201–210 of 501 posts
This is yet another way to avoid exposing real circumstances AND reap funds to continue black-budget trafficking operations (precedent setting [see DanielBMarkham's assessment], plus avoiding certain due process rights.) It will not succeed because these measures stand between everyone who has not had their circumstances optimized by bad, withholding leadership.. preventing the better results in the advancement of ty…
I would not be so optimistic.
>
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That wasn't the only program. They were also tapping into cell phones and laptop webcams for remote surveillance on targeted subjects, but without any constitutionally required warrant checks in place.
But was it illegal? And how would you know that such a warrant didn't actually exist in a court, particularly the FISA court? It's possible that with FISA, everything under the so called warrantless wiretap program might be legal -- you just don't have access to prove it is.
If the webcam was already transmitting for a Skype call or whatever then you can argue over privacy in transit all you want but first you need the person to knowledgeably consent to starting the transmission.
This is yet another way to avoid exposing real circumstances AND reap funds to continue black-budget trafficking operations (precedent setting [see DanielBMarkham's assessment], plus avoiding certain due process rights.) It will not succeed because these measures stand between everyone who has not had their circumstances optimized by bad, withholding leadership.. preventing the better results in the advancement of ty…
This may actually be good news. Somebody might have determined that it's not worth the political cost to prosecute him publicly, so they'll press civil charges, slowly make the criminal stuff go away, then it becomes a "normal" lawsuit instead of such a hot potato. (I am freely speculating here)
"The lawsuit also names as nominal defendants the corporate entities involved in publishing Snowden’s book. The United States is suing the publisher solely to ensure that no funds are transferred to Snowden, or at his direction, while the court resolves the United States’ claims. Snowden is currently living outside of the United States." This is the actual goal here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the concept of political refugees contrary to what you are saying? The way I see it, we acknowledge that sometimes a government can act outside of it's own boundaries in a repressive manner. That is why we help those who are fleeing persecution based on political activity. Saying you can't push for change and run away when repression comes would mean that a lot of people I admire, including the Dalai Lama, are…
There's a difference between saying it's OK to flee repression, which I don't think anyone is disputing, and saying that given the option to flee, it's immoral to instead stay and practice civil disobedience, which was the claim made up thread.
This may actually be good news. Somebody might have determined that it's not worth the political cost to prosecute him publicly, so they'll press civil charges, slowly make the criminal stuff go away, then it becomes a "normal" lawsuit instead of such a hot potato. (I am freely speculating here)
This will only attract more attention to him and what he has to say, won't it? If non-tech people did forget about him, now they will recall and wonder what came of all this.
>Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.
US courts even already ruled what Snowden revealed is unconstitutional. Howevet, it's unlikely he will unanimously be seen as a hero until he has the muscle in the world standing behind him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The lawsuit also names as nominal defendants the corporate entities involved in publishing Snowden’s book. The United States is suing the publisher solely to ensure that no funds are transferred to Snowden, or at his direction, while the court resolves the United States’ claims. Snowden is currently living outside of the United States." This is the actual goal here.
Could Snowden hire a US lawyer to represent him? Snowden does not necessarily have to appear in court along side his advocate. If the US demands he appear in court, his lawyer could motion to allow Snowden to appear by tele-presence. After all, defendants in jail appear in court that way. There are legitimate practical reasons Snowden cannot physically appear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should talk to an actual intelligence officer or two. I have, which is where I got that impression from.
That's like someone being stalked by a police officer being told to call the police
This is yet another way to avoid exposing real circumstances AND reap funds to continue black-budget trafficking operations (precedent setting [see DanielBMarkham's assessment], plus avoiding certain due process rights.) It will not succeed because these measures stand between everyone who has not had their circumstances optimized by bad, withholding leadership.. preventing the better results in the advancement of ty…
I did not understand any of that.