LF: The Very Book The Government Does Not Want You To Read Just Went #1 In The World

Title: The Very Book The Government Does Not Want You To Read Just Went #1 In The World
Source: Collective Evolution
URL Source: https://www.collective-evolution.co ... read-just-went-1-in-the-world/
Published: Sep 18, 2019
Author: Arjun Walia
Post Date: 2019-09-20 07:27:10 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 14315
Comments: 88

In Brief

George Orwell’s 1984 is a classic book depicting a populace ruled by a political regime that persecutes individualism and independent critical thinking as “thoughtcrimes” that must be enforced by the “thought police.” This party seeks power above all, and, through the propagandist Ministry of Truth, presents the people with their version of truth and casts away all other information and opinion. Sound familiar?

This is exactly what’s happening today right in front of our eyes. The “ministry of truth” comes in the form, at least on social media, as FakeNews watchdogs. These are entities that are flagging information that threatens corporate and political interests and labels it as “fake news” when a lot of it, is in fact, the complete opposite. Since when does an authoritative entity like the government have to step in and decide for the people what is real and what is not? Are people not capable of examining sources and determining this for themselves? These fake news watchdogs have some interesting sponsors. One of these sponsors, for example, is NewsGuard. They are funded by Clinton donors and big pharma, with ties to the CFR. You can read more about that entity here.

Companies and government agencies who are threatened by information also seem to be employing an “army of bloggers, surrogates, trolls, and bots on Twitter, Facebook, and by email” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) to try and sway discussion and brainwash people. We here at Collective Evolution have been experiencing them as well.

The world knows why the hunt for Julian Assange was ongoing for so long, it’s because he leaked secrets and exposed those who keep them. He exposed the lies, corruption and deceit that represents the backbone of the Western military alliance and the American empire. He exposed, in the words of John F. Hylan, former Mayor of New York City, the “real menace of Republic”, the “invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation.” He exposes the ones “who virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.” (source)(source)

He exposed immoral and unethical actions that have no basis and justification, he is a hero.

The same thing goes for National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden, who leaked classified documents regarding the scope of the US governments surveillance programs, which is and was huge. He is and was not the first, William Binney did the same, along with Thomas Drake and many others.

Keep in mind that this is a global mass surveillance program. Snowden recently released a book about it, and more.

In the book, Snowden goes into great detail about how he risked everything to expose the US government’s system of mass surveillance. In it, he reveals the story of his life, including how he helped to build that system and what motivated him to try to bring it down.

Mass surveillance, facial recognition, etc, are justified by the national security state for the purposes of combating terrorism, for example. But, what does the connection between terrorist organizations and the US government say about these programs? If the US government itself, or factions of it, are arming these terrorists, creating them, and carrying out false flag events blaming them on terrorism in order to justify infiltration of a country for ulterior motives as well as a heightened the national security state which involves mass surveillance, this means that their justification for these programs is a complete lie. So what’s the real reason for them?

This is well known, a few years ago current democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard introduced the stop arming terrorist act, which would stop the U.S. government from using taxpayer dollars to directly or indirectly support groups who are allied with and supporting terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda in their war to overthrow the Syrian government. (source)

As far as false flag terrorist attacks go, many believe the chemical gas attacks in Syria were orchestrated by the western military alliance in order to justify the infiltration of the country. The evidence for this is quite grand. 9/11 is another example many people believe was false flag terrorism.

‘Protecting National security’ has now become an umbrella term to justify immoral and unethical actions.

Perhaps Snowden’s book sheds light on that. I have yet to read it.

William Binney is a former high ranking intelligence official with the National Security Agency (NSA). He’s had quite the go, starting in 2002 when he let the public know of a system ( ‘trailblazer’) intended to analyze data carried on communication networks (like the internet). He exposed the agencies eavesdropping program and has faced harassment from the FBI, NSA and more. He has been in and out of the court room ever since he decided to resign and blow the whistle.

Binney hasn’t stopped, one of the highest-level whistleblowers to ever come out of the NSA. He is now saying:

“At least 80% of fibre optic cables globally go via the US, this is no accident and allows the US to view all communication coming in. At least 80% of all audio calls, not just metadata, are recorded and stored in the US. The NSA lies about what it stores. The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control.” (source)

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, the US government suing the publisher of Snowden’s book is only bringing more attention to the truth of mass censorship and that this global elite is losing power. The more the global elite respond the way they are, with this like the mass censorship of information, alternative independent media outlets being shut down, and jailing people like Julian Assange, the more they hurt their own interests… which is inspiring for humanity as we awaken.

Uh Freedom of Speech …

Despite the absolute language of the First Amendment, wars, threats of wars, and perceived risks to national security have prompted the government to, at times, restrict freedom of speech and other First Amendment freedoms throughout U.S. history.

Sedition Act is an example of a freedom restriction for the sake of national security

A prime example is the legislation passed only seven years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, in 1791. In 1798 the Federalist Congress, fearful of an impending, full-blown war with France, adopted the Sedition Act, which attempted to stifle any speech that criticized the president, who was conducting an undeclared conflict with France at sea. The Federalist Party justified the Sedition Act as a measure needed to prevent threats to national security from within the country.

Other wars have seen First Amendment restrictions to protect national security interests

During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in some parts of the North, especially those that were unstable, and the Confederate government acted in a similar fashion.

World War I saw the adoption of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, which led to the first Supreme Court decisions, among them Schenck v. United States (1919) and Abrams v. United States (1919), that punished political dissidents because their speech allegedly presented a clear and present danger to national security and war efforts.

During World War II, the government incarcerated Japanese Americans. That war and the Cold War that followed spurred adoption of the Smith Act (making it illegal to call for the overthrow of the U.S. government), intrusive congressional investigations into personal beliefs and associations, and other efforts to suppress domestic Communism.

The prolonged U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and its high death toll prompted the eruption of protests nationwide, along with efforts to suppress them. Such issues were rekindled in the aftermath of the al-Qaida attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, and the U.S. responses to those events.

Periodically, the Supreme Court has examined whether the government can restrict speech to further the compelling interests of national security. In doing so, the Court has recognized that national security, as a governmental interest, does justify restrictions on First Amendment rights. In the landmark free press decision Near v. Minnesota (1931), the Court established a general rule against prior restraints on expression. However, the Court did note that the government could shut down a newspaper if it published military secrets: “No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops.”

Nevertheless, the government must provide proof that national security interests really are in play—that is, the government cannot simply use national security as a blank check to sidestep constitutional challenges. In New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the majority of the Court rejected the government’s national security justifications for attempting to prevent the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, the top-secret history of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. In his concurring opinion, Justice Hugo L. Black explained that “the word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.”

War on Terror led to debate over the balance of liberty and security The War on Terror that commenced after the September 11 attacks on the United States brought into focus the debate over national security and the proper balance between liberty and security. One controversy arose over certain provisions of the USA Patriot Act, which Congress passed forty-five days after the attacks, especially the widespread use by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of national security letters (NSLs) under Section 505 of the act.

A national security letter is an administrative subpoena instrument used by the FBI to compel recipients of the letter to comply with requests for various data and records on the person who is the subject of the subpoena. This instrument requires no probable cause or judicial oversight. It also contains a gag order preventing recipients from even acknowledging they have received an NSL. A 2007 Department of Justice audit revealed that in 2005, 47,221 requests applicable to 18,000 people were issued. Similar numbers were posted for 2003 and 2004.

"Secret evidence" is a questionable instrument used by the government in national security cases

“Secret evidence” is another questionable instrument sometimes favored by the government, especially in immigration cases. In 2003 Sami al-Arian, a tenured professor of computer engineering at the University of South Florida, was arrested, based on secret evidence, for his alleged ties to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The al-Arian case caused an uproar within academia because of its free speech and free association implications as well as his termination from his academic posting.

Despite the credible nature of the charges against him, several prominent academicians came to al-Arian’s defense, demanding an inquiry and reinstatement. Al-Arian was charged with seventeen separate counts, but as part of a plea agreement, he was convicted on one count of conspiracy and sentenced to nineteen months in jail beyond the fifty seven months already served. Al-Arian admitted that he had raised funds for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

"Outing" intelligence operatives is a controversial national security issue

Yet another national security issue that continues to generate controversy is the published “outings” of known intelligence operatives. The best-known case is that of career Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative Philip Agee.

Agee served in Latin America but became disaffected by the CIA’s role there. He left the agency in 1968, a self-avowed socialist. In the 1970s, Agee published Inside the Company in which he named over 250 operatives and assets for the CIA in Latin America. In 1974 he announced a campaign against the CIA.

In response to Agee’s activities, Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr. revoked Agee’s passport. Agee countered by charging that his right to criticize the government under the First Amendment had been infringed by Secretary Haig’s action. In its 7-2 decision in Haig v. Agee (1981), written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Supreme Court disagreed. Justices William J. Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall dissented.

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) of 1982 was drafted in the wake of the disclosures made in part by Philip Agee and the assassination of CIA Station Chief Richard Welch by the Greek terrorist group 17 November after his identity was revealed in the magazine Counter-Spy. The IIPA has been invoked twice since its passage: in the 1985 case of CIA operative Sharon Scranage, the only person convicted thus far under the IIPA, and most recently in the Valerie Plame affair.

In 2003 newspaper columnist Robert Novak publicly revealed that Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a vociferous critic of the George W. Bush administration and the prewar intelligence on Iraq, was a nonofficial cover operative of the CIA. Later, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was indicted by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald under the IIPA for disclosing Plame’s name to journalists, who, in turn, disclosed her identity to the American public. On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. However, in the end he was not convicted under the IIPA.

Ultimately, policy makers are responsible for maintaining the delicate balance between the First Amendment and national security—a balance with which society continues to struggle in an age of international terrorism.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1134/national-security

Salute,
Gatlin

Edward Snowden is a hero.

Why?

Provides Proof The Government Is Spying On Citizens.

And now at the dawn of the Snowden revelations, many wondered – and hoped – that the U.S. intelligence community would be destroyed. It was not. It has strengthened since the opposite has happened. Despite undoubted intelligence losses, new collection barriers, and diplomatic embarrassments, the community has emerged as a stronger organization despite, indeed because of, Snowden.

Snowden actually helped that agencies. He made them aware of a problem and they scrapped much and they were forced to develop and install new and much better capabilities faster than before and ever planned.

Snowden’s influence has in many other ways been limited. For example, there in the rise of “smart speaker”, exemplified by Amazon’s Echo. It has left many privacy activists baffled. Why, just a few years after a global scandal involving government surveillance, would people willingly install always-on microphones in their homes?

Proving they really don’t give a shit – right? With the new-found privacy conundrum prevelant by installing a device that can literally listen to everything you’re saying represents a chilling new development in the age of internet-connected things.

We are still learning how Snowden helped the U.S. intelligence community.

The Guardian published the first story based on the huge archive of documents that that Edward Snowden stole from the National Security Agency while working as an NSA contractor. Then-Attorney General Holder’s Justice Department quickly charged Snowden with felonies for theft of government property and mishandling classified information. Last week, however, Holder praised Snowden. “I think that he actually performed a public service by raising the debate that we engaged in and by the changes that we made,” Holder said.
This seems like an improbable claim. Snowden compromised scores of surveillance techniques, representing billions of dollars of investments over many years. U.S. firms that secretly cooperated with government intelligence agencies stopped doing so to the extent they could, and public defiance became the business-compelled norm. Firms made encryption more readily available and easier to use, which made it harder for the U.S. government to monitor communications and access data. Many foreign governments responded with countermeasures like data localization laws, tighter privacy rules, and closer judicial scrutiny of U.S. collection practices.
The Defense Department claimed that the “scope of the compromised knowledge related to US intelligence capabilities” as a result of Snowden was “staggering.” This claim is unverifiable but seems plausible in light of the breadth of and reaction to the disclosures. The intelligence losses extend beyond counterterrorism, the main context in which these issues are typically discussed. NSA collections undergird every element of U.S. national security and foreign policy—including its extensive military operations around the globe, its pervasive diplomatic engagements, and its numerous economic negotiations and initiatives. Knowledge of what an adversary or other foreign intelligence target is doing or planning gives the United States a huge advantage in its myriad international affairs, and is central pillar of American power. Such knowledge is harder to come by as a result of Snowden.
Snowden forced the intelligence community out of its suboptimal and unsustainable obsession with secrecy. “Before the unauthorized disclosures, we were always conservative about discussing specifics of our collection programs, based on the truism that the more adversaries know about what we're doing, the more they can avoid our surveillance,” Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in 2013. Post-Snowden, the intelligence community operates on the principle that secrecy is not an absolute value, but one that needs to be traded off for other values, including domestic legitimacy. Snowden made it realize that, in the words of former NSA Director Michael Hayden, “although the public cannot be briefed on everything, there has to be enough out there so that the majority of the population believe what they are doing is acceptable.”
Forced transparency meant that the intelligence community had to justify itself before the American people for the first time ever—about what it did in the domestic arena and abroad, about the legality of and accountability for its actions, and about its importance to U.S. national security. It had to open itself up to through scrutiny and judgment by many new institutions, including the President’s Review Group, and a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB). Initially this was a painful, even bewildering process since the intelligence community had no experience at, and thus wasn’t any good at, explaining itself. But the transparency turned out to bring many benefits.
First, the intelligence community opened up. It got much better at talking to the public. And the sky did not fall.
Second, the intelligence community had a good story to tell. Credible public evidence emerged that the NSA was a thoroughly accountable institution performing a vital intelligence role. “Every program was authorized and approved, and whatever one thinks of the programs, it was not a case of running amok or exceeding its authority,” said civil libertarian and Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone, a Review Group member. And the value of NSA programs were publicly revealed more extensively than ever. The PCLOB concluded that the 702 PRISM and upstream programs “played a key role in discovering and disrupting specific terrorist plots aimed at the United States and other countries.” These claims by outsiders to (and in some instances, adversary critics of) the intelligence community are significantly more credible, and legitimizing, than when the community itself makes the same sorts of claim.
Third, the main criticisms of the NSA ended up having silver linings. It emerged from the Snowden documents (and further voluntary releases by the government) that the NSA sometimes had problems complying with judicial orders, usually because of the difficulty of meshing legal directives with extraordinary complex technical collection processes. And yet these embarrassments also showed that the FISA court that monitors the NSA in secret was not, as many claimed, a rubber stamp. It was, instead, an important independent check on NSA activities. As a result of Snowden, the FISA court is a much more credible institution that can and in the future will be relied upon more thoroughly to monitor expanded NSA activities in secret.
Another criticism of the NSA was that its aggressive collection processes abroad did not consider the rights and interests of foreign individuals and firms. The main response was Presidential Policy Directive 28, which imposed restraints on collection abroad in the interests of non-U.S. citizens. PPD 28 does not have sharp teeth and, while it has reportedly been a pain to implement, will not likely have a material impact on U.S. collection practices. Like many post- Snowden reforms, it imposes process and oversight constraints and forces NSA to be more prudent in its collection practices. PPD-28 (along with the Judicial Redress Act, which extended Privacy Act protections to foreign citizens) has the side-benefit that the United States can now proudly and truthfully claim to have the most robust protections for non-citizens of any signals collection agency in the world.
Fourth, and perhaps most surprisingly, the intelligence community has been able to maintain and strengthen the legal authorities for its collection practices. The bulk telephone metadata program was legally and on the merits the most controversial program that Snowden revealed, and the one that the NSA seemed least interested in preserving. The USA Freedom Act made some important reforms to this program—most notably, by replacing NSA collection and storage of the metadata with carrier storage of the data and by requiring more limited NSA querying of the data pursuant to court approval. And yet the NSA has ended up in a stronger position as a result. It gets access “a greater volume of call records” than before, according to the NSA general counsel, and probably at a lower cost to itself, since it no longer needs to store and organize the massive quantities of data. And even more importantly, the program has now been vetted publicly and expressly baked into the legal system, giving it a legitimacy and almost certainly a longevity that it never could have achieved in secret.
The improbable preservation and strengthening of the bulk telephone metadata program—the least valuable and hardest-to-justify of the programs that Snowden revealed—is emblematic of the types of changes Snowden wrought. Few if any important intelligence collection programs have ended as a result of Snowden, and the USA Freedom Act reforms actually expanded some intelligence community authorities. The intelligence community has had to subject itself to more scrutiny and process checks, and it has had to trim its sails a bit to make its practices more proportional to the ends it seeks. But the transparency resulted in public debates that concluded that the NSA practices were in the round worth preserving.
From the baseline of what almost everyone expected when the scale of Snowden’s revelations first became apparent, the intelligence community, and especially the NSA, have emerged in astonishingly good shape. The NSA is still very much in the business of aggressive signals intelligence around the globe. Its domestic legal authorities are sounder. Its value is more apparent to the American public. It is much more adept at public diplomacy. And its central and expanding role going forward—not just for signals intelligence collection, but for cybersecurity and offensive cyber operations—are secure.
These are but some of the public services for which the U.S. government has Snowden to thank.

Salute,
Gatlin

Edward Snowden an American hero.

Why?

It is said that he provided proof that the government is spying on citizens.

… “provided poof” …

If you didn’t already know that and needed to be “provided proof” of such actions – then the only proof provided was that you were dumber that a pile of shit.

What some hoped for with Snowden’s revelations was that the U.S. intelligence community would be destroyed. It was not. Exactly the opposite has happened - It has strengthened since Edward Snowden became your American hero.

Despite undoubted intelligence losses, new collection barriers, and diplomatic embarrassments, the community has now emerged as a stronger organization discounting – yes indeed and because of – Snowden.

Snowden actually helped the agencies. He made them aware of a problem and they scrapped much and they were forced to develop and install new and much better capabilities faster than before and ever planned.

We are being spied on better and faster today because of your American hero, Snowden.

Salute,
Gatlin

Obviously you are one of those sheep who constantly bleat "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear".

Freedom of Speech is NOT a universal right. When you have a security clearance you sign documents promising you will never reveal any information you gain due to the access your clearance gives you,and agree to the punishments outlined on the papers you sign.

This applies to Snowden. If you don't want to go to prison,either don't sign the papers and take the job,or stay silent. Snowden signed the papers and then went public,so now he is a whiny little bitch complaining about how "unfair" it is,just like he is some sort of spoiled 9 year old mama's boy.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

ANYBODY with 2 IQ points to rub together knows the government "spies" on citizens.

You don't think the Feebs didn't spy on recent German immigrants during WW-2? Hell,they put Japanese people who were born as US citizens in internment camps for the duration of the war.

The ygly truth is the end result was they were protected from attack by idiot Americans for "looking like the enemy" during the war. People from Germany weren't put into containment camps because nobody could look at them and tell they were German.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

So they are cleverly keeping it out of circulation by allowing Amazon to sell it via mail order?

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

We are being spied on better and faster today ~~because of~~ in spite of your American hero, Snowden.
Fixed it.

… “Fixed it” …

Uh …

How?

It’s saying the same thing with the same end results.

But if you like your version better – then I am perfectly okay with it.

If you didn’t already know that and needed to be “provided proof” of such actions – then the only proof provided was that you were dumber that a pile of shit.
What some hoped for with Snowden’s revelations was that the U.S. intelligence community would be destroyed. It was not. Exactly the opposite has happened - It has strengthened since Edward Snowden became your American hero.
Despite undoubted intelligence losses, new collection barriers, and diplomatic embarrassments, the community has now emerged as a stronger organization discounting – yes indeed and ~~because of~~ in spite of – Snowden. Snowden actually helped the agencies. He made them aware of a problem and they scrapped much and they were forced to develop and install new and much better capabilities faster than before and ever planned.
We are being spied on better and faster ~~because of~~. in spite of your American hero, Snowden.

You go on to say …

You seem to love warrantless spying on ALL American citizens.

Nah, I seem to love – well, I actually really do love – pointing out the errors in the rational and your seemingly fact less postings. You are so closed-minded and extremely agenda-driven.

Obviously, you are one of those sheep who constantly bleat "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear".

Nope, I am one of those individuals endowed with the ability to use common sense and make good judgments. I can help you to learn those personal traits.

Those are the words of tyrants and their submissive sycophants.

No, those are YOUR words posted by YOU.

Salute,
Gatlin

You are mistaking the government action as a criminal action when it is a civil action. The article is misrepresents the government action as one to prevent publication.

ANYBODY with 2 IQ points to rub together knows the government "spies" on citizens.

Stop with the bullshit that “No one really knew the extent until Snowden revealed it.”

Since 2001 it has been common knowledge that the government has engaged in massive, illegal dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary citizens. There were full blown press reports in late 2005. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been at the forefront in an attempt to stops it. you can even read the timelines here.

In early 2006, EFF obtained whistleblower evidence (.pdf) from former AT&T technician Mark Klein showing that AT&T is cooperating with the illegal surveillance. The undisputed documents show that AT&T installed a fiberoptic splitter at its facility at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco that makes copies of all emails web browsing and other Internet traffic to and from AT&T customers and provides those copies to the NSA. This copying includes both domestic and international Internet activities of AT&T customers. As one expert observed, “this isn’t a wiretap, it’s a country-tap.”

News reports in December 2005 first revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been intercepting Americans’ phone calls and Internet communications. Those news reports, combined with a USA Today story in May 2006 and the statements of several members of Congress, revealed that the NSA is also receiving wholesale copies of American's telephone and other communications records. All of these surveillance activities are in violation of the privacy safeguards established by Congress and the US Constitution.
https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying

Salute,
Gatlin

The contract can't make him keep things that are illegal secret. Since it requires a search warrant to search someone and they aren't they are in violation.

Snowden exposed corruption. You try your best to cover it up and put blinders on.

^source

Stop with the bullshit that “No one really knew the extent until Snowden revealed it.”
It is a fact that no on[e] knew the extent. [Definition of Extent: The degree to which something happens].

On May 20, 2013, Edward Joseph Snowden [a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee and subcontractor] released classified documents there were initially published by the Guardian on June 5, 2013. ^source

NOTE – The date of Snowden’s information release was on June 5, 2013.

The massive, illegal dragnet surveillance of the domestic communications and communications records of millions of ordinary Americans since at least 2001 was first reported by the press and discovered by the public in late 2005. ^source

NOTE – The date of the MASSIVE surveillance was first discovered by the public in late 2005. [Definition of Massive: very large in size].

News reports in December 2005 first revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been intercepting Americans’ phone calls and Internet communications. Those news reports, combined with a USA Today story in May 2006 and the statements of several members of Congress, revealed that the NSA is also receiving wholesale copies of American's telephone and other communications records. [Definition of Wholesale: Done on a large scale; extensive]. ^source

Secret government documents, [furnished by Snowden then] published by Guardian and Washington Post in 2013, confirmed – CONFIRMED – that NSA obtains full copies of everything that is carried along major domestic fiber optic cable networks.

Real Americans understand that: It is a fact that no on[e] knew the extent.

Well “Hot Diggity Dog” – I would perhaps consider becoming one of YOUR “real Americans” if you will please furnish me with factual evidence of your statement.

While I await that, I will continue by stating tjat I simply cannot find information to agree with your statement that “it is a fact that no on[e] knew the extent.” I find in different articles that everyone knew from press reports about the massive, wholesale, illegal dragnet surveillance since late 2005 and all that Snowden did was to confirm that on June 5, 2013.

I would say that YOUR real Americans knew of the massive, wholesale, illegal dragnet surveillance – the simply did not know the amount [extent] of the sophisticated being used.

Snowden did not reveal the “extent of WHAT” – since that was already known – he revealed the “extent of HOW.” And I am fully prepared to discuss with you the biggest actual revelations from Snowden’s leaks.

Salute,
Gatlin

^source

The contract can't make him keep things that are illegal secret. Since it requires a search warrant to search someone and they aren't they are in violation.
Real Americans understand that.

Well, there – Good Buddy – will you please help out this poor ole country boy who you may not consider one of YOUR real Americans. I simply cannot understand what you are talking about here. I will therefore respond with a general statement.

Snowden signed non-disclosure agreements [contracts] with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA) agreeing to keep ALL things there and from there SECRET – and yes, it definitely does include anything illegal.

You are right In that they can’t MAKE him keep the things that are illegal secret – but they sure as hell can take him to court for violating the non- disclosure agreements [contracts] and seek a judgment against him.

Which they are now doing …

For on Tuesday, the US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Edward Snowden for publishing a book, Permanent Record, in violation of non-disclosure agreements he had with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA).

Since it requires a search warrant to search someone and they aren't they are in violation.

I sincerely apologize to you – but I do not have any idea what you are saying here and what it is in reference to. If you would like to clarify, then I will be more than happy to respond.

Salute,
Gatlin

If you were a real American, you would know better than to even say something like this.

Another nonsense online apology. You state that your "apology" is "sincere" but you immediately gaslight Stone by insisting you have no idea what you are apologizing for. This is a way to deny Stone any agency in his own judgment of the matter and to try to pretend that he can have no rational basis for his opinion (even while you are "sincerely apologizing"). Why would you apologize to anyone unless you are admitting your own error in the matter?

First off, a sincere apology is one that is heartfelt, in which the wrongdoer has understood and confessed that they trampled on someone else's opinions and feelings and that they are resolved never to do that same thing again. Otherwise, apologies are simply empty meaningless words that are only used by psychopaths to manipulate others to do their will or accept their opinions or to persuade someone that their opinion is not a simple matter of right or wrong based on facts but is just one of many possible opinions on a matter that reasonable people might differ on.

So spare us all these self-serving, calculating and manipulative "sincere apologies".

They are using a law for prohibit free speech. Since congress shall make no law.....

You can believe some lawyer talk to obscure the truth of what the constitution actually says if you like playing games.

No, you were clear enough. Gatlin was merely "apologizing" strategically as a way to continue to try to advance his own argument that you are profoundly wrong (but you have every right to be wrong in a way so mysterious that Gatlin cannot possibly even comprehend that you might hold a reasonable fact-based opinion).

Gatlin is gaslighting you with his manipulative so-called "apology". If he isn't wrong about the matter, why should he apologize at all? Why should you accept this condescending "apology" if Gatlin continues to say he doesn't understand why he is "apologizing"?

This business of "I don't know what I'm sorry for but I sincerely apologize for everything" is never a sincere apology in any way. It is a way to placate an impulsive child or a vindictive hysterical woman or a senile person.

Gatlin is humoring you, probing for weakness. That's all his "apology" means. It's the sort of thing a con man makes their living from.

They are using a law for prohibit free speech.
Since congress shall make no law.....
You can believe some lawyer talk …

I understand that you are saying the DOJ is using a law to prohibit Snowden’s “freedom of speech.” Although he admittedly is in full violation of the non-disclosure agreement [contract] he signed with the agencies.

Let me see – how shall I properly express my take on this to you …

I will start by saying, Yes – they are using a law to prosecute him. But they are not using a law to prohibit his free speech. They are suinging him for breach of contract.

Please permit me to give you an example …

Okay. Let’s say that you [A K A Stone} want to come to work for me [Gatlin] and before I hire you, I have you sign a written agreement [contact] whereby you formally and legally agree that you will never tell anyone anything about me. But after you sign that agreement [contract] and come to work for me, you learn some things about me that you want to tell everybody about. So you say to me: “I am going to tell everyone things about you.” And then you proceed to do just that. Well, after you do that – I can then sue you for breech of contract and I will not be “ using a law [to] prohibit free speech.”

That, my dear friend, is as clear as I can possibly make it. And that is exactly what is happening between the DOJ and Snowden.

It has nothing – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING – to do with his freedom of speech.

And I close by wishing a happy Sunday morning to you.

Salute,
Gatlin

EVEN when the gubmint is clearly illegally VIOLATING the 4A ("unreasonable search & seizure")?

To whom is an Oath made? To certain people in a rogue Gubmint? Or on behalf of the US Constitution?

If you don't want to go to prison,either don't sign the papers and take the job,or stay silent.

So. Break the law. Murder people. It's ok cuz, "JUST FOLLOW ORDERS", eh? Worked well in the Reich.

They apparently haven't much choice in the matter. Unless they openly assassinate him.

It's not as though the reptilian global spy agencies are "cleverly" and secretly wanting Snowden's book published -- is that what you're inferring?

I have no idea. It does appear, however, that they don't want classified information released.

But additionally, they also don't like their entire operation exposed as illegal, immoral, dishonest, and abuse of authority and resources.

Would this mythical case of this written/oral contract (or oath) also necessarily exonerate you from extenuating circumstances -- like committing treason, hurting people, and committing other highly illegal, immoral acts?

By demanding oaths, isn't one justifying a "Code of Honor" among thieves, rogues and scoundrels?

THIS is one reason God has explicitly frowned upon taking oaths to men in Scripture. THEY become authority over God's Law.

No search warrants shall be issued except describing the exact place to be searched and what they are searching for with the permission a a judge.

Well they don't have a warrant to listen to everyone's calls. They were breading the law. Snowden is a brave patriot for exposing the treasonous government.

Well to be honest, most people still did NOT believe Snowden's revelations -- given the MSM and goobermint tag-teaming smear of Snowden as a malcontent and rat who "jeopardized America's national security."

THIS BOOK DOCUMENTS an entire operation of what was/is still an illegal, immoral, dishonest polcy and abuse by authority and resources.

Q: Do you believe there is good moral standing, legal standing and reason to surveil every single American's movement and life of every America? And if so, by what Constitutional Law or common sense reason?

Yeah they don't want their confidential crimes exposed. Snowden exposed treason and the people responsible should pay the heaviest price.

Where's THAT headline? Let's get those details out there into the public arena. Where are they?