You need to read that again, and then I think you have a choice to make. On one hand his job was described as a system administrator and he used his elevated privs to steal the documents. On the other hand, he is claiming that he was involved in actual intelligence work himself. Which is it? I doubt that he really was dual hatted - maintaining internal systems with elevated privs to see and move documents, and teaching classes while conducting intelligence courses himself. All that in the 90 days or so he was employed as an NSA contractor.
... he was familiar with that country's intelligence capabilities through his work...
... he had targeted Chinese operations and taught a course on Chinese cyber-counterintelligence...
Where are the documents he used to teach the course on Chinese intelligence, among others?
It isn't just a question of standing before any court, but a bigger problem before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction for a limited scope of issues.
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
The Court has been assiduous in protecting the Constitution's core grant of original jurisdiction from congressional expansion. The Court explicitly declared in Marbury v. Madison (1803) that Congress cannot add to the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
Snowden also insisted he was able to protect the documents from China’s spy services because he was familiar with that country's intelligence capabilities through his work as an NSA contractor.
In his job, he had targeted Chinese operations and taught a course on Chinese cyber-counterintelligence.
First time I've seen the government argue that the Court doesn't have jurisdiction. All the other cases that have been quashed were either from claiming the plaintiff had no standing to sue, or that it involved State Secrets.
The problem is that EPIC is trying to jump the line. There aren't many circumstances in which a direct filing to the US Supreme Court is appropriate without going through the process in the lower courts. What EPIC did really isn't appropriate.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a petition directly to the Supreme Court in July, claiming that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court overstepped its authority when it granted the NSA permission to collect the phone records in bulk.
The program — the most controversial revelation from the leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden — collects phone numbers, call times and call durations, but not the contents of conversations, according to the NSA.
Other civil liberties groups have sued to end the NSA program, but those cases were filed in federal district court. EPIC is the only group to go directly to the Supreme Court.
I thought Snowden was just crusading for the Constitutional rights of Americans? But his actions keep disclosing intelligence gathering of foreign sources, and the actions of America's foreign allies, which their governments consider highly damaging. At the same time he claims to know all about China's and Russia's intelligence, but where are the disclosures there? Surely if he is an expert on it, as he claims, it must be based on documentation? Where is that documentation? Where are the reports on China and Russia? It's almost as if more than is claimed is going on. I wonder if we'll hear from his spokesman in Russia?
China is building something like 4 more aircraft carriers while both expanding the size of its fleet, improving its technology, and gaining experience with extended deployments as part of the anti-piracy patrols off Somalia. It is using its growing naval power to threaten the territorial integrity of its neighbors, making claims on various islands and regions. Meanwhile the Royal Navy is in precipitous decline from its past strength, even if they plan to build 2 aircraft carriers.
And yesterday a former First Sea Lord and Security and Counter-Terrorism minister, Admiral The Lord West of Spithead, warned that Britain is "standing into danger" - a naval term for going on the rocks.
He said that in any fleet three ships are needed for a commitment - one on station, one coming back and one working up to replace it.
He said: "I know we are in a period of austerity but we have cut the military to too great a degree. We are standing into danger.
"We have 19 frigates and destroyers and that is simply too few for the UK.
"In contrast, we had over 60 destroyers and frigates at the time of the Falklands War. The Royal Navy is now at its smallest for hundreds of years.
Iran and Israel were allies prior to the Islamic revolution in Iran. It was Iran, newly governed by Islamic extremists, that declared Israel to be an enemy that they want to destroy.
So, are you claiming that by wanting to reduce the size of government, reduce its power, and spending, the Tea Party is "opressors"? That doesn't make any sense. Besides...
The people that want Cheney dead in the Western world are pretty much limited to mainly committed leftists, and maybe some extreme fringe libertarian types. Probably not much more than that.
Few people helped them achieve these goals more than Dick Cheney did. So why would they want to kill him?
Because they ultimately failed. When your leader is reduced to hiding in a walled in compound, writing letters and watching porn, you're probably not on the path to success.
Prior to the 9/11 attacks Bin Laden was the head of the al Qaida state within a state in the very model of Islamic state, Taliban run Afghanistan, that he hoped to see spread around the world. His terrorist training camps were turning out thousands of trained terrorists per year with recruits of all races coming from around the world to learn their deadly lessons and return home to spread the Jihad. The world continued to slumber while he built up his forces and spread the poison of their ideology. In reaction to 9/11 he expected more cruise missiles as had occurred under President Clinton, and which had proven ineffective. Instead what he got was a Western alliance galvanized into action, an invasion that removed the Taliban from power, destroyed his training camps, devastated his base of terrorist fighters, choked off much of his funding, forced his sponsors in Pakistan to engage in combat against al Qaida and its allies, even if only half-heartedly, and caused his followers to flee like rats to hide in the dark. When they tried to regroup and confront the US in Iraq, they did even worse damage to themselves. They lost large numbers of fighters, exposed their funding sources to attack, and demonstrated to the Arab and Muslim world that they were blood thirsty and cruel thugs that were as happy killing Muslims as anybody. As a result of their conduct in Iraq they lost massive amounts of support in the Muslim world. All during this time their leadership was being hunted down by special forces and drones and killed or captured. Bin Laden was reduced to little more than a figurehead hiding in Pakistan. He died like a bandit in hiding, doing little more than writing letters to try to rework his failing strategy, and watching porn. I don't think it worked out the way he thought it would.
You're thinking on the wrong axis. You should be thinking more along the lines of AECR. Not quite the same, but closer than your current idea on it. I will also remind you that Europe was under threat from the hard Left for much longer. I assume that might concern you?
Since World War II, tax receipts have averaged around 18.1 percent of GDP. Receipts have fallen due to the recession, but as the economy recovers, they will rise above the historical average level by the end of the decade, even if all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent.
The clearest example of the bizarrely naive quality of hermetic liberal provincialism was attributed to the New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael almost 40 years ago, and has been discussed in right-wing circles ever since. It went something like this: “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”... more
There is no constitutional mandate for a standing army only the ability to raise, or more specifically pay for, an army for two years. Two years does not equal a standing army.
That is two years at a time, not two years total. The Army can exist indefinitely, just its funding has to be approved for no more than two years at a time. They can keep approving new funding, and that is what has been done for a very long time now.
What is hear on the news (CNN, the Daily Show) or from my family is the Tea Party is mostly about bringing back racism.
That is a calculated political attack, it isn't true. You may recall that Herman Cain was strongly supported by the Tea Party in the presidential race.
There's no constitutional mandate to maintain a standing army or navy. That will save you $680B right there, and just about balance the budget in one swoop.
There is authority for it. The wisdom of it was soon shown.
Slashdot Mirror
You need to read that again, and then I think you have a choice to make. On one hand his job was described as a system administrator and he used his elevated privs to steal the documents. On the other hand, he is claiming that he was involved in actual intelligence work himself. Which is it? I doubt that he really was dual hatted - maintaining internal systems with elevated privs to see and move documents, and teaching classes while conducting intelligence courses himself. All that in the 90 days or so he was employed as an NSA contractor.
... he was familiar with that country's intelligence capabilities through his work ...
... he had targeted Chinese operations and taught a course on Chinese cyber-counterintelligence...
Where are the documents he used to teach the course on Chinese intelligence, among others?
It isn't just a question of standing before any court, but a bigger problem before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction for a limited scope of issues.
A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Original Jurisdiction
The Court has been assiduous in protecting the Constitution's core grant of original jurisdiction from congressional expansion. The Court explicitly declared in Marbury v. Madison (1803) that Congress cannot add to the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
The US withdrew from its compulsory jurisdiction decades ago. There isn't much of an avenue for that.
No. The lower courts would handle that. The lower courts could also hear the complaints about any gag orders.
Here is one for China. I'll leave the rest to you.
Snowden: 'There's A 0% Chance' The Russians Or Chinese Received Any Classified NSA Documents
Snowden also insisted he was able to protect the documents from China’s spy services because he was familiar with that country's intelligence capabilities through his work as an NSA contractor.
In his job, he had targeted Chinese operations and taught a course on Chinese cyber-counterintelligence.
First time I've seen the government argue that the Court doesn't have jurisdiction.
All the other cases that have been quashed were either from claiming the plaintiff had no standing to sue, or that it involved State Secrets.
The problem is that EPIC is trying to jump the line. There aren't many circumstances in which a direct filing to the US Supreme Court is appropriate without going through the process in the lower courts. What EPIC did really isn't appropriate.
Administration looks to dodge Supreme Court challenge to NSA program
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a petition directly to the Supreme Court in July, claiming that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court overstepped its authority when it granted the NSA permission to collect the phone records in bulk.
The program — the most controversial revelation from the leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden — collects phone numbers, call times and call durations, but not the contents of conversations, according to the NSA.
Other civil liberties groups have sued to end the NSA program, but those cases were filed in federal district court . EPIC is the only group to go directly to the Supreme Court.
I thought Snowden was just crusading for the Constitutional rights of Americans? But his actions keep disclosing intelligence gathering of foreign sources, and the actions of America's foreign allies, which their governments consider highly damaging. At the same time he claims to know all about China's and Russia's intelligence, but where are the disclosures there? Surely if he is an expert on it, as he claims, it must be based on documentation? Where is that documentation? Where are the reports on China and Russia? It's almost as if more than is claimed is going on. I wonder if we'll hear from his spokesman in Russia?
That is one of the harsher descriptions of Obamacare that I've seen.
China is building something like 4 more aircraft carriers while both expanding the size of its fleet, improving its technology, and gaining experience with extended deployments as part of the anti-piracy patrols off Somalia. It is using its growing naval power to threaten the territorial integrity of its neighbors, making claims on various islands and regions. Meanwhile the Royal Navy is in precipitous decline from its past strength, even if they plan to build 2 aircraft carriers.
Proof that our Navy is on the scrapheap
And yesterday a former First Sea Lord and Security and Counter-Terrorism minister, Admiral The Lord West of Spithead, warned that Britain is "standing into danger" - a naval term for going on the rocks.
He said that in any fleet three ships are needed for a commitment - one on station, one coming back and one working up to replace it.
He said: "I know we are in a period of austerity but we have cut the military to too great a degree. We are standing into danger.
"We have 19 frigates and destroyers and that is simply too few for the UK.
"In contrast, we had over 60 destroyers and frigates at the time of the Falklands War. The Royal Navy is now at its smallest for hundreds of years.
Iran and Israel were allies prior to the Islamic revolution in Iran. It was Iran, newly governed by Islamic extremists, that declared Israel to be an enemy that they want to destroy.
Is that the best you've got? Do you really need me to tell you?
So, are you claiming that by wanting to reduce the size of government, reduce its power, and spending, the Tea Party is "opressors"? That doesn't make any sense. Besides...
Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics
Conservative Black Leaders at Press Conference
The people that want Cheney dead in the Western world are pretty much limited to mainly committed leftists, and maybe some extreme fringe libertarian types. Probably not much more than that.
Few people helped them achieve these goals more than Dick Cheney did. So why would they want to kill him?
Because they ultimately failed. When your leader is reduced to hiding in a walled in compound, writing letters and watching porn, you're probably not on the path to success.
Only to those in the fever swamps.
Prior to the 9/11 attacks Bin Laden was the head of the al Qaida state within a state in the very model of Islamic state, Taliban run Afghanistan, that he hoped to see spread around the world. His terrorist training camps were turning out thousands of trained terrorists per year with recruits of all races coming from around the world to learn their deadly lessons and return home to spread the Jihad. The world continued to slumber while he built up his forces and spread the poison of their ideology. In reaction to 9/11 he expected more cruise missiles as had occurred under President Clinton, and which had proven ineffective. Instead what he got was a Western alliance galvanized into action, an invasion that removed the Taliban from power, destroyed his training camps, devastated his base of terrorist fighters, choked off much of his funding, forced his sponsors in Pakistan to engage in combat against al Qaida and its allies, even if only half-heartedly, and caused his followers to flee like rats to hide in the dark. When they tried to regroup and confront the US in Iraq, they did even worse damage to themselves. They lost large numbers of fighters, exposed their funding sources to attack, and demonstrated to the Arab and Muslim world that they were blood thirsty and cruel thugs that were as happy killing Muslims as anybody. As a result of their conduct in Iraq they lost massive amounts of support in the Muslim world. All during this time their leadership was being hunted down by special forces and drones and killed or captured. Bin Laden was reduced to little more than a figurehead hiding in Pakistan. He died like a bandit in hiding, doing little more than writing letters to try to rework his failing strategy, and watching porn. I don't think it worked out the way he thought it would.
Probably the same one that decided the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan.
I think that would be quite a shock to the person the Tea Party groups backed so heavily in the last presidential race: Herman Cain.
You're thinking on the wrong axis. You should be thinking more along the lines of AECR. Not quite the same, but closer than your current idea on it. I will also remind you that Europe was under threat from the hard Left for much longer. I assume that might concern you?
Taxes are the lowest they've been in half a century.
Tax rates, maybe. But tax revenues tend to be in a fairly consistent range regardless of the actual rates.
Tax Revenues Return to Historical Average
Since World War II, tax receipts have averaged around 18.1 percent of GDP. Receipts have fallen due to the recession, but as the economy recovers, they will rise above the historical average level by the end of the decade, even if all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent.
The Actual Pauline Kael Quote—Not As Bad, and Worse
The clearest example of the bizarrely naive quality of hermetic liberal provincialism was attributed to the New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael almost 40 years ago, and has been discussed in right-wing circles ever since. It went something like this: “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” ... more
There is no constitutional mandate for a standing army only the ability to raise, or more specifically pay for, an army for two years. Two years does not equal a standing army.
That is two years at a time, not two years total. The Army can exist indefinitely, just its funding has to be approved for no more than two years at a time. They can keep approving new funding, and that is what has been done for a very long time now.
What is hear on the news (CNN, the Daily Show) or from my family is the Tea Party is mostly about bringing back racism.
That is a calculated political attack, it isn't true. You may recall that Herman Cain was strongly supported by the Tea Party in the presidential race.
The US Air Force is formerly the US Army Air Force.
The participants of the original Tea Party would remember this precedent: Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates
There's no constitutional mandate to maintain a standing army or navy. That will save you $680B right there, and just about balance the budget in one swoop.
There is authority for it. The wisdom of it was soon shown.
Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute
Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates