CalendarCalendar  HomeHome  HomeHome  Video ArchiveVideo Archive  Contact UsContact Us  SubscribeSubscribe  DonateDonate  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  UsergroupsUsergroups  

Share|

NSA Surveillance: On Edward Snowden’s Oath and Motives

View previous topic View next topic Go down
AuthorMessage
Information Kept Quiet
Admin
Admin
avatar

Posts : 154
Activity Points : 2866
Reputation Points : 0
Join date : 2011-01-07

PostSubject: NSA Surveillance: On Edward Snowden’s Oath and Motives Sat Aug 17, 2013 9:57 pm

Veterans Today
NSA Surveillance: On Edward Snowden's Oath and Motives
Allan Weibecker
August 14, 2013

�If Edward Snowden is who he says he is, he is a true hero and patriot. If, as some evidence might suggest, he is part of a psy-op meant to further subvert our Constitution, then he is not. But either way, the information he has helped make public can be turned against those whose life�s work is to deceive us.�
-- Allan Weisbecker

As I write, it's been more than two months since Edward Snowden hit the media front page and I'm still waiting for someone to mention that Snowden, as a federal employee (of both the CIA and the NSA, plus the Army), took the following oath:

"I, Edward Snowden, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Keep in mind that the oath uses two words - 'support and defend' - where one would easily do. The framers not being disposed to redundancy, this, I assume, is to accentuate, to make absolutely clear, the seriousness of the matter of the oath. And the framers are not done on the subject. The very next phrase states that Snowden must 'bear true faith and allegiance' to the Constitution, the obvious subtext being that not only must Snowden act in supporting and defending, but he must actually feel a certain way - having 'true faith' is not even voluntary!

Presumably, this clause is meant to weed out (from federal employment) people who do not in their gut believe in the Constitution - if you do not or cannot 'bear true faith and allegiance' to the Constitution, look elsewhere for employment. (This inability describes virtually all of our elected officials - who take a similar oath - although this is a slightly separate subject.)

Also keep in mind that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, whereas whatever law it is alleged that Snowden broke, be it the Espionage Act, or Theft of Government Property, or whatever they want to come up with, are not. This is a lawful obligation. In other words, if Edward Snowden witnessed a crime against the Constitution he was legally obliged to expose it.

We also need to keep in mind that the abuses to which the information being obtained are vast and various, ranging from knowing how members of Congress are planning to vote to whether the Director of the CIA might be having an affair. They include violations of doctor/patient, lawyer/client and teacher/student confidentiality. They afford opportunities to make enormous sums on the stock market on the basis of insider information. The potential for blackmail or for identifying "enemies of the national security state" are endless.

If in fact we are going to assume (or pretend) that the United States is a country wherein rule of law is taken seriously, and if the Constitution is indeed the Supreme Law of the Land, any legitimate threat to its tenets as perceived by an oath-taker must take precedence over any other law, be it state or federal. This is not only a clear interpretation of the Constitution itself, but has been upheld by case law, including the Supreme Court (Marbury vs Madison, among others).

The Fourth Amendment

So, in accessing Snowden's guilt or innocence - it being a legal matter - let's see what we're dealing with; let's define our terms. Let's first take a look at the Supreme Law of the Land, the one most clearly applicable passage, i.e., the 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights:

"I, Edward Snowden, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Keep in mind that the oath uses two words � 'support and defend' � where one would easily do. The framers not being disposed to redundancy, this, I assume, is to accentuate, to make absolutely clear, the seriousness of the matter of the oath. And the framers are not done on the subject. The very next phrase states that Snowden must 'bear true faith and allegiance' to the Constitution, the obvious subtext being that not only must Snowden act in supporting and defending, but he must actually feel a certain way - having 'true faith' is not even voluntary!

Presumably, this clause is meant to weed out (from federal employment) people who do not in their gut believe in the Constitution - if you do not or cannot 'bear true faith and allegiance' to the Constitution, look elsewhere for employment. (This inability describes virtually all of our elected officials - who take a similar oath - although this is a slightly separate subject.)

"What about the oath, Ed?"

Also keep in mind that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, whereas whatever law it is alleged that Snowden broke, be it the Espionage Act, or Theft of Government Property, or whatever they want to come up with, are not. This is a lawful obligation. In other words, if Edward Snowden witnessed a crime against the Constitution he was legally obliged to expose it.

We also need to keep in mind that the abuses to which the information being obtained are vast and various, ranging from knowing how members of Congress are planning to vote to whether the Director of the CIA might be having an affair. They include violations of doctor/patient, lawyer/client and teacher/student confidentiality. They afford opportunities to make enormous sums on the stock market on the basis of insider information. The potential for blackmail or for identifying "enemies of the national security state" are endless. And remember that virtually all US intel is processed in Tel Aviv. Israel's access knows no bounds!

If, in fact we are going to assume (or pretend) that the United States is a country wherein rule of law is taken seriously, and if the Constitution is indeed the Supreme Law of the Land, any legitimate threat to its tenets as perceived by an oath-taker must take precedence over any other law, be it state or Federal. This is not only a clear interpretation of the Constitution itself, but has been upheld by case law, including the Supreme Court (Marbury vs Madison, among others).

The Fourth Amendment

So, in accessing Snowden's guilt or innocence - it being a legal matter - let's see what we're dealing with; let's define our terms. Let's first take a look at the Supreme Law of the Land, the one most clearly applicable passage, i.e., the 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized."

Clearly, this clause defines what 'an authority' (be it local, state, or federal) can 'seize' from 'the people.' (The Constitution differentiates between 'person' and 'citizen', 'person' referring to any human being, citizen or not. The 4th Amendment applies to anyone under the jurisdiction of the United States.)

Since the programs Snowden has exposed involve illegal wiretaps, let's look up the legal definition of 'wiretap' (I hope you're already wondering why you haven't heard/read this before, but more on the media to come.):

"A form of electronic eavesdropping accomplished by seizing or overhearing communications by means of a concealed recording or listening device connected to the transmission line."

Media Obfuscation

For our purposes, simply put: a court adjudicated warrant must be issued to 'seize' your phone calls and emails. (In U.S. vs Warshak,,the Sixth Circuit Court recognized that email is equivalent to a letter or phone call for the purposes of the 4th Amendment.) The Patriot Act broadened wiretapping rules, giving authorities the right to seize phone records as long as they exclude message content. This is the greatest point of media-generated obfuscation in the issue of Edward Snowden's guilt or innocence; ditto re the issue of possible felonies perpetrated by other federal officials.


(READ MORE HERE):

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/14/nsa-surveillance-on-edward-snowdens-oath-and-motives/ - See more at: http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/patriot-act--ndaa/predictive-programming.html#sthash.KWL5OJ0L.dpuf
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.informationkeptquiet.com

NSA Surveillance: On Edward Snowden’s Oath and Motives

View previous topic View next topic Back to top
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Information Kept Quiet :: Information Kept Quiet :: US News & Events-