Amerika, I disappointedFollow

If by "opening every piece of mail" you mean "opening all of my mail that is labeled with terrorist threats and plots", then yes.

I was pointing out the flaw in your logic for using the constitution as the basis of your argument. "You can't do this because it's unconstitutional" is the worse argument that you can use for something that supports the betterment of society because that's literally what we have done throughout time. Even worse when you're talking about the government protecting it's people from "foreign and domestic" terror attacks.

When you don't know it, maybe it does. The government supports the Commander in chief. The Commander in Chief primary responsibility is to protect the people of the nation. It's kind of hard to detect, monitor and stop terrorist threats in the current age of technology without some form of surveillance.

Given that there isn't a mutiny, as of yet, I would assume that a lot of people share the same sentiments. Funny how you accuse me of breaking the law, my oath and the constitution while at the same time wanting me to defect from the US government.

Alma,

Please tell me that you do not personally actually handle terror plot data. Please tell me that communications officer is some weird version of a PR guy from the army. I am genuinely hoping that is the case..

Sigh, I also hate to break it you, but the job is not supposed to be easy. Would it make it easier if we all sat on Saturday around the table with our hands on it all times? Too bad, because it will not happen. Are you capable of understanding why?

You know what is a worse argument than "it is unconstitutional"? Saying that it is for the greater good, for children, and puppies. Unless, of course, you are stupid enough to believe the rationalization you received..

I would tell you something mean, but I am not sure whether you can handle it.

I already did; did it make a difference?

Would you be willing to answer whether YOU think it is constitutional then?

Edit:

For bonus points, what do you think will happen if I decide that it is my job to go outside the law to do what needs to be done. Do you think it is a good idea to promote. Please elaborate.

Edit2:

Regarding cages of various kinds; they can be surprisingly useful.

Edited, Apr 26th 2015 8:01pm by angrymnk

Edited, Apr 26th 2015 8:03pm by angrymnk

Edited, Apr 26th 2015 8:05pm by angrymnk

Edited, Apr 26th 2015 8:09pm by angrymnk

You started it^^;

I guess it is my turn now. Ekhm,

I see now. When president does it, it is not illegal, got it. It is heart warming to know that you ( and the president ) are above the law ( I will admit I am half-waiting for you to say here that you are the law ).

Believe it or not it is not a gotcha moment. I am trying to show you the inconsistencies in your thought process.

As for the going in and out without a passport, average Mexican border jumper has you beat ( without orders too :P ).

Is your mind blown yet?

Edited, Apr 26th 2015 9:59pm by angrymnk

Edited, Apr 26th 2015 10:00pm by angrymnk

Aside from pointing out the fact that your sentence in nonsensical, that's not remotely related to what I said.

And now we went full circle.. who decides when the rules do not apply? What are the consequences for lying about life and death situations?

Edited, Apr 27th 2015 8:18am by angrymnk

Intamaresting.. the way the President's duties are described, they typically go something like this:

As chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons.

I do not see anything about breaking the law when it seems like a good idea, do you? In fact, brace yourself, it talks about enforcing the law *gasp*.

Yeah..

Edit:

As food for thought, I will add this linky with a better explanation as to why you are wrong about the number one priority.

Maybe that is why you have such a hard on for surveillance. You convinced yourself that what you do is the most important thing ever. Like I said. Intamaresting.

Edited, Apr 27th 2015 8:56am by angrymnk

Lmfao..

What does it say at the very beginning? Protect the constitution. How is that confusing to you?

He is supposed to protect the constitution to best of his abilities; not me. He certainly does not need surveillance to protect constitution. Just some backbone and conscience.

I guess that's why Snowden is disliked. He had some backbone and conscience. You did not.

You were right. Now we have come full circle.

Good job.

I'd think you of all people enjoyed people arguing about topics they've only the vaguest understanding of.

Nobody said no intel programs. That is a straw man. Warrant less wiretaps of private citizens IS unconstitutional. There are ways of getting intel data that are within the law.

Took you long enough.

Allegedly, Timelord is a professional whose time is valuable. And yet here he is, arguing with Almalieque.

It's a funny old world.

This is what I hear when I read an Alma post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UschNWVttUI

Also, widespread domestic surveillance of personal communication is not defense regardless of the goal.