Privacy and the State

[Frances_iom]

I see that the UK has already adopted lapdog posture - Snowdon is on UK's do not admit list though since the US gov accuses him of outright lies I'm somewhat confused as to why such a person should cause any embaressment to the UK if nothing he said was in any way true - maybe Mrs May can explain - however as we are about to invade Syria all I can see are major problems in the near future.

[Richard Barrett]

Rob Urie in today's Counterpunch:

As comedian Stephen Colbert (correctly) pointed out, including the attacks of September 11, 2001 and more recently in Boston, more Americans have died from furniture falling on them than from terrorist attacks. Depending on which statistics you choose, 10X – 20X more Americans die every year from (preventable) medical errors than have died in the entirety of U.S. history from terrorist attacks. In practical terms, terrorism is among the least probable threats Americans face.

(...)

George W. Bush was warned of the September 11, 2001 attacks so many times and so loudly by U.S. and overseas intelligence agencies and prominent world leaders before they occurred the fact they did occur falls clearly on his failure of leadership, not on an absence of information the attacks were coming. As history has it, Bush administration actions were so egregious Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney both refused to give legally binding testimony on what they knew prior to the attacks.

And before the Boston bombings the FBI was repeatedly warned by Russian intelligence the accused bombers posed a credible threat. Even more spectacularly, the full surveillance program imagined, built and explained to prevent exactly the kind of acts that occurred in Boston failed to prevent them– even with the addition of specific warnings regarding the specific people who carried them out. To the portion of the citizenry who favor police-state intrusion, the ‘false’ choice of surveillance or security in this case provided the surveillance without providing the security.

[Mr Pee]

I see that the UK has already adopted lapdog posture - Snowdon is on UK's do not admit list though since the US gov accuses him of outright lies I'm somewhat confused as to why such a person should cause any embaressment to the UK if nothing he said was in any way true - maybe Mrs May can explain - however as we are about to invade Syria all I can see are major problems in the near future.

I think it's fair enough to deny a traitor admission to the UK.

As to invading Syria- are you party to secret military plans? Because this is the first I've heard about an invasion....perhaps you should share this scoop with the press. :laugh:

[Bryn]

I think it's fair enough to deny a traitor admission to the UK.

I had no idea he was a UK citizen and thus able to be a traitor with respect to the UK.

[scottycelt]

I see that the UK has already adopted lapdog posture - Snowdon is on UK's do not admit list though since the US gov accuses him of outright lies I'm somewhat confused as to why such a person should cause any embaressment to the UK if nothing he said was in any way true - maybe Mrs May can explain - however as we are about to invade Syria all I can see are major problems in the near future.

As UK defence and security is closely intertwined with the US, our closest military ally with whom we share military and operational secrets, I find it somewhat odd that anyone might consider such a stance in the least remarkable?

After all, our national security may well be at stake here too, and if the official posture had been to encourage Mr Snowden to board a flight to the UK and share a room with his like-minded chum Mr Assange in London, even that notorious British eccentricity might have acquired a wholly new and quite mind-numbing level?

[Richard Barrett]

I had no idea he was a UK citizen and thus able to be a traitor with respect to the UK.

I had no idea he had been convicted of treason anywhere.

[amateur51]

I had no idea he had been convicted of treason anywhere.

The poster is not keen on detail like that :erm:

[Beef Oven]

I had no idea he had been convicted of treason anywhere.

I would not describe Snowdon as a traitor, but I do not believe conviction in a court is a necessary pre-requisite of the mantle.

[Mr Pee]

I would not describe Snowdon as a traitor, but I do not believe conviction in a court is a necessary pre-requisite of the mantle.

Philby, Burgess, Maclean, Blunt, Cairncross- none of them were ever convicted but they were traitors. Just like Snowden, they worked in a branch of their country's secret services, signed the Official Secrets Act- or in Snowden's case the US equivalent- and then broke that covenant. Philby, Burgess and Maclean fled to Moscow to escape justice, Snowden opted for Hong Kong to try and do the same. Fat lot of good it'll do him. http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/jo...y-emoticon.gif

[ahinton]

I would not describe Snowdon as a traitor, but I do not believe conviction in a court is a necessary pre-requisite of the mantle.

By which reasoning it could be argued that a person is a murderer and/or rapist purely by virtue of having been charged with one of both of those crimes and that an actual conviction is unnecessary. How fortunate that this logic does not apply in real life!

[Beef Oven]

By which reasoning it could be argued that a person is a murderer and/or rapist purely by virtue of having been charged with one of both of those crimes and that an actual conviction is unnecessary.

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that. And take more care with your punctuation please :winkeye:

Think about Saville. To the best of my knowledge, he was not charged or convicted of anything.

[ahinton]

Philby, Burgess, Maclean, Blunt, Cairncross- none of them were ever convicted but they were traitors. Just like Snowden, they worked in a branch of their country's secret services, signed the Official Secrets Act- or in Snowden's case the US equivalent- and then broke that covenant. Philby, Burgess and Maclean fled to Moscow to escape justice, Snowden opted for Hong Kong to try and do the same. Fat lot of good it'll do him. http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/jo...y-emoticon.gif

What good it may do Snowden is hardly the point at issue, though, is it? And due justice should mean that someone would have to be convicted with breaching the terms of an Official Secrets Act (however increasingly useless such an Act is in today's digital world) before being justly branded a traitor or accused of having committed an act or acts of treason?

The problem with some of the arguments put forward here is that they are too heavily based upon the notion that the government is always right and does not in all cases consider that it has to be accountable to the taxpaying electorate that puts it in office and funds its spending projects, including the security services.

Anyway, once again(!), what about the other non-security departments that would acquire power to snoop under such a snoopers' charter - or indeed what might happen to data collected by other such agencies? Will someone please address these issues, lest the thread remain firmly bogged down in matters of national and international security, defence policies, espionage and the like when the topic is Privacy and the State? Please?

[ahinton]

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that. And take more care with your punctuation please :winkeye:

Think about Saville.

I would not dream of putting anything into your mouth! I accept that a dead person cannot be convicted and punished as can a living one, of course (pace Savile), but in other respects the logic applies; I know that you didn't say it, but you did imply it even if you may not have meant to. And take more care in determining how many "l"s there are in "Savile", just as people didn't who persistently wrote about "Elliot Carter"...

[Beef Oven]

I accept that a dead person cannot be convicted, of course (pace Savile), but in other respects the logic app[lies; I know that you didn;t say it, but you did imply it even if you did not mean to. And take more care in determining how many "l"s there are in "Savile", just as people didn't who persistently wrote about "Elliot Carter"...

Re-read my post and it will be very clear that what I meant, is a person can be, for example, a paedophile, a burglar, a terrorist etc without being arrested, charged or convicted. It does not matter that Savillle is dead, the point is made.

I'm sure I actually 'wrote persistently' about Elliot Carter. I am dyslexic and I really struggle with lls iis etc (Honestly, but it's no excuse!!!).

[amateur51]

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that. And take more care with your punctuation please :winkeye:

Think about Saville. To the best of my knowledge, he was not charged or convicted of anything.

Have a care with people's surnames please. It's Savile and Snowden.