Snowdon is a dummy

@BillRM,

I also find it sad and amusing that by the Snowden papers the government is intercepting and saving all emails that are encrypted and therefore my wife and my email encrypted messages between us concerning our finances are likely sitting on some hard drives in Utah.

I feel so must safer that the government is fighting terrorism by intercepting and the storage of such internet traffic at great costs to the taxpayers.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

4. I have never "denounced the country of my birth."

Oh yes you have!

DENOUNCE means: to condemn or censure openly or publicly. You were at your loudest excoriating President Obama and the United States of America, your birth home.
verb (used with object), denounced, denouncing.
to condemn or censure openly or publicly
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denounce?s=t

"Excoriate" means to DENOUNCE!
verb (used with object), excoriated, excoriating.
to denounce or berate severely; flay verbally
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/excoriate?s=t

Wish I could stay longer, but gotta go.

Espero verte mañana.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I repeat. They complied with a request, not a demand.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I just realized that you and Walter are screaming about the U S of A breaking your laws but at the same time you excuse Snowdon for breaking our laws because why? I can only figure that you all have a real hatred of the U S of A for what ever reason seems to occur to you at the moment you post. If its OK for Snowdon to break our laws it should be OK for the U S of A to break your laws. Right?

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

You are confused; I said "I never denounced the country of my birth."

What I have opined about our government and president are opinions about their criminal behavior. Authorizing torture and invading privacy rights of Americans are crimes.

You are confusing country and the illegal acts of our government.

From LATimes.

Quote:

Op-Ed America's real patriots fought to expose and end torture
President Obama's recent acknowledgment that "we tortured some folks." But the president moved quickly to limit that conversation, painting those who authorized torture as "patriots" who were making difficult decisions under enormous pressure and urging the public not to feel "sanctimonious" because our military and intelligence leaders have "tough jobs."

From PolitiFact.

Quote:

Is torture illegal under U.S. law?

Yes, under several different portions of the law.

• A provision of U.S. law (18 U.S.C. 2340) that took effect in 1994 makes torture a crime.

The law defines torture as "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control."

• A different provision on war crimes addresses torture as well (18 U.S.C. 2441).

The provision reads, "Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. … As used in this section, the term ‘war crime’ (includes) … torture ..."

• Finally, as we noted here, two days after taking office, Obama issued a detailed executive order on torture and related issues.

The executive order said that prisoners "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment)." It also specifically nullifies interpretations of federal law on interrogations "issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009" under President George W. Bush.

The executive order brings the CIA into line with U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation, said said Tom Malinowski, Washington director for Human Rights Watch. This limits interrogators to humane techniques, a standard that already applies as a matter of law to the U.S. military, he said.

Is torture illegal under international law?

This is also a correct statement.

• The Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment of Punishment (the Torture Convention) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on Dec. 10, 1984 and entered into force on June 26, 1987, after it had been ratified by 20 states. The United States ratified the convention on Oct. 21, 1994.

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

CI said:

Quote:

Without Snowden, we would never know about this crime perpetrated by or government.

I cant believe he said this. Hell, I thought everyone knew that when the government wasent spying on us industry was. This has been going on since man evolved. And all governments do it.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Oliver said:

Quote:

then it serves the public good to disclose the information Snowden disclosed.

Well I guess we wont have to turn this over to the SC. Oliver has stated from on high that Snowdon was right to break U S of A laws so end of discussion. We have no need to hear from him again because his word is law.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

There's a HUGE difference between commerce and our government spying on us. That you don't know the difference tells me more about you.

The Constitution prevents our government from intruding into our privacy.

What laws are there to prevent commerce from doing so? If they break privacy laws, shouldn't they be prosecuted?

Quote:

Privacy laws of the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of the common law series
Tort law

The privacy laws of the United States embody several different legal concepts. One is the invasion of privacy, a tort based in common law allowing an aggrieved party to bring a lawsuit against an individual who unlawfully intrudes into his or her private affairs, discloses his or her private information, publicizes him or her in a false light, or appropriates his or her name for personal gain.[1] Public figures have less privacy, and this is an evolving area of law as it relates to the media.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Don't talk rot, they had no choice. It was a violation of sovereignty. Now you may fool yourselves into thinking there's nothing wrong, but how do you think this is playing south of the border?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

MIT is a control freak, she saves her most caustic vitriol for those of us who are left of centre, but don't act how she thinks we should.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

Quote:

Well I guess we wont have to turn this over to the SC. Oliver has stated from on high that Snowdon was right to break U S of A laws so end of discussion. We have no need to hear from him again because his word is law.

Are you dirt stupid or do you just put up a good show?

I stated: IF mass spying is unconstitutional, wasteful, immoral, THEN it serves the public good to disclose it. Try and address my argument instead of beheading it...

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

The argument cuts both ways: if spying is A-okay, why are you whining about Snowden???? He's just the best spy ever.

In any case, I don't object to mass spying on legal ground. I think it is dangerous for democracy and our collective security.

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

Quote:

"Deep Throat's" name was kept hidden from the public by Woodward and Bernstein who co-authored the book "WaterGate" and did not break their agreement to keep hidden the identity of the mystery man in the WaterGate scandal. This man, "Mark Felt" *WaterGate source* broke his silence a few years ago and died September 2005.

The point being: do you think this Mark Felt/Deep Throat deserved a fair trial,?(since he leaked privilege info to the media just like Snowden did)

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The point being: do you think this Mark Felt/Deep Throat deserved a fair trial,?(since he leaked privilege info to the media just like Snowden did)

Do not forget that there are newspapers editors and reporters that legally are as "guilt" as Snowden happen to be and yet the politicians seems to have zero will to try to enforce those laws again them even those they are not on foreign soil and can be arrested within an hour.

So the idea that Snowden must face a trial due to his "crimes" as the law is the law seems not to follow.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

More like a double agent spy in you want to go down that analogy.

I feel it is a waste of time to explain for the umpteenth time my position on the issues of Snowden and spying. Personally I am ready to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Wish another subject would open up on this thread, will be checking in to see.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Quote:

I feel it is a waste of time to explain for the umpteenth time my position on the issues of Snowden and spying. Personally I am ready to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

It's a waste of time because your position is shifting all the time. You don't know what you disagree with. Mass spying is dangerous for democracy. It's not an asset but a liability. You guys are happily digging your own democracy's grave, to address a rather minor risk.

Think about it. Who's afraid of the big bad terrorist wolf to the point of forgiving all basic democratic principles? Are you THAT scared?

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

Are you sure you don't have me confused with someone else? My position has been the same since the start of the thread.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Quote:
What difference would it make?

Nothing...

My point entirely. To take a risk for no good reason is not ballsy, it's stupid.

Quote:

I already have 3182 on my clip board for tonight...

Took me 30 mn to crack. I found it easier than regular sudoku at the level I play it (fiendish), but it's a nice variant.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
I feel it is a waste of time to explain for the umpteenth time my position on the issues of Snowden and spying. Personally I am ready to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

It's a waste of time because your position is shifting all the time. You don't know what you disagree with. Mass spying is dangerous for democracy. It's not an asset but a liability. You guys are happily digging your own democracy's grave, to address a rather minor risk.

Think about it. Who's afraid of the big bad terrorist wolf to the point of forgiving all basic democratic principles? Are you THAT scared?

That is purely opinion on your part, Olivier...and not some axiom. You may be totally wrong about that.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
What difference would it make?

Nothing...

My point entirely. To take a risk for no good reason is not ballsy, it's stupid.

Interesting way you truncated my comment...considering all the crap you just gave to Revelette for what you perceive of as her doing it.

In my opinion, it is closer to being cowardly than stupid.

Quote:

Quote:
I already have 3182 on my clip board for tonight...

Took me 30 mn to crack. I found it easier than regular sudoku at the level I play it (fiendish), but it's a nice variant.

If you did that puzzle in 30 minutes...my congratulations.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know