ok, so you originally mention human decency, then you talk of what can stop abuses of human rights. It is obvious that certain types of people are drawn to power, and will abuse others rights to maintain their power. These people are not decent. The only way to enforce decency on those in power is to limit the rights of the government in regards to how it treats its governed. When the government reports to the people, as in the faded piece of parchment, then the people have a chance of forcing decency upon those in power. When the govenment decides that the people dont need to be informed, and that they should just leave the decisions to the grown ups, then even if they currentlhy arent being abusive and indecent, they have set the stage for someone who will be a complete shit and crack down on everyone they can.

I dont see the circular problems in my statement. the laws are descended from an original source. If you choose to dismiss any and all value from that source, then that is fine, but dont just expect anyone with any shred of power to be decent to you on their own will. This goes from the POTUS to the board of a neighborhood association.

the people responsible should be tried for treason and executed, which is why they are going to be so aggressive in quashing these actions.

I have a feeling he really meant what he said about a transparent and open government, and then a few people had some conversations with him after he got to the oval office, and some pragmatism set in. He could still be a leader if he would like to, use the power of the pulpit to try to lift up the rights of the people, but I am not going to hold my breath for that one.

this fucking AC troll from the NSA is pissing me off.

If the framework that allows the rules is irrelevant, then the rules are irrelevant. Even when the american public tries to stop this, they cant when the elected officials do what they please, or just avoid having a conversation based on secrets or burying unrelated "laws" into other bills. If something is unconstitutional, then it is illegal. If a law is illegal, then following it isnt legal. The option to challenge in court has been taken away, and now there is enough proof to make people angry, or at least question some things that had been previously dismissed as nonsense.

good, then lets have a trial. at least a really good examination of the policies. I dont care if a "tool" is compromised at this point. The enemy this tool works against is a bogeyman. As the govt likes to say, if they have done nothing wrong, then they should have no fear in letting us see the truth.

exactly. there is a massive difference. In this case, there was an effort to avoid any personal risks, only policy was exposed.

or even the people having an opportunity to say what they want. Or without knowing when the govt has been restricted. Or what they tried to do when they have been restricted. There is no concensus, and hopefully now there is information out there that will force a conversation and we can arrive at consensus. I have a guess that the people in charge know what the answer will be, which is why they have avoided askign the question.

well, if the crime is uncovering crime, then I call him a hero. It looks like he was stuck between upholding the constitution and following an obligation to protect classified material. If that classified material is completely counter to everything that the country is supposed to stand for, then it should be revealed. Tough choice, and a brave man.

this is exactly my point, it would become a crime. It would be very easy for years of law to twist things to the point that not answering a question would be a crime. We are protected from this because of the 5th. It may not be the detail, but it is the foundation

Whenever you see that Bennett name, be ready for something long and drawn out, and most likely full of himself. I skip ahead once it becomes obvious that there is no point beyond masturbating his own ego in public.

without the 5th amendment to eventually lean upon, there would be no need for rights to a lawyer, or Miranda warnings. The fifth ammendment is the reason that you dont have to immediately speak to the police. Without it, any delay in accurately responding to any question would be a crime.

and Obama ran an election campaign explicitly stating that he would disable these mechanisms...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fnfVJzZT4

Dont just blame republicans, or the other guy, whoever that may be. Both of these groups see the advantages in creating laws that could be stepped all over like this. There is no opposition in congress to the president on these types of issues, as both are happy to support things for when it is their turn. You can keep believing in whatever partisan debates and issues that are thrown out there for you to feel like the other side is the bad guy, but pay attention to the last time either side did something that actually limited the govt in general, or suppported the population in general. There is plenty of bi-partisan support on plenty of issues, those just dont get paraded around.

blah blah blah blah on a computer, or blah blah blah on a computer network .

There is a direct relationship to government surveillance and citizens freedom of expression. The internet part is only one small piece of the action from either party.

You are missing out on the case of many people recording. One person can edit things, or miss things, or even CG something... if anything is wrong about this that the police would like to make public, the other 15 cameras that may be there could clear things up. If the only version being allowed is owned and edited by the police, then we have the exact same situation, with a far more nefarious motive.

Journalistic integrity is a modern concept. The original journals and papers were slanted hacks trying to support a viewpoint. FOX and MSNBC are a return to the original styles of professionals, and the public using facebook/youtube/reddit is just the same as in the days of the founders, but with technology that makes dessimination simpler.

so what we have is "some guys were obviously up to something" , as the crime being investigated. I would like to know exactly what it was. When a group of police charge into a group of gang members who are on probation, there is a high likelihood that the gang members will react in a negative way. They may have been mugging old ladies, or they may have been just sitting around talking. Testosterone takes over on both sides, and a firefight breaks out. Again, did this need to happen? We will only know when the original reason that the police decided to engage the group is releases.

I am not saying that these guys are innocent, or didnt need to be arrested for whatever they were doing, but the end result is a completely unrelated innocent person has died do to the processes being followed by the police. Maybe they were saving someone else, maybe they just instigated a crime by looking hard enough.