39
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 06:30 pm
@BillRM,
Alas, he lost his anonymity.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2016 02:23 pm
Terrorism Act incompatible with human rights, court rules in David Miranda case
Quote:
Appeal court says detention of Miranda was lawful but clause under which he was held is incompatible with European human rights convention

A key clause in the Terrorism Act 2000 is incompatible with the European convention on human rights, the master of the rolls, John Dyson, has said as part of a court of appeal judgment.

The decision came in the case of David Miranda, who was detained at Heathrow airport in 2013 for carrying files related to information obtained by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The court of appeal’s judgment on Tuesday will force government ministers to re-examine the act.

Lord Dyson, who made the ruling with Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Floyd, said the powers contained in schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 were flawed. It allows travellers to be questioned to find out whether they appear to be terrorists. They have no right to remain silent or receive legal advice and they may be detained for up to six hours.
[...]
The ruling rejects the broad definition of terrorism advanced by government lawyers. The correct legal definition of terrorism, the court of appeal has now determined, requires some intent to cause a serious threat to public safety such as endangering life.

The judges concluded, however, that the police decision to detain Miranda, the partner of the former Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, at Heathrow was lawful.
[...]
In the judgment, Dyson said the police’s power to stop people at ports and airports was not subject to “sufficient legal safeguards to avoid the risk that it will be exercised arbitrarily. The court therefore grants a certificate of incompatibility”.
...
Issuing a certificate of incompatibility is highly unusual, but an option for judges when they conclude that UK law is inconsistent with the country’s international human rights obligations.

The judgment in effect says the police acted within the existing law, but the law itself needs to be altered.

“The exercise of the schedule 7 stop power in relation to Mr Miranda on 18 August 2013 was lawful,” the judges concluded. “But the stop power conferred by paragraph 2(1) of schedule 7 is incompatible with article 10 of the convention in relation to journalistic material in that it was not subject to adequate safeguards against its arbitrary exercise.”

The judgment said: “The central concern is that disclosure of journalistic material [whether or not it involves the identification of a journalist’s sources] undermines the confidentiality that is inherent in such material and which is necessary to avoid the chilling effect of disclosure and to protect article 10 [freedom of expression] rights.”

... ... ...
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2016 03:42 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
The judgment in effect says the police acted within the existing law, but the law itself needs to be altered.

Yup.
0 Replies
 
Angelgz2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2016 01:37 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Okay, so you signed an NDA with your government. A deadly virus breaks out in your town and your government thinks the only way to contain it is to nuke your city. You knew this because you worked for the government. Your wife and kids are unaware of this and they are still in town. You can't legally get them out because your city is under strict quarantine.

What would you do? 1. Let your wife and kids, and all your neighbors and friends burn. 2. Break the law, violate your NRA, and leak this document to the press and hopefully stalling the nuke plan. Your call and then ask who's the dummy now?
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2016 01:55 pm
@Angelgz2,
You are for your strawman trying to equate nuking a city with sharing secret U S government information with China and Russia.
Angelgz2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2016 02:14 pm
@RABEL222,
Where did you get that from? No one's saying he's right about sharing these secrets with a foreign power. I am merely countering his original argument that "because he signed an NDA", thus he can't share potentially damaging information with the AMERICAN PEOPLE. I don't condone Snowden's latter actions of sharing state secrets with another nation. However, spying, arresting, or detaining AMERICAN citizens without a trial is not far from tyranny.

It's a far fetched example, I give you that, but is merely to point out a flaw in the poster's original comment that NDAs are absolute. I sign an NDA with my clients too but if they are laundering money , then my responsibility to local laws supersedes my NDA such that I must report them to proper authority.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Thu 28 Jul, 2016 06:26 pm
Quote:
Edward Snowden ‏@Snowden 4h4 hours ago
Democratizing information has never been more vital, and @Wikileaks has helped. But their hostility to even modest curation is a mistake.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2016 08:18 am
@blatham,
A Twitter spat breaks out between Snowden and Wikileaks

Quote:
Two of the biggest names in government data leaks clashed over how to responsibly release information on Twitter Thursday.
It all started when Edward Snowden tweeted that Wikileaks' "hostility to even modest curation" was a mistake. Wikileaks wasn't happy about the criticism -- and hit Snowden back by accusing him of pandering to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.


The spat spotlights a major split between how Wikileaks and Snowden have handled the data they helped make public. Snowden worked with the Washington Post and other news organizations to expose National Security Agency surveillance programs. The journalists vetted the documents, many of which have not been made public, and chose to withhold some information that government officials said would compromise national security.

Wikileaks' approach to data disclosure is more radical: It often posts massive, searchable caches online with few -- if any -- apparent efforts to remove sensitive personal information.
The group's recent release of emails from the Democratic National Committee exposed wo of the biggest names in government data leaks clashed over how to responsibly release information on Twitter Thursday.
It all started when Edward Snowden tweeted that Wikileaks' "hostility to even modest curation" was a mistake. Wikileaks wasn't happy about the criticism -- and hit Snowden back by accusing him of pandering to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

The spat spotlights a major split between how Wikileaks and Snowden have handled the data they helped make public. Snowden worked with the Washington Post and other news organizations to expose National Security Agency surveillance programs. The journalists vetted the documents, many of which have not been made public, and chose to withhold some information that government officials said would compromise national security.

Wikileaks' approach to data disclosure is more radical: It often posts massive, searchable caches online with few -- if any -- apparent efforts to remove sensitive personal information.

The group's recent release of emails from the Democratic National Committee exposed residential nomination. The Clinton campaign and some cybersecurity experts have alleged the Russian government was behind the release -- possibly in bid to hurt her candidacy. (Snowden currently lives in Russia, where he was granted temporary asylum following his NSA disclosures.)

On Wednesday, Republican nominee Donald Trump publicly urged Russian hackers to go looking for emails from the private server Clinton used during her tenure at the State Department. Trump later defended his comments as being "sarcastic."


Probably there is honest criticism from Snowden, but also, I have often thought, he likes being in US news.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2016 08:26 am
@revelette2,
Why? He probably can't even get it where he is.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2016 10:31 am
@izzythepush,
I didn't say he likes to read the US news, besides I imagine he can find a way as smart as he is, I said he seems like he likes to be in the US news. JMO
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2017 07:44 am
Putin says Snowden was wrong to leak secrets, but is no traitor
Quote:
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he believes former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden was wrong to leak U.S. spy secrets, but is no traitor.

Snowden, 33, was given asylum in Russia in 2013 after leaking classified information about U.S. spy operations. His lawyer said in January Snowden had the right to remain in Russia until 2020 and to apply for Russian citizenship next year.

Putin, a former KGB officer and ex-head of Russia's FSB security service, made his comments about Snowden in an interview with U.S. film director Oliver Stone, excerpts of which were released ahead of its broadcast by U.S. TV network Showtime from June 12.

"Snowden is not a traitor," said Putin. "He did not betray the interests of his country, nor did he transfer any information to any other country that would damage his own people," said Putin.

However, the Russian leader said Snowden should have resigned from his job in the same way he once resigned from the KGB rather than leak secrets if he didn't like what he was doing.

"He shouldn't have done it (leaked secrets). My view is that what he did was wrong," Putin told Stone.

Snowden had the right to act in the way he did however, said Putin, who said he agreed that U.S. surveillance had become too intrusive, while praising his own country's intelligence services for operating within the law.

Putin also criticized U.S. eavesdropping on its own allies like Germany, saying such activity inevitably backfired.

"Trying to spy on your allies, if you really consider them allies and not vassals, is just indecent," said Putin. "It undermines trust, and in the end damages your own national security."

Snowden has used social media to criticize the Russian authorities over a law obliging communications companies to store phone calls and Internet activity for six months. The Russian authorities have not commented on those remarks.
0 Replies
 
hibbitus
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2017 12:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I used to deal with classified material as part of my job. A good part of it was classified to keep somebody from being embaressed. Snowden revealed representatives of the US goverenment breaking the law. He did not compromise the safety of a single operative (this according to the government panel which looked into the matter.

Do you forget that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of the founding fathers were traitors to their country. Do you forget that they all committed acts of treason. Snowdon felt compelled to do the right thing and is paying the price for it. He is as guilty of treason as Martin Luther King. **** the laws that try to hide what the government is doing to it's own people. I hope that Snowden is the first in a long line of traitors.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2017 06:05 pm
@hibbitus,
I had a Top Secret clearance because I worked with nukes in the Air Force. We were told not to discuss our jobs outside the secured area where we worked. If we got caught, it was 10 years in prison and $10,000. Back in the late 1950s, that was a lot of money; many didn't have that kind of money. We just followed those simple rules.
Here's the calculation on what $10,000 in 1955 is worth today in 2017: $10,000 in 1955 dollars equals $90,896.64 in 2017
hibbitus
 
  3  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2017 04:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I understand. But, if you dealt with much classified, you must know how much the classification system is abused. Stop and ask yourself, "Why, in a free speech society, would the government hide from it's citizens that their every phone conversation was being recorded without any judicial consent."

As an amusing example of how absurd the abuse of the system can be, I once wrote a document listing the inner and outer diameters of every tube in a certain type of assembly. The classification censors were okay with this but made me remove referenced to which tube went inside the other. The reason: a suit had once wrote in an archived note that the assembly could not be machined to fit. I know some people think I'm making this up, but it actually happened.

I guess it is fair to acknowledge Snowdon's act as illegal, but it is also fair to argue about it's morality. And I cannot see that he did anything immoral.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2017 05:38 pm
@hibbitus,
Over classification is a huge problem in our government. I wish someone would fix that system.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2017 10:17 pm
@hibbitus,
I don't worry about what others do with classified material. That's the government's job. I have no control over other people, and what they wish to do with classified information. I don't worry about such things.
The nukes that I worked with in the 1950s are now on public display.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/LBFM/
0 Replies
 
hibbitus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2017 03:18 pm
@Frank Apisa,
This may be the silliest argument I have run across on this website. Nobody gives a **** how much guts you have Frank; everybody gives a **** on how willing you are to work with everybody else to get the changes made that need to be. You can look up my name in my profile, if you want. But I am 70 and retired; no-body can destroy my career or my ability to feed my family. You look the same. I don't want to stand behind somebody younger and call him a coward because he is protecting both of us.
hibbitus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2017 03:23 pm
@hibbitus,
This post may have gotten misplaced. It was meant as a reply to someone named Frank Apisa who was complaining about people not having the courage to use their own names. The argument over classification may be based on an absurdity, but the argument itself is certainly not silly.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2017 07:26 pm
@hibbitus,
hibbitus wrote:

This post may have gotten misplaced. It was meant as a reply to someone named Frank Apisa who was complaining about people not having the courage to use their own names. The argument over classification may be based on an absurdity, but the argument itself is certainly not silly.


Strange as a large percent of the founding fathers did not reveal their IDs when they released their politic writings.

Hell there was a number of them who wrote under the names of figures in the early Rome republic period for that matter.
0 Replies
 
Agent1741
 
  0  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2018 02:53 am
I have only seen the movie & I thought it portrayed him in a very good light. My observations are that he saw massive cover ups, miss treatment, lies etc all "in the name of the country" & he blew the whistle on it!!! it was a shocking movie in that regard & this should not be happening!! Its a pity there are not a few more people will to do what's right!! Were that not happening I feel sure more of what is going on (in the way of this sort of thing) would not be happening because they would fear accountability, which currently is sadly lacking in massive amounts!
 

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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 678
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/24/2018 at 11:04:33