Privacy and the State

[amateur51]

I am dyslexic and I really struggle with lls iis etc (Honestly, but it's no excuse!!!).

Indeed it is no excuse - it's a reason. I apologise. :peacedove:

[Beef Oven]

Indeed it is no excuse - it's a reason. I apologise. :peacedove:

No offence taken, no need to apologise :ela:

[ahinton]

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!!!).

Of course a person can "be" any of those things without being convicted but until and unless said person IS convicted there is no justification for branding him/her as one; were that not the case, our judicial system would be a good deal more of a mockery than it is.

[ahinton]

Indeed it is no excuse - it's a reason. I apologise. :peacedove:

As indeed do I.

[Richard Barrett]

In the United States, treason involves (according to article III of that country's constitution) giving "Aid and Comfort" to the country's "enemies". Whether Edward Snowden could be called a traitor in those terms is at least arguable, leaving aside the fact that the "enemies" in question are blown out of all proportion by the US government anyway (see my earlier post about deaths from terrorism in the USA being less frequent than deaths from falling furniture, and Calum's comments on road accidents). If it is eventually found that the PRISM programme itself infringes US law, as at least one of the original authors of the Patriot Act has claimed, can it really be regarded as a treasonable offence to draw attention to this (and to its unconstitutionality under the Fourth Amendment, as I pointed out earlier)? Can there be a higher moral imperative than the law of the land? The disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan would seem to indicate that there can. And what kind of democracy is it when "treason" is necessary for people to find out the truth of what's being done in their name?

[amateur51]

In the United States, treason involves (according to article III of that country's constitution) giving "Aid and Comfort" to the country's "enemies". Whether Edward Snowden could be called a traitor in those terms is at least arguable, leaving aside the fact that the "enemies" in question are blown out of all proportion by the US government anyway (see my earlier post about deaths from terrorism in the USA being less frequent than deaths from falling furniture, and Calum's comments on road accidents). If it is eventually found that the PRISM programme itself infringes US law, as at least one of the original authors of the Patriot Act has claimed, can it really be regarded as a treasonable offence to draw attention to this (and to its unconstitutionality under the Fourth Amendment, as I pointed out earlier)? Can there be a higher moral imperative than the law of the land? The disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan would seem to indicate that there can. And what kind of democracy is it when "treason" is necessary for people to find out the truth of what's being done in their name?

That sums it up nicely RB - no-one will ever get to the men & women who implement these policies (the government apparatchiks from President downwards) but it is ordinary citizens who will be killed and maimed. The 'enemy' sees them as responsible for the deaths of their citizens by voting in these politicians; the government enacts legislation and subsequent activities that are kept secret from the public. 'We the people' cop it either way :sadface::grr:

Remember that government politicians in UK & USA (and elsewhere for all I know) are afforded top-flight personal security at your expense and mine for the rest of their lives - that kinda sums it up doesn't it. No such expense for an isolated musician on a Woolwich street :grr:

[Richard Barrett]

More from Glenn Greenwald:

If "whistleblowing" is defined as exposing secret government actions so as to inform the public about what they should know, to prompt debate, and to enable reform, then Snowden's actions are the classic case.

US polling data, by itself, demonstrates how powerfully these revelations have resonated. Despite a sustained demonization campaign against him from official Washington, a Time magazine poll found that 54% of Americans believe Snowden did "a good thing", while only 30% disagreed. That approval rating is higher than the one enjoyed by both Congress and President Obama.

While a majority nonetheless still believes he should be prosecuted, a plurality of Americans aged 18 to 34, who Time says are "showing far more support for Snowden's actions", do not. Other polls on Snowden have similar results, including a Reuters finding that more Americans see him as a "patriot" than a "traitor".

The article goes on to highlight the discomfiture of many members of the US Congress at being kept in the dark about NSA policy and at finding that what has been made public so far is "only the tip of the iceberg". I wonder how many more revelations it will take before the credulous contributors to this discussion are convinced of the wrongness of it all, since it seems there are plenty more on the way. In any case it seems that Snowden's whistleblowing may well lead to changes in the way things are done in the USA.

Meanwhile Reuters quotes conservative (CSU) German MEP Markus Ferber likening NSA policy to the Stasi: "I thought this era had ended when the DDR fell."

[Pabmusic]

In the United States, treason involves (according to article III of that country's constitution) giving "Aid and Comfort" to the country's "enemies". Whether Edward Snowden could be called a traitor in those terms is at least arguable, leaving aside the fact that the "enemies" in question are blown out of all proportion by the US government anyway (see my earlier post about deaths from terrorism in the USA being less frequent than deaths from falling furniture, and Calum's comments on road accidents). If it is eventually found that the PRISM programme itself infringes US law, as at least one of the original authors of the Patriot Act has claimed, can it really be regarded as a treasonable offence to draw attention to this (and to its unconstitutionality under the Fourth Amendment, as I pointed out earlier)? Can there be a higher moral imperative than the law of the land? The disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan would seem to indicate that there can. And what kind of democracy is it when "treason" is necessary for people to find out the truth of what's being done in their name?

Very interesting. Of course, if this is treason, it is treason against the USA. Our common law 'treason' (which the American law is clearly based on was (it's been amended several times):

• Compassing or imagining the death of the King, his wife or his eldest son and heir (following the coming into force of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, this will have effect as if the reference was to the eldest child);
• Violating the King's companion, the King's eldest daughter;
• Levying war against the King in his Realm;
• Adhering to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving them aid and comfort in his Realm or elsewhere;
• Counterfeiting the Great Seal or the Privy Seal;
• Counterfeiting English coinage or imported counterfeit English coinage;
• Killing the Chancellor, Treasurer, one of the King's Justices, a Justice in Eyre, an Assize judge, and "all other Justices", while they are performing their offices.

The trial of Sir Roger Casement in 1917 came down to a decision as to words "or elsewhere". Did that apply to "giving them aid or comfort" (Casement had toured German PIW camps, trying to persuade Irish nationalists to fight for Germany) or to "adhering to the King's enemies". If there was a comma after "comfort", he would not be guilty go high treason. The court found that the oldest manuscript had no comma and Casement was hanged at Pentonville. It's worth noting that the Government mounted a campaign to blacken Casement's name (by showing he was gay). I'd like to suggest that's what you get from the Liberals - but I think they're all alike in this respect.

[Serial_Apologist]

That sums it up nicely RB - no-one will ever get to the men & women who implement these policies (the government apparatchiks from President downwards) but it is ordinary citizens who will be killed and maimed. The 'enemy' sees them as responsible for the deaths of their citizens by voting in these politicians; the government enacts legislation and subsequent activities that are kept secret from the public. 'We the people' cop it either way :sadface::grr:

Remember that government politicians in UK & USA (and elsewhere for all I know) are afforded top-flight personal security at your expense and mine for the rest of their lives - that kinda sums it up doesn't it. No such expense for an isolated musician on a Woolwich street :grr:

Well said, Amsy!

[Richard Barrett]

Violating the King's companion, the King's eldest daughter

Phew! good thing it's only the eldest daughter. :whistle:

[Pabmusic]

Phew! good thing it's only the eldest daughter. :whistle:

King's companion's bad enough. I should have said that that's the Treason Act of 1351!

[Beef Oven]

As indeed do I.

Sorry Al, only just seen this ! Thanks and no need :ela:

[french frank]

The 'enemy' sees them as responsible for the deaths of their citizens by voting in these politicians; the government enacts legislation and subsequent activities that are kept secret from the public. 'We the people' cop it either way :sadface::grr:

Also, remember the Clive Ponting trial:

"Although Ponting fully expected to be imprisoned – and had brought his toothbrush and shaving kit along to the court on 11 February 1985 – he was acquitted by the jury. The acquittal came despite the judge's direction to the jury that "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is. " [Wiki. Caveat - not properly referenced.]



Not able to confirm, but did find an 'amusing' obituary of Ponting's QC:

"Ponting exposed the lies and misinformation being fed to the House of Commons by ministers in Margaret Thatcher's government. In his speech to the jury, Laughland dubbed the Byzantine cover-up that followed "Under-Watergate".

"The public was fascinated by the trial, and MI5 took more than a passing interest in the defence strategy, clumsily arranging for the home telephones of Ponting's lawyers to be bugged. "Good morning!" Laughland would greet the director of public prosecutions when the latter called to discuss the case, always adding "and good morning Sergeant Bloggs". http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2002/...dianobituaries

[Frances_iom]

...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?

in I think my first post in this thread I pointed out that the US authorities have already been caught passing on such info to Boeing mnay years ago using intercepted Airbus communication to help in a bidding process - there would appear to be several other whistleblowers emerging to point out the very tight linkage between NSA and most major USA companies (eg Microsoft passes on 0-day exploits to NSA, possibly in return the DoJ effectively dropped the anti-monopoly case that was about to force their breakup) - maybe all these companies operating in many places under more restrictive data processing laws than hold in USA are patriotic Americans who see no reason to obey the laws of the country they operate in (let alone pay taxes)- my own take for many years is that the EU needs stop being the lapdog to a corrupt US admin and go much more to stop this illicit behaviour.

[amateur51]

Also, remember the Clive Ponting trial:

"Although Ponting fully expected to be imprisoned – and had brought his toothbrush and shaving kit along to the court on 11 February 1985 – he was acquitted by the jury. The acquittal came despite the judge's direction to the jury that "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is. " [Wiki. Caveat - not properly referenced.]



Not able to confirm, but did find an 'amusing' obituary of Ponting's QC:

"Ponting exposed the lies and misinformation being fed to the House of Commons by ministers in Margaret Thatcher's government. In his speech to the jury, Laughland dubbed the Byzantine cover-up that followed "Under-Watergate".

"The public was fascinated by the trial, and MI5 took more than a passing interest in the defence strategy, clumsily arranging for the home telephones of Ponting's lawyers to be bugged. "Good morning!" Laughland would greet the director of public prosecutions when the latter called to discuss the case, always adding "and good morning Sergeant Bloggs". http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2002/...dianobituaries

Memories come flooding back - many thanks french frank :biggrin: