In terms of your criteria of government abuse of power and invasion of privacy", the US, along with the rest of the 5 eyes, 9 eyes, etc., far exceeds what Russia has been doing lately. Sure, Russia invaded the Ukraine, but they didn't turn it into a failed state Afghanistan and Iraq are right down there as well.
Legally there is no war except when Congress declares it. Look it up. It's right in the Constitution. Instead of doing stuff extra-judicially, they should have declared war on Islamic State. Until war is declared by Congress, the US simply isn't legally at war with anyone.
You don't need the legal system to determine that Snowden was justified. The spy system was built to protect itself from all attacks, including legal. A court-martial is hardly a "jury of your peers" in the way that we understand it today. Was the spying illegal? Did it trample citizen's constitutional rights? Were there other (legal) ways to achieve the same objectives? The answer to all of these is yes. Instead they built a system that collects so much data that most of the time the interesting stuff is obscured by the noise. This also leaves less resources to do it the "hard" way, even though in the end it would have been cheaper.
You don't need to update the zone files all the time - and you could always have a pool, run by different people locally, so you get redundancy and less needed to be stored on each machine. Even just the top 10,000 sites would be enough for most people.
Using a simpler, more memorable name in place of a host's numerical address dates back to the ARPANET era. The Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International) maintained a text file named HOSTS.TXT that mapped host names to the numerical addresses of computers on the ARPANET. Host operators obtained copies of the master file.
In Internet protocol specifications, the term "host" means any computer that has full two-way access to other computers on the Internet. A host has a specific "local or host number" that, together with the network number, forms its unique IP address.
So anyone who just wants to visit their favorite sites doesn't need DNS.
Really? Citation, please. There's nothing in the Constitution saying otherwise, and they're always passing laws to retroactively make illegal activity legal.
Look around - how many kids have a phone and no watch? They've never gotten into the habit of wearing a watch - when they want to know the time, they pull out their phone (and you don't even have to unlock it to tell the time). As for reminding them to check their phone, most of these kids check them compulsively anyway every time thet ding.
I think you would end up with more. Many US states would probably want to block disturbing sites that deal in such scary stuff like evolution and atheism, and of course the gays, because their children will become gay just by reading about it.
Also, Ireland couldn't compete on any other grounds, so they gave illegal subsidies. Ireland simply isn't competitive enough to compete fairly on most products (same situation most countries have - nobody can be #1 at everything).
Or maybe they're using geolocation and only paywalled it for Americans, since that is their target audience? Or maybe there's a bug in their system? Or maybe I DID hack them, just so I can read a stupid article... sounds about right:-)
Morally, probably not. Legally, of course you do. Besides, who's going to contradict whatever story you make up? In Canada, you even have the right to kill someone if you fear that not doing so will mean that the person who ordered you to will kill you instead. Duress is now an excuse. The Constitution gives an absolute right to the security of the person, and you can take any steps you feel necessary to save your life.
Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
It has nothing to do with prosecuting anyone else. It's simply not a requirement. Obama could write himself a pardon if he wanted on his last day of office, and he probably has the letter already drawn up and dated, just waiting for his signature, which he would keep in a safe place if ever any question came up. It would be the prudent thing to do, even if you did nothing wrong.
Personally, I think the big problem with the whole Bill Clinton mess was that Hillary didn't show enough strength of character to kick his lying cheating ass to the curb. That would probably have made her a shoo-in in 2008.
Someone should remind Obama that all the founding fathers were traitors -
We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.
-- Benjamin Franklin
As far as nobody being able to tell Obama what to do, Putin put the lie to that with the annexation of the Crimea and the bombings in Syria. So did Assad. So did Kim Un whateverhisname, and China's leadership. They all know he won't pull the ultimate trigger, so the nuclear threat is a paper tiger, and the US is too far away to efficiently project conventional force in sufficient numbers over an extended period, so even the NATO commitments are doubtful.
The problem with using nukes in Europe is that you'll also get your allies as collateral damage. Russia has no similar problems with nuking North America in an all-out war. And Russia would win in less than 3 days Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, all now NATO members, would be overrun.
for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"
Well, he DID continue the Bush policy of extraordinary rendition, which requires plenty of cooperation with foreign governments. Ditto using foreign governments to get around rules on the US spying on it's own citizens. And the banksters and wall street are certainly increasing their "co-operation" with government officials.
There ae PLENTY of places where he'd be worse off. Somalia. Libya. Sierra Leone. Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Lesotho,... there are more than 50 countries with a lower life expectancy for men than Russia. And then you've got places like Venezuela, which is fast becoming another failed state, with food riots.
The only opinion that matters is Obama's. He's the one who can grant a pardon, and the Constitution makes it stick. Doesn't matter what the rest of the government thinks. THAT is how it works. Unfortunately, Obama probably won't - his "legacy" would be at risk.
Having the people who committed the crimes testifying to his involvement would have gotten him impeached. Whether he was involved before or after doesn't make a difference, same as if you help a killer bury a body. And you don't seem to understand that the cover-up was a crime.
Slashdot Mirror
In terms of your criteria of government abuse of power and invasion of privacy", the US, along with the rest of the 5 eyes, 9 eyes, etc., far exceeds what Russia has been doing lately. Sure, Russia invaded the Ukraine, but they didn't turn it into a failed state Afghanistan and Iraq are right down there as well.
And that's why she didn't give him the boot. Hillary likes power just as much as Bill does.
Legally there is no war except when Congress declares it. Look it up. It's right in the Constitution. Instead of doing stuff extra-judicially, they should have declared war on Islamic State. Until war is declared by Congress, the US simply isn't legally at war with anyone.
You don't need the legal system to determine that Snowden was justified. The spy system was built to protect itself from all attacks, including legal. A court-martial is hardly a "jury of your peers" in the way that we understand it today. Was the spying illegal? Did it trample citizen's constitutional rights? Were there other (legal) ways to achieve the same objectives? The answer to all of these is yes. Instead they built a system that collects so much data that most of the time the interesting stuff is obscured by the noise. This also leaves less resources to do it the "hard" way, even though in the end it would have been cheaper.
You don't need to update the zone files all the time - and you could always have a pool, run by different people locally, so you get redundancy and less needed to be stored on each machine. Even just the top 10,000 sites would be enough for most people.
Using a simpler, more memorable name in place of a host's numerical address dates back to the ARPANET era. The Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International) maintained a text file named HOSTS.TXT that mapped host names to the numerical addresses of computers on the ARPANET. Host operators obtained copies of the master file.
(this uses the term 'host" to mean this
In Internet protocol specifications, the term "host" means any computer that has full two-way access to other computers on the Internet. A host has a specific "local or host number" that, together with the network number, forms its unique IP address.
So anyone who just wants to visit their favorite sites doesn't need DNS.
Really? Citation, please. There's nothing in the Constitution saying otherwise, and they're always passing laws to retroactively make illegal activity legal.
Look around - how many kids have a phone and no watch? They've never gotten into the habit of wearing a watch - when they want to know the time, they pull out their phone (and you don't even have to unlock it to tell the time). As for reminding them to check their phone, most of these kids check them compulsively anyway every time thet ding.
I think you would end up with more. Many US states would probably want to block disturbing sites that deal in such scary stuff like evolution and atheism, and of course the gays, because their children will become gay just by reading about it.
So this is to protect us? Does that mean blocking Facebook, Twitter, etc., because I could get behind that.
Nah, they only copied the good stuff. One blank CD is probably overkill, but who has floppies or zip drives any more?
You don't need DNS to visit a website. Also, there's nothing preventing you from running your own DNS.
Also, Ireland couldn't compete on any other grounds, so they gave illegal subsidies. Ireland simply isn't competitive enough to compete fairly on most products (same situation most countries have - nobody can be #1 at everything).
Giving business anti-competitive tax rates far below what is agreed to by treaty IS within the purview of the EU.
Or maybe they're using geolocation and only paywalled it for Americans, since that is their target audience? Or maybe there's a bug in their system? Or maybe I DID hack them, just so I can read a stupid article ... sounds about right :-)
There are other countries that are ready to take him - the problem is that the US will go to illegal means to intercept any flight out.
Morally, probably not. Legally, of course you do. Besides, who's going to contradict whatever story you make up? In Canada, you even have the right to kill someone if you fear that not doing so will mean that the person who ordered you to will kill you instead. Duress is now an excuse. The Constitution gives an absolute right to the security of the person, and you can take any steps you feel necessary to save your life.
The relevant passage from Ford's pardon.
Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
It has nothing to do with prosecuting anyone else. It's simply not a requirement. Obama could write himself a pardon if he wanted on his last day of office, and he probably has the letter already drawn up and dated, just waiting for his signature, which he would keep in a safe place if ever any question came up. It would be the prudent thing to do, even if you did nothing wrong.
Personally, I think the big problem with the whole Bill Clinton mess was that Hillary didn't show enough strength of character to kick his lying cheating ass to the curb. That would probably have made her a shoo-in in 2008.
We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.
-- Benjamin Franklin
As far as nobody being able to tell Obama what to do, Putin put the lie to that with the annexation of the Crimea and the bombings in Syria. So did Assad. So did Kim Un whateverhisname, and China's leadership. They all know he won't pull the ultimate trigger, so the nuclear threat is a paper tiger, and the US is too far away to efficiently project conventional force in sufficient numbers over an extended period, so even the NATO commitments are doubtful.
The problem with using nukes in Europe is that you'll also get your allies as collateral damage. Russia has no similar problems with nuking North America in an all-out war. And Russia would win in less than 3 days Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, all now NATO members, would be overrun.
for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"
Well, he DID continue the Bush policy of extraordinary rendition, which requires plenty of cooperation with foreign governments. Ditto using foreign governments to get around rules on the US spying on it's own citizens. And the banksters and wall street are certainly increasing their "co-operation" with government officials.
There ae PLENTY of places where he'd be worse off. Somalia. Libya. Sierra Leone. Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Lesotho, ... there are more than 50 countries with a lower life expectancy for men than Russia. And then you've got places like Venezuela, which is fast becoming another failed state, with food riots.
The only opinion that matters is Obama's. He's the one who can grant a pardon, and the Constitution makes it stick. Doesn't matter what the rest of the government thinks. THAT is how it works. Unfortunately, Obama probably won't - his "legacy" would be at risk.
Having the people who committed the crimes testifying to his involvement would have gotten him impeached. Whether he was involved before or after doesn't make a difference, same as if you help a killer bury a body. And you don't seem to understand that the cover-up was a crime.
Also, Deep Throat would have testified against him. Having the FBI's #2 man on the stand would have been icing on the cake.