment is of a constitution that has no bearing in a state of emergency. NSA can do what it wants because of COG.
11 [deleted] 2013-12-12
[deleted]
3 CaughtInTheNet 2013-12-12
Can someone please offer a rational explanation as to why Fox News does not fire him?
2 FAP-FOR-BRAINS 2013-12-12
thanks-I had no idea! Subscribed. He is a wise, fair man who should run for President.
1 dsade 2013-12-12
Subscribed.
I have him on my facebook feed. There are a lot of unthinking idiots quick to comment, but also a lot of people that know whats up. I think he will be an important voice rolling into 2016
7 [deleted] 2013-12-12
Thank you, Your Honor.
4 fuckthebbc 2013-12-12
The British model is :- they own you.
3 4to2 2013-12-12
Napolitano would make a decent president. I wish he would run in the next election on a Republican or Independent ticket.
15 jacekplacek 2013-12-12
I'd rather see him in Supreme Court...
3 4to2 2013-12-12
That would be good, too.
3 happiness_isawarmgun 2013-12-12
Wow, I read the whole thing before I got to the comment and saw it was from Fox. The times they are a changin'
3 Shadowstopfollowing 2013-12-12
The Snowden revelations don't add up for me. Why the metered release of information? If you're an agent of truth, tell us what you know, don't create this public stage where we're all waiting to see what you'll tell us next.
I think we are witness psychological warfare on a grand scale.
They are showing the sheep to the fence, so they it will learn not to fear it.
2 [deleted] 2013-12-12
There could be a number of reasons. If they release everything, maybe people will be shocked for a month and nobody will do anything. But, if you keep a constant pressure on people, we will have a constant reminder that our government is corrupt for at least another year. Every few weeks, another reminder.
That is my optimist view. My pessimist view is the CIA has the NSA by a decade or so in surveillance technology and is trying to shut them down. Or, Snowden was a KGB agent and he's helping the destabilization of the United States so that we will accept a world government or massive power shift.
2 I_go_ATM 2013-12-12
Glenn Greenwald and I forgot the other individual did an AMA and in it that was one of the questions asked to them multiple times. I cannot remember the exact answer but their reasoning was that it could be easily discredited if they released a mass of information because if one act was slightly off by any percentage the sum of the information could then be deemed incorrect and people who somewhat dabble or barely look at this stuff would dismiss the entirety of information. I also think they mentioned your reasoning as well. I cant remember fully though. Maybe someone has the link? I do know that they addressed this question though. It was one of the top responses.
2 [deleted] 2013-12-12
Someone should make a thread clearing this up. I see it a lot.
5 I_go_ATM 2013-12-12
I just found it. I'm not good with the reddit formatting but I just copy pasted what was on the AMA. Below is the question that was asked followed by their response which states why they release it slowly over time.
Many reasons:
1) It's irresponsible to dump documents without first understanding them and the consequences of publication.
2) It's 100% contrary to the agreement we made with our source when he came to us and talked about how he wanted us to report on them (if he wanted them all dumped, he wouldn't have needed us: he could have done it himself).
3) It would be impossible for the public to process a huge, indiscriminate dump, and media outlets would not care enough to read through them and report them because they'd have no vested interest in doing so (that's what WikiLeaks learned long ago, which is why they began partnering with media outlets on an exclusive basis for its releases).
4) The debate that we should be having would get overwhelmed by accusations that we were being irresponsible and helping the Terrorists; in other words, it would be strategically dumb to do.
5) There are already lots of risks for people reporting on these documents; there would be seriously heightened risks for anyone involved if they were just indiscriminately dumped.
1 StormsHere 2013-12-12
OR...there is just a lot of information(Snowden took tons of documents), and only a small team(Greenwald, et al) to review and understand them first in order to intelligently report. But who the hell really knows....
1 LS_D 2013-12-12
you know ... I'm not an American, but watching from a distance I'd say the FBI are pissing themselves laughing while everyone barks up the wrong tree
You guys should do some more research of who really does the domestic spying!
2 [deleted] 2013-12-12
Yea, cointellpro really should have gotten a little more coverage. Everyone remembers watergate, but almost nobody talks about cointellpro, which was much, much worse.
-1 reputable_opinion 2013-12-12
nonono.. if you release everything, you risk everything burning up at once. by releasing the fuel slowly you get a nice slow low burn that is more manageable.
this is a limited hangout.
1 dehehn 2013-12-12
I see this argument on here a lot and I don't buy it. They're getting a lot of public scrutiny, push back from congress and push back from the tech industry. It also makes them look like they can't keep a secret.
As for the metered release it's actually the best possible route Greenwald could take. He's a smart man, and he is no friend of the system. Releasing it slowly has two main effects, aside from the effect of keeping it in the news cycle for a long period of time.
1) You can release small bits of information which force public officials to respond and deny the implications if they dare. When those denials end up conflicting with later releases you've just shown they're lying to us.
2) Glenn Greenwald is a journalist and an American citizen. Say what you will about the intelligence services but they do serve a legitimate role in a dangerous world. There are agents out there who would be compromised and/or killed, as well as informants within the various terrorist and arms trading world who would also be at risk.
Snowden and Greenwald want the intelligences services to work for America and protect lives, like they have throughout their history. What they want is to stop the overreach, abuses and opaqueness of the NSA and others.
Slow meticulous old fashioned journalism isn't as sexy as the giant info dumps of some less professional leakers, but it is effective and boosts credibility. He can consistently say that he followed the letter of the law and ensured no agents or innocents would be harmed by the release of the information.
That makes everything much more legitimate and powerful and weakens any leverage the US would have in calling treason.
2 Shadowstopfollowing 2013-12-12
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. In a journalistic context I guess it makes sense. Volleying with those that would deceive us is a clever play, except to say that they probably already know what he knows. It is fascinating to watch the congress squirm each time another story drops. My complaint is that if he is sitting on real catalyst info ie. 9/11 what is he waiting for? Does he think we are not ready? Or is he leveraging bombshell type material for personal gain. My only objection is that if you wish to grab people and wake them up you have to shake them, not just reaffirm what many had suspected for years.
1 [deleted] 2013-12-12
Want to know the secret of the straw that broke the camels back?
There were a million other straws beneath it.
1 dehehn 2013-12-12
I think it's doubtful they have info linked to 911, I couldn't see them sitting on that. Plus that was the CIA not the NSA.
Still, I do understand peoples' frustration with their monopolization of this info, but it is the responsible route to take I think.
1 Grandest_Inquisitor 2013-12-12
Yep. He is controlled opposition. Apart from the logical case you mention . . . why would he release the info slowly (and I would add no real new revelations or truly incriminating info against culpable individuals) . . . for me the tell is the drama around his trip to Russia and the support he's had. If the intelligence services really wanted him they could have nabbed him at some point. He's had a lot of legal and monetary support and of course journalistic support.
Also, mainstream media is not going to help a guy accused of treason. I just don't buy that the Guardian and Greenwald are sincerely exposing secrets.
2 dirtybirdbrinson 2013-12-12
How do we fix this?
1 Sarah_Connor 2013-12-12
War on Politics.
1 dirtybirdbrinson 2013-12-12
But how exactly? Nobody cares enough to make a difference.
1 spasticbadger 2013-12-12
A conspiracy is an agreement among two or more persons to commit a crime. I no longer like our name...
7 imotophoto 2013-12-12
Well our name isn't "conspirators" we simply bring light to conspiracies.
3 mytrollyguy 2013-12-12
No no, we are in here calling out the conspiracies! It's all good.
1 [deleted] 2013-12-12
Powerful message from Napolitano. Great read.
1 D3M4R5 2013-12-12
The object of the conspiracy is to emasculate all Americans and many foreigners of their right to privacy in order to predict our behavior and make it easier to find among us those who are planning harm.
How could this be the goal if they were supposed to keep it a secret?
1 FAP-FOR-BRAINS 2013-12-12
the judge is a brilliant, thoughtful man with a keen intellect and is trying to do the right thing. I wonder, where are the mass protests against the spying?
1 Hexatona 2013-12-12
Privacy isn't just a privilege - it's necessary for society to function.
If all this goes to the most extreme, where every crime is recorded and appropriately punished, the entire populace (other than those with money and lawyers) would be in prison, in debt, or both. Laws are broken. And it's the simple laws that people break every day that need to go overlooked, otherwise everything would break.
1 arkansah 2013-12-12
How can one identify the cell phone tower spoofers?
1 hanahou 2013-12-12
Thje Judge needs to run for PotUS. He's our last hope for true freedom.
1 EdgarAllenNope 2013-12-12
Too bad you can't submit selfies to /r/bestof
1 preventDefault 2013-12-12
Judge Nap puttin in work as always.
0 VeritasLiberabitVos_ 2013-12-12
lol only a dozen members of congress? It takes more than a dozen to get laws passed... I doubt a dozen out of 535 voting members and 435 representatives could control the entire house like that. There has to be more than just a dozen.
0 RaCailum 2013-12-12
WOW the nsa mods have not deleted this yet?
1 [deleted] 2013-12-12
[deleted]
1 reputable_opinion 2013-12-12
I think the mods have lost a lot of respect here . admins run this sub.
-1 [deleted] 2013-12-12
NSA and GCHQ spying on the whole planet, Osama is still winning from the grave.
4 euL0gY 2013-12-12
Oh god you still buy the Osama thing?
1 [deleted] 2013-12-12
Was waiting for a reply like this. Saudi connections, all the way through.
3 FAP-FOR-BRAINS 2013-12-12
interestingly, a Saudi prince owns 24% of FOX News...
-2 wraith313 2013-12-12
To win over the general public with the argument that he is making, albeit a true and factual one, he would need to change his language and word use up a bit. To an average person he is gonna sound like a conspiracy theorist which, even though we are on this board, is not a good thing to look like to the general public.
3 mytrollyguy 2013-12-12
What parts would sound conspiratorial and not factual at this point?
0 wraith313 2013-12-12
You misunderstand. I am not saying this isn't factual. I am saying the language he uses will turn off the general public. Look at this from an average Americans point of view. He is saying the entire government was in on it and had these huge agreements to not say anything to anyone.
I'm not saying it's not true. I am saying he should use different language to say it.
3 mytrollyguy 2013-12-12
I'm interested to hear better language to say it. Got any ideas how to express the same thing and newer understandings but not sound conspiratorial as you say?
1 reputable_opinion 2013-12-12
interesting. by design? look how they use Alex Jones in the same capacity.
1 wraith313 2013-12-12
I don't think it's by design or anything. I think Alex Jones partially does it by design though. I think in this case he was just trying to get all of his thoughts out there and didn't want to sugar coat it or spend the extra time to phrase it differently.
-2 roc420 2013-12-12
I think that the average weed dealer wouldn't spread they're business all over the phone. Ever call or text someone to "buy some marijuana" Hell no they would hang up and not do business with you any more. So I don't think that everone though the private phone lines were so secure to began with. Just some drama queens and selfmade apointed constional experts
-5 funman69 2013-12-12
You make many good points and I understand the gravity of the situation but we should remember that the constitution was written over 200 years ago times have and are radically changing this whole fiasco could usher in a new age of digital freedom. The constitution is outdated in many things including privacy. We shouldn't ask to be completely unmonitored on the World Wide Web we should ask for our rights to be clearly stated for is so we know what not to do this is just my two cents thank for reading.
2 DarlingtonDude 2013-12-12
You're a fool. You're implying the government sets boundaries for the people. GOVERNMENT IS A TOOL. Nothing more. Government should act on behalf of the people or not at all. Stop being a fucking moron.
0 funman69 2013-12-12
That's exactly what I was trying to say the government should be listening to the people and should be deciding what to do. A starting point would be to amend the constitution to explain the rights of privacy people have. The constitution is what sets the boundaries. Which I will again say was written over 200 years ago. I am almost positive the founding fathers were not capable of thinking of privacy in terms of being an anonymous person interacting with other people through out the entire world. Obviously things need to change specifically the government which is suppose to uphold and enforce laws. The government should state what laws all people follow including themselves.
2 DarlingtonDude 2013-12-12
You're a fool. You're implying the government sets boundaries for the people. GOVERNMENT IS A TOOL. Nothing more. Government should act on behalf of the people or not at all. Stop being a fucking moron.
1 reputable_opinion 2013-12-12
the amendment is of a constitution that has no bearing in a state of emergency. NSA can do what it wants because of COG.