Snowdon is a dummy

Frank Apisa wrote:

You are over the line.

Really, or are you just viewing your own security forces with rose tinted spectacles.

Frank wrote:

Whatever. If you want to think that of us...nothing I will say will change your mind...so go with it.

It's not what I think of you, it's what I think about your security services. They've already decided to spy on me, so why should I trust their motives?

Btw, neither you nor MIT has actually articulated one benefit to the UK from the 'special relationship.'

If I was wrong you'd have loads, the fact that you can't think of any speaks volumes.

Can you imagine the government accessing the majority of communication that goes on every day?

They'd be broke in one hour!

AT&T, for example, imposes a $325 "activation fee" for each wiretap and $10 a day to maintain it. Smaller carriers Cricket and U.S. Cellular charge only about $250 per wiretap. But snoop on a Verizon customer? That costs the government $775 for the first month and $500 each month after that, according to industry disclosures made last year to Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.

Meanwhile, email records like those amassed by the National Security Agency through a program revealed by former NSA systems analyst Edward Snowden probably were collected for free or very cheaply. Facebook says it doesn't charge the government for access. And while Microsoft, Yahoo and Google won't say how much they charge, the American Civil Liberties Union found that email records can be turned over for as little as $25.

Industry says it doesn't profit from the hundreds of thousands of government eavesdropping requests it receives each year, and civil liberties groups want businesses to charge. They worry that government surveillance will become too cheap as companies automate their responses. And if companies gave away customer records for free, wouldn't that encourage gratuitous surveillance?

But privacy advocates also want companies to be upfront about what they charge and alert customers after an investigation has concluded that their communications were monitored.

"What we don't want is surveillance to become a profit center," said Christopher Soghoian, the ACLU's principal technologist. But "it's always better to charge $1. It creates friction, and it creates transparency" because it generates a paper trail that can be tracked.

Regardless of price, the surveillance business is growing. The U.S. government long has enjoyed access to phone networks and high-speed Internet traffic under the U.S. Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act to catch suspected criminals and terrorists. More recently, the FBI has pushed technology companies like Google and Skype to guarantee access to real-time communications on their services. And, as shown by recent disclosures about the NSA's surveillance practices, the U.S. intelligence community has an intense interest in analyzing data and content that flow through American technology companies to gather foreign intelligence.

The FBI said it could not say how much it spends on industry reimbursements because payments are made through a variety of programs, field offices and case funds. In an emailed statement, the agency said when charges are questionable, it requests an explanation and tries to work with the carrier to understand its cost structure.

My life hasn't changed all that much except for the fact that our lives have improved a thousand-fold since we were children.

What more can I want from life?

But what would we replace it all with. ... A Disney type brass band all dressed in white, marching backwards and bumping into one another while playing some upbeat song from a recent musical?[/quote

As you've now got nothing more than the equivalent of that, it's probably best to look for something else, Lordy.

YES...the US has (and continues) to flex its muscle in ways that are probably inappropriate.

But as has been noted...that is exactly what EVERY great power that has ever existed on this planet has done.

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.

The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.

Quote:

YES...the US has (and continues) to flex its muscle in ways that are probably inappropriate.

War crimes and terrorism are not examples of "flexing its muscle".

Quote:

But as has been noted...that is exactly what EVERY great power that has ever existed on this planet has done.

This is a completely bogus argument, Frank.

Prior to WWII, there was really no body of law that addressed these issues, your euphemisms, so you might say, following US jurisprudence, [ex post facto laws ] that these guys get a by for their war crimes prior to WWII.

Another thing that you keep missing - the US and its allies established a set of laws that have made these war crimes serious, the most serious offences, punishable offences.

We needn't dwell on the fact that the US did this, ie. establish these laws, as ex post facto laws, to try, convict and hang people.

I think pretty much everyone is in agreement that these laws are a good idea, something that all countries in the world should follow.

Robert H Jackson - US Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials

Quote:

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.

Quote:

The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.

Let's leave this at these two quotes. There's more than enough contained within to reflect upon and discuss, doncha think?

Robert H Jackson - US Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.


The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.

Revealed: how Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages
• Secret files show scale of Silicon Valley co-operation on Prism
• Outlook.com encryption unlocked even before official launch
• Skype worked to enable Prism collection of video calls
• Company says it is legally compelled to comply
[...]
The documents show that:

• Microsoft helped the NSA to circumvent its encryption to address concerns that the agency would be unable to intercept web chats on the new Outlook.com portal;

• The agency already had pre-encryption stage access to email on Outlook.com, including Hotmail;

• The company worked with the FBI this year to allow the NSA easier access via Prism to its cloud storage service SkyDrive, which now has more than 250 million users worldwide;
• Microsoft also worked with the FBI's Data Intercept Unit to "understand" potential issues with a feature in Outlook.com that allows users to create email aliases;
• Skype, which was bought by Microsoft in October 2011, worked with intelligence agencies last year to allow Prism to collect video of conversations as well as audio;
• Material collected through Prism is routinely shared with the FBI and CIA, with one NSA document describing the program as a "team sport".
[...]

Frank, I'm shocked at you, a patriot, telling us that the words of Robert H Jackson are barf, heave, hurl, vomit, retch, spew, spit up, throw up, upchuck, disgorge, regurgitate, eject, expel, nauseate.

I have to tell you that I'm also more than a little shocked that an editorial writer of your repute, a man of your age, eschews words in favor of juvenile emoticons.

Quote:

Robert H Jackson - US Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.


The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.

You're being flippant again Frank. These are the benefits America gets.
1)Use of British air bases, including Diego Garcia. Sod the bloody Chagos islanders eh. Also they're good for flouting international law.
2) Use of Menwith Hill listening base.
3) British troops to fight America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These are concrete benefits, not pie in the sky supposed ones.

1)Use of British air bases, including Diego Garcia. Sod the bloody Chagos islanders eh.

1)Use of British air bases, including Diego Garcia. Sod the bloody Chagos islanders eh. Also they're good for flouting international law.

3) British troops to fight America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What information does the government agencies want to get? I'm really curious to find out. That I telephoned my friend who lives in Mexico ten times a day?