Snowdon is a dummy

@revelette2,

Quote:

if Snowden is charged, Glen Greenwald should be charged also for being in possession of stolen property.

Greenwald is a Journalist and therefore is protected. He cannot be charged for being in possession of stolen property from his source....although it does seem a little bit tricky and here one would need the professional expertise of a first-class constitutional lawyer. "The press has a preferred position in our constitutional scheme, not to set newsmen apart as a favored class, but to bring to fulfillment the public's right to know." Even though many dislike Glenn Greeenwald's role in handling the Snowden STOLEN classified documents, he is technically, within his rights as he is a conduit.

Greenwald has written a book and the royalties alone might go through the roof and a lot inside this book deal with Snowden's stolen material. Snowden's theft of NSA's classified documents is a treasure-trove for the intractable headstrong journalist; however, one would have to prove he's profited from same. He is also in the process of going into business with a multi-BILLIONAIRE ....see below:

Pierre Omidyar commits $250m to new media venture with Glenn Greenwald.

Omidyar says decision to set up news organisation fuelled by 'concern about press freedoms in the US and around the world'

In an interview with Jay Rosen, media critic and NYU professor of journalism, Omidyar said he was committing an initial $250m to the as-yet-unnamed venture. Omidyar told Rosen the decision was fuelled by his “rising concern about press freedoms in the United States and around the world”.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/16/pierre-omidyar-ebay-glenn-greenwald

_____
Have a beautiful weekend......

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You're the kind of person who offers no evidence...

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

Greenwald has written a couple of books - his first, How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values From a President Run Amok, a New York Times bestseller, and ranked no 1 on Amazon.com (both even before its publication).

0 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

I suppose I don't understand how you are arrived at your conclusion based on what the court said.

The court said their decision is not a blanket endorsement. The court recognized the government had safe guards and procedures to protect people from unwarranted harm and to minimize intrusions and their (the governments) efforts should not be frustrated by the court.

It's pretty straightforward.

Given that the appeals court opines that the government's efforts should not be frustrated by the courts, it calls into question their own opinion of the government's efforts. How honest is this assessment of theirs if they call into question their own roll in governmental oversight?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
What is up with A2K today?

Limestone Networks hosts the server used for able2know

Ahh, danke!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Actually...unless the SCOTUS ultimately rules that they are unconstitutional...then they are not unconstitutional.

That is the way it works here.

So, are they even on the SCOTUS' agenda?

To the best of my knowledge, they are not even in the lower courts, Blue.

After looking into it a little further, I found that in February the Supreme Court opined in Clapper v. Amnesty International that a group of litigants including journalists and other human rights groups couldn't even bring a suit against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008 because they couldn’t prove that they've been harmed by it.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

That's because they don't understand the concept of 'conflict of interest.'
The government is still wrong, and they're illegal acts are should not be forgotten.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

You're the kind of person who offers no evidence...

Olivier5 wrote:

You're the kind of person who offers no evidence...

Not sure why you want to play this silly game rather than find some way off the merry-go-round, but obviously you do.

Here's a thing from Wikipedia...although I dislike using that source.

Constitutionality is the condition of acting in accordance with an applicable constitution;[1] the status of a law, a procedure, or an act's accordance with the laws or guidelines set forth in the applicable constitution. When one of these (laws, procedures, or acts) directly violates the constitution it is unconstitutional. All the rest are considered constitutional until challenged and declared otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality

Since the only body in the United States that can determine if a law, procedure, or act "directly violates our Constitution" is the SCOTUS...they MUST act for a law to be unconstitutional.

In the absence of a ruling from them...the law, procedure, or act...IS constitutional.

Get over it, Olivier. I recognize you will parse and attempt to make it seem something other than what is actually is...but you would do much better by simply getting over it.

Jump, Olivier, jump.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Actually...unless the SCOTUS ultimately rules that they are unconstitutional...then they are not unconstitutional.

That is the way it works here.

So, are they even on the SCOTUS' agenda?

To the best of my knowledge, they are not even in the lower courts, Blue.

After looking into it a little further, I found that in February the Supreme Court opined in Clapper v. Amnesty International that a group of litigants including journalists and other human rights groups couldn't even bring a suit against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008 because they couldn’t prove that they've been harmed by it.

One must have "standing" in order to bring an action. So far, no one with standing has brought an action. All of the actions taken by the NSA are legal and constitutional...until (and if) the courts rule them otherwise.

0 Replies

Maybe I have some kind of virus, I ran it through my system and I do not have any problems anywhere else, but for me a2k is still acting up.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

There were problems yesterday (your time) due to intermittent network routing issues at Limestone Networks (we talked about here), but that seems to be solved since hours.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

There were problems yesterday (your time) due to intermittent network routing issues at Limestone Networks (we talked about here), but that seems to be solved since hours.

Yup. Everything is running smoothly again.

Sure was a pain-in-the-butt yesterday, though.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

That's exactly as I said: a law is CONSIDERED, ASSUMED constitutional until ruled otherwise. Just like a defendant is assumed innocent until proven guilty.

1 Reply

Spiegel has got ("Snowden"-) documents, spiegel-online reports, showing that NSA and GCHQ have access to German landline phones (Telekom and NetCologne). Additionally, the teleport provider Stellar, Cetel and IABG are marked in those documents as well... which would cover the vast majority of all all German landline connections.

The NSA project is called "treasure map" and enables the agencies to get access to all equipment connected to the internet via a router.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

they were predicting internet (and other) problems in advance of yesterday's solar flares

seems like there actually were problems in many parts of the world

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

That's exactly as I said: a law is CONSIDERED, ASSUMED constitutional until ruled otherwise. Just like a defendant is assumed innocent until proven guilty.

The law (or activity) IS constitutional unless ruled otherwise, Olivier.

It is absolutely, positively constitutional...until it is challenged and ruled otherwise.

Jump, Olivier, jump. You've had enough.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Your own source agrees with me:

Quote:

When one of these (laws, procedures, or acts) directly violates the constitution it is unconstitutional. All the rest are considered constitutional until challenged and declared otherwise.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Your own source agrees with me:

Quote:
When one of these (laws, procedures, or acts) directly violates the constitution it is unconstitutional. All the rest are considered constitutional until challenged and declared otherwise.

Olivier...a law or action IS constitutional unless ruled otherwise.

Is it constitutional to put up traffic lights at various intersections...or is it still up in the air until the SCOTUS rules it constitutional?

Anyway, this digression into minutia (which obviously is happening because you were being battered in the earlier, substantive conversation) is amusing...but leads nowhere.

You are still on the merry-go-round (or in the hole digging, if you prefer)...and you ought really to do something about that rather than this frenzy. Unless you actually intend to amuse, that is. Wink

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You do know,Frank, that under US-law something might be legal but still is unconstitutional? (At least that's constitutional comments say.)

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Is it constitutional to put up traffic lights at various intersections...or is it still up in the air until the SCOTUS rules it constitutional?

Is it legal and constitutional to eat my neighbor's liver for breakfast, until ruled otherwise by a court?

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know