Slashdot Mirror


Yahoo CEO Says It Would Be Treason To Decline To Cooperate With the NSA

McGruber writes "During Wednesday's TechCrunch Disrupt conference, Marissa Meyer was asked what would happen if Yahoo simply declined to cooperate with the NSA. She replied 'Releasing classified information is treason. It generally lands you incarcerated.' Meyer also revealed that the 2007 lawsuit against the Patriot Act had been filed by Yahoo: 'I'm proud to be part of an organization that from the very beginning in 2007, with the NSA and FISA and PRISM, has been skeptical and has scrutinized those requests. In 2007 Yahoo filed a lawsuit against the new Patriot Act, parts of PRISM and FISA, we were the key plaintiff. A lot of people have wondered about that case and who it was. It was us ... we lost. The thing is, we lost and if you don't comply it's treason.'"

327 of 524 comments (clear)

  1. Treason.. or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Patriotism?

    1. Re:Treason.. or... by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Either way it's a crap excuse.

      Treason is the act of sabotage, destruction, sedition, and suchlike. Refusing a search w/o a *proper* warrant is not treason. Secret court generated 'warrants' do not count as being proper by any stretch of common law.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Treason.. or... by PortHaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't we have to have a declared war to actually have a true charge of treason?

    3. Re:Treason.. or... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

      Treason is the act of sabotage, destruction, sedition, and suchlike.

      No, it's not.

      From the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

      This is not to suggest that sabotage, destruction, sedition and suchlike might not be crimes. But they're NOT treason in and of themselves.

      Much as some people (both in and out of government) might like to convince you they are.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Treason.. or... by Kaenneth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure 'Aid and Comfort' can be stretched at least as far as 'interstate commerce' or 'general welfare'

    5. Re:Treason.. or... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We will always be at war with Terror, citizen.

    6. Re:Treason.. or... by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Refusing a search w/o a *proper* warrant is not treason. Secret court generated 'warrants' do not count as being proper by any stretch of common law.

      Warrants are pretty much always requested in a confidential setting. Experience has shown that when you call ahead to tell people you're getting a search warrant, or their friends tell them, evidence tends to disappear. The only thing that is different here is that the recipients of the warrant can't tell people they received it. Since they aren't the suspects, letting them inform other people that there is an investigation going on about them would interfere with what is a highly sensitive investigation. So you don't really have that right. The warrants are apparently legal and proper. Congress passed the laws authorizing them, and the courts have allowed them.

      Since these warrants tend to be used for national security investigations, such as into spying and terrorism, how to you think that telling people they are being investigated isn't a bad thing?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    7. Re:Treason.. or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We have always been at war with Eastasia.

    8. Re:Treason.. or... by bitt3n · · Score: 2

      Indeed, it's exceedingly difficult to get convicted of treason in the US. The list of people who have been could fit on a postcard and mostly involves things like defecting to the Waffen SS during WWII and similar wartime indiscretions.

    9. Re:Treason.. or... by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't we have to have a declared war to actually have a true charge of treason?

      Google is your friend (but they're scared shitless of the government, too, just like this lady is)

      Article III Section 3.

      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

      The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

    10. Re:Treason.. or... by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem here is that she may be totally right, under the interpretation of secret courts whose rulings we don't know. If she has been told in a secret court ruling that failure to comply with these requests constitutes treason (no matter how indefensible that ruling may be), then she is correct in asserting that such is the case. What is even worse is that she could not even tell us if that was the case.

      Secret courts and secret laws are an existential threat to democratic society: they remove the oversight of the populace in regulating the judicial process, and inevitably lead to abuse. A law you must obey but cannot be told the expectations of can be nothing but a tool of tyranny.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    11. Re:Treason.. or... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yet no American has been convicted of Treason since the 50s.

    12. Re:Treason.. or... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Except that there is no common law precedent for doing so (AFAIK), and to make that stretch would be to take a huge gamble as to what happens under appeal.

      Luckily, you don't have to worry about common law precedent and appeals so much in trials held in a secret court.

      Aid and Comfort is often referred to as "harboring a fugitive" -- which, if Yahoo Mail has evidence of where someone is hiding or what they are up to, and Yahoo has the means to ferret that out, but doesn't provide the information to the government when they ask for it with a warrant, could be considered treason. From there to providing any information to the government because they've requested it, and being in contempt of a secret court if you refuse to do so or talk about it, is the slippery slope we've slid down.

    13. Re:Treason.. or... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The US law is clear 'pretty much always requested" does not work well in any domestic US legal setting. The defendants legal team (security cleared) still gets to see evidence. They still get to ask questions. Lawyers in the US dont like terms like "apparently legal and proper"
      "Congress passed the laws authorizing" does not undo, loop around, remove or weaken any constitutional rights.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    14. Re:Treason.. or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That "bimbo" as you put it with whatever infinite wisdom and technical expertise and responsibility you think you have, was talking pragmatically about the consequences Yahoo faces from the government's perspective. She wasn't speaking philosophically or even metaphorically. She probably knows just a little more about the issue than you do being that her company did fight it and lost. She probably is aware of what threats the NSA has made to Yahoo. So how about you give her some slack, or just show a bit of respect since it's not your neck that's on the line, and so far you haven't done much to fight the NSA either.

    15. Re:Treason.. or... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Since these warrants tend to be used for national security investigations, such as into spying and terrorism, how to you think that telling people they are being investigated isn't a bad thing?

      Maybe they should skip the warrants and courts and everything, and just go to notifying people they are being investigated. If the evidence disappears, that means it can't be used. Plot foiled.

      That's just one way off the top of my head that it isn't a bad thing. I'm sure there are others.

    16. Re:Treason.. or... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Didn't Obama declare the war on terror as being over?

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    17. Re:Treason.. or... by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Wait, look at what she's saying closely; I think she's saying that "we tried to take a stand against the Gov's bs, but in the end we crumbled." I think she's simply stating the nature of the situation; if you go against them, its treason. I don't think she's nessessarily a Patriot Act booster. But then I could simply be dazzled by a hot CEO.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    18. Re:Treason.. or... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Being a defendant means an arrest has taken place, charges have been filed, and things are heading to court. Yes, at that point the defendant's legal team can oppose motions, etc. But while the investigation prior to arrest is going on, there is no defendant, or legal team, to oppose the warrant.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    19. Re:Treason.. or... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      There are also procedures for marking stuff as classified, and you can't just stamp it on anything that's embarrassing. (There are tables, there's no reason to post them here.)

      If you do, that's a violation of the same act that she's talking about.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    20. Re:Treason.. or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ITM fellow shitizen.

    21. Re:Treason.. or... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Failure to take some action might be an offence of another kind, but it cannot be treason.

      You say it's a non-act. I say it's an active act of non-compliance. Are you willing to bet your life on the government using your definition and not mine?

    22. Re:Treason.. or... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I think the "pretty much always requested" was to assert the times when a warrant isn't needed or required before hand due to the urgency of the matter. The constitution protects us against unreasonable searches and the courts have held that it is reasonable in some situations to search without a warrant as long as a warrant would have been issued had enough time passed.

      An example of this kind of search I an into recently was when a girl I know (next door neighbor's daughter) sent a text to her parents sating she was going to end it all and take her kids with her. The cops were able to get her location information as well as access to her texts sent and received for the past few days at 3 am without a warrant.

      Turns out "end it all" didn't mean killing herself and the kids but leaving her abusive husband forever and taking with the kids with her. She sent the text to her mom instead of her sister who was going to take her in- causing a very big scene.

    23. Re:Treason.. or... by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Informative

      dumbass bimbo? I think you'd better read her bio before repeating that. If you think she doesn't understand what's she is saying or doing, then the dumbass is a little closer than it appears.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    24. Re:Treason.. or... by fizzer06 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm guessing that providing weapons and training to Al Qaeda would qualify as treason. I mean except when it's our own government doing it, of course.

    25. Re:Treason.. or... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Either way it's a crap excuse.

      Treason is the act of sabotage, destruction, sedition, and suchlike. Refusing a search w/o a *proper* warrant is not treason. Secret court generated 'warrants' do not count as being proper by any stretch of common law.

      But, but, but...it's for the national security of the children. If you don't go along with the program, the terrorists win and it's all your fault.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    26. Re:Treason.. or... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Don't we have to have a declared war to actually have a true charge of treason?

      NDAA.
      FTFY.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    27. Re:Treason.. or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're still trying to get their hands on Snowden and Assange. I don't think you could really call what happened to Manning an "escape", even if he wasn't, as far as I know, convicted of technical treason.

    28. Re:Treason.. or... by demonlapin · · Score: 4, Informative
      Except that treason is quite clearly defined in the Constitution:

      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

      I'm sure that she's right that it's comply or go to jail, but it's not treason.

    29. Re:Treason.. or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      snowden sure, but assange couldn't be tried for treason.....

    30. Re:Treason.. or... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're talking about the federal government here. It no longer has to abide by this "Constitution you speak of, and if you invoke it in a court case, the feds can declare your argument "frivolous" and ignore it.

    31. Re:Treason.. or... by mbone · · Score: 1

      I wonder if she was told that it would be treason by someone in law enforcement (they are allowed to lie, after all). Perhaps, as so many other citizens would, she believed what she was told. That's unfortunate for someone in her position, but sadly quite normal.

      Besides, the way the words "traitor", "treason", "un-American" and "terrorist" are thrown around, their actual meanings are diluted in common speech by all that hyperbole.

      Unlike some defendants, I would be astounded if she did not have advice of counsel, and pretty good counsel at that.

    32. Re:Treason.. or... by Eskarel · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think she believes that she, or her employees might face jail time if they refused to comply with a court order. At the very least there would be significant financial penalties for her company resulting in the loss of many jobs.

      I also have no doubt that "Treason" was the word used by the people who came to see her or her predecessor(she hasn't actually been in the role that long).

      I would also like to take this time to state that I am sick and god damned tired of sexist trolls like yourself using terms like "bimbo" because you disagree with what someone has said. Grow the fuck up.

    33. Re:Treason.. or... by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Do we really have to go here?

      If someone called me up and said "hey we've got a warrant to look for ______ we'll be round in half an hour" ______ would not be found in my home when they got there. I'm absolutely 100% sure that the same would be true of you and almost every single other person in this world. Anyone who didn't do that may as well say "I'll save you the trouble officer, I have _________ in my home, I'll pop round so you can arrest me". That's human nature.

      Do I necessarily agree with FISA warrants, no, they're a rubber stamp and far too much about them is secret. At minimum we should have an idea how many are being served and persons who are charged based on evidence obtained under them should have access to the evidence used to apply for them.

      That said, claiming that people won't dispose of evidence if given the opportunity to do so is idiotc.

    34. Re:Treason.. or... by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      They're just not going to call it "treason" in a court of law, though some politicians might throw the word around in non-legal contexts.

      They'll call it unlawful disclosure of classified information, or whatever terms the relevant statutes actually use.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    35. Re:Treason.. or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Everyone is born American in their heart. Some people choose to defect.

    36. Re:Treason.. or... by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Nope, read the clause again.

      Going to war against the US as a US citizen is treason, but so is aiding enemies of the US. A war is not required to have an enemy, and it's not by any means a stretch to say that Osama bin Laden for instance was an enemy.

    37. Re:Treason.. or... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      the warrants don't need to be public. but they should be available for anyone who bothers to request them. They should not be available via any 3rd party non-government agency, for a fee, easily search able.

      But if you call Langley, they should have to tell you. We have a right to know these things. People who already do bad shit already have more subversive ways then rot13 on the web.

      All this shit does is let the NSA catch you by association, subvert your contacts, and put you on a fucking blacklist.

    38. Re:Treason.. or... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sadly, the "giving them aid or comfort" part has been expanded to include virtually anything. Do you oppose NSA spying? Well, by doing so you "give aid and comfort" to terrorists since your opposition might disrupt something that could have thwarted the terrorists' plans. If you don't get in line like a good little patriot and keep your mouth quiet, you're a traitor.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    39. Re:Treason.. or... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Its a far better civil method to let people oversee what is going on then the all out rebellion which we are heading towards. And a duty of our civil servants to uphold our civil power and individual control in our government and law enforcement.

      Heck its a duty that should be mandated through class in school. Everyone should be educated as to the reach and breadth of the governments power. And their options in dealing with it. Regardless of "what it may be used for".

      Part of living in a free society. If your to fearful to do with that, you may well move to Pakistan or India where you can deal with government officials who may or may not protect you depending on your social status, class, income, gender, ethnicity, bribery level.

    40. Re:Treason.. or... by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Several million years of human history show that people very rarely take consequences for things they don't have to, but if you feel like being scientific go ahead, ask as many people as you like, find one who says they'd do otherwise.

      Heck I'll ask right here, is there one single person reading this who would leave the evidence for the cops to show up and find if they got notice they were coming?

    41. Re:Treason.. or... by Eskarel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The warrants shouldn't be public. No warrants should actually be public. That's a horrendous breach of the privacy of the subject of the warrant. Imagine you get searched for kiddie porn and they don't find anything, releasing that warrant to the public would damage you horribly.

      The subject should have a right to see the warrant and the evidence used to issue it. We should know how many warrants are being filed, but never what they're actually for.

    42. Re:Treason.. or... by hoeferbe · · Score: 1

      Since these warrants tend to be used for national security investigations, such as into spying and terrorism, how to you think that telling people they are being investigated isn't a bad thing?

      I think the story mixes FISA warrants and Patriot Act National Security Letters (NSLs). I don't know about FISA warrants, but I've read that recipients of NSLs are forbidden from saying anything to anyone about having received them. I would not be surprised to learn the Federal government claims the same authority for FISA warrants.

      Recipients of these NSLs and FISA warrants are not complaining because they cannot tell the subject of the investigation. They are complaining about the gag order -- even to the extent that they cannot publish statistics on how many government requests they've received.

    43. Re:Treason.. or... by zidium · · Score: 1

      "ITM" means?

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    44. Re:Treason.. or... by Swampash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Oer the laaaaaand of the sheep, and the hooooooome of the whipped"

    45. Re:Treason.. or... by zidium · · Score: 1

      Or they claim you simply haven't been "damaged" by their willful disregard for the document.

      Why? Because, Citizen, you were not a signer of it. You're 250 years too late to have Constitutional Rights! The [second] 13th Amendment turned you from a sovereign into a Citizen Slave.

      Congrats! We're all equal in slavery, just few of us realize it ;-/

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    46. Re:Treason.. or... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They would if there was some fatal terrorist attack between now and trial where the terrorists used Yahoo (even if there was no request for their information given to Yahoo).

    47. Re:Treason.. or... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If the secrecy was solely for maintenance of evidence, why are they not allowed to talk about aggregate numbers, or discuss them after the investigations are closed?

      I'll give you a hint. It's not about the maintenance of evidence. It's about causing fear (in both the voting population and the purported criminals).

    48. Re:Treason.. or... by Desler · · Score: 1

      Since these warrants tend to be used for national security investigations, such as into spying and terrorism, how to you think that telling people they are being investigated isn't a bad thing?

      Because there is no oversight that the warrants are only for those purposes?

    49. Re:Treason.. or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sadly, the "giving them aid or comfort" part has been expanded to include virtually anything.

      Yeah, I would agree. It could even include the most obvious and blatant things...you know, like supplying arms to other countries.

      Yes Government, ain't it a bitch when that shoe just slips right on the other foot with ease. Tends to make the egg on your face a bit harder to wash off.

    50. Re:Treason.. or... by grumpyman · · Score: 1

      Duuude, it's all about war on terror man.

    51. Re:Treason.. or... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And seems many of those were treasons against a state, or later reversed or pardoned. The number of federal treason cases that stood looks to be about 7, and most of those during actual wars (Civil and WWII being the big two).

    52. Re:Treason.. or... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      They will when their starving to death in the gutter. Well not against the people in power. But we'll turn on eachother =/

      I know I was stating obvious and old rhetoric, which is not the normative opinion around anymore. But one can only hope that somehow my voice is added to the collective. While we have the time and the networks to permit it.

      One can be hopeful. Though I don't disagree. This will be a bad trainwreck long before any kind of rebellions. Maybe even lasting a century or more. I don't know. I'm not a futurist or particularly educated.

      But I do see the ham in my local grocery store valued at $61+ for a few pounds (lb) the fact that that company selling that particular brand of ham can even afford to price that way is a good indication of how bad things from a perspective of someone who remembers that ham costing $10 or less. Not that long ago.

      I suppose I am a bit niave, and I had a late start in life securing my future so I will probably be one of the people to pay for our hubris en masse. Can't say for sure though. I know I have slashdot and the internet at my fingertips and this is where I try, on occasion. To be a participant in civil matters =)

    53. Re:Treason.. or... by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not. There isn't a difference. You don't call someone a bimbo for saying or doing something stupid; you call them a bimbo when you have written them off as a stupid person. Furthermore, you don't use bimbo when referring to a stupid male, you use it when referring to a stupid female. And you use it to particularly address the fact that a stupid person is a woman. It is a label that has a legacy of having been used to deride and reduce women in the workplace for decades. Maybe you don't take offense to it, but that's on you. Civilized people do, and surely, there are words that offend you.

    54. Re:Treason.. or... by cavreader · · Score: 1

      When Congress is creates new laws they use in-house lawyers review the proposed law and make sure there are no obvious legal mistakes. That doesn't mean the law is legal. The real test comes when someone is actually charged with violating the law and goes to court to challenge the law. The Judicial branch can invalidate the entire law or strike down just certain provisions of the law. The Judicial branch has the final word not the Legislative branch. This has already happened to the Patriot Act. A professor in Florida was charged with violating certain Patriot Act provisions and the court ruled the Patriot Act provisions invalid and the government had to drop their case because there was no evidence.

    55. Re:Treason.. or... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      If it's not public, you can't fight it.

    56. Re:Treason.. or... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Yep.

    57. Re:Treason.. or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How can you not understand that bimbo is offensive in any context that has it applied to a woman?

      You are astonishingly ignorant if you don't know why you are so very wrong to call a successful woman like Marissa Meyer a bimbo.
      This ignorance is a sign of immaturity, hence that is why you are told to "grow up".

      I'll explain it for you.
      When someone says something that you think is wrong, then you say "That is wrong and this is why it is wrong."
      You can even say that the statement is "stupid" when it is made in disregard of reason and facts. Merely being wrong about something when there is some supporting evidence is not "stupid".
      If she made a number of un-reasoning and contra-factual statements (or actions) in varying contexts, then you could state that she is stupid.

      You used this phrase: "if she believes ..., then she's a dumbass bimbo". You used the word "bimbo" as a personal attack against a person, and "bimbo" falls into a group of pejoratives that are used as attacks against classes of people who are discriminated against in the same fashion that racial epithets are used.
      One thing that I am very certain of is that Marissa Meyer is neither vacuous nor stupid. Also. I suspect it's most unlikely that she's overly interested in her sex appeal, boys, and clothing which are among the connotations of bimbo.
      She made one statement that is probably wrong. However, it is quite possible that the government attorneys involved in the court case used the word treason regarding Yahoo's non-compliance with the various acts mentioned. I don't know; I wasn't there so I give her the benefit of the doubt. Were you there?
      The word "bimbo" simply" does not apply to her, so the only reason I can imagine someone would call her a bimbo is to demean her status as a person using an attack based on her gender.

      Now, as for this: "Too many people take too much god damn offense from words".
      There is a reason why people take offense against words. It is because so much offense has been done using words.

      I'm speaking as an old person who had a grandmother who could not legally vote when she was a young woman, whose mother was alive in a time when women were not allowed to purchase property in their own name without a husband's signature, when the only women allowed into law or medical school were exceptions granted to some influential person's daughter. The only jobs open to women were teaching and secretary unless dad owned the company.
      I have a wife with a sky-high IQ that could not attend the college of her choice because almost no science/technical schools accepted women at that time. And I'm well aware of the struggles my daughter had as a physics major from professors who refused to acknowledge she even existed.

      I know, I'm an old hippie going whine whine fuss moan about the bad old days way back when. But here's my point:
      Those days are not over, and they're not over because of immature assholes like you.
      Shut the fuck up until you have grown up.

    58. Re:Treason.. or... by foniksonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      She has a duty to the shareholders of Yahoo to do what is best for them.

      Right now at this time it appears that the best interests are served by complying.

      If you want corporations to fight, buy shares - get a group together to buy more shares, buy up all of the companies that run the infrastructure of the country, then use them to fight a proxy war with the current federal government.

      Vote with your wallets. Vote with organization. Just hope that the new masters (whomever ends up with controlling interest) are better than what we have now.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    59. Re:Treason.. or... by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      i can say for certain that I would do otherwise. I'm not going to hide behind some "dog ate my homework" shield. I fight and win my battles in the court of law, not court of Law and Order!

    60. Re:Treason.. or... by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      Several million years of human history show that people very rarely take consequences for things they don't have to

      also btdubs there are only 5,000 years of human history, because history by its very definition is a recorded catalog of events. No writing, no history. everything else is pre-historic.

    61. Re:Treason.. or... by gagol · · Score: 1

      Dear troll, given the extent of constitutional abuse, internation law vilations, and terrorist organisations support this US government was/is engaged in, fighting it is the only sensible thing to do.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    62. Re:Treason.. or... by gagol · · Score: 1

      human history (history start with written records of some sort) dates back to around 15000bc, hardly million years... way to botch an argument.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    63. Re:Treason.. or... by gagol · · Score: 1

      Probable cause and a healty judge should resolve that issue. It worked well for decades, let's get back to it.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    64. Re:Treason.. or... by LMariachi · · Score: 2

      I realize she likely hasn’t sworn any oath to uphold the Constitution, regardless I think her duty to its principles eclipses her duty to Yahoo’s shareholders.

    65. Re:Treason.. or... by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 5, Insightful

      She has a duty to the shareholders of Yahoo to do what is best for them.

      And as an American, she also has a duty to her nation and her fellow citizens.
      A nation founded on ideals expressed in its written Constitution, over which the NSA secret courts trample.
      Her association with a corporation does not excuse her from that responsibility.

      Nobody should ever be excused of working against the citizenry of this country simply because the profits of a corporation and its select shareholders were at risk.

      Now, in this particular case, Ms Mayer seems to indicate that she is opposed to the orders and - through her organization - has fought these orders in court. Unfortunately, the courts ruled against her and Yahoo decided to obey the court orders. And despite her poor choice of words regarding the reasoning for her actions following the court's decision (e.g., "treason"), I'd even be willing to believe that she - and Yahoo - will continue to "fight the good fight", for whatever reason. So it seems that this is not just a case of protecting Yahoo shareholders and that's a good thing..

      But the idea that the sole responsibility CEOs have is to their corporate masters needs to die.

    66. Re:Treason.. or... by celle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "the feds can declare your argument "frivolous" and ignore it."

          She just has to blast it on millions of computer screens. They won't be able to ignore the political outrage from the public over trying to jail a woman with a baby that is fighting government tyranny. Secret agencies and courts tend to fade away from scrutiny by the general public.

      PS
            I keep getting the feeling that hollywood was trying to tell us about this for decades but we weren't listening because we thought it was entertainment and wouldn't believe it would happen to us. The movies of the last few decades sure described a lot of the current issues. Either that or hollywood was trying to program us to be insensitive to the changes.

    67. Re:Treason.. or... by celle · · Score: 1

      " and being in contempt of a secret court if you refuse to do so or talk about it, is the slippery slope we've slid down."

          And it is the duty of every american citizen to challenge and defeat such tyranny at every turn. The true treason is bending over for it.

    68. Re:Treason.. or... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Thats great, when you can talk to the judge about it, especially at least after the fact. And hold those judges accountable, in public.

    69. Re:Treason.. or... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Heck I'll ask right here, is there one single person reading this who would leave the evidence for the cops to show up and find if they got notice they were coming?

      Surely that would depend on the situation. If the plan was to challenge a bad law, I'd put the evidence in plain view and tip off the authorities myself.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    70. Re:Treason.. or... by JonBoy47 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US has no equivalent of the UK's "Official Secrets Act". By definition, one cannot unlawfully disclose classified information unless one has been "indoctrinated" (i.e. granted a security clearance). A necessary part of that process is the signing of a non-disclosure agreement whereby one agrees to be held criminally liable for unauthorized disclosure. Absent such an NDA and security indocrination, the possession and/or dissemination of classified information is perfectly legal. Note how all legal scrutiny in the Snowden case (at least in the US) is directed against Snowden himself, and not at all against any of the news outlets that used him as a source. An interesting way to "civilly disobey" would be to have all employees refuse to accept the security clearance (that the NSA would require as part of their collaboration) when the NSA comes calling.

    71. Re: Treason.. or... by shentino · · Score: 1

      I can't, there's a patent on that.

    72. Re:Treason.. or... by Tempest451 · · Score: 1

      "Refusing a search w/o a *proper* warrant is not treason. Secret court generated 'warrants' do not count as being proper by any stretch of common law." Apparently they do count.

    73. Re:Treason.. or... by Damouze · · Score: 2

      Assange can't be charged with treason in the USA, because he is not an American citizen.

      --
      And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
    74. Re:Treason.. or... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The Patriot Act still falls ***under*** constitutional rights :)
      The interesting aspect about all the domestic abuses is that skilled US lawyers will notice the colour of law efforts and go to court.
      Over time the lawyers will win.
      What are the options? Extra laws and more lost court cases?
      More gag orders? More federally security cleared legal teams for state courts?
      As any political system doubles down with yet more security laws the more clear abuse becomes to all.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    75. Re:Treason.. or... by Clsid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is way Assange's case is so hilarious. The US is blaming a foreigner for breaking US laws and trying to get him extradited. And the weirdest part is that the breaking the law was just acting like a newspaper.

    76. Re:Treason.. or... by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Standing up and risking fines or imprisonment is for the little guy. The citizen. We can't have CEOs of the largest corporations in the world making this sort of righteous stand. It's not like they could muster the resources to publicize what was happening to them, or fund a defense team, or a lobbying team to work on their behalf, or have powerful connections to help them. And it's certainly not like you would muster up intense support and loyalty from customers, future customers, and everyone in general by taking such a meaningful stand.

      Nope. Keep your mouth shut. Keep your $500/hr shiatsu massages in your corporate office, and shrug a big dumb brainless don't-give-a-shit shrug when it is revealed that your entire company bent over every time the government demanded it.

      PS: It isn't "treason", just because you do something the government doesn't like.

    77. Re:Treason.. or... by Seumas · · Score: 2

      MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

    78. Re:Treason.. or... by Myu · · Score: 1

      Fuck off.

      --
      Myu: ... The map's upside down...
    79. Re:Treason.. or... by Forever+Wondering · · Score: 1

      More likely obstruction of justice or some such.

      A person with a security clearance revealing classified information [to another person] is treason. But, the receipt of such information is not [although a stretch, some cases have tried to charge the receiver under the Espionage Act, even though they are U.S. citizens].

      Side note to U.K. citizens (the ones that [still] insist they don't need a formal constitution), receipt of classified information is treated exactly as disclosing it under "The Official Secrets Act" [IIRC].

      However, "aid and comfort" might cover Meyer's assertion (e.g. failure to comply gives "aid and comfort" to an enemy) ala harboring a fugitive [electronically speaking].

      In any case, it really is time to say: Enough is enough ...

      --
      Like a good neighbor, fsck is there ...
    80. Re:Treason.. or... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Just phase one.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    81. Re:Treason.. or... by kermidge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Secret courts and secret laws are an existential threat to democratic society...."

      By which I take it to mean that since we do have secret laws and secret courts then we do not have a democratic society, only some of its superficial trappings.

    82. Re:Treason.. or... by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      No one cares if it IS treason or not if it will land you in jail for treason.

      --
      bickerdyke
    83. Re:Treason.. or... by bickerdyke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh... so now you need to be actually convicted of treason to be jailed up for it?

      Or rather: how would you know if no one has been convicted when trials can be held in secret court?

      --
      bickerdyke
    84. Re:Treason.. or... by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Right now at this time it appears that the best interests are served by complying.

      In her defense (and all other companies): Complying to law enforcement requests should be in everyones best intrest. It was a sad day when we had to start to doubt that.

      --
      bickerdyke
    85. Re:Treason.. or... by kermidge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Either way, you've got the best P.S. I've seen in a long while. Sci-fi writers had some of this long before Hollywood, but who takes that seriously? Other than some of us, maybe.

      Perhaps it doesn't matter; I've the scary thought that even if the bulk of the populace got angry and demanded an end to such practice that it would make no difference to outcome.

      It used to be that legislators tended to behave well in being responsive to their constituents in order to get the votes to get re-elected; now I suspect they have more fear of having the past five or ten years of their emails and phone calls outed than they fear having to return to private life to try to make an honest living.

    86. Re:Treason.. or... by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      That said, claiming that people won't dispose of evidence if given the opportunity to do so is idiotc.

      I call BS.

      Why should someone risk to get charged with destruction of evidence, when it's evidence against someone else?

      It's not like we have a warrant to search for something that would put you in jail.

      --
      bickerdyke
    87. Re:Treason.. or... by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

      So the gouverment can basically CHOOSE the lawyers you can or can't hire by granting or revoking security clearances?

      --
      bickerdyke
    88. Re:Treason.. or... by arobatino · · Score: 4, Informative

      Snowden didn't commit treason either. In 1945 the Supreme Court ruled that treason requires adhering to a specific enemy, which neither of them did.

    89. Re:Treason.. or... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      Isn't the very fact of recent disclosures by the US Government (to whit; that they are giving aid and comfort to the Enemy - by their own definition, elements of al Qaeda "known" to be working alongside Syrian rebels), an overt admission of treason?

      Or is that a vexation, to be ignored by the Judicial branch?

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    90. Re:Treason.. or... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      Failure to act on an awareness of a treasonous act is an offence, it is known as misprision.
      Failure to comply with an unlawful order, instruction or request is not treason. It shows the highest respect for the Law.
      Refusal to comply with an order from a Government agency which has time and again showed itself to be self-appointed superjudicial is entirely in keeping with one of the oldest Constitutional documents in existence, one which like it or not, citizens and Government of the United States are still subject to: Magna Carta. Specifically, clause 61, which in a small nutshell obligates any individual or group who are aware of the unlawfulness of a Law or Statute to disobey that Law or Statute and to seek redress.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    91. Re:Treason.. or... by ImOuttaHere · · Score: 2

      Ideology, meet reality.

      Give us an example where a corporation has ever acted based on the ideals set forth in the Constitution. Law? Likely. Secret judge orders? Highly likely. Constitution? Unlikely.

      Corporations are constantly working against the citizenry of the USA to ensure higher profits for shareholders. They move your jobs to China. They keep profits off-shore to avoid paying taxes. They sit on TARP monies that you, the taxpayer, gave them because they are too large to fail (instead of investing it in hiring US citizens or product R&D). They launder drug monies (banks, at least) and no one goes to jail. They write laws that your government enacts, to corporate benefit. They receive huge tax breaks at middle-class taxpayer expense.

      While I'm not saying Yahoo is doing any of these dastardly things, I am stressing the absurdity that corporations would do anything buy work in their own self interest. Ideologies be damned!

      She has a duty to the shareholders of Yahoo to do what is best for them.

      And as an American, she also has a duty to her nation and her fellow citizens. A nation founded on ideals expressed in its written Constitution, over which the NSA secret courts trample. Her association with a corporation does not excuse her from that responsibility.

      Nobody should ever be excused of working against the citizenry of this country simply because the profits of a corporation and its select shareholders were at risk.

    92. Re:Treason.. or... by Xest · · Score: 1

      I'm intrigued. What if she agreed with Microsoft, Apple, Google, to all ignore the NSA's requests and release said documents. Would the government really dare destroy one of the most important pillars of it's economy, the tech industry?

      Doing so would be in the interests of shareholders too as the current setup costs these companies heavily in money and reputation.

    93. Re:Treason.. or... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      Try 6,627 years. But, point taken.

      (from what I remember in school, the oldest writings are in Mandarin and date back to what is essentially the dawn of recorded history, specific dating using current calendar system gives us a start date of January 1 4613BCE).

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    94. Re:Treason.. or... by Lennie · · Score: 1

      I'm sure things will improve for them now they have a new logo ;-)

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    95. Re:Treason.. or... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well, you have to begin somewhere.

    96. Re:Treason.. or... by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      We're talking about the federal government here. It no longer has to abide by this "Constitution you speak of, and if you invoke it in a court case, the feds can declare your argument "frivolous" and ignore it.

      Just invoke National Security. A flag can be used to cover anything.

    97. Re:Treason.. or... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 3, Funny

      Snowden didn't commit treason either. In 1945 the Supreme Court ruled that treason requires adhering to a specific enemy, which neither of them did.

      I'm sure Obama would argue that Snowden has sided with Terror(TM). Is that specific enough for you?

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    98. Re:Treason.. or... by quadrox · · Score: 2

      Oh yeah, that approach sure worked out for Manning and Snowden. Thank god public outraged ensured that they are now sitting peacefully at home in the US, not in prison or exile.

    99. Re:Treason.. or... by dwpro · · Score: 1

      That's fucking stupid. Is calling someone a dick then a gender specific derision that gets you similarly offended? "Civilized people" (there's a loaded term, hope you weren't saying that to someone of color) don't get offended by what random schmoes (see what I did there?) say on the internet.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    100. Re:Treason.. or... by Hypotensive · · Score: 1

      The NSA will say that the Enemies of the United States are those that decline to cooperate with the NSA.

    101. Re:Treason.. or... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      What I'm wondering is; where does an NSL get sent? What form does it take? Is it literaly a letter on paper? Can the company which is the subject of such a letter ensure that it is sent to an address outside of the USA? If so then whats to say the letter gets intercepted by some third party, opened and leaked, before it arrives at its addressee?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    102. Re:Treason.. or... by dissy · · Score: 1

      You have 11 replies already, so probably won't even see this.
      But I am surprised no one has brought up the total lack of verification.

      Case A - The real CIA/FBI use a NSA secret warrant to search a suspected kidnappers home. He/she can't consult a lawyer since that is treason. They can't verify the warrant since that is treason. They have no real way to tell it is real, so will likely act naturally and suspect a home invasion and begin shooting.

      Case B - You get visited in the night by me and my friends dressed as cops/agents waving a laser printed NSA order in your face and informing you discussing it with anyone including lawyers results in life imprisonment.
      We proceed to steal your belongings, shoot your dog, and kidnap your wife.

      These are both things you argue should be OK.

      In case A, you just made the world morally side with a kidnapper, and made it morally OK to shoot cops. Good job.
      In case B, your cowardliness results in a lack of worldly possessions, killing and taking those whom you love to do worse things to, and you won't even go to report these horrible crimes for fear of going to prison for life...

      Is this really the type of world you want to be arguing in favor of?

    103. Re:Treason.. or... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Assange can't be charged with treason in the USA, because he is not an American citizen.

      There's plenty of stuff happened lately that can't happen.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    104. Re:Treason.. or... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Didn't Obama declare the war on terror as being over?

      And Bush said the war in Iraq was won.

      My cynical side says its politicians doing what politicians do, no matter what their political background is. They all want to paint themselves as being great leaders, yet it is history that ultimately decides.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    105. Re:Treason.. or... by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 1

      Into The Matrix

      --
      "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
    106. Re:Treason.. or... by trytoguess · · Score: 2

      Sigh.. nope. Calling someone a bimbo is still dismissing their POV by basically saying her gender is somehow relevant to her lack of intelligence. Would you say a guy who you disagreed with is a "dudebro" or a "himbo?" So why does it somehow become a legitimate thing to say to women?

      Also... for the love of god, freedom of speech applies to government censorship, individuals can and will tell you your choice of words are stupid and ask that you change them.

      Finally, dunno about the previous anon, but I knew the stats you mentioned. I also know that other groups like the Asians and Jews are also doing better than the average white American. Wanna argue it's ok to call a Chinese person a chink now? Mayhap call a Jewish person a hook nosed miser? Somehow I don't really think you would. Why are women exempt?

      ~ Another Anon

    107. Re:Treason.. or... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      She has a duty to the shareholders of Yahoo to do what is best for them.

      And as an American, she also has a duty to her nation and her fellow citizens.

      There's good money to be made doing the former. Not so much the latter. Follow the money and you'll find their values. Feels like I've heard that before somewhere. I'll come to me . . .

      And besides, if she does the latter, she''ll be replaced with someone else. The ratio of people highly motivated by money to CEO positions is too high.

      I'd like to change it, too, but people with more money than me disagree. And they got rich by doing what I disagree with. So there we go, I don't expect any change without drastic upheaval.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    108. Re: Treason.. or... by mitcheli · · Score: 1

      Yahoo holds email for a great number of people. That is a great deal of data just lying around. Yahoo holds a fair bit of significance today.

      --
      Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
    109. Re:Treason.. or... by drummerboybac · · Score: 1

      If you play fantasy sports or read the patch they do at least, as well as email I guess

    110. Re:Treason.. or... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I can't help but wonder how Marissa Meyer could be a Traitor, a Liar and Thief, but not a Traitor.

    111. Re:Treason.. or... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Oh yeah, that approach sure worked out for Manning and Snowden. Thank god public outraged ensured that they are now sitting peacefully at home in the US, not in prison or exile.

      And while you're thinking about them, keep in mind that NEITHER of them were charged with treason....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    112. Re:Treason.. or... by Ardeaem · · Score: 2

      Vote with your wallets. Vote with organization. Just hope that the new masters (whomever ends up with controlling interest) are better than what we have now.

      We're talking about fairly basic violations of the US Constitution here. If your solution is to "vote with your wallets" then everything is lost, because that means 1) you think basic guarantees are up for a vote, and 2) you've given up on the idea that one person is one vote. That means you're not *really* talking about voting any more; you're talking about *buying back* freedoms that we're supposed to be guaranteed. But when 1%-2% of people in the US own the majority of the wealth, you can't "vote with your wallet." Your vote is irrelevant, because your wealth is irrelevant (unless you happen to be in that tiny sliver of the population).

    113. Re:Treason.. or... by alexo · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, you don't use bimbo when referring to a stupid male, you use it when referring to a stupid female.

      Interestingly:
      The word bimbo derives itself from the Italian bimbo, derived from bambino a masculine-gender term that means (male) baby or very young (male) child (bimbo's feminine equivalent is bimba). Use of this term began in the United States as early as 1919, and was a slang word used to describe an unintelligent or brutish man.
      -- Wikipedia

    114. Re:Treason.. or... by operagost · · Score: 1

      No. You can have enemies without being at war with them. See: USSR and North Korea (although that's technically a cease-fire). There's nothing corrupt as long as we say who are enemies actually are.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    115. Re:Treason.. or... by operagost · · Score: 1

      "Home of the blame" fits better both in verse and meaning.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    116. Re:Treason.. or... by Peristaltic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly, what does it matter what you're charged with if the US government can hold you indefinitely in a concrete box for any reason (or no reason at all)?

    117. Re:Treason.. or... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Treason is only a drone strike away from terrorism.

    118. Re: Treason.. or... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Why don't we just declare war on war? By definition this would be a war with no end. And anyone who opposed it would obviously be a traitor. Shock and awe ... some!

      Been there and done that. WW I was "the war to end all wars" remember? WW II had a similar sales pitch in certain markets.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    119. Re:Treason.. or... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Legally, treason; morally, patriotism.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    120. Re:Treason.. or... by scubamage · · Score: 1

      War is peace, duh.

    121. Re:Treason.. or... by scubamage · · Score: 2

      Marissa Meyer is easy on the eyes, and that is relevant. Right? Right?

    122. Re:Treason.. or... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      PS

      I keep getting the feeling that hollywood was trying to tell us about this for decades but we weren't listening because we thought it was entertainment and wouldn't believe it would happen to us. The movies of the last few decades sure described a lot of the current issues. Either that or hollywood was trying to program us to be insensitive to the changes.

      There is some counter thought to that which I find interesting (entertaining), though you may consider this too far off the map. The thoughts are along the lines of the take over of the US not being just about money but by occultists. In their doctrine, they must announce what they do before doing it. There are many people that look at events like the Super Bowl and try to determine what false flag events are going to occur because of the half time show. There are some youtube videos of Olympic game ceremonies that claim to show how 7/7 and 9/11 were predictable in the shows, or at least specific events within those tragedies were clearly shown ahead of time.

      I should add that if you are weak minded you probably would not do well digging into that information. Personally I'm a realist and believe that since we don't know "who" is running us into the ground or "why" no theory is proven. If we can overthrow the people pushing us toward Tyranny we will see who is right.

      An optimist claims the glass is half full, a pessimist claims the glass is half empty, the realist claims the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    123. Re:Treason.. or... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

      The US government hasn't charged Assange with anything or tried to have him extradited.

    124. Re:Treason.. or... by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      I feel like this is kind of misleading, I get the impression Ms. Meyer is matter of factly stating the opinions the courts have come to and the ways the laws currently exist, and not providing a personal opinion. /. isn't journalism, it's a blog, but misleading sensationalist titles are pretty good clickbait. Worked on me.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    125. Re:Treason.. or... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Assange can't be charged with treason in the USA, because he is not an American citizen.

      That's a non sequitur. The Constitutional definition of treason says nothing about citizenship. For an act to be treason, it must be committed by someone subject to US law: either a citizen or someone in an area where US law applies (such as states, territories, territorial waters, naval vessels, embassies. Military bases?).

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    126. Re:Treason.. or... by Zordak · · Score: 1

      That's not remotely true. We lost the war, very gradually, over the last hundred years, as we slowly and methodically traded away essential liberty for the illusion of security. We just stepped up our pace of losing the war after 9/11/2001

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    127. Re:Treason.. or... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Secret courts and secret laws are an existential threat to democratic society...and inevitably lead to abuse.

      They're a threat to ANY society. There are an abuse in and of themselves.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    128. Re:Treason.. or... by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      In most sites (including /.) The men are almost always attacking an individual not their gender. If someone where to say, you don't get it cause you're a man (and it didn't involve reproduction or something), yea you can expect folks to get indignant, and they do. I don't need to butt in there.

      I see nothing benevolent about telling a person to stop acting like a dick. And yes, if a woman carelessly calls someone a dudebro, I WILL call it out.

    129. Re:Treason.. or... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      The US has no equivalent of the UK's "Official Secrets Act". By definition, one cannot unlawfully disclose classified information unless one has been "indoctrinated" (i.e. granted a security clearance). A necessary part of that process is the signing of a non-disclosure agreement whereby one agrees to be held criminally liable for unauthorized disclosure. Absent such an NDA and security indocrination, the possession and/or dissemination of classified information is perfectly legal. Note how all legal scrutiny in the Snowden case (at least in the US) is directed against Snowden himself, and not at all against any of the news outlets that used him as a source. An interesting way to "civilly disobey" would be to have all employees refuse to accept the security clearance (that the NSA would require as part of their collaboration) when the NSA comes calling.

      Thank you. I have had enough of this whole "It's illegal to disclose classified information" bullshit. It's only illegal if you have a clearance. Otherwise, you can disclose away!

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    130. Re:Treason.. or... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The idea that the citizens and government of the US are subject to the Magna Carta, a British document, is prima facie preposterous. Please provide a reason why it applies, or a citation.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    131. Re:Treason.. or... by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      Yes, I was wrong about that.

      But I imagine they'll still call it contempt of court for disobeying the FISC order.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    132. Re:Treason.. or... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Eventually, the decision makers ignoring NSA requests would be jailed and their successors presented with the same threats. As the government becomes more corrupt, even the kangaroo courts will be bypassed, with the refusers jailed or murdered in dark of night without "benefit" of trial. We're not far from that.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    133. Re:Treason.. or... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Emotive thinking is an oxymoron.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    134. Re:Treason.. or... by wallsg · · Score: 1

      Either way it's a crap excuse.

      Treason is the act of sabotage, destruction, sedition, and suchlike. Refusing a search w/o a *proper* warrant is not treason. Secret court generated 'warrants' do not count as being proper by any stretch of common law.

      This isn't a "crap excuse". It is NOT "treason", but it is a felony violation of a "secret" law for which you would probably be tried in a "secret" court or at least in a court with no observers and sealed records (national security, you know).

      Who is to say what warrant is "proper"? Wouldn't that be a judge, probably one in the same "secret" court system that issued the warrant in the first place?

      Good luck with all of that.

      It may be a "crap law", but her's wasn't a "crap excuse".

    135. Re:Treason.. or... by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      She has a duty to the shareholders of Yahoo to do what is best for them.

      Which can mean virtually anything.

      "To stand strong on the merits of an open, free, and unoppressed Internet, which is the foundation upon which our entire company is built and the cornerstone of all the value behind the property of our shareholders, we cannot possibly abide by the illegal and unconstitutional demands of the NSA. "

      "So we don't have the feds kick in our doors and tear up our charter annulling our shareholder's wealth, we're sucking the cock of the NSA".

      "To increase our corporate coffers and maximize dividends (Do we even give out dividends?) I have fired all of our employees, sold all equipment, land, rights, and properties. This is in their best interest, we are literally giving our shareholders more money."

      "To secure long-term goals we're taking all of our company funds and sinking it into research and development to create some kick-ass new things that will lure customers and revenue in the future. We do this for our shareholders as they will reap the benefit of owning a portion of that future revenue. It's an investment, right?"

      "To maximize our competitiveness, I'm increasing the bonuses to our executive staff. Without these bonuses, we will lose our guiding force in these perilous economically troubling times. This is ultimately for the shareholders. We don't want their investments to be steered off a cliff, now do we?"

      "I'm the CEO, if I want to spend the money on hookers and blow, I'll damn well spend it on hookers and blow. Don't like it? Fire me. I keep the damn company from swirling the drain in hard times and I keep it growing in good times. That's what you pay me for. Now piss off and let me steer the boat."

      Come on dude, "doing what's best for the shareholders" is such a meaningless term that it's laughable.

    136. Re:Treason.. or... by crabby0 · · Score: 1

      We should just take what they give us, Serve the Lord and be walking in the Holy Spirit
      until He returns. That is the whole duty of Man because the Devil is more than ever now
      in control of this Planet and he will undermine every thing we hold sacred in years past
      in the name of terrorism. All this stuff happening right now and in the future is just an
      effort to get us riled up and rebellious and hateful about what is happening and that plays
      straight into Satan's hands.

      The bible says that this sort of thing will happen in the last days because Man will be
      deceived by Satan and he will be fearful of his own shadow. Not that anyone on /. will
      believe what I say because most of you don't believe. To each his own of course. MMW.

    137. Re:Treason.. or... by jc42 · · Score: 2

      Don't we have to have a declared war to actually have a true charge of treason?

      For the past half century or so, we haven't had to declare war to fight a war, so why would we need such a declaration to charge someone with treason?

      (Trivia question: When was the last time that the US Congress actually declared war? And: How many wars has the US been engaged in since then?)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    138. Re:Treason.. or... by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      The important thing is gender insults are irrelevant to most conversations. That's why it's more offensive to me at least. It's extremely crass, it causes pointless divergent threads like this one, etc.

      Yea, personal insults would hurt more. Think you'll be using them against an unknown person online?

      Like I've mentioned, my reason for calling bimbo an irritating word has nothing to do with wanting to coddle females. I'm annoyed by all such attacks.

      You can fight back so I can be a rude ass is a TERRIBLE rationale. If I were to hit someone, the fact that they're a black belt who can beat me up hardly excuses my actions.

    139. Re:Treason.. or... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 2

      That's terrorist talk!

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    140. Re:Treason.. or... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Eventually, the decision makers ignoring NSA requests would be jailed and their successors presented with the same threats.

      This is the part I don't get. It's just ludicrous to think the government has a credible threat here.

      Imagine the headlines and the public's reaction:
      "Yahoo CEO Jailed On Secret Charges"
      "Yahoo CEO Denied Lawyer/Visitation Rights for National Security"
      "DOJ Official Claims Yahoo CEO Refused NSA Spy Demands"

      To prevent jail time, a CEO would have to tell the public all about the program and the NSA's demands... and then it would be impossible to keep a trial secret. And secretly fining a multi-billion dollar MNC? The government may not fear voters, but they do fear shareholders.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    141. Re:Treason.. or... by helios17 · · Score: 1

      "Don't we have to have a declared war to actually have a true charge of treason"

      Not if a black-bag team is in the area.

      --
      Windows assumes you are an idiot...Linux demands proof.
    142. Re: Treason.. or... by Gen_Music · · Score: 1

      ...or the internet, apparently.

    143. Re:Treason.. or... by rk · · Score: 1

      I always had an affinity for "land of the fee, home of the slave" myself.

    144. Re: Treason.. or... by markhb · · Score: 2
      M*A*S*H had a great line on precisely this subject, when Colonel Potter drank a toast to his buddies from WWI (paraphrase):

      To Smith, who died in the Big One, the War to End All Wars, and to Jones, who died in the war after that.

      --
      Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
    145. Re:Treason.. or... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      Magna Carta was sealed by the King nearly three hundred years prior to the discovery of the Americas by European explorers.
      The Colonies were founded, for the most part, by people emigrating from England, for the New World in search of a better life.
      Those people were, until the Declaration of Independence, wholly governed by the Laws and Customs of England.

      Do you get it yet?

      By the way, Magna Carta is not a "British" document. It is the very foundation and basis of every Constitutional Republic on the fucking planet. INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    146. Re:Treason.. or... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      I'd trust him as far as I could throw him, and after carrying a large fold-out bed through town, that is not very far at all.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    147. Re:Treason.. or... by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      And then she ends up in a Russian airport for a few weeks while waiting on Putin to declare she can stay on a whim. A few months later, some big war scare will divert attention and nothing will change.

    148. Re:Treason.. or... by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Let me clarify.

      The only person the government should tell about a warrant is the subject of that warrant. They should have full access to that warrant and any evidence supporting it immediately upon being charged and be at least notified that a warrant has been served if no charges are laid. The subject of the warrant should then have the right to tell anyone they damned feel like about that warrant and the evidence supporting it. Note btw that Yahoo is not the subject of the warrant, they should be able to report some aggregate warrant related statistics, but they should not be able to report the details of any specific warrant or the evidence supporting it with the exception of the subject of the warrant as specified above.

      That doesn't mean that yahoo shouldn't be able to say how many warrants they are receiving in aggregate, or how they are responding to those warrants, or whether most of these warrants are targeted or fishing expeditions. They should be able to do so.

    149. Re:Treason.. or... by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

      Confer with the shee^H^H^H^H Snowden naysayers regarding this distinction.

    150. Re:Treason.. or... by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Except bimbo isn't the same meaning as dick. You can call a woman a dick and everyone will know what you mean. The fact that you'd never use that word to describe a man and that there in fact is no male equivalent to the word is why it's sexist. We don't ever ascribe bimbo to men despite the fact that plenty of men would actually fit the definition, pretty much anyone on the Jersey Shore for example. We don't use it though, we don't say men are vain and vapid and unfit for their positions as leaders, we especially don't ever say it about men who have earned their way to leadership positions and actually been quite successful in those positions. No one would ever call Bill Gates or Steve Jobs a bimbo. They wouldn't even call Steve Balmer a bimbo.

      Think about that for a minute. Every single one of those CEO's caved to exactly the same requests, some without actually fighting it as much as she has, but it's the blonde woman we call a bimbo. It's sexist, it's unacceptable and personally I'm tired of it.

    151. Re:Treason.. or... by Meski · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we're talking a dictionary definition of the word, not a redefined one that means nothing. Black is white, up is down, see Orwell.

    152. Re:Treason.. or... by Meski · · Score: 1

      Just used a Swedish honeytrap on him...

    153. Re:Treason.. or... by Meski · · Score: 1

      Don't you have to be subject to the US Constitution? If I'm not getting its many benefits, I'm damned well not going to be subjected to its punishments.

    154. Re:Treason.. or... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The the only one subject to the Constitution is the government. The Constitution enumerates powers and limitations of government. I'm pretty sure you have to be a citizen for it to be treason; if not you're an enemy combatant. After all, when a war is over, prisoners of war are released.

  2. Well... by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Funny

    She's fired.

  3. No, it wouldn't be treason by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    Article 3, Section 3, US Constitution.

    Learn it, love it, live it.

    Doesn't this guy have a metric f*ckton of lawyers to explain these little legal niceties to him???

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:No, it wouldn't be treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Um, her...

    2. Re:No, it wouldn't be treason by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Ok, this WOMAN/GAL/GIRL/LADY (pick one) - I was trying to avoid use of the first two words that came to mind when I was writing the post, which were "idiot" and "moron"....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:No, it wouldn't be treason by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Here's a link to a very credible source. They taught us this in middle school. In fact, there's a state-mandated constitution test in Illinois, don't know about elsewhere.

      This "guy's" name's Marissa Meyer. She's a woman. And she's a tool.

    4. Re:No, it wouldn't be treason by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Aside from the fact that the initial compliance was probably done under the watch of her predecessor, what she has is a bunch of lawyers who will tell her that if she attempts to challenge a court order she will spend millions and almost certainly lose. She could actually potentially be charged with Treason, though it is unlikely. The section you have referenced states "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". It's not a stretch to say that actual terrorists are enemies of this country or that protecting them from prosecution by refusing to comply with a legal court order would be providing them aid and comfort. She'd probably win that case, but the clause doesn't say what you think it does.

    5. Re:No, it wouldn't be treason by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      the NSA is now (has been) spying on US citizens.

      giving 'aid and comfort' to US citizens BY US citizens is in no way, shape or form 'treason'.

      but of course, we stopped using logic a long time ago. we are ruled by FUD and threat of lawsuits by those who have more money/guns/lawyers.

      still, I'd wish people would stop believing this bullshit about treason. US to US is not treason and can't be, by definition! unless we are under civil war - and I don't think we're even close to that.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:No, it wouldn't be treason by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that in every case denying that warrant is treason. I'm not saying that she's get convicted. Assange is certainly not a traitor, Snowden may or may not be, but not because he revealed the information.

      My point is that IF a warrant is issued to collect information on an actual enemy of the US, and IF that warrant is not legally complied with a case could be made that the person refusing to comply with that warrant is aiding an enemy of the US. Aiding an enemy of the US is, per the constitution, treason.

    7. Re:No, it wouldn't be treason by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Sorry bub, I am not a slave. I can ask me for stuff I have got with a warrant but fuck you if think you can force me to get stuff. There is a huge difference between the two. A warrant provide the right to search it does not provide the right to enslave the target of the warrant and force them to lie, deceive, spy and back stab on their behalf. This is the real problem with the cowardly US, it's citizens fail to stand up for their rights. Under the US constitution it is set out that only those being punished for a crime can be forced into servitude. Your are either a free citizen or not, you either have free speech rights or you do not. You don't beg for them and you certainly don't throw them away to a bullshit deceitful administration, you stand up for them.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:No, it wouldn't be treason by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and according the constitution they shouldn't be doing blanket spying in the first place, so what exactly is your point?

      they'll call it treason if they want to. they can call it aiding the (potential, mind you) enemy if they want to. and they includes the court they choose and their actions are backed up by the united states military so what exactly would you do? the only option is to close up shop or give in.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:No, it wouldn't be treason by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Does it matter? A person is a person, and in English the default gender for words that still manage to have a gender is male.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    10. Re:No, it wouldn't be treason by doti · · Score: 1

      Yep, you're right!!!!!!1!!!!

      --
      factor 966971: 966971
    11. Re:No, it wouldn't be treason by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      I know that. I said he isn't a traitor. The number of reasons why he isn't a traitor are numerous and extensive, though in actuality the fact that he's not an American is not one of the top 10 as if he actually qualified as a traitor in the US he'd qualify as a traitor to Australia the country he is actually a citizen of.

    12. Re:No, it wouldn't be treason by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      This is why we can't have nice things.

      Yes the US government can require you to turn something over if they have proof that you have it, as can any damned government and if they have a legal warrant for it. This goes doubly so for service providers like Yahoo. The fact that they can do this does not make you a slave, nor does it punish you with servitude or any fucking thing else you want to misinterpret.

      Bullshit like this is why we have no god damned rights anymore, because whenever anyone tries to have a discussion about what's actually going on we get this kind of crap. If I hear one more idiot spout off about how the government is enslaving them, I'm going to lose it. LEARN YOUR GOD DAMNED FUCKING RIGHTS THE ONES YOU ACTUALLY HAVE AND WHICH MILLIONS HAVE DIED TO PROTECT. IF YOU SPENT HALF THE ENERGY YOU DO SPOUTING BULLSHIT PROTECTING THE RIGHTS YOU ACTUALLY HAVE PRISM WOULDN'T EXIST

    13. Re:No, it wouldn't be treason by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Tck, tck, tck, tck, news at eleven US Constitution 13th Amendment, just out, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." They can search for something you have, then can not force you to "go get it" for them, one is a search and the other is involuntary servitude. It didn't just free people of colour. So straight up constitutional challenge and the FISA warrants go down on two counts of 'CONSTITUTIONAL INFRINGEMENT' (1st and 13th, possible that occupation by the military might also count with the placement of hardware and personal).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:No, it wouldn't be treason by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      To start with, the main reason that companies "go get it" is because the alternative is having the FBI rooting around in their server room looking at everything they have trying to find the evidence they need. The FBI would love this of course because anything they find incidental to that search would be evidence they could use so long as they could legitimately have stumbled upon it during the search. Crap for both civil rights and the companies involved.

      To continue, I doubt you're ever going to find a judge who will agree that a company complying with a legal search warrant is involuntary servitude. My argument was never that involuntary servitude is constitutional, merely that you're going to have a hard time getting that accepted as involuntary servitude. It'd be like arguing that while the government is permitted to collect taxes, they can't make you pay them or make your bank retrieve them or grant them access to retrieve them themselves because that would be involuntary servitude.

      A lot of people love to make judicial leaps like this, interpreting the constitution the way they feel it should be, oddly enough they're often the same people who scream about abuse of the interstate commerce clause and are otherwise strict in their interpretation of the constitution. Under our constitution as it currently stands, it doesn't matter a pair of fetid dingoes kidneys what you think is unconstitutional, no matter how thoroughly you can back it up. It doesn't even actually matter if Congress passes a law that is directly contradicted by the constitution. The supreme court is the final and ultimate arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, if they've decided something is acceptable, it is, if they've decided something isn't, it isn't. If they haven't decided anything it's up in the air. I know that's hard to take but your opinion and my opinion doesn't actually matter, it's a handful of people in robes, most of whom are political appointments.

  4. I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by PortHaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hereby, as a prior serviceman who swore an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, pledge my rifle if Mr. Zuckerberg or Ms. Mayer, CEOs of Facebook and Yahoo respectively, come out with the truth of the extent of violation by the government against the privacy of the citizens of the United States of America. And herby pledge my rifle to the their defense, the defense of the Constitution and freedom of speech if either is arrested, charged and sentenced for treason in regards to the matter of the NSA's unconstitutional espionage on U.S. citizens. This is a reminder that the government is to serve the People, not the other way around.

    ***

    U.S. CONSTITUTION : AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION : ARTICLE IV
    "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 or things to be seized."

    Government agencies not specifically sent this message that reading this, please

    1. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      The problem there is that the courts are typically deferential to the other branches on issues of national security. Basically they're afraid that if they say no and something happens that they'll be responsible.

      The only reason why the high court started saying no to Bush was that Bush started acting like the court didn't have authority over anything he was doing. Had he kept his ego in check, the SCrOTUmS decisions would likely have continued in his favor.

      Ultimately, as long as the SCrOTUmS don't feel like doing their job of ruling on the constitutionality of things, then there's very little shy of some form of rebellion that's going to change it.

    2. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't have a gun, nor will I ever. But I have a middle finger, and pledge it's extension to the same as the above.

    3. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pipe down, adults are talking.

    4. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      There is a legal proverb that states, "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client." Have you put yourself on that path? Do you understand the domains criminal law, national security law, and Constitutional law, and their interplay? I see you quote only one amendment, but say nothing about an entire relevant article of the Constitution, nor about relevant court cases that are precedent for the law when it is an issue in the courts. You are on dangerous ground, my friend, dangerous ground. Think carefully before proceeding.

      Surveillance Court Upholds Bush on Warrantless Wiretapping

      The New York Times reports that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review — the specialized federal appeals court created by the 1978 FISA statute to rule on questions involving national security surveillance — has reaffirmed that the President of the United States has inherent constitutional authority to monitor international communications without court permission. ...

      President Bush’s Terrorist Surveillance Program — carried out by the NSA without court oversight, just as wartime presidents have always conducted national security surveillance without court oversight — always stood on strong authority, including a 2002 ruling from the same Foreign Intelligence Court of Review.

      I see you did leave an out though, since the charge almost certainly won't be "treason."

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    5. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by CODiNE · · Score: 4, Funny

      Government agencies not specifically sent this message that reading this, please

      Damn they got him before he could even finish his post!

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    6. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      You pledge your rifle to their defense -- will that hold if you discover what else they've been up to? You are, after all, giving them a similar deal to what the US government gave AT&T (who, by the way, use Yahoo Mail for their mail service).

      I think you may want to be a bit more specific in how you're defending them.

    7. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by Grog6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's one of the paid trolls, likely by the nsa.

      Nice, that.

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    8. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 2

      The FISC, acting as a Star Chamber as it does, is part of the problem here, so quoting its ruling is begging the question. Secret law is not law.

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    9. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Cold you dont get to have "interplay" or "precedent" or updated, add on "national security law" with the US Constitution.
      In other parts of the world you can add national security laws to some domestic telco law and all is fine.
      In other parts of the world you can weaken domestic rights for national security and all is fine.
      The Foreign Intelligence Court of Review was for "Foreign" use not internal domestic US use.
      That is why historically you had the domestic operations and the "foreign" operations side in the US ie "international communications without court permission"

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    10. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      I would have felt that way if they'd resisted, and gotten arrested.  But they didn't.

      But can you even imagine them getting arrested?  If they'd had any balls they might have nipped this in the bud years ago.

    11. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I hereby, as a prior serviceman who swore an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, pledge my rifle if Mr. Zuckerberg or Ms. Mayer, CEOs of Facebook and Yahoo respectively, come out with the truth of the extent of violation by the government against the privacy of the citizens of the United States of America. And herby pledge my rifle to the their defense, the defense of the Constitution and freedom of speech if either is arrested, charged and sentenced for treason in regards to the matter of the NSA's unconstitutional espionage on U.S. citizens. This is a reminder that the government is to serve the People, not the other way around.

      ***

      U.S. CONSTITUTION : AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION : ARTICLE IV
      "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 or things to be seized."

      Government agencies not specifically sent this message that reading this, please

      And if you use that rifle you'll be branded a terrorist and become the excuse they use to remove more rights.

      Unless you're in a movie violence against a government is rarely an effective strategy.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    12. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 2

      And my keyboard!

    13. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Unless you're in a movie violence against a government is rarely an effective strategy.

      And yet here we are, free men and women, subjects of no Crown.

      Congrats, with a violent revolution you achieved the same level of freedom that we have in Canada, Australia, India, and pretty much the rest of the Commonwealth.

      Note I said it's rarely an effective strategy, I'm sure you've heard of agent provocateurs? If violent resistance is so effective why do governments try to create it so often?

      In the most recent example the main reason why Assad was able to survive the Arab Spring was he brutalized the peaceful opposition until they turned violent. Once that happened everyone who wasn't a Sunni became scared of what the now violent Sunnis would do if they gained power. So they threw in with Assad and gave him a base. In Libya the rebels won the war (partly because there wasn't the same Shia/Sunni situation) but the aftermath is still pretty chaotic and messy. If you think taking up arms against the US government, successful or not, would result in anything but a disaster, you're delusional.

      Violence can solve problems, but only in messiest and most horrific way possible.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    14. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by Cmdrm · · Score: 1

      With friends like this, who needs enemies?

    15. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      If you happen to have an equally powerful government on your side, fighting a proxy war against the same government that you are, then that does change the effectiveness of the strategy. I don't think France is up for it right now, though.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    16. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by PortHaven · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Oh trust me, many people care about our rifles. Or the government wouldn't be trying to hard to ban semi-automatic rifles. (Which are pretty much rarely used in crimes. Outside a few high profile cases. But in the day to day crimes, which cause most of the deaths. They are extremely rare.)

    17. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by PortHaven · · Score: 2

      I'll take that....

      Thomas Payne's words were worth thousands of rifles. Probably why the "Freedom of Speech" is the first amendment, and the rifles to back it up the second. ;-)

    18. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      My pledge is in regards to if they come out and reveal the details and then are in fact arrested and charged with crimes of treason. I don't believe AT&T has been charged with crimes of treason or arrested.

    19. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by PortHaven · · Score: 2

      First off, terrorist is one who attacks civilians. Second, if our government stoops that low. So as to arrest CEOs who speak out against their unconstitutional actions.

      I don't think they'll have enough prisons to hold all of the declared "terrorists", a.k.a. "Americans".

    20. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Hmm, looks at the Canadian quarter in his pocket. Ah...the queen.

      Just saying...

      ***

      Oh, and a large part of why the British Empire states are free today is BECAUSE America rebelled. It was a costly Vietnam type war for the British. The British citizens didn't want to be on the side of the ethics battle. And oh, yeah, we kind bailed out our British friends in two World Wars.

    21. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      I've been a vocal advocate for Snowden. I have contacted my congressmen. And were he arrested in America I'd probably be supporting rallies.

      But I also think that this is a growing issue.

    22. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by PortHaven · · Score: 2

      No, we're not acting as if we had no clue. We knew a lot of this was going on. Perhaps not to the fullest extent. But, what we did not have was any legal evidence. Thanks to Snowden, we do. And I think a reason that a lot of folks like Yahoo's CEO and Mark Zuck-- are now talking. Is because it is an out in the open and officially acknowledged matter. And they're trying to drop the hints that it is far worse than the American people realize.

      But knowing something is going on, and having legal proof is two very different things. We knew who broke into my mother's house and stole her laptop. But we had no legal proof to file charges or have that man arrested. Likewise, Snowden gave us the legal proof.

    23. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Hmm, looks at the Canadian quarter in his pocket. Ah...the queen.

      Just saying...

      And she does diddly squat, we might toss out the monarchy entirely when she dies though frankly we don't really care. We're still just as free and independent as you.

      Oh, and a large part of why the British Empire states are free today is BECAUSE America rebelled. It was a costly Vietnam type war for the British. The British citizens didn't want to be on the side of the ethics battle. And oh, yeah, we kind bailed out our British friends in two World Wars.

      I'm sure that played a factor, but I suspect it was also the fact the colony simply became developed enough to govern itself and by that time the Brits weren't comfortable ruling a bunch of other English speaking white people as a colony.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    24. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The FISA court isn't a Star Chamber. It doesn't hold criminal trials. Its primary function is hear requests for warrants.

      Although it is interesting that you have an opinion about national security law and court rulings, there is a practical problem here. How do you plan to enforce your "ruling" against the FISA courts and government?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    25. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, UK has abolished slavery 30ish years earlier than "the land of the free". And without violence as well.

      Just saying...

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    26. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      Star Chambers were abolished in 1641 - in the United States as well, since at that time the United States was but a colony.

      Ergo, any secret courts are unlawful and that unlawfulness predates the Constitution.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    27. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      two words:

      Arab Spring.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    28. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      So you're agreeing with me right?

      Because the Arab spring protests that stayed non-violent had better outcomes than the ones that turned violent. Brutalizing the opposition into violent revolt and civil war is probably the reason why Assad is still in power.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    29. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      Assad didn't brutalise the opposition, the simple fact of the matter is that he has overwhelming majority support. The people that are fucking his country up are demonstrably foreign mercenaries in the pay of Britain, the United States, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar.

      sources: plenty of contacts on the ground who are living it, not the BBC, Fox, CNN or Reuters. What they aren't showing is buzzcut ex-army regulars using CIA terminology and training to great effect while passing instructions to each other in English, French, and Turkish. Why? Because it not only doesn't suit the agenda (whatever that might be) of those with plausible interests in the region, it would in fact further damage already salted international relations.

      However, I will absolutely and unreservedly agree that in a perfect world a peaceful solution to any crisis results in a better outcome for all concerned. Unfortunately, this is far from being a perfect world, and as a result of corporate interests and to a lesser but still significant extent, ever more demanding tribal competition for the biggest portion of a finite supply of everything, people can and do die in the most horrible ways imaginable; the truth belongs to those who shout the loudest (the facts will never be known beyond the fact that people have died as a result of the deployment of some very nasty weapons), and if history records that Assad deployed those weapons even if he didn't, tomorrow we'll have as much a distorted view of today's events as we have today of events of a mere seventy years ago in Eastern Europe.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    30. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am not an American so I have no say in this, but your best weapon is the red pencil you are given when next you are in the voting booth.

    31. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Assad didn't brutalise the opposition, the simple fact of the matter is that he has overwhelming majority support.

      What are you talking about? Syria had the same setup as Iraq, a Shia dictator ruling over a Sunni majority, Assad was popular for that setup but "overwhelming majority support" is just plain wrong.

      The people that are fucking his country up are demonstrably foreign mercenaries in the pay of Britain, the United States, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar.

      sources: plenty of contacts on the ground who are living it, not the BBC, Fox, CNN or Reuters. What they aren't showing is buzzcut ex-army regulars using CIA terminology and training to great effect while passing instructions to each other in English, French, and Turkish. Why? Because it not only doesn't suit the agenda (whatever that might be) of those with plausible interests in the region, it would in fact further damage already salted international relations.

      I call BS. Maybe you're reading some conspiracy nuts claiming a bunch of "reports from real Syrians" but they're either being duped by pro-Assad activists (kinda ironic) or just wrong. There's lots of news from real Syrians, youtube videos, twitter accounts, blogs, and no evidence of these foreign mercenaries.

      After the protests started Assad would take people, sometimes kids, brutally tortured them to death, then returned them home. Everything was still peaceful so there was probably pressure from inside the party for him to step down or reform so things didn't degenerate. He kept torturing and shooting people until the opposition started fighting back. As the fighting spread Islamists started to enter the game in a big way, the Christians and other minorities who were either on the fence or sympathetic to the protesters went to Assad because they've seen what happens to minorities in Iraq when the repressed Sunni majority takes power after a civil war.

      And I don't know what you mean about "events of a mere seventy years ago in Eastern Europe". Some other conspiracy theory?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    32. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I would not believe that the NSA itself cares about Slashdot, but rather the people controlling the NSA do. Not just Slashdot mind you, but any site where there is dissent and visible traffic.

      Proving that claim is nearly impossible. Slashdot would have to start publishing AC IP addresses so that people could find who's posting. Many services would skew those addresses, so "proof" would be sporadic at best.

      If you look at how many agent provocateurs there are in public events and how "police" try to plant drugs on activists, it is not hard to imagine that a few flunkies are paid to spread FUD and distort comments on highly visible sites like Slashdot or Reddit.

      Citation is required for the above, so here is one. Pay attention to the bald guy next to Adam (in the brown sports coat) in a black T-Shirt, and follow what he's doing at the 38 second mark. This is just one of thousands of examples. If they can buy illegal drugs and pay police to try and plant evidence, what would prevent them from paying a flunky to make posts? If they waste time at a small rally with less than 50 protesters, would they waste time on a site that gets millions of hits a day?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    33. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      A law may not be passed which nullifies the Constitution, that is the Law of the Land. No matter how many Op-Ed pieces you post claiming otherwise, go back and read what the Law is. The only way to modify the Constitution is by an amendment process. This requires all 3 branches to approve of the change in Law. Obama's NDA statement allowing indefinite detention of US Citizens without trial is Unconstitutional, period. No matter what a lower court claims, it denies people's Constitutional rights. The same can be said with NSA demanding data on Citizens not under suspicion and with "proper" warrants. A rubber stamp court bypasses the Constitution, and is illegal.

      People's "opinions" are not Law. If you believe an Op-Ed piece over documents that were signed into law you are an idiot.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    34. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Citizens United made Corporations people, you may be on to something!!

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    35. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      And she does diddly squat, we might toss out the monarchy entirely when she dies though frankly we don't really care.

      She collects a nice fat paycheck from the Citizens, so she does do something. I suspect her actions have lots of laughing and wine drinking while she looks down her nose at all the peons paying her. You should care, but claim you don't. Interesting.

      We're still just as free and independent as you.

      Since your PM conspires with US businesses to undermine the Canadian economy and law just like the US politicians do, I agree.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    36. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      First, save the "for the children" fallacy arguments that US politicians spew. Death of innocents is just that.

      Second, there is a whole lot of information backing the claims you responded to. Did you see how John Kerry a few years ago was at a nice party with Assad? Back 3 years ago, Syria was known as the most progressive nation in the Middle East and a "good guy". Syria allowed women to drive and work, had no Sharia courts or Sharia laws. Syria minded their own business and did it very well.

      Listen to what Wesley Clark says here.

      Do some research on the subject if you dare. I have no confidence that you will, but don't denounce people with a different opinion with ad hominem. There are plenty of facts countering your position. No, I'm not going to condense a year worth of reading into a list of citations for you. One citation is enough to get you started.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    37. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your service, and for speaking out.

    38. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "This is a reminder that the government is to serve the People, not the other way around."

      Exactly.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    39. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      First, save the "for the children" fallacy arguments that US politicians spew. Death of innocents is just that.

      You missed the point. My argument wasn't "destroy Assad he's killing the children!!", I was pointing out that the revolution turned violent in part because Assad incited the population by torturing kids to death.

      Second, there is a whole lot of information backing the claims you responded to. Did you see how John Kerry a few years ago was at a nice party with Assad? Back 3 years ago, Syria was known as the most progressive nation in the Middle East and a "good guy". Syria allowed women to drive and work, had no Sharia courts or Sharia laws. Syria minded their own business and did it very well.

      Yes. Assad was a nice western educated guy and before things got serious he seemed to be doing a good job. So what? Do you think he's just a misunderstood nice guy? Do you think the entire war is a conspiracy? What's the point?

      Listen to what Wesley Clark says here.

      Yeah the Bush administration were warmongers who went into Iraq for no good reason, made a strong push to go into Iran, and basically wanted to invade the whole middle east and implement democracy by force.

      What does this have to do with what's happening now? For all Obama's flaws he's not that style of neocon.

      Do some research on the subject if you dare. I have no confidence that you will, but don't denounce people with a different opinion with ad hominem. There are plenty of facts countering your position. No, I'm not going to condense a year worth of reading into a list of citations for you. One citation is enough to get you started.

      Well I have done research, and you haven't even provided a single relevant citation or argument. You think Wesley Clark talking about the plan of a completely disgraced administration from over a decade ago means the leader of the other party who ran as Bush's opposite is going to do the same thing??

      I mean what is your actual argument. You've thrown out some weird conspiracy theories but I don't even know what your point is. Assad is really a good guy? Assad is a bad guy but we're already waging the war to get rid of him? What?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    40. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      First, save the "for the children" fallacy arguments that US politicians spew. Death of innocents is just that.

      You missed the point. My argument wasn't "destroy Assad he's killing the children!!", I was pointing out that the revolution turned violent in part because Assad incited the population by torturing kids to death.

      Bull, go back and read what you said. You specifically called out children being killed as an appeal to emotion. Same crap propaganda media is doing, think before you write. If you wish to claim innocent deaths, make sure that you include all of the innocents killed by the rebels in your examples. They have been slaughtering Christian's and Jews, ransacking and desecrating temples and churches too. It's not one side that's a bad guy, so your view is extremely distorted and one sided.

      Second, there is a whole lot of information backing the claims you responded to. Did you see how John Kerry a few years ago was at a nice party with Assad? Back 3 years ago, Syria was known as the most progressive nation in the Middle East and a "good guy". Syria allowed women to drive and work, had no Sharia courts or Sharia laws. Syria minded their own business and did it very well.

      Yes. Assad was a nice western educated guy and before things got serious he seemed to be doing a good job. So what? Do you think he's just a misunderstood nice guy? Do you think the entire war is a conspiracy? What's the point?

      The point is that it is very possible that Assad never changed from when he was friendly to the west. Fighting a sudden surge of armed terrorists in your own country makes you obviously behave differently, but is it genuine to think that his philosophy changed overnight? I find it more possible that our media after successfully toppling other countries in the region changed their spin on Assad and Syria. Call it a draw if you wish, but it's nonsense to ignore facts and history.

      Listen to what Wesley Clark says here.

      Yeah the Bush administration were warmongers who went into Iraq for no good reason, made a strong push to go into Iran, and basically wanted to invade the whole middle east and implement democracy by force.

      What does this have to do with what's happening now? For all Obama's flaws he's not that style of neocon.

      Obama is no different than Bush, except in rhetoric and his rhetoric does not match his actions. The Patriot act was renewed not renounced. Wars have gone clandestine, not stopped. Gitmo was not closed, no bankers went on trial, etc.. etc.. The guy has been caught lying more than any other US President in history. He bold faced lied 3 days before the NSA story broke and told you he did not allow spying on Citizens. Google search that one, no citation is necessary. There are web sited dedicated to just tallying up all of his lies.

      Do some research on the subject if you dare. I have no confidence that you will, but don't denounce people with a different opinion with ad hominem. There are plenty of facts countering your position. No, I'm not going to condense a year worth of reading into a list of citations for you. One citation is enough to get you started.

      Well I have done research, and you haven't even provided a single relevant citation or argument. You think Wesley Clark talking about the plan of a completely disgraced administration from over a decade ago means the leader of the other party who ran as Bush's opposite is going to do the same thing??

      I mean what is your actual argument. You've thrown out some weird conspiracy theories but I don't even know what your point is. Assad is really a good guy? Assad is a bad guy but we're already waging the war to get rid of him? What?

      You have not done much in the way of research, sorry. I won't claim Assad is good, but quite frankly it's no

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    41. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Bull, go back and read what you said. You specifically called out children being killed as an appeal to emotion. Same crap propaganda media is doing, think before you write. If you wish to claim innocent deaths, make sure that you include all of the innocents killed by the rebels in your examples. They have been slaughtering Christian's and Jews, ransacking and desecrating temples and churches too. It's not one side that's a bad guy, so your view is extremely distorted and one sided.

      I know what I said, Assad escalated the situation by killing children among other things, it wasn't an appeal to your emotion, it was explaining how he appealed to the rebels emotion to either crush the peaceful protests or create a violent uprising he could really crush.

      And I never claimed Assad was the only bad guy, at this point him retaining power might be the least horrible outcome.

      The point is that it is very possible that Assad never changed from when he was friendly to the west. Fighting a sudden surge of armed terrorists in your own country makes you obviously behave differently, but is it genuine to think that his philosophy changed overnight? I find it more possible that our media after successfully toppling other countries in the region changed their spin on Assad and Syria. Call it a draw if you wish, but it's nonsense to ignore facts and history.

      The terrorists showed up when the conflict escalated. I don't doubt Assad didn't change, when things were good he tried to be a good dictator by western standards, when he was exposed to a serious threat to his power he reacted with a brutal suppression. And we might be watching different media as I follow a lot of non-MSM, but for me Assad became a bad guy after a lengthy period of torture and killings against non-violent protesters.

      Obama is no different than Bush, except in rhetoric and his rhetoric does not match his actions. The Patriot act was renewed not renounced. Wars have gone clandestine, not stopped. Gitmo was not closed, no bankers went on trial, etc.. etc.. The guy has been caught lying more than any other US President in history. He bold faced lied 3 days before the NSA story broke and told you he did not allow spying on Citizens. Google search that one, no citation is necessary. There are web sited dedicated to just tallying up all of his lies.

      I think you're misremembering how bad Bush was. I know all about Obama's lies along with lack of torture prosecutions, abuse of state secrets act, etc. But he's definitely not the warmonger Bush was. And I'm not sure how he's escalated clandestine wars aside from the increased drone strikes.

      You have not done much in the way of research, sorry. I won't claim Assad is good, but quite frankly it's none of our business what we think of him. What we plan to put in his place matches what we did to Libya, and that country is just fucked right? Syria is it's own nation, just like Russia and China. The Feds may not like Putin either, but it's not like they should just start bombing Russia to get him out of office (and in fact it is illegal to do so).

      Where did I say we should intervene in Syria? I never said that. Assad is a bastard but I don't see how we (well you, I'm Canadian) can do anything to fix that situation. US bombing is almost certain to make things worse.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    42. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, and what was the impetus for the "War on Terror"? That which provides a "wartime" situation in which the president can conduct national security serveillance w/out court oversight? What was it that got the average American to overwhelmingly support "action" -- i.e. the Patriot Act? This generation's version of Operation Northwood? Or just some random event that couldn't possibly been carried out intentionally? Are the powers that be just "lucky" that something extraordinary happened to give them such power? Is it wrong to even question the "official story"?

    43. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Since the thread is rather long I'm clipping out a few parts to continue. Thank you for maintaining a progressive dialogue. Bringing up children is still an appeal to emotion, so I'm removing it. Let us be fair in dialogue and call them "innocents" or something. Let us also be fair and acknowledge that all sides have killed innocents.

      And I never claimed Assad was the only bad guy, at this point him retaining power might be the least horrible outcome.

      If you only show half of the issue, it at least implies that Assad is the only thing wrong. Our media and politicians are painting this same exact picture. The "horrible" is a matter of your opinion and not necessarily factual or historically correct when it comes to Syria. Lets ask a couple pertinent questions related specifically to the Wesley Clark statements.

      1. What triggered a sudden change in 8 middle east counties all having sudden revolutions?

      You could claim "Dictator", but lets ask then why is Saudi Arabia and Turkey are the only large nations immune to this? You might claim "brutality" but again you are forced to ignore that Saudi Arabia and Turkey are immune to public scrutiny and are at least as brutal as Assad. You are also ignoring Qatar and Egypt that are backed by the US and NATO (hence Canada). You could claim Religious leadership, but then you ignore every country in the Middle East including Israel. Something else must be going on.

      2. Where did all of the "protest" come from that became revolutionary? Again you have numerous countries that start experiencing similar problems around the same time. Then you have countries in the middle of that which are immune. Pure coincidence is impossible.

      The terrorists showed up when the conflict escalated. I don't doubt Assad didn't change, when things were good he tried to be a good dictator by western standards, when he was exposed to a serious threat to his power he reacted with a brutal suppression. And we might be watching different media as I follow a lot of non-MSM, but for me Assad became a bad guy after a lengthy period of torture and killings against non-violent protesters.

      You are claiming that the Muslim Brotherhood is "new" in Syria and only showed up after the protests? If so, that is absolutely wrong and completely distorted. Assad has been fighting terrorists in his own country for decades with that name. The name "FSA" is new, but are the players any different than what Assad had been previously fighting?

      Now, if you check the above and find I'm correct then your assumption that Assad is torturing and killing non-violent protesters is plain old wrong.

      I think you're misremembering how bad Bush was. I know all about Obama's lies along with lack of torture prosecutions, abuse of state secrets act, etc. But he's definitely not the warmonger Bush was. And I'm not sure how he's escalated clandestine wars aside from the increased drone strikes.

      If a person behaves differently than their rhetoric, they are a liar. If Obama's actions are no different than Bush, then he is the same warmonger. Black ops and corporate mercenaries have increased as have clandestine drone attacks. So Obama is more of a warmonger than Bush when you take away his lies. I do remember how bad Bush was, both of them in fact. I also remember how bad the last 40 years of presidents have been on domestic policy.

      Where did I say we should intervene in Syria? I never said that. Assad is a bastard but I don't see how we (well you, I'm Canadian) can do anything to fix that situation. US bombing is almost certain to make things worse.

      We agree on the first part, but that's not what you started with. The middle is a matter of opinion that I don't agree with. Ad hominem attacks are not true "because" and historically and politically I can't say I agree. Col Gaddafi was a prick in the past, Assad is nothing like him. The last part of

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    44. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      f you only show half of the issue, it at least implies that Assad is the only thing wrong. Our media and politicians are painting this same exact picture. The "horrible" is a matter of your opinion and not necessarily factual or historically correct when it comes to Syria. Lets ask a couple pertinent questions related specifically to the Wesley Clark statements.

      Well the origin was my claim that violent revolutions weren't that effective or nice, and comparing Syria and Libya to the rest of the Arab spring as Evidence. Then I attacked Assad because someone replied that Assad was a nice guy who's people only revolted because of western interference.

      1. What triggered a sudden change in 8 middle east counties all having sudden revolutions?

      You could claim "Dictator", but lets ask then why is Saudi Arabia and Turkey are the only large nations immune to this? You might claim "brutality" but again you are forced to ignore that Saudi Arabia and Turkey are immune to public scrutiny and are at least as brutal as Assad. You are also ignoring Qatar and Egypt that are backed by the US and NATO (hence Canada). You could claim Religious leadership, but then you ignore every country in the Middle East including Israel. Something else must be going on.

      The Arab Spring was a cultural phenomena. Don't know exactly why the Saudi's had no major uprising but Turkey was already democratic. People were protesting against repressive governments, they're all different countries so I'm not surprised that the revolutions took off in some or barely started in others. I'm not sure what you're actually suggesting.

      You are claiming that the Muslim Brotherhood is "new" in Syria and only showed up after the protests? If so, that is absolutely wrong and completely distorted. Assad has been fighting terrorists in his own country for decades with that name. The name "FSA" is new, but are the players any different than what Assad had been previously fighting?

      Now, if you check the above and find I'm correct then your assumption that Assad is torturing and killing non-violent protesters is plain old wrong.

      I'm claiming that additional Islamist fighters started entering once the confrontation turned violent, and the ones in Syria turned more extreme. I don't know if their arrival coincided with the start of violence, or was a reaction to the escalated violence, but the origin of the revolution was mostly secular.

      If a person behaves differently than their rhetoric, they are a liar. If Obama's actions are no different than Bush, then he is the same warmonger. Black ops and corporate mercenaries have increased as have clandestine drone attacks. So Obama is more of a warmonger than Bush when you take away his lies. I do remember how bad Bush was, both of them in fact. I also remember how bad the last 40 years of presidents have been on domestic policy.

      Well Obama is ending the two major wars Bush started. Bombed, but didn't invade Libya, and might not even bomb Syria now. If you want to get Obama than realize he's fundamentally a pragmatist, he doesn't want war but can be pushed into one.

      We agree on the first part, but that's not what you started with.

      Well no, it is where I started, you just assumed because I argued the obvious fact that Assad is a bad guy I might be in favour of the bombing strike.

      The middle is a matter of opinion that I don't agree with. Ad hominem attacks are not true "because" and historically and politically I can't say I agree. Col Gaddafi was a prick in the past, Assad is nothing like him. The last part of that I agree with. Killing more innocents is not justification for someone killing innocents. It's a hypocrisy.

      If you have never read Gary Allen "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" I will highly recommend that you do. It's a brief read and should be free for most e-readers. That book should shed s

      --
      I stole this Sig
    45. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      The Arab Spring was a cultural phenomena. Don't know exactly why the Saudi's had no major uprising but Turkey was already democratic. People were protesting against repressive governments, they're all different countries so I'm not surprised that the revolutions took off in some or barely started in others. I'm not sure what you're actually suggesting.

      Plenty of evidence to the contrary on this one. In my opinion to claim it's all coincidence is foolish. Especially when you see specific patterns, such as the revolutions occurring in the exact countries where Clark was speaking of. Meanwhile, other more abusive (Saudi Arabia) countries are unscathed. There are way to many "coincidences" here to be just that.

      Well Obama is ending the two major wars Bush started. Bombed, but didn't invade Libya, and might not even bomb Syria now. If you want to get Obama than realize he's fundamentally a pragmatist, he doesn't want war but can be pushed into one.

      The US is currently bombing 5 countries in the Middle East in the open. Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sudan. We bombed Libya, Ethiopia, Kenya and a few others on whims. All of this under Obama. Your implication that he is trying for peace denies facts and actions. The US was booted out of Iraq after 11 years of occupation. Obama was trying to renew the "peace keeping" role and Iraq refused. Afghanistan will remain a "peace keeping" operation for as long as possible, just like Iraq.

      If a guy is punching you in the nose while claiming "I don't hit people" you don't believe him do you? Ignore Obama's rhetoric and look at actions.

      Well no, it is where I started, you just assumed because I argued the obvious fact that Assad is a bad guy I might be in favour of the bombing strike.

      Actually nobody claimed Assad was a good guy. What was presented was a much more brief version of the dialogue I have been presenting.

      Where did I make an Ad hominem attack? If Assad was presenting a math proof and I said "it's wrong because Assad is a brutal dictator!" that would be an Ad hominem, but the topic here is whether Assad is a bad guy.

      Ad hominem is something we tend to do without much thought. You claimed Assad would be a horrible outcome (rough quote). That is an ad hominem whether you realize it or not. Additionally, you claim contrary to historical evidence that he is a "brutal dictator".

      Where you and I differ is that I don't suppose Assad to be a good guy or a bad guy. I look at what history shows he did in Syria and come to a pretty neutral opinion. He is not worse than Saudi Arabian rulers, or Turkey's rulers. He's not better than the Israeli theocracy either.

      Trying to pain him in a specific light and repeating propaganda does not help determine what really happened or what's really for the best.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    46. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Plenty of evidence to the contrary on this one. In my opinion to claim it's all coincidence is foolish. Especially when you see specific patterns, such as the revolutions occurring in the exact countries where Clark was speaking of. Meanwhile, other more abusive (Saudi Arabia) countries are unscathed. There are way to many "coincidences" here to be just that.

      So the Arabs weren't capable of having spontaneous revolutions on their own? I can't remember the full list of countries that Clark spoke of, but maybe they chose those countries because they had non-allied dictators and populations ripe for revolution, just the kind of countries that might take part in the Arab spring. One of the reasons the Saudi's were unaffected is because the group in power is not only the huge majority Sunni, but the very strict Wahabbi sect that extremists usually embrace. ie The extremists didn't revolt in Saudi Arabia because they were already in charge.

      And how do you explain Egypt? I'm pretty sure that wasn't in the Clark list and the US, particularly the people whom made the list, were sure worried when Mubarek was going down.

      The US is currently bombing 5 countries in the Middle East in the open. Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sudan. We bombed Libya, Ethiopia, Kenya and a few others on whims. All of this under Obama. Your implication that he is trying for peace denies facts and actions. The US was booted out of Iraq after 11 years of occupation. Obama was trying to renew the "peace keeping" role and Iraq refused. Afghanistan will remain a "peace keeping" operation for as long as possible, just like Iraq.

      You mean drone strikes? It's dishonest to count the drone strikes under both drone strikes and warfare. And I don't think Obama was trying as hard as you think to stay in Iraq. He wanted a lasting role and bases but didn't want to continue active military operations.

      Ad hominem is something we tend to do without much thought. You claimed Assad would be a horrible outcome (rough quote). That is an ad hominem whether you realize it or not. Additionally, you claim contrary to historical evidence that he is a "brutal dictator".

      Where you and I differ is that I don't suppose Assad to be a good guy or a bad guy. I look at what history shows he did in Syria and come to a pretty neutral opinion. He is not worse than Saudi Arabian rulers, or Turkey's rulers. He's not better than the Israeli theocracy either.

      Trying to pain him in a specific light and repeating propaganda does not help determine what really happened or what's really for the best.

      I think you need to look up the definition of Ad hominem. And during peace he was fairly permissive in outside of politics, but his reactions to the protests fit the profile or brutal dictator quite well.

      And he's better than the Saudi rulers but definitely worse than Turkey's rulers, you do realize Turkey is mostly a democracy right?

      As for the Israeli comparison, Israel is guilty of some pretty abhorrent actions and policies, but in a completely different way than Assad. Israel is a democracy occupying and colonizing another country, it's bad, but a completely different kind of bad.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    47. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      So the Arabs weren't capable of having spontaneous revolutions on their own? I can't remember the full list of countries that Clark spoke of, but maybe they chose those countries because they had non-allied dictators and populations ripe for revolution, just the kind of countries that might take part in the Arab spring. One of the reasons the Saudi's were unaffected is because the group in power is not only the huge majority Sunni, but the very strict Wahabbi sect that extremists usually embrace. ie The extremists didn't revolt in Saudi Arabia because they were already in charge.

      First, I gave the link to Clark's statements. If you don't review the evidence how can you perceive to speak rationally on the subject? On a similar track, I gave a link to an exceptional book which you deny any desire to read. If you deny evidence that provides a clear and concise opinion differing from yours and refuse to review evidence, I can only assume that you wish to maintain your belief regardless of how irrational that belief may be.

      Second, you ignore the point I made. How is it that certain countries had revolts and others did not? If you wish to maintain that it was all coincidence, you are not looking very closely at reality.

      I think you need to look up the definition of Ad hominem. And during peace he was fairly permissive in outside of politics, but his reactions to the protests fit the profile or brutal dictator quite well.

      I have actually studied rhetoric and Philosophy for over 30 years, I know very well the definition and use of ad hominem. Claiming a person is "horrible" or "brutal" is easily within the definition and practice. A single semester in a University should make this abundantly clear, however most people today are content with reading a definition on Wiki and believing that they know how something works. Obviously that is not true, and perhaps you are not "most people". That said, your belief that it is not ad hominem is absolutely wrong.

      And he's better than the Saudi rulers but definitely worse than Turkey's rulers, you do realize Turkey is mostly a democracy right?

      I'm not sure you know much about Turkey. I have seen first hand thieves get their hands beaten with iron rods until they were permanently crippled, and people get eyes burned out for looking at women. You speculate because of what you hear, not because of what is real. There is plenty of evidence to show how Turkey jails journalists and protestors, and has for decades (just like Saudi Arabia). Turkey claims to be a democracy just like Saudi Arabia claims to be a monarchy. Both are tyrannical states just like most in the middle east that suffered revolts. There is no rational way of thinking that those two countries should escape revolution if in fact all of the middle east revolutions are due to a fed up populace. They are not however listed in Clark's commentary which precedes the revolts.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    48. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      First, I gave the link to Clark's statements. If you don't review the evidence how can you perceive to speak rationally on the subject? On a similar track, I gave a link to an exceptional book which you deny any desire to read. If you deny evidence that provides a clear and concise opinion differing from yours and refuse to review evidence, I can only assume that you wish to maintain your belief regardless of how irrational that belief may be.

      Second, you ignore the point I made. How is it that certain countries had revolts and others did not? If you wish to maintain that it was all coincidence, you are not looking very closely at reality.

      Well I actually explained why some countries might have revolted and others didn't (based on the characteristics of those countries) but I'll humour you and look at the list of countries Clark listed.

      Iraq, Sryria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

      According to wikipedia governments were overthrown in

      "Tunisia, Egypt (twice), Libya, and Yemen; civil uprisings have erupted in Bahrain and Syria; major protests have broken out in Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, and Sudan;"

      So of your 6 countries that Clark listed that the US hadn't invaded only 2 are actually at risk of an overthrow and only one other had major protests. Lebanon, Iran, and Somalia are all relatively unaffected.

      So I actually agree, it wasn't a coincidence because the two lists aren't similar enough to be considered a coincidence!

      I have actually studied rhetoric and Philosophy for over 30 years, I know very well the definition and use of ad hominem. Claiming a person is "horrible" or "brutal" is easily within the definition and practice. A single semester in a University should make this abundantly clear, however most people today are content with reading a definition on Wiki and believing that they know how something works. Obviously that is not true, and perhaps you are not "most people". That said, your belief that it is not ad hominem is absolutely wrong.

      I disagree on the basis that ad hominem is a fallacy and my point was completely valid. How was I making a fallacy? You made a statement that included "I won't claim Assad is good" and argued that we shouldn't bomb Syria, I followed with a statement that included "Assad is a bastard" and agreed that we shouldn't bomb Syria. The only difference in our statements is I indicted Assad in stronger terms, and I implied that Assad's badness could be a motive for bombing his regime but I didn't think they should do it.

      I'm not sure you know much about Turkey. I have seen first hand thieves get their hands beaten with iron rods until they were permanently crippled, and people get eyes burned out for looking at women. You speculate because of what you hear, not because of what is real. There is plenty of evidence to show how Turkey jails journalists and protestors, and has for decades (just like Saudi Arabia). Turkey claims to be a democracy just like Saudi Arabia claims to be a monarchy. Both are tyrannical states just like most in the middle east that suffered revolts. There is no rational way of thinking that those two countries should escape revolution if in fact all of the middle east revolutions are due to a fed up populace. They are not however listed in Clark's commentary which precedes the revolts.

      I said mostly democratic, they still have issues but they have properly counted elections with power transfers. I don't deny the major human rights issues and they've had their own protests but a lot of the protesters were probably looking to Turkey as a model of what they wanted. So it's pretty disingenuous to say "There is no rational way of thinking that those two countries should escape revolution if in fact all of the middle east revolutions are due to a fed up populace" when the difference are quite obvious.

      Lets look at the

      --
      I stole this Sig
    49. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Assad is a dictator would be a statement of fact. Assad is a "brutal" dictator is an ad hominem. If you wish to expand on the fact that he is a dictator and provide a separate opinion of him being "brutal" that would be different. As it was presented it was ad hominem. The same would be said with "Assad winning is a horrible outcome." The word horrible is not factual and not a backed opinion. Therefor it is an ad hominem. As I mentioned when I first requested you drop the ad hominem, their use is often subtle and used without much thought because other people (media) do so. Pay attention to the statement "without much thought".

      To Clark's list, every country on the list he provided except for Iran has been impacted. Some with full overthrow (Egypt/Libya) and others on the verge (Syria).

      You claimed that Saudi Arabia and Turkey were not as bad as Syria, I showed that this was not true. Now you claim that Turkey was a model? For what, a non revolution while remaining a tyrannical state which abuses both protestors and journalists? Outside of what media presents you, there is no difference between living in Syria and Turkey or Syria and Saudi Arabia. Yet somehow the allies of the US remain unscathed in revolution and protest.

      You also missed Iraq and Afghanistan on Clark's comments.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    50. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Assad is a dictator would be a statement of fact. Assad is a "brutal" dictator is an ad hominem. If you wish to expand on the fact that he is a dictator and provide a separate opinion of him being "brutal" that would be different. As it was presented it was ad hominem. The same would be said with "Assad winning is a horrible outcome." The word horrible is not factual and not a backed opinion. Therefor it is an ad hominem. As I mentioned when I first requested you drop the ad hominem, their use is often subtle and used without much thought because other people (media) do so. Pay attention to the statement "without much thought".

      It wasn't without much thought, it wasn't even stated without justification.

      Before you even showed up I referred to him "Brutalizing the opposition into violent revolt", and the comment that drew you in specifically referenced him torturing people (including children) to death, and shooting protesters before the protests turned violent. I clearly justified my position that in his reactions to the Arab Spring Assad wasn't just a dictator, he was a brutal dictator. So I strenuously challenge your assertion that it was an Ad hominen because I definitely 'provide[d] a separate opinion of him being "brutal"'.

      As for Assad being a horrible outcome, I think it's a given that a) Assad has established himself as a brutal dictator, and b) a dictator reestablishing himself after a bloody sectarian civil war virtually never has a good outcome, c) as a principal we don't like dictators violently suppressing opposition to win (particularly when they instigated the violence) because it gives other dictators really bad incentives..

      To Clark's list, every country on the list he provided except for Iran has been impacted. Some with full overthrow (Egypt/Libya) and others on the verge (Syria).

      Look at the damn list. Of course they were, every country in the middle east was impacted!!

      Lets review the 6 non-invaded:
      Sryria, Libya: Civil war
      Sudan: Major ongoing protests
      Lebanon, Somalia, and Iran: Minor and short term protests

      And you know what, Saudi Arabia The fact a) you actually

      You claimed that Saudi Arabia and Turkey were not as bad as Syria, I showed that this was not true. Now you claim that Turkey was a model? For what, a non revolution while remaining a tyrannical state which abuses both protestors and journalists? Outside of what media presents you, there is no difference between living in Syria and Turkey or Syria and Saudi Arabia.

      I'm going to step back and give you a moment to reevaluate "Saudi Arabia and Turkey were not as bad as Syria, I showed that this was not true" [...] "there is no difference between living in Syria and Turkey or Syria and Saudi Arabia". Because if you were even considering comparing life in Turkey (or even Syria) to life in Saudi Arabia... I'm going to have an insulting reply.

      Yet somehow the allies of the US remain unscathed in revolution and protest.

      You also missed Iraq and Afghanistan on Clark's comments.

      Except of course for the major Arab ally, Egypt.

      Again, all you showed is that the Bush Administration wanted to intervene against a bunch of Middle East dictatorships, then a decade later the entire Middle East goes through a wave of protests, and the countries most affected are a mostly different list of Middle East dictatorships.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    51. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      They didn't need it, they were subcontracting their slavery and cotton production the American south.

    52. Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      No its not. By the time we get to vote for President we are given a choice of one of two pre-selected approved candidates.

      Voting in America is akin to voting in the former Soviet Union.

  5. The heart of this issue by Herman+Wiliker · · Score: 4, Informative

    If a government agency violates the law and demands that you allow them to, it is not treason to hold them accountable. We shall see this play out.

  6. How misleading. by dadelbunts · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This spin on this article is amazing. What happens if you decline cooperation is classified information. That doesn't mean that declining to cooperate leads to a treason charge, just that whatever happens if you decline, is classified information. Releasing classified information is a treason charge, but that's a separate issue altogether.

    1. Re:How misleading. by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      IANAL or even a USian, but even I can read. Releasing classified information that is detrimental to the United States is a violation of USC Title 18 Section 798, not treason, and carries at most a prison term. The offense of treason (USC Title 18 Sect 2381) requires "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies,..." There's a fair gap betwixt the two, not least of which is the death penalty. It's also worth noting that even the action of Manning did not attract a charge of treason in the wheelbarrow of offenses alleged and he _really_ released information.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    2. Re:How misleading. by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      What spin? TFA claims Yahoo CEO said "Releasing classified information is treason." She also said "The thing is, we lost and if you don't comply it's treason." These are both direct quotes from Ms. Mayer. So, how is this a spin on the article? The article is just reporting on what she said.

    3. Re:How misleading. by ImOuttaHere · · Score: 1

      Why does this whole thing have such a Germany 1930's, or Russia 1920's smell to it? This can't be happening in the "Land of the Free", can it? And if it is, what are you (each and every one of you) going to do about it?

      This spin on this article is amazing. What happens if you decline cooperation is classified information. That doesn't mean that declining to cooperate leads to a treason charge, just that whatever happens if you decline, is classified information. Releasing classified information is a treason charge, but that's a separate issue altogether.

    4. Re:How misleading. by intermodal · · Score: 1

      It has a feel of "Germany 1930's, or Russia 1920's" as you put it because it's fundamentally no different. It's a government declaring an ideology or a people (Rather than a government or other clearly defined entity) to be an enemy against which they must be given absolute power to fight. And in the process, completely removing all methods of effective recourse against overreach.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  7. You guys are hooped. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So it's treason NOT to co-operate with the NSA.

    But it's NOT treason for the NSA to share their (illegally obtained?) information with other countries.

    I guess the question now is... What are you all going to do about it? They made the rules of the game, so playing by the rules isn't going to get you anywhere anymore.

    1. Re:You guys are hooped. by QRDeNameland · · Score: 4, Funny

      But it's NOT treason for the NSA to share their (illegally obtained?) information with other countries.

      Right, because there's no N, S, or A in treason. Oh, wait....

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
  8. Once you bend to pressure . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    you set precedence. Big Business cooperation with the government is what got us here in the first place.

    For this reason, we no longer trust either of you.

    1. Re:Once you bend to pressure . . . . by alexo · · Score: 1

      you set precedence. Big Business cooperation with the government is what got us here in the first place.

      For this reason, we no longer trust either of you.

      And we don't give a damn.

      Sincerely,
      Big Business & Government.

  9. Define Treason by gishzida · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's like asking "what do you mean by sex?" and yet... how is what Snowden did treason? All he has done is reveal the fact that the three branches of our government have basically said "we have the right to spy on you be cause we say so. and if you reveal the fact that we are violating your rights under the constitution they pull the magic "States Secrets" bunny out of the hat that waves its magic wand and gags those that would speak because it is treason... Um... How's that again? Where does it say that "State Secrets" trumps the constitution?

    1. Re:Define Treason by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      We don't have to "define treason". The Constitution does that quite nicely in Article 3, Section 3.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Define Treason by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      We don't have to "define treason". The Constitution does that quite nicely in Article 3, Section 3.

      And who defines "Aid and Comfort"?

    3. Re:Define Treason by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Who was Snowden aiding and comforting when he published his materials?

      There are probably people who would manage to find somebody they believe he aided. I'm not one of them; the point is that no country's constitution is a Magic Talisman that has only one interpretation so that it will never be interpreted in ways that people who believe it's a Magic Talisman against <whatever> won't like.

    4. Re:Define Treason by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Who was Snowden aiding and comforting when he published his materials?

      Note that Snowden hasn't been charged with treason, either.

      There have been only six people convicted of treason in the USA post-Civil War. All of them as a result of WW2.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Define Treason by ignavus · · Score: 1

      Where does it say that "State Secrets" trumps the constitution?

      That's classified information.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
  10. misleading headline is misleading by iveygman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    She's not saying that it's treasonous not to cooperate, but rather lamenting the fact that they're being forced to comply.

    1. Re:misleading headline is misleading by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Uh, she said she could wind up going to jail for treason.

    2. Re:misleading headline is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      just got home and don't have the energy to RTFA, but the last sentence clearly states that the court ruling in her suit identified a 'lack of cooperation' as 'treason'

      misleading headline was meant to be misleading: she calls betraying the constitution by revealing private documents w/o a warrant treason, but she'll be charged with treason if she doesn't

    3. Re:misleading headline is misleading by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      well, with all her money, she'd still be able to have a separate cell for her wittle babby.

      they don't lock up powerful ceo's. she could stand up to the government. but, see, there are other things going on. and of course, we don't see those things - but we can believe they are there, nonetheless.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:misleading headline is misleading by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      She said "The thing is, we lost and if you don't comply it's treason." In other words, it is treasonous not to cooperate. Sounds like the headline is spot on.

  11. Really.... by PortHaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it was more so, that "Hey, we will arrest you. Crash your company. And or replace you. And we'll use illicit means to make it happen. Hell, we might just bump you off if you don't comply. Either way your company will comply, whether its you or the next guy."

    1. Re: Really.... by rilister · · Score: 2

      They don't even have to say anything: she knows her job depends on co-operating. Bottom line is that she doesn't own Yahoo, she is a servant of the shareholders - she is expected/obliged to put their interests first.

      OK, she could decide to not comply, or blow the NSA's cover on the extent of spying, but if she took Yahoo into direct conflict with the Federal Government over a personal opinion I doubt she'd stick around in the job for 24 more hours before the board decided she had to go.

      It's the kind of kind of grandstanding that Jobs might have got away with (what you gonna do, fire me?). Zuckerberg is an interesting case: he still owns nearly 25% of Facebook, so his chances of being summarily fired are less. Still, I find it hard to imagine a CEO deliberately risking jail and being allowed to continue to serve (as the share price plummeted)

      No need for threats and blackmail: the market does it for you...

      --
      'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
    2. Re:Really.... by celle · · Score: 1

      ""Hey, we will arrest you. Crash your company. And or replace you. And we'll use illicit means to make it happen. Hell, we might just bump you off if you don't comply."

          Isn't that what Putin has done to his political enemies. Well the ones that had the capability to defeat him.

    3. Re:Really.... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Yup....we just have a secret oligarchy rather than one man...

    4. Re: Really.... by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      I think thats the meaning of being a hero. You will be crushed yet you stood and did what was right. The same crap they spout about being a patriot in the first place.

  12. What does it mean by "treason" ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    'Releasing classified information is treason.'

    Here's the definition of the word "TREASON", courtesy of Google:

    • 1. The crime of betraying one's country

      2. The action of betraying someone or something

    I sincerely hope that Ms. Meyer isn't stupid.

    I sincerely hope that Yahoo has hired a CEO who ought to be able to discern the difference between a country and a government

    In fact, treason has been committed, by the current government of the United States, against the very country of the United States of America

    Anyone who chose to side with the treacherous regime that is lording over the citizens of the United States of America could be, in future, charged with treason

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:What does it mean by "treason" ? by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only entity who's defintion of Treason matters here is the USDOJ. When they jail you, you can scream "this is unjust! what I did isn't really treason!" all you like, but you're still in jail for treason.

    2. Re:What does it mean by "treason" ? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      In fact, treason has been committed, by the current government of the United States, against the very country of the United States of America

      Anyone who chose to side with the treacherous regime that is lording over the citizens of the United States of America could be, in future, charged with treason

      Well, you get right on forming that new government and let us know when its ready to take charge.

      Or is this what you're talking about? Sovereign Citizens: Radicals Exercising 'God-Given Rights' or Fueling Domestic Terrorism?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  13. Dang, ... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    You just made me realize that we're on Team Oracle's yacht and losing badly. Penalized -2 to begin with, and now one race to 6.

  14. Re:damned if you do damned if you dont by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Except the people aren't going to arrest you, or send Mr. Smith to run your car off the road in a freak accident.

  15. READ the Constitution Marissa by Specter · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, Marissa, it is not treason:

    "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

    That's treason. Releasing classified information isn't treason per se unless it meets one of the Constitutional criteria laid out above.

    1. Re:READ the Constitution Marissa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lawyers and politicians love to twist things around though. Some would argue that anything you do that is not 100% in support of our government is giving the enemy aid and comfort. For example, criticizing Obama could be comfort to the enemy. The meaning behind the words are not sufficiently precise.

    2. Re:READ the Constitution Marissa by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So protecting foreign combatants by intentionally masking their communications and refusing to assist the federal government in their apprehension is NOT giving them aid and/or comfort.

      I'm curious...if it were drug runners laundering money through a major US bank, would you consider that assisting them in such a way that would be against the RICO act?

      (note: I'm not siding with the government, or against those who would give the NSA the middle finger - let them do their own legwork, but I'm curious where you draw the line, and how straight that line is)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:READ the Constitution Marissa by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what treason is. The point is that she of the 1% isn't going to rot in Federal prison or in exile for the likes of you, me, the Fourth Amendment, or anything else that might make our socks roll up and down. That there is even one Edward Snowden in this fetid, materialistic country is a miracle that has restored some of my hope for the future.

    4. Re:READ the Constitution Marissa by postbigbang · · Score: 2

      There is treason, there is sedition. There is free speech. One doesn't necessarily trump the other. Snowden, Manning, and others did what they felt was right, and no matter how right, they're ready to go to jail. Not the CEO of Yahoo; she's interested in staying out of jail.

      That's where the reality is. You can cite the Constitution, even legal precedent, but jail is very real.

      Is it a horrid era that allows the contemptous behavior of the government, en masse, against its citizens? Absolutely. But we allowed fear to govern law, and money to pimp our legislators. But jail is real. Marissa Meyer doesn't want to go there. Would you? Really?

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    5. Re:READ the Constitution Marissa by Specter · · Score: 1

      I was responding to the summary quotation that releasing classified information is treason. For a release of classified information to be treason, and not just illegal, you'd have to prove it was giving aid and comfort to our enemies. There's plenty of wiggle room in both directions when it comes to defining: aid, comfort, and enemy.

      Her statement, assuming she quoted accurately and in context, is wrong and it furthers an illegitimate end, in my opinion, by reinforcing the belief that the federal government can pretty much do as it pleases and we shouldn't be asking any inconvenient questions about it.

    6. Re:READ the Constitution Marissa by Swampash · · Score: 1

      No, Marissa, it is not treason:

      "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

      That's treason. Releasing classified information isn't treason per se unless it meets one of the Constitutional criteria laid out above.

      Facilitating the private communications of TEH ENEMIES OF TEH UNITED STATES isn't giving them aid?

    7. Re:READ the Constitution Marissa by fuzzywig · · Score: 1
      If a major bank is caught laundering drug money they get a slap on the wrist and nobody involved even gets charged, much less prosecuted.

      What were you expecting?

    8. Re:READ the Constitution Marissa by dwpro · · Score: 1

      I think intent and specificity would have to come into play, or providing any service to the public could be treason.

      it's easy to give in to vague threats from the govt, but if HSBC can get away with targeted money laundering for terrorists with a nominal fine it's harder to make the case the government would follow through.

      However, just to be sure, I'm not paying taxes anymore. I'm feel reasonably assured that some of the tax money will get into terrorist hands, and I don't want to be a traitor.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    9. Re:READ the Constitution Marissa by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      You can wear protests as a badge of courage if you desire. But such efforts are more or less nihilistic. You mistake the government for giving much of a shit about what you think. This is no longer a government "by and for the people" rather, for campaign contributors and lackeys.

      For whatever record, the government already knows what I did.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  16. a historical note: by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance

    the historical events that served as the basis for the fourth amendment

    and exactly the type of abuse the NSA is perpetrating on the american people

    what we are talking about with the NSA program is a thorough, gross violation of and clear, undeniable contradiction to a founding principle of this country

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:a historical note: by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that insight into US history and UK law.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:a historical note: by JustNiz · · Score: 2

      I can tell you the UK are bad but don't go half as far as the US does in blatantly abusing their citizens rights.

      US is the land of the free? my ass.

    3. Re:a historical note: by ImOuttaHere · · Score: 1

      Gods! Neither the STASI nor the KGB ever had it this good or this easy, did they?

    4. Re:a historical note: by fuzzywig · · Score: 1
      It's more that in the UK we've just assumed that the government has the capability to intercept all of our communications for years, but we rely on their incompetence to keep us safe.

      It works out ok generally.

  17. Treason is in the Constitution by mbone · · Score: 2

    It is the only crime defined there :

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    Don't see anything there about not cooperating with the authorities.

    1. Re:Treason is in the Constitution by organgtool · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the beauty of a war on ideology: anyone who opposes your ideological values can be branded a traitor.

    2. Re:Treason is in the Constitution by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Remember, US is in (cyber) war against all the world (except Israel, as least it seems so for the information given to them), and probably other english speaking countries, despite that the attacked countries realize the situation or not. Helping other countries to realize that they are being unilaterally attacked by US count on their books as treason.

      I just hope that the other countries realize what is the actual situation, and stop giving US in a silver plate the bullets to get shot by them.

    3. Re:Treason is in the Constitution by intermodal · · Score: 1

      It's also the beauty of a war on an undefined and vaguely-described enemy.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    4. Re:Treason is in the Constitution by JigJag · · Score: 1

      to anyone who hasn't read Jean-Paul Marat's The Chains Of Slavery yet, I invite you to check: http://jpmarat.de/english/jpmcha4e.html#ToC6

      The entire book is available at http://jpmarat.de/english/jpmie.html

      --
      "The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
  18. Yahoo has a great approach to this... by bitt3n · · Score: 1

    rather than treasonously reporting government info requests, every time they receive such a request they will make their logo slightly blander. by this time next year, it'll look just like helvetica

    1. Re:Yahoo has a great approach to this... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      rather than treasonously reporting government info requests, every time they receive such a request they will make their logo slightly blander. by this time next year, it'll look just like helvetica

      I think in conjunction with increasing the transparency of their logo, they should make the "scales" of the Y more and more unbalanced. Eventually they can overturn it completely.

  19. Perhaps by lesincompetent · · Score: 1

    Mass civil disobedience (followed by public outrage hopefully) could be the answer, even in this case?
    Am i simply being delusional if i hope corporations could do that?

  20. Four legs bad, two legs good by JoeyRox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We're approaching the end game of fascism in America. The country has had a good run but alas humans can't stop being humans and so this country will crumble under its weight like all countries before it.

    1. Re:Four legs bad, two legs good by wrackspurt · · Score: 2

      I've been trying for some time to come up with reasons to disagree with what you've posted. I readily admit I'm not doing all that well. I've one hypothesis and that is that democratic states with all the freedoms such states entail will generally win out over less democratic states because freedom of speech and assembly among other fundamental rights inherently provide efficiencies that less democratic states lack. This idea doesn't necessarily apply to special cases like China today which is playing catchup by stealing our methods, or, even necessarily to contemporary Russia which is selling off it's natural resources without provisions for the future. It does hold over the long run, but then as Keynes pointed out, over the long run we're all dead.

  21. can we call what Yahoo did to Flickr "treason"? by themushroom · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Because someone needs to be swinging from a yard arm or given a blindfold and a cig for how badly Marissa boned Flickr.

  22. Re:More like corporate suicide by djupedal · · Score: 1

    More like corporate suicide!

    Right - she said what the govt. lawyers told her. She didn't say what her personal feelings are, which is only fair from a corporate mouthpiece.

  23. Corporations are people? by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

    So what happens if a corporation commits treason? Methinks, like murder, nothing.

  24. Its fun to read comments on this kind of topics by davmoo · · Score: 1

    I hear a lot of tough talk in here. And in theory, I agree with a some of it. But in reality, I have to wonder how many of you would continue that tough talk if it were YOU being questioned or served with a secret warrant by the NSA or any other federal three-letter organization. I'd be willing to bet money that 90 percent of you would wilt like a daisy dropped in Death Valley.

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    1. Re:Its fun to read comments on this kind of topics by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      I'd be willing to bet money that 90 percent of you would wilt like a daisy dropped in Death Valley.

      Maybe so. One never knows until one's in that position.

      OTOH, I do know that when the "Communications Decency Act" passed, I and a whole bunch of other people got pissed off and engaged in civil disobedience (strong language NSFW) at the (small, but we didn't really know at the time) risk of federal prosecution. I was younger and more full of fire then, perhaps; but I like to think that if I received a "National Security Letter I'd still have the testicular fortitude to post it far and wide, snail-mail out as many copies as I could, stand on the street corner handing them out to passers-by until they came to get me.

      And then? Go out in a blaze of glory, or let them drag me off to prison in hopes of being a continual embarrassment to them? I don't know. Maybe that's when I'd wilt and say, "ooh, so sorry." But I hope I'd still stick a thumb in their eye first.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:Its fun to read comments on this kind of topics by markjhood2003 · · Score: 2

      Google CEO Page is worth 25 billion dollars and along with Brin owns enough voting shares to completely control the company. Mayer is worth 300 million. They have resources that you and I don't: the ability to hire the best lawyers in the world and media platforms that reach the majority of the people in the US and perhaps the world.

      If they had any sense of responsibility, obligation, or patriotism they could fight this thing and have a good chance of winning.

  25. Facism it is... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    Another Hitler should be showing up soon.

    Any guesses who the Jews will be this time?

    Or will they just tell the Soldiers we're all "Zombies", like night of the living dead?

    This will not end well for anyone; these people have nuclear weapons, and have used them in war.

    This time it will be New York and San Francisco, those stinking Liberals...

    .

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:Facism it is... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

      +1 Insightful. :)

      Godwin has been suspended, until we overthrow the Nazis in power.

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  26. WE DID NOT BETRAY OUR COUNTRY by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    "OUR" country betrays US!

    This message brought to you by the Committee to Elect Edward Snowden for President.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:WE DID NOT BETRAY OUR COUNTRY by gagol · · Score: 1

      Snowden is an oracle of morality if a sea of douchebagery.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    2. Re:WE DID NOT BETRAY OUR COUNTRY by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      your country didn't betray you, *your Government did*.

      Love your country. Fight tyranny. In all its forms.

      Defend your Constitution against all enemies, *foreign and domestic*.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    3. Re:WE DID NOT BETRAY OUR COUNTRY by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      your country didn't betray you, *your Government did*.

      Love your country. Fight tyranny. In all its forms.

      Defend your Constitution against all enemies, *foreign and domestic*.

      Humanity is my country. Love is my creed.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  27. WE DID NOT BETRAY OUR COUNTRY by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    "OUR" country betrays US!

    "This message brought to you by the Committee to Elect Edward Snowden for President."

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  28. Look at the person's position... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    And then please tell me what you all would expect her to say... Please! Knock me over with a feather!

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Look at the person's position... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      And then please tell me what you all would expect her to say... Please! Knock me over with a feather!

      "Okay, I'll do as you say, and grab my ankles. But please wear a condom?"

      The only practical recourse I see is to challenge the demands as much as you're allowed to, and tell people as much as you can. And hope that the public one day will be more interested in their dwindling liberties than in Kardashians, price of gasoline and hoop ball.

      In other words, it's fighting a losing battle. The nation is sinking, and probably has to reach bottom to find leverage to kick upwards. I don't see 'Tis of Thee returning to glory in my lifetime, nor that of our children. One day, though, there may be an Imperium Romanum 3.0 that does better.

  29. "The country" is we the people by erroneus · · Score: 1

    The government players think they run the country. They kind of do. What do you think those billions of bullets are for? But you can't commit treason against traitors. The people who are betraying "the people" are traitors.

    Yahoo? You're toast.

  30. Re:Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Completely utterly bullshit! Will NSA or the Justice Department arrest an Fortune 500 CEO with $5 billion of revenue? What about two or three CEOs with companies injecting trillions in the economy? Bullshit!

    They can, they have, and they will. Meet Joe Nacchio, the man who said "No" when he was CEO of Qwest.

  31. Re:No Such Agency by PPH · · Score: 1

    And how do you know who is from the NSA and who is working for the FSB or some other foreign agency? Do they have badges? And what do they look like? Is there a number I can call to verify whether someone claiming to be an NSA employee actually is? As far as I know, the NSA has no status as a law enforcement agency.

    Until then, I'm just going to shoot any seedy looking people sneaking around our data center.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  32. There is more than Yahoo by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

    Wow..There is A LOT of talk on the whole treason thing and I get it, she's really blowing it out her ass, but the other thing the struck me was...
    if that is her view,
    why use Yahoo? (Sorry for the rhyme).

    I mean, the best way to show her view is lame is to not use her product. She wants to give over data to the Governmet, fine, I wont use her product. She feels I have no rights as a customer? I wont use her product.

    Until the day something like Yahoo is the only access to the Internet (Web) I have a choice and I would not choose Yahoo (thanks to her). Let me be a customer of companies that still attempt to protect ones rights and let Marissa wrap her self in a flag of rightiousness and failure.

    --
    Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
  33. Giving Aid is Treason by Thruen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Giving aid to the enemy would be considered treason, and what she says at the end of the article is "if you don't comply it's treason." If the target of the inquiry is considered an enemy, as they may in a terrorist investigation, it seems to me not handing over the requested information could be seen as treason. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this was spelled out in the court case she's referring to. There's really nothing outrageous about the headline, the real problem is the ease with which agencies can force a company to hand over the information. Personally, I don't take issue with them considering it treason if they're requesting information on a dangerous enemy, I just think it's bull that they can use this on just about anyone with no real oversight, in a manner thought unconstitutional by the court in charge of it.

  34. CEO needs to read the U.S. Constitution by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

    "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

    -- U.S. Constitution, Article III, section 3.

    So... bullshit.

    --
    In Liberty, Rene
  35. By coincidence this reminds me of ... by Evil+Pete · · Score: 2

    ... a video I was watching recently. A youtube vid of one of the story arcs of Babylon5, the Earth Civil War. Something about this statement just brought this to mind. Not stating that this as serious but well it does have dark overtones.

    --
    Bitter and proud of it.
  36. Lands you incarcerated? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

    What a peculiar turn of phrase.

  37. Arm-chair Lawyers by Tempest451 · · Score: 2

    A lot of "arm-chair" lawyers here, but the basic thing is that they tried to fight it in open court and they lost, over, done. And if you think the others (Google, Facebook, etc) would have fared any better, you are simply fooling yourself. You can try to reinterpret what treason is all you like, but the fact is they are compelled to comply.

  38. Re:damned if you do damned if you dont by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    That was my point....

    I have friends who see nothing wrong with NSA/TSA. They think I'm the one with issues because I do.

    With such apathy and normalcy bias, how is a CEO to risk company and possibly life in standing up to a fascist government.

  39. First of all by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    When you're talking about secret courts and domestic spying. We are talking about gross violations of the Constitution. (And let's be honest, you're not dumb enough to believe that the FIS is only surveilling foreign communications. I'm sorry, please...)

    Oh, mind you, the Constitution is superior to even the courts. And while the Supreme Court makes a determination of what's constitutional. And is a check and balance along with the other two branches. There is a fourth branch of the American system. It is called "We the People", and it is a final check and balance.

    And let's not forget the EFFs FOIA request which showed that the FISC court itself feels the NSA is grossly and repeatedly in violation.

  40. Agreed by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    I honestly feel we need a hero. We need someone of high profile, like Mark Zuckerberg, Google CEOs, someone big to basically come out with a whole dump of what's going on.

    And if they did so, and found themselves arrested...then it is time for us to support freedom over tyranny.

  41. Morality and Legality by Paradigma11 · · Score: 1

    Do we really want corporations decide what laws they should follow?
    Do corporations really have, and should they have, a moral compass and responsibility?
    If so, which one and how should they operate in different cultures?
    If the laws suck then we, the people, have a responsibility to fix it through democratic measures.
    I do not think it legitim to condemn an organisation and the people working there for following the law.

  42. Re:those stinking Liberals. by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    Mod up inciteful? Or how about insightful?

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  43. Brewster Kahle and Archive.org by ikhider · · Score: 1

    The Yahoo CEO is not thinking of the best interests of whom they are supposed to serve and the Yahoo! way of doing business pretty much reflects that.That is why I am glad they are losing marketshare. If you want an example of someone who gets it right, please read this interview with Archive.org founder, Brewster Kahle. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/06/what-its-like-to-get-a-national-security-letter.html In a nutshell, the government tried to intimidate him into acting against the peoples' best interests and he resisted. Rightly so. Mind you, Archive.org is all about public service whereas Yahoo! is clearly not. Dear Yahoo!, don't be evil.

    --
    "SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
  44. ffs by grenadeh · · Score: 1

    Then Yahoo is just another in a string of appeasers who doesn't understand the constitution.

  45. This from the most hated woman in IT by Squidlips · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am sure that the woman who would not let her employees work at home, but has a nursery built next to her office, would he happy to let the NSA listening in on your conversations, but hers.

  46. Re:I hope it'll be short, and sweet by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2

    We already sent the treacherous fuckers to the big house.
    The big, White, House.

    You have been eaten by a grue - uh, sorry wrong game. ;)

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  47. No the voters had the responsibility and failed it by Marrow · · Score: 1

    Instead they chose to stock D.C. from floor to ceiling with criminals and sociopaths. Somewhat understandable, as you would not want them home in your state. But still, on the whole, a bad move.

  48. As I've said previously by jodido · · Score: 1

    You can't expect corporate executives to defend your rights. Marissa Mayer, the gang at Google, Verizon, you name them, they and the NSA are all on the same side, which is the side of protecting US capitalism. World capitalism, actually, to be more accurate.

  49. And that's why I don't use Yahoo - for ANYTHING! by mmell · · Score: 1

    At least Google tried to keep it on the down-low. *Sheesh*

  50. Re:Bullshit! by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    And since everyone on Wall Street is using insider info (yes) and the NSA has the good on them, then this a a credible threat...

  51. well.... by tatman · · Score: 1

    While I do agree that it is disappointing that companies, such as Yahoo, do not stand up for freedom and privacy they way they should, I think it is valuable to listen to what she said. The government has strong armed tech companies into compliance with the threat of jail time and who knows what else. I can't really blame someone for caving. I would like to think I would be all bold and stand up for rights but come end of the day, I don't make good jail material and would probably cave too.

    We should be more alarmed and more afraid of a government that wields this kind of power

    --
    I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
  52. Politics by NewYork · · Score: 1

    If you does, it's treason. If politicians does, it's patriotism. Register/operate yourself (Yahoo) as a Political Party.

  53. This just in... by Cosgrach · · Score: 1

    The CEO if Yahoo is a moron. Rich perhaps, but still a moron.

    --
    Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
  54. Treason? by hanekhw · · Score: 2

    Resistance to tyranny is never treason.

  55. We're in Alice's Wonderland & it's NSA's tea p by JohnReynolds425 · · Score: 1

    It seems like we've entered Alice's Wonderland and it's NSA's tea party. Their philosophy is, "We're hunting terrorists. We don't need no stinking 4th Amendment." And so those who oppose them are traitors. This is "SPIES GONE WILD" the sequel. Common sense tells me we need to take matters into our own hands to protect what little is left of our privacy. What can we do? Encryption won't keep NSA out entirely, but it will make it harder for them to pick us out of the crowd. Decrypting still takes extra time & effort and that little bit of hassle may be enough to keep their noses out of your business. The same goes for storing stuff on Dropbox, iCloud, etc. Take it down and stash everything in a CloudLocker (www.cloudlocker.it), which works just the same but it's private and stays in your home where they still need a warrant to see inside.

  56. I was also a fish in a school. by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    For many many years, I followed in great detail, the news casts produced by ABC, CBS, NBC, and even PBS and the BBC. I truly believed that what I was fed was fair and honest. But then with NSA, and the idiot woman from Yahoo stating that it would be treason to report to the NSA, I realize, that no USA broadcaster, email provider, messenger provider or any other service could be trusted with confidential (even non treasonous data). Then by chance I caught Al Jazeera America, a news agency that actually has employees in the conflict zones, and in the reporters galleries around the world. I was skeptical at first, but as time went on, more precision about news took place. Today, if I want unbiased news reporting, I tune to Al Jazeera, because they do present both sides of debates and conflicts.

    But if one can't trust CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX' PBS, BBC etc, then we can't trust Google, Yahoo.com Hotmail, etc. etc. etc.

    Yahoo's users are international. We want our emails to remain in our countries, and in an International environment, if Yahoo or another organization is asked by NSA for information, and the owner of the email is Chilian, or Canadian, or Chinese, the country of origin of the email must give permission. Otherwise, what I see it coming in the next five years, is a parallel internet, not run by the USA.

    NSA breaks the law, and we say nothing. Boy, are we not all couch potatoes. Al Jazeera tells it as it is -- Shameful. And by the way,
    We should just encrypt our emails to business partners with different keys, based on the day of the year, and with a different algorithm, also based on the day of the year, and relabel AES files as Bluefish, 3des, or whatever. AES is the encryption algorithm that the USA government has stipulated, is not suitable for use within the Government.

    I guess I meandered, but the President of Yahoo is an example of being brainwashed.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  57. How nice for her, but I disagree. by JonathanPDX · · Score: 1

    Yahoo is a corporation, not a citizen. It's interests do not lie in the same
    place or even the general direction as a citizen's. It's sole purpose is to make
    money, and despite her best intentions, true patriotism and love of money are
    not compatible. One cannot serve two masters.

    Despite what the courts claim, corporations are NOT individuals, and therefore
    do not have the same rights as an individual citizen of this country.

    If Ms Meyer believes that playing along with the NSA is patriotic, so long as she
    says that from he own perspective and not that of anyone else, that's her right.
    However, being a patriot is not something anyone can truly claim for themselves,
    because only time will reveal whether or not someone's ACTIONS make them out
    to be a patriot, a milquetoast citizen or a traitor.

    So if Ms Meyer feels it's her patriotic duty to sell out her customers to the Eye In
    The Sky, that's something she''ll have to live with and answer for.

    But she doesn't speak for me.

  58. But violating the Constitution Isn't by oldestgeek · · Score: 1

    Losing freedom an inch at a time!

  59. Sounds like Nazi Germany by derfla8 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure that's what German soldiers thought as they marched people into concentration camps. It would be treason to go against Hitler's instructions.

  60. It's only treason if you're an American . . . by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    So why are multi-national companies hiring or promoting people who have the severe disability of being vulnerable to pressure from this most pernicious of countries? It is just plain dangerous to your business model.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"