Comment by lern_too_spel
16 days ago
It is a pet theory. It is illegal for the US to access its citizens' and residents' data without a warrant, and asking somebody else to do it doesn't magically make it legal.
16 days ago
It is a pet theory. It is illegal for the US to access its citizens' and residents' data without a warrant, and asking somebody else to do it doesn't magically make it legal.
It’s illegal but they do it anyways. Recall there was a man named Snowden who revealed the NSA does collect USA citizens’ data.
It's not a pet theory when there's proof they have engaged in it through five eyes. We're not saying it respects the constitution or its intent. We're saying it's what happens.
Black CIA sites weren't legal either, nor was torture.
> It's not a pet theory when there's proof they have engaged in it through five eyes
What proof? You would think after all the leaks there have been, some proof would exist. Instead, you cling to a conspiracy theory based on a misunderstanding of an agreement.
The fact that you immediately went for "conspiracy theory" discredits you more than you think it discredits me.
They're all conspiracy theorists when the government is accused of wrongdoing and the "proof" demands and moving goalposts happen all the time. Helped by the lack of transparency and all encompassing powers of agencies and governments.
Your arguments boil down to repeating narratives and things like "X is illegal so it doesn't happen" which just shows how naivety is part of your bad argument repertoire. I'm sure black CIA sites and coup d'etats didn't happen if I can't prove them to your liking... And if I somehow satisfied you, there's some justification that make them lawful and correct.
Give me a break.
1 reply →
[dead]
Why would they "access [their] data", instead of a report from a foreign intelligence agency?