41
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2014 11:10 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
I guess no one has anything to say to it besides those in New Zealand.
That seems to be the US-concentrated US-point of view when you look at/listen to/watch the media in other countries.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2014 12:46 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Some good news on the digital spying front comes from Israel, of all places...

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29179655

Quote:
Several told Israeli media that hey had been tasked with gathering private information - including sexual preferences and health problems - that could be "used to extort people into becoming informants".

They also claimed that some intelligence was collected in pursuit of the "agendas" of individual Israeli politicians.


The information that was gathered was used to blackmail innocent people into colluding with the Israelis, and it was also used for political purposes.

What's to stop the US and other countries from doing the same with the information they gather through their surveillance?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2014 01:11 pm
Quote:
The European court of human rights (ECHR) is to investigate British laws that allow GCHQ and police to secretly snoop on journalists.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has gone straight to Strasbourg in a bid to get a finding that domestic law is incompatible with provisions in European law which give journalists the right to keep sources confidential from police and others.

Its application was filed on Friday and has been accepted by the ECHR, which has indicated in the past it will expedite cases on surveillance through its legal system.

The move follows concerns arising out of Edward Snowden’s revelations last year that GCHQ had been secretly gathering intelligence from the country’s largest telecoms companies using a secret computer system code-named Tempora without the knowledge of the companies.
Source
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2014 01:23 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
The information that was gathered was used to blackmail innocent people into colluding with the Israelis, and it was also used for political purposes.

What's to stop the US and other countries from doing the same with the information they gather through their surveillance?

Nothing of course. It is bound to happen in the US, UK etc. as well.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2014 01:26 pm
And it's now official:
Quote:
Swiss say would shield Snowden from 'political' extradition to U.S

(Reuters) - Former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden could be granted safe passage in Switzerland if he helped a potential criminal inquiry into U.S. spying there, the Swiss public prosecutor's office said on Monday.

He would probably not be extradited to the United States if Washington asked, but it was also unlikely that he would be granted political asylum, according to a document laying out Switzerland's legal options if Snowden were to visit.

The prosecutor's office, which provided the document to Reuters, stressed the issue was "purely hypothetical" because Snowden had not been invited to come from his current refuge in Russia. It had no further comment.

The document was leaked last week and prompted a lively debate in the Swiss media.

Some German politicians have suggested inviting Snowden to Germany to testify about National Security Agency spying there, but Berlin has ruled that out to avoid a clash with Washington over extraditing him to the United States.

Michael McCaul, Republican head of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, reacted to the Swiss debate by telling the U.S.-based Foreign Policy magazine that Snowden should not be allowed to "trade our intelligence community's sources and methods for safe haven in other countries".


The above mentioned FP report:
Senior GOP lawmaker: Snowden belongs in jail not in Switzerland
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2014 01:33 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

And it's now official:
Quote:
Swiss say would shield Snowden from 'political' extradition to U.S

(Reuters) - Former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden could be granted safe passage in Switzerland if he helped a potential criminal inquiry into U.S. spying there, the Swiss public prosecutor's office said on Monday.

He would probably not be extradited to the United States if Washington asked, but it was also unlikely that he would be granted political asylum, according to a document laying out Switzerland's legal options if Snowden were to visit.

The prosecutor's office, which provided the document to Reuters, stressed the issue was "purely hypothetical" because Snowden had not been invited to come from his current refuge in Russia. It had no further comment.

The document was leaked last week and prompted a lively debate in the Swiss media.

Some German politicians have suggested inviting Snowden to Germany to testify about National Security Agency spying there, but Berlin has ruled that out to avoid a clash with Washington over extraditing him to the United States.

Michael McCaul, Republican head of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, reacted to the Swiss debate by telling the U.S.-based Foreign Policy magazine that Snowden should not be allowed to "trade our intelligence community's sources and methods for safe haven in other countries".


The above mentioned FP report:
Senior GOP lawmaker: Snowden belongs in jail not in Switzerland


I disagree with McCall.

Not surprising, since I almost never agree with any Republican politicians.

Anyway...rather than "Snowden belongs in jail not in Switzerland"...which is presumptuous...

...I think Snowden belongs in a courtroom, getting a fair trial on the charges pending against him.

If found not guilty...he should be released and continue to live his life as he wants.

If found guilty...he should be given an appropriate prison sentence.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2014 02:41 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I imagine you may have seen this http://bit.ly/1sbS8qc
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2014 02:48 pm
@blatham,
Posted about it on Saterday(two pages back again with link to The Intercept)
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2014 03:14 pm
@InfraBlue,
It would be against the law here. The actions NSA does now is sanctioned by the Patriot Act.

I am beginning to think since mass spying seems to be what is causing so much ill will, they should discontinue it and hope that whatever means we have to track terrorist will be enough. Or at least tone it down to where it is acceptable.
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2014 04:53 pm
@revelette2,
It's probably against the law in Israel too, but the 'nice' thing about these operations is their secrecy, which makes legal oversight almost impossible.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  5  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2014 07:28 pm
@revelette2,
Quote:
It would be against the law here. The actions NSA does now is sanctioned by the Patriot Act.


You can not have a law that legally sanctioned an unconstitutional action and Federal courts even the rubber stamp secret court had found to date some of the actions of the NSA neither legal or constitutional.

Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.


Hopefully more such courts rulings to follow thanks to Snowden.
BillRM
 
  4  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2014 07:39 pm
@revelette2,
Quote:
I am beginning to think since mass spying seems to be what is causing so much ill will,


Not kidding you would think that people would not have a problem with the US government spying on them just because the technology at the moment allowed such massive spying if you have a few tens of billions of dollars a years or more to play with.

Thankfully what technology have allowed technology as in the art and science of cryptography can put a damn stop to.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 03:15 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
It would be against the law here. The actions NSA does now is sanctioned by the Patriot Act.


You can not have a law that legally sanctioned an unconstitutional action and Federal courts even the rubber stamp secret court had found to date some of the actions of the NSA neither legal or constitutional.


The only court that will matter is the SCOTUS...and the SCOTUS has not found anything the NSA has done to be unconstitutional.

If you think otherwise...offer a citation. (You can't, because there are none.)


Quote:
Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.


Hopefully more such courts rulings to follow thanks to Snowden.


That is not a court ruling, Bill...it is a recitation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 07:30 am
@BillRM,
You act as though there were more one or two (I am aware of one) in which FISA found to be unconstitutional. The court ordered NSA to fix the problem and it did.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 07:36 am
@revelette2,
I think, there really was only one program which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court found unconstitutional and ordered the NSA to fix the problem.

However, it's still constitutional since only the Supreme Court can rule something unconstitutional ...
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 10:38 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Well, regardless, if the FISA says they have to fix it, they have to fix it so they did.
BillRM
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 10:46 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
However, it's still constitutional since only the Supreme Court can rule something unconstitutional ...


The SC have the final word but lower courts can indeed find laws and government actions unconstitutional.
BillRM
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 10:48 am
@revelette2,
Quote:
Well, regardless, if the FISA says they have to fix it, they have to fix it so they did.


Sure while the intelligence community had proven that they are willing to lied to congress they would never do so to federal courts...LOL
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 10:48 am
@revelette2,
And that makes me wonder: why didn't they take this case to Supreme Court to get it nailed down that they work consistent with the constitution?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2014 10:50 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
The SC have the final word but lower courts can indeed find laws and government actions unconstitutional.
I know (different here, because only the Federal or State Constitutional Court(s) can declare that).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 539
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 06:16:51