I suppose we'll have to see what direction the UK goes. Certainly the destiny of the UK has been altered by design. The "wisdom" of that has yet to be shown.
Well, that's a statistic you "never" see flogged on Slashdot.
One notable difference between the US and some of the disreputable states used for comparison (Soviet Union, Communist China) is the differing nature of the offenses. People held in American prisons are there for recognizable criminal offenses, not political offenses. You may find it disagreeable that low level drug use in the US is criminalized, but that is certainly a different question than throwing someone into the gulag for making a fat joke about the president, which is something that doesn't happen in the US.
It may be a shock to some that the purpose of military bases are not simply to provide optics for protesters. They have an actual function that the protesters often desire to interfere with.
As to the Pershing 2 issue, that is a splendid example of the bankruptcy of the so called "peace movement." Where were the protests over the Soviet SS-20s that the Pershing missiles were brought in to counter? It was hardly proportionate.
The 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Soviet deployment of SS-20 Saber ballistic missiles in Europe led to the suspension of détente. To counter the Soviet deployment, Allies made the “dual track” decision to deploy nuclear-capable Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missiles in Western Europe while continuing negotiations with the Soviets. The deployment was not scheduled to begin until 1983. In the meantime, the Allies hoped to achieve an arms control agreement that would eliminate the need for the weapons.
Lacking the hoped-for agreement with the Soviets, NATO members suffered internal discord when deployment began in 1983. Following the ascent of Mikhail Gorbachev as Soviet Premier in 1985, the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 1987, eliminating all nuclear and ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges. This is now regarded as an initial indication that the Cold War was coming to an end.
Russian GRU defector Stanislav Lunev said in his autobiography that "the GRU and the KGB helped to fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad," and that during the Vietnam War the USSR gave $1 billion to American anti-war movements, more than it gave to the VietCong.[19] Lunev described this as a "hugely successful campaign and well worth the cost".[19] According to Time magazine, a US State Department official estimated that the KGB may have spent $600 million on the peace offensive up to 1983, channeling funds through national Communist parties or the World Peace Council "to a host of new antiwar organizations that would, in many cases, reject the financial help if they knew the source."[13] Richard Felix Staar in his book Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union says that non-communist peace movements without overt ties to the USSR were "virtually controlled" by it. Lord Chalfont claimed that the Soviet Union was giving the European peace movement £100 million a year. The Federation of Conservative Students (FCS) alleged Soviet funding of CND.
I think you need to legal lesson on the difference between the US and a common law country. Legal precedent means nothing in so much as the law is concerned.
Anyways, it has made the american people aware of our government's crimes.
Alleged crimes, not in fact. Every time they have been legally adjudicated the NSA's actions have been found legal.
There is a ruling that specifically says their actions are unconstitutional, i.e. violating the highest law of the land.
No. There is a preliminary injunction based on the judge's expectation that he will find for the complainant, but it is suspended for appeal. Even if he does decide that way the judgment will have to survive appeal. There are problems with his ruling as seen by law professors, and precedent is against him.
We agree that this will probably end up in the Supreme Court at some point. The most likely outcome is one consistent with previous cases.
Is your thinking that the FBI should be permanently disbanded because some leader 50 years ago overstepped his authority, despite all the changes in the law, oversight, tenure of leadership, and standards? Any replacement in mind? Or just do without? Any thoughts on what to do about the need for such an agency?
Only if you ignore the constitution completely and instead choose to appeal to authority figures and believe government propaganda.
You may recall that the Constitution itself includes provisions for a Supreme Court, and empowers Congress to create lesser courts. They might reasonably have a say, don't you think? The Constitution has had to be applied to many situations since 1789 and there is much accumulated legal precedent to consider. If you ignore that you aren't adhering to the Constitution so much as making up your own law.
Would that have resulted in the American people becoming aware of their government's crimes?
It still hasn't. His leaks have only revealed strategies, activities, methodologies, and technologies. No crimes, only things declared to be crimes by the uninformed or ideologically inclined.
I applaud the fact that Snowden let the American people in on the specifics.
He also let Iran, China, Russia, and al Qaeda in on the specific. His leaks caused many diplomatic problems for countries such as Indonesia, Australia, the UK, the US, and others. It is nearly all damage with little benefit. Your judgment is faulty.
It is more likely that in 50 years there will be few that remember Snowden, just like there are few today that remember Philby 50 years on. In 100 years it will be niche historians that remember Snowden just like few remember the advisers to FDR, Wilson, Clémenceau, Lloyd-George, or Chamberlain, or the great spies of their era. He may be mentioned in passing in history books, only to be quickly forgotten. He will probably be crowded out by the first Black astronaut on Mars, or the first Chinese-American Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, or the first openly lesbian President. That may change if a city is lost to an attack by WMD in which case it may become the custom to spit after uttering Snowden's name.
As to the rest, all I'll say is that you have an active fantasy life. You might as well save your typing, your insults and invective mean nothing to me.
Actually he didn't conclude what you state. He awarded the injunction because he thought it likely he would rule against them, but he actually hasn't as yet. Even if he does it still would have to survive the appeals process, which is unlikely. Legal experts find a number of problems with his ruling, and precedent is against him.
The roles and cooperation between the NSA and FBI are documented in previous news stories. What you believe is irrelevant, and it makes very little difference in terms of the news, or the law. The police of a foreign nation received the contents of an email sent by a Jihadi in their country from US intelligence agencies working with a multinational corporation in the US, and headed off a suicide attack in the process. As far as I see your only real interest is to prevent that sort of cooperation despite the obvious outcome. The courts have repeatedly found their actions lawful in decided cases.
In short, neither Microsoft nor Yahoo fought the issue and didn't require a court order. The information is consistent with what we've learned about the operations of the NSA involving those companies. You also overlook that it is CNN that labels it as NSA, not me. Even given NSA's involvement they clearly have wanted to stay out of the spotlight and would likely have handed the information to the FBI which has liaisons with overseas law enforcement agencies. At the end you are still stuck trying to explain how US intelligence obtaining terrorists emails and cooperating with allies in law enforcement against terrorists doesn't happen when it clearly does.
And what pray tell will the Yakuza do with the radioactive waste?
Collect it, mix it with a special blend of herbs, spices, and peppers, and sell it as:
Fukushima "Devil may care, screw tomorrow" Nuclear Total Meltdown Exxxxtra Hot Sauce.
Some people are going to be desperate due to a shortage of their favorite. They might make a quick buck in the US, maybe Korea and China too. Or maybe they could just open a store on Amazon. They could compete with this stuff, which has one of the best reviews ever.
An intercepted e-mail from one of the cell members to his ex-girlfriend indicated he was about to launch a suicide attack. A defense lawyer in the case told CNN that prosecutors at trial acknowledged that the United States intercepted the communication and passed it to the Belgians.
It seems to me that USA has a holier-than-thou attitude where anything in USA's interest is allowed and anything against USA's interests is illegal. If Snowden (USA) shares intelligence information with The Guardian (UK), it is illegal; if NSA (USA) shares intelligence information with GCHQ (UK) it is perfectly legal... er, what?!?
Governments generally have powers that ordinary citizens don't have so that they can perform critical functions. Do the police in your country have powers that you don't? Can they arrest you and hold you in jail? If ordinary citizens do that it would be kidnapping, but not for the police. Can the police carry weapons in public? In many countries ordinary citizens cannot do that legally. If it is shocking to you that a government intelligence agency could work with an ally and provide it useful information to further their common goal then you are not really thinking about this in the right way. You may want to give that more thought.
It isn't a question of right or wrong, but constitutional or unconstitutional. There are going to be laws and outcomes that you disagree with in a nation governed by law. If you don't like the law, try to change it. And maybe you haven't noticed, but the courts do in fact block or rule unconstitutional actions or laws based on the facts and the Constitutional law in a particular case. If you don't like living in a nation of laws, what is your preference?
Well then, it seems the most horrible thing in the world to you must be stopping suicide bombers from exploding on busses, or truck bombs from going off at malls. The only question is, why? We certainly aren't more free when that happens.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently they pretty much do.
DOD official: Snowden ‘stole everything — literally everything’
Protesters have moved beyond the fence on more than one occasion at various bases.
I suppose we'll have to see what direction the UK goes. Certainly the destiny of the UK has been altered by design. The "wisdom" of that has yet to be shown.
Well, that's a statistic you "never" see flogged on Slashdot.
One notable difference between the US and some of the disreputable states used for comparison (Soviet Union, Communist China) is the differing nature of the offenses. People held in American prisons are there for recognizable criminal offenses, not political offenses. You may find it disagreeable that low level drug use in the US is criminalized, but that is certainly a different question than throwing someone into the gulag for making a fat joke about the president, which is something that doesn't happen in the US.
It may be a shock to some that the purpose of military bases are not simply to provide optics for protesters. They have an actual function that the protesters often desire to interfere with.
As to the Pershing 2 issue, that is a splendid example of the bankruptcy of the so called "peace movement." Where were the protests over the Soviet SS-20s that the Pershing missiles were brought in to counter? It was hardly proportionate.
A short history of NATO - The Cold War revived
The 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Soviet deployment of SS-20 Saber ballistic missiles in Europe led to the suspension of détente. To counter the Soviet deployment, Allies made the “dual track” decision to deploy nuclear-capable Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missiles in Western Europe while continuing negotiations with the Soviets. The deployment was not scheduled to begin until 1983. In the meantime, the Allies hoped to achieve an arms control agreement that would eliminate the need for the weapons.
Lacking the hoped-for agreement with the Soviets, NATO members suffered internal discord when deployment began in 1983. Following the ascent of Mikhail Gorbachev as Soviet Premier in 1985, the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 1987, eliminating all nuclear and ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges. This is now regarded as an initial indication that the Cold War was coming to an end.
Soviet influence on the peace movement
Russian GRU defector Stanislav Lunev said in his autobiography that "the GRU and the KGB helped to fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad," and that during the Vietnam War the USSR gave $1 billion to American anti-war movements, more than it gave to the VietCong.[19] Lunev described this as a "hugely successful campaign and well worth the cost".[19] According to Time magazine, a US State Department official estimated that the KGB may have spent $600 million on the peace offensive up to 1983, channeling funds through national Communist parties or the World Peace Council "to a host of new antiwar organizations that would, in many cases, reject the financial help if they knew the source."[13] Richard Felix Staar in his book Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union says that non-communist peace movements without overt ties to the USSR were "virtually controlled" by it. Lord Chalfont claimed that the Soviet Union was giving the European peace movement £100 million a year. The Federation of Conservative Students (FCS) alleged Soviet funding of CND.
I'm pretty sure he's no longer eligible to participate in this parade, and was never eligible for this one, but I could be wrong.
I think you need to legal lesson on the difference between the US and a common law country. Legal precedent means nothing in so much as the law is concerned.
See: WHICH COURT IS BINDING?* - Mandatory vs. Persuasive Cases - Page 4
Anyways, it has made the american people aware of our government's crimes.
Alleged crimes, not in fact. Every time they have been legally adjudicated the NSA's actions have been found legal.
There is a ruling that specifically says their actions are unconstitutional, i.e. violating the highest law of the land.
No. There is a preliminary injunction based on the judge's expectation that he will find for the complainant, but it is suspended for appeal. Even if he does decide that way the judgment will have to survive appeal. There are problems with his ruling as seen by law professors, and precedent is against him.
We agree that this will probably end up in the Supreme Court at some point. The most likely outcome is one consistent with previous cases.
I don't believe it's possible for you to see that.
Is your thinking that the FBI should be permanently disbanded because some leader 50 years ago overstepped his authority, despite all the changes in the law, oversight, tenure of leadership, and standards? Any replacement in mind? Or just do without? Any thoughts on what to do about the need for such an agency?
In Snowden's case it was a theft of IP that will benefit the "competition."
Only if you ignore the constitution completely and instead choose to appeal to authority figures and believe government propaganda.
You may recall that the Constitution itself includes provisions for a Supreme Court, and empowers Congress to create lesser courts. They might reasonably have a say, don't you think? The Constitution has had to be applied to many situations since 1789 and there is much accumulated legal precedent to consider. If you ignore that you aren't adhering to the Constitution so much as making up your own law.
Would that have resulted in the American people becoming aware of their government's crimes?
It still hasn't. His leaks have only revealed strategies, activities, methodologies, and technologies. No crimes, only things declared to be crimes by the uninformed or ideologically inclined.
I applaud the fact that Snowden let the American people in on the specifics.
He also let Iran, China, Russia, and al Qaeda in on the specific. His leaks caused many diplomatic problems for countries such as Indonesia, Australia, the UK, the US, and others. It is nearly all damage with little benefit. Your judgment is faulty.
I can understand the part about penalizing failure to pick up dog waste. No sense arming the inevitable protesters gratuitously.
It is more likely that in 50 years there will be few that remember Snowden, just like there are few today that remember Philby 50 years on. In 100 years it will be niche historians that remember Snowden just like few remember the advisers to FDR, Wilson, Clémenceau, Lloyd-George, or Chamberlain, or the great spies of their era. He may be mentioned in passing in history books, only to be quickly forgotten. He will probably be crowded out by the first Black astronaut on Mars, or the first Chinese-American Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, or the first openly lesbian President. That may change if a city is lost to an attack by WMD in which case it may become the custom to spit after uttering Snowden's name.
As to the rest, all I'll say is that you have an active fantasy life. You might as well save your typing, your insults and invective mean nothing to me.
Actually he didn't conclude what you state. He awarded the injunction because he thought it likely he would rule against them, but he actually hasn't as yet. Even if he does it still would have to survive the appeals process, which is unlikely. Legal experts find a number of problems with his ruling, and precedent is against him.
Rather like Snowden and you then.
Thanks, Mr. Snowden, for what you have done for the country !
I'm sure the country appreciates what he has done. In time he may even be honored with a parade.
This is what I responded to.
Well, in fact they did claim they stopped terrorist attacks, but that was later determined to be a complete fabrication.
That is false. Next, what was the title of the article I linked to? " NSA helped foil terror plot in Belgium, documents, officials say"
The roles and cooperation between the NSA and FBI are documented in previous news stories. What you believe is irrelevant, and it makes very little difference in terms of the news, or the law. The police of a foreign nation received the contents of an email sent by a Jihadi in their country from US intelligence agencies working with a multinational corporation in the US, and headed off a suicide attack in the process. As far as I see your only real interest is to prevent that sort of cooperation despite the obvious outcome. The courts have repeatedly found their actions lawful in decided cases.
In short, neither Microsoft nor Yahoo fought the issue and didn't require a court order. The information is consistent with what we've learned about the operations of the NSA involving those companies. You also overlook that it is CNN that labels it as NSA, not me. Even given NSA's involvement they clearly have wanted to stay out of the spotlight and would likely have handed the information to the FBI which has liaisons with overseas law enforcement agencies. At the end you are still stuck trying to explain how US intelligence obtaining terrorists emails and cooperating with allies in law enforcement against terrorists doesn't happen when it clearly does.
And what pray tell will the Yakuza do with the radioactive waste?
Collect it, mix it with a special blend of herbs, spices, and peppers, and sell it as:
Fukushima "Devil may care, screw tomorrow" Nuclear Total Meltdown Exxxxtra Hot Sauce.
Some people are going to be desperate due to a shortage of their favorite. They might make a quick buck in the US, maybe Korea and China too. Or maybe they could just open a store on Amazon. They could compete with this stuff, which has one of the best reviews ever.
NSA helped foil terror plot in Belgium, documents, officials say
An intercepted e-mail from one of the cell members to his ex-girlfriend indicated he was about to launch a suicide attack. A defense lawyer in the case told CNN that prosecutors at trial acknowledged that the United States intercepted the communication and passed it to the Belgians.
It's worse than that. I often see dumb ideas propagate from person to person. We have discovered "social media diseases."
It seems to me that USA has a holier-than-thou attitude where anything in USA's interest is allowed and anything against USA's interests is illegal. If Snowden (USA) shares intelligence information with The Guardian (UK), it is illegal; if NSA (USA) shares intelligence information with GCHQ (UK) it is perfectly legal ... er, what?!?
Governments generally have powers that ordinary citizens don't have so that they can perform critical functions. Do the police in your country have powers that you don't? Can they arrest you and hold you in jail? If ordinary citizens do that it would be kidnapping, but not for the police. Can the police carry weapons in public? In many countries ordinary citizens cannot do that legally. If it is shocking to you that a government intelligence agency could work with an ally and provide it useful information to further their common goal then you are not really thinking about this in the right way. You may want to give that more thought.
You don't understand the meaning of the word.
It isn't a question of right or wrong, but constitutional or unconstitutional. There are going to be laws and outcomes that you disagree with in a nation governed by law. If you don't like the law, try to change it. And maybe you haven't noticed, but the courts do in fact block or rule unconstitutional actions or laws based on the facts and the Constitutional law in a particular case. If you don't like living in a nation of laws, what is your preference?
Well then, it seems the most horrible thing in the world to you must be stopping suicide bombers from exploding on busses, or truck bombs from going off at malls. The only question is, why? We certainly aren't more free when that happens.