Imagine if some dangerous, far right-wing idiot like Michelle Bachman, or Rick Perry, were elected President in the future and declared it an act of terrorism to criticize Israel? They could then trawl through all the e-mail and phone records at their disposal and begin rounding up the undesirables.
You don't think that such a thing could happen in the U.S? Maybe that's the difference between Europeans and Americans - Europeans know what too much power in the hands of the few can lead to.
Although I agree with you, America actually still has more freedom and opportunities than most countries. I am free to go from city to city, get a job, earn a living, etc. Sure they spy on us, but they haven't affected our lives negatively. When you say America isn't free it sounds like you think America is a place where everyone being directly controlled by the government. They can see who we talk to, but they don't control how we live our life.
Yes it is sad the government watches us, but it is just your opinion on its severity.
The whole "America: Land of the Free and Home of Opportunities" is true but is over-hyped and over-exaggerated, but its still here, imo.
I didn't say America isn't free. What I am saying is that Americans, possibly more so than in any other country, are subjected to a daily barrage of government propaganda, disguised as 'news'. At least in China everyone knows the government are full of shit, and nobody here bothers reading newspapers. Also, the Chinese know that their communications are spied on by the authorities, which is why most people use VPN's, e.t.c. But then China doesn't pretend to be a democracy. Democracies aren't supposed to carry out covert mass-surveillance operations against their own citizens, with no transparency or accountability, and with no Congressional oversight.
If the Chinese system is so bad, then why is the U.S government trying to hard to imitate it?
Well, here is how Americans are: As kids we know nothing, then as we get older we slowly realize how bullshit the world is, and we also begin to realize how corrupt politicians are. Also, ones who read and watch a lot of news here begin (in later teens and early adulthood) to know which channels and newspapers are the most biased and "more true than others." We know the news is changed and "disguised", but that doesn't mean the event isn't true or is not happening. If a fertilizer plant exploded, it exploded. Simple as that. If a country is mad at another country for whatever reason the news gives, we know there is much more going on than whatever the news said.
The reason why many don't care, in my opinion, is that there lives are so great that they don't care.
But just know that all Americans are not the same, and we are not dumb. You didn't say that, I just want to disclose that. Like I said before, many are living nicely so they don't care what is really happening, and that is a problem, but you can't blame them for being worry-free if they are not being physically harmed.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Well, here is how Americans are: As kids we know nothing, then as we get older we slowly realize how bullshit the world is, and we also begin to realize how corrupt politicians are. Also, ones who read and watch a lot of news here begin (in later teens and early adulthood) to know which channels and newspapers are the most biased and "more true than others." We know the news is changed and "disguised", but that doesn't mean the event isn't true or is not happening. If a fertilizer plant exploded, it exploded. Simple as that. If a country is mad at another country for whatever reason the news gives, we know there is much more going on than whatever the news said.
The reason why many don't care, in my opinion, is that there lives are so great that they don't care.
But just know that all Americans are not the same, and we are not dumb. You didn't say that, I just want to disclose that. Like I said before, many are living nicely so they don't care what is really happening, and that is a problem, but you can't blame them for being worry-free if they are not being physically harmed.
I have nothing against Americans, and i understand perfectly well why the majority of people don't give a toss about the government. Same in England, which is where I'm from, by the way. But In England, I think the government are kept on a tighter leash, though still with little success. The British government don't give a fuck about the people of Britain, as was evidenced in the run-up to the Iraq war, when they completely ignored the massive outrage and demonstrations. Another example is the massive austerity cuts in the wake of the financial crisis, which targeted the poor, and protected the bankers who caused the whole mess in the first place.
I just wonder how far Americans will let their government go before doing something about it. Allowing people like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden to be flushed down the shitter because of their whistle-blowing is not cool.
Imagine if some dangerous, far right-wing idiot like Michelle Bachman, or Rick Perry, were elected President in the future and declared it an act of terrorism to criticize Israel? They could then trawl through all the e-mail and phone records at their disposal and begin rounding up the undesirables.
You don't think that such a thing could happen in the U.S? Maybe that's the difference between Europeans and Americans - Europeans know what too much power in the hands of the few can lead to.
Well, that my friend is called extreme paranoia and you sound like many extremists here who believe the government will do such a thing and are currently planning it. But I doubt you are like the crazy ones here.
In order to do that they would have to use the military and/or police force to do that, and since those people have families they will most likely not do such a thing. (I hope). If it does more people got guns today and there will be a backlash.
Granted such a thing kind of happened during the 40s and 50s with McCarthy, but it wasn't as extreme as the scenario you are making up. By the way, I would be one of those people because I cannot believe America is such a great ally to Israel. lol. But that's another topic entirely.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Well, here is how Americans are: As kids we know nothing, then as we get older we slowly realize how bullshit the world is, and we also begin to realize how corrupt politicians are. Also, ones who read and watch a lot of news here begin (in later teens and early adulthood) to know which channels and newspapers are the most biased and "more true than others." We know the news is changed and "disguised", but that doesn't mean the event isn't true or is not happening. If a fertilizer plant exploded, it exploded. Simple as that. If a country is mad at another country for whatever reason the news gives, we know there is much more going on than whatever the news said.
The reason why many don't care, in my opinion, is that there lives are so great that they don't care.
But just know that all Americans are not the same, and we are not dumb. You didn't say that, I just want to disclose that. Like I said before, many are living nicely so they don't care what is really happening, and that is a problem, but you can't blame them for being worry-free if they are not being physically harmed.
I have nothing against Americans, and i understand perfectly well why the majority of people don't give a toss about the government. Same in England, which is where I'm from, by the way. But In England, I think the government are kept on a tighter leash, though still with little success. The British government don't give a fuck about the people of Britain, as was evidenced in the run-up to the Iraq war, when they completely ignored the massive outrage and demonstrations. Another example is the massive austerity cuts in the wake of the financial crisis, which targeted the poor, and protected the bankers who caused the whole mess in the first place.
I just wonder how far Americans will let their government go before doing something about it. Allowing people like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden to be flushed down the shitter because of their whistle-blowing is not cool.
I usually have talks with friends about how we wish our government here were like England's. We don't know exactly how the gov't there works, but it seems better than here. (I am curious to know more about your government, whether through on this thread, PM, or a link would be nice.)
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
I usually have talks with friends about how we wish our government here were like England's. We don't know exactly how the gov't there works, but it seems better than here. (I am curious to know more about your government, whether through on this thread, PM, or a link would be nice.)
They're not much better. At the moment the countries run by a couple of public school boys who are both in the pocket of the bankers. I just don't think they can get away with quite as much as in the U.S. People in the U.K have a tendency to take to the streets and burn shit down when they're pushed too far. Though that doesn't happen nearly half as much as it happens in France.
US military blocks entire Guardian website for troops stationed abroad
Troops deployed to Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East and South Asia have 'theater-wide block' to Guardian
Spencer Ackerman in New York
guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 July 2013
The US military has blocked access to the Guardian’s website for troops in the Middle East and south Asia, after disclosures about widespread US surveillance.
On Friday, the Pentagon and the US army told the Guardian that automated content filters installed on Department of Defense (DoD) networks to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of classified information had blocked access to selected aspects of the Guardian’s website.
But in for troops in Afghanistan, the Middle East and south Asia, the restriction applies to the entire website.
“This is a theater-wide block,” reads a page that loads when troops in Afghanistan using the Defense Department’s non-classified internet protocol (NIPR) network attempt to access the Guardian online...
James Clapper, EU play-acting, and political priorities
Fixations on denouncing Edward Snowden distract, by design, from the serious transgressions of those who are far more powerful
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 July 2013
'...it has been undeniably clear that James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, outright lied to the US Senate - specifically to the Intelligence Committee, the body charged with oversight over surveillance programs - when he said "no, sir" in response to this question from Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"
That Clapper fundamentally misled Congress is beyond dispute. The DNI himself has now been forced by our stories to admit that his statement was, in his words, "clearly erroneous" and to apologize. But he did this only once our front-page revelations forced him to do so: in other words, what he's sorry about is that he got caught lying to the Senate. And as Salon's David Sirota adeptly documented on Friday, Clapper is still spouting falsehoods as he apologizes and attempts to explain why he did it.
How is this not a huge scandal? Intentionally deceiving Congress is a felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison for each offense. Reagan administration officials were convicted of misleading Congress as part of the Iran-contra scandal and other controversies, and sports stars have been prosecuted by the Obama DOJ based on allegations they have done so.
Beyond its criminality, lying to Congress destroys the pretense of oversight. Obviously, members of Congress cannot exercise any actual oversight over programs which are being concealed by deceitful national security officials.
...But Clapper isn't the only top national security official who has been proven by our NSA stories to be fundamentally misleading the public and the Congress about surveillance programs. As an outstanding Washington Post article by Greg Miller this week documented:
"[D]etails that have emerged from the exposure of hundreds of pages of previously classified NSA documents indicate that public assertions about these programs by senior US officials have also often been misleading, erroneous or simply false."
Please re-read that sentence. It's not just Clapper, but multiple "senior US officials", whose statements have been proven false by our reporting and Edward Snowden's disclosures. Indeed, the Guardian previously published top secret documents disproving the claims of NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander that the agency is incapable of stating how many Americans are having their calls and emails invaded without warrants, as well as the oft-repeated claim from President Barack Obama that the NSA is not listening in on Americans' calls without warrants. Both of those assertions, as our prior reporting and Miller's article this week demonstrates, are indisputably false.
...In what conceivable sense is this not a serious scandal? If you, as an American citizen, let alone a journalist, don't find it deeply objectionable when top national security officials systematically mislead your representatives in Congress about how the government is spying on you, and repeatedly lie publicly about resulting political controversies over that spying, what is objectionable? If having the NSA engage in secret, indiscriminate domestic spying that warps if not outright violates legal limits isn't a "scandal", then what is?
For many media and political elites, the answer to that question seems clear: what's truly objectionable to them is when powerless individuals blow the whistle on deceitful national security state officials. Hence the endless fixation on Edward Snowden's tone and choice of asylum providers, the flamboyant denunciations of this "29-year-old hacker" for the crime of exposing what our government leaders are doing in the dark, and all sorts of mockery over the drama that resulted from the due-process-free revocation of his passport. This is what our media stars and progressive columnists, pundits and bloggers are obsessing over in the hope of distracting attention away from the surveillance misconduct of top-level Obama officials and their serial deceit about it.
What kind of journalist - or citizen - would focus more on Edward Snowden's tonal oddities and travel drama than on the fact that top US officials have been deceitfully concealing a massive, worldwide spying apparatus being constructed with virtually no accountability or oversight? Just ponder what it says about someone who cares more about, and is angrier about, Edward Snowden's exposure of these facts than they are about James Clapper's falsehoods and the NSA's excesses.
What we see here, yet again, is this authoritarian strain in US political life that the most powerful political officials cannot commit crimes or engage in serious wrongdoing. The only political crimes come from exposing and aggressively challenging those officials.
How is it anything other than pure whistleblowing to disclose secret documents proving that top government officials have been systematically deceiving the public about vital matters and/or skirting if not violating legal and Constitutional limits? And what possible justification is there for supporting the ability of James Clapper to continue in his job despite what he just got caught doing?
EU Leaders
Then we come to the leaders of various EU states. These leaders spent the last week feigning all sorts of righteous indignation over revelations that the NSA was using extreme measures to spy indiscriminately not only on the communications of their citizens en masse but also on their own embassies and consulates - things they learned thanks to Edward Snowden's self-sacrificing choice to reveal to the world what he discovered inside the NSA.
But on Tuesday night, the governments of three of those countries - France, Spain and Portugal - abruptly withdrew overflight rights for an airplane carrying Bolivian President Evo Morales, who was attempting to fly home from a conference in Russia. That conduct forced a diversion of Morales' plan to Austria, where he remained for 13 hours before being able to leave this morning.
These EU governments did that because they suspected - falsely, it now seems - that Morales' plane was also carrying Snowden: the person who enabled them to learn of the NSA spying aimed at their citizens and themselves that they claim to find so infuriating. They wanted to physically prevent Bolivia from considering or granting Snowden's request for asylum, a centuries-old right in international law. Meanwhile, the German government - which has led the ritualistic condemnations of NSA spying that Snowden exposed - summarily rejected Snowden's application for asylum almost as soon as it hit their desks.
A 2013 report from Open Society documents that Spain and Portugal were among the nations who participated in various ways in rendition flights - ie kidnapping - by the US. In particular, the report found, "Spain has permitted use of its airspace and airports for flights associated with CIA secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations." Similarly, "Portugal has permitted use of its airspace and airports for flights associated with CIA extraordinary rendition operations." The French judiciary previously investigated reports that the French government knowingly allowed the CIA to use its airspace for renditions.
So these EU states are perfectly content to allow a country - when it's the US - to use their airspace to kidnap people from around the world with no due process. But they will physically stop a plane carrying the president of a sovereign state - when it's from Latin America - in order to subvert the well-established process for seeking asylum from political persecution (and yes: the US persecutes whistleblowers).
All of this smacks of exactly the kind of rank imperialism and colonialism that infuriates most of Latin America, and further exposes the emptiness of American and western European lectures about the sacred rule of law. This is rogue nation behavior. As human rights law professor Sarah Joseph put it:
As the Index on Censorship said to EU states this morning: "Members of the EU have a duty to protect freedom of expression and should not interfere in an individual's attempts to seek asylum. Edward Snowden is a whistleblower whose free speech rights should be protected not criminalised."
As usual, US officials and their acolytes who invoke "the law" to demand severe punishment for powerless individuals (Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning) instantly exploit the same concept to protect US political officials, their owners and their allies from the worst crimes: torture, warrantless eavesdropping, rendition, systemic financial fraud, deceiving Congress and the US public about their surveillance behavior. If you're spending your time calling for Ed Snowden's head but not James Clapper's, or if you're obsessed with Snowden's fabricated personality attributes (narcissist!) but apathetic about rampant, out-of-control NSA surveillance, it's probably worth spending a few moments thinking about what this priority scheme reveals.
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Edward Snowden should find another country to seek refuge in, a Russian official said on Thursday, signaling Moscow's growing impatience over the former U.S. spy agency contractor's stay at a Moscow airport.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Russia had received no request for political asylum from Snowden and he had to solve his problems himself after 11 days in the transit area of Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport.
President Vladimir Putin has refused to extradite the American and Russian officials have delighted in his success in staying out of the United States' clutches since revealing details of secret U.S. government surveillance programs.
But Moscow also has made clear that Snowden is an increasingly unwelcome guest because the longer he stays, the greater the risk of the diplomatic standoff causing lasting damage to relations with Washington.
"He needs to choose a place to go," Ryabkov told Reuters. "As of this moment, we do not have a formal application from Mr Snowden asking for asylum in the Russian Federation."
Ryabkov told Itar-Tass news agency separately that Russia "cannot solve anything for him" and the situation should now be resolved "one way or the other".
His remarks echoed comments by Putin, who has urged Snowden, 30, to leave as soon as he can.
France and Italy, both U.S. allies, said they had rejected asylum requests from Snowden.
"Like many countries France has received, via its ambassador in Moscow, an asylum request from Edward Snowden. For legal reasons and given the applicant's situation, it will not be processed," Interior Minister Manuel Valls said in a statement.
Valls had said earlier that France's relations with the United States would not allow it to harbor Snowden.
Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino said any asylum request would have to be presented in person at the border or on Italian territory, which Snowden had not done.
"As a result there do not exist the legal conditions to accept such a request, which in the government's view would not be acceptable on a political level either," she told parliament.
On Monday, Putin said Snowden could only be granted asylum by Moscow if he agreed to stop actions that could harm the United States.
Putin's press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, said on Tuesday that Snowden had withdrawn his interest in asylum in Russia after Putin spelled out the terms. His options have narrowed further since then as no country has agreed to grant him asylum.
INDEPENDENCE DAY
Russian officials have kept Snowden at arm's length since he landed from Hong Kong on June 23, saying the transit area where passengers stay between flights is neutral territory and he will be on Russian soil only if he goes through passport control.
Moscow has also done nothing to trumpet his presence or parade him before cameras and Putin has avoided the temptation to mock Obama when asked about the affair in public. He said last week he would prefer not to deal with it at all.
Relations with Washington have been strained since Putin's return to the presidency last year. He has accused the United States of backing protesters demanding his removal and Washington is concerned that he is cracking down on dissent.
But there have been signs of an improvement as the sides try to cooperate more on security since the April 15 Boston marathon bombings, in which two ethnic Chechens are the main suspects. The United States has also shown some restraint in its remarks.
"We continue to talk with the Russian government every day (about Snowden), absolutely every day, including myself," U.S. ambassador Michael McFaul told reporters. "We hope to resolve this ... in a way that we want to have it ended and so far we're very happy with our interactions with the Russian government."
In a message to Obama on U.S. Independence Day, Putin said the United States and Russia shared a special responsibility for global security and counter-terrorism and that he is certain they can agree on key issues despite differences, the Kremlin said.
Russia's Interfax news agency underlined Washington's own determination to keep ties on an even keel, quoting an unnamed source as saying Snowden's case had not been raised by U.S. Justice Department officials at recent talks in Moscow.
Russia has, however, reveled in the diplomatic fallout since Bolivian President Evo Morales, a Putin ally, was held up on his way home from an energy meeting in Moscow because a number of European countries refused initially to let his plane into their airspace over suspicions that Snowden was on board.
Bolivia blamed the delays on Washington and the Russian Foreign Ministry criticized three European Union member states.
"The actions of the authorities of France, Spain and Portugal could hardly be considered friendly actions towards Bolivia," it said. "Russia calls on the international community to comply strictly with international legal principles."
(Additional reporting by Natalie Huet in Paris; Writing by Timothy Heritage; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell.
"Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. I will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. I will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process" -- Barrack Obama 2008
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
Now we see Britain and Sweden showing their true colours. We always knew the British government were America's poodle obediently wagging it's tail at every instance, but it's interesting to see Sweden falling into step too. I wonder what Julian Assange will be making of this? And to think that there are still people who believe the charges Sweden brought against Assange are anything but bullshit?
NSA leaks: UK blocks crucial espionage talks between US and Europe
First talks to soothe transatlantic tensions to be restricted to data privacy and Prism programme after Britain and Sweden's veto
Ian Traynor in Vilnius
guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 July 2013
Britain has blocked the first crucial talks on intelligence and espionage between European officials and their American counterparts since the NSA surveillance scandal erupted.
The talks, due to begin in Washington on Monday, will now be restricted to issues of data privacy and the NSA's Prism programme following a tense 24 hours of negotiations in Brussels between national EU ambassadors. Britain, supported only by Sweden, vetoed plans to launch two "working groups" on the espionage debacle with the Americans....
Now we see Britain and Sweden showing their true colours. We always knew the British government were America's poodle obediently wagging it's tail at every instance, but it's interesting to see Sweden falling into step too. I wonder what Julian Assange will be making of this? And to think that there are still people who believe the charges Sweden brought against Assange are anything but bullshit?
NSA leaks: UK blocks crucial espionage talks between US and Europe
First talks to soothe transatlantic tensions to be restricted to data privacy and Prism programme after Britain and Sweden's veto
...is this how ww3 will unfold? or is this just the initial steps of ww3? just a thought.
be safe amigo.
Ian Traynor in Vilnius
guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 July 2013
Britain has blocked the first crucial talks on intelligence and espionage between European officials and their American counterparts since the NSA surveillance scandal erupted.
The talks, due to begin in Washington on Monday, will now be restricted to issues of data privacy and the NSA's Prism programme following a tense 24 hours of negotiations in Brussels between national EU ambassadors. Britain, supported only by Sweden, vetoed plans to launch two "working groups" on the espionage debacle with the Americans....
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Why? Would you prefer that your government get away with operating in total secrecy, and in possible violation of the law? Why would you possibly want that? Do you work for the government?
Why? Would you prefer that your government get away with operating in total secrecy, and in possible violation of the law? Why would you possibly want that? Do you work for the government?
We already discussed my views, Byrnzie. :fp: :roll:
Yes, he informed the public of what the gov't was doing, but he DID give up a defense strategy, regardless if it's a defense against something that rarely happens.
"Possible violation." Everyone here is innocent until proven guilty, which they are not proven guilty yet, so nothing wrong has happened.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Why? Would you prefer that your government get away with operating in total secrecy, and in possible violation of the law? Why would you possibly want that? Do you work for the government?
his going to jail is the sacrifice he makes for this. He was in the wrong for doing something right.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Edward Snowden:'...let's be clear: I did not reveal any US operations against legitimate military targets. I pointed out where the NSA has hacked civilian infrastructure such as universities, hospitals, and private businesses because it is dangerous. These nakedly, aggressively criminal acts are wrong no matter the target. Not only that, when NSA makes a technical mistake during an exploitation operation, critical systems crash. Congress hasn't declared war on the countries - the majority of them are our allies - but without asking for public permission, NSA is running network operations against them that affect millions of innocent people. And for what? So we can have secret access to a computer in a country we're not even fighting? So we can potentially reveal a potential terrorist with the potential to kill fewer Americans than our own Police? No, the public needs to know the kinds of things a government does in its name, or the "consent of the governed" is meaningless.'
Do you think James Clapper should be prosecuted for lying to Congress under oath, or is it just Edward Snowden that you feel needs to be prosecuted for exposing the lies of the government to the American people and the World?
This pretty much sums it up. And judging by the recent remarks coming out of Germany and France that indicate they'll continue towing Washingtons line, the article is spot-on.
Has Washington’s Arrogance Undone Its Empire?
Paul Craig Roberts
July 1, 2013
No one likes a bully, and Washington’s NATO puppets have been bullied for six decades. British prime ministers, German chancellors, and French presidents have to salute and say “yes sir.”
They all hate it, but they love Washington’s money; so they prostitute themselves and their countries for Washington’s money. Even a person of Winston Churchill’s stature had to suck up to Washington in order to get his bills and his country’s bills paid.
But what the bought European leaders are finding is that Washington doesn’t pay enough for the prostitution required. One year out of office Tony Blair was worth $35 million dollars. But that’s not enough to get Blair on the waiting list for $50 million 200 foot yachts, to have a chalet in Gstaad, $50 million penthouses in Paris and New York, and a private plane to fly between them, or to wear a $736,000 Franck Muller watch on his wrist, sign his name with a $700,000 Mont Blanc jewel-encrusted pen, and drink $10,000 “martinis on a rock” (gin or vodka poured over a diamond) at New York’s Algonquin Hotel.
In a world in which every member of the Forbes Four Hundred is a billionaire plus or multi-billionaire, $35,000,000 just doesn’t cut it. In 2006 the manager of one hedge fund was paid $1,700,000,000 for one year’s thieving. Another 25 were paid $575,000,000 for their skills in front-running trades. $35 million is probably the annual budget for their household servants.
The British seem content in their role as Washington’s favorite lackey, but France and Germany have not enjoyed that role. France’s last real leader, General de Gaulle, would have nothing to do with it and refused to join NATO. Germany, dismembered with East Germany occupied by the Soviets, had no choice. Germans’ gratitude to President Reagan for their unification resulted in re-unified Germany falling under Washington’s hegemony.
However, if news reports from Berlin are true, Germany has had enough. The catalyst was Edward Snowden’s revelations that Washington spies on everyone including its allies, both Germany and the EU in particular. Moreover, Washington uses Britain as the Trojan Horse within the EU as a backup spy in case NSA misses something.
According to news reports, the German, French, and EU governments are upset to find out that their extreme subservience to Washington has not protected them and their citizens from being spied upon. Here they are, fighting Washington’s wars in far distant Afghanistan, the fate of which is completely unrelated to their own, and what does Washington do but embarrass them by spying on the personal lives of their citizens.
Who does the Merkel government represent, Germans are asking, Germans or the NSA? Why does the Merkel government kowtow to Washington? The next question will be: “what does Washington’s spies have on Merkel?”
With the German government put on the spot by Washington’s betrayal, news headlines are: “Germany Ready to Charge UK and US Intelligence Over Bugging Operations.”
Little wonder Washington and its media whores hate Edward Snowden. “A spokesman for the [German] Federal Prosecutor said the office was preparing to bring charges against” the UK and US intelligence services. In light of the Snowden affair, it will be wonderful if Germany issues arrest warrants and Washington and London refuse to extradite its NSA and UK spy operatives who have violated every law and every trust.
The German Justice Minister, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenburger, demanded an “immediate explanation” why Washington was applying to Germany policies “reminiscent of the actions against enemies during the Cold War.”
The president of France has said that France will not again cooperate with Washington on any issue until France receives “full assurances” that Washington will cease spying on France.
The president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, and the EU Commissioner for Justice, Viviane Reding, demand Washington’s answer to Snowden’s revelations that Washington has betrayed its own allies.
The question that must be asked is: do any of these protests from politicians who are almost certain to be on Washington’s payroll mean anything, or are they just make-believe protests to quiet the domestic European populations who have been betrayed by their elected leaders? Why would the French president and the German justice minister think any reassurance from Washington meant anything? When in human memory has Washington told the truth about anything? When has Washington’s reassurance meant anything?
The Tonkin Gulf? Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Iranian nukes? Assad’s sarin gas attack? FBI orchestrated “terror attacks”? It is a proven fact that the US government lies every time it opens its mouth. Compared to Washington, Stalin, Hitler, Tojo, Mao, Castro, Chavez, and Pol Pot were truthful.
Washington’s reply to Europe’s demands for explanation is: “We will discuss these issues bilaterally with EU member states,” but “we are not going to comment publicly on specific alleged intelligence activities.”
You know what that means. Bilateral means that Washington is going to talk with each EU country separately, using the information NSA has obtained to blackmail each complainant into silence. Whereas the EU together could stand up to Washington, separately the countries can be browbeat and offered more money or threats that illicit love affairs will be revealed to shut them up. Washington is betting on its power to intimidate individual countries with the threat of isolation and being cut off from money. If the EU countries agree to the secret bilateral explanations from Washington, the affair will end and the spying on Europe will continue while Washington and the EU politicians deny that the spying continues.
By now the entire world must know that Washington is not merely lawless, but also totally out of control, reveling in arrogance and hubris, driven by desires for hegemony over the entire world. Washington is so paranoid and distrustful that it doesn’t even trust its own citizens or the European puppet governments that it has bought and paid for.
Washington is the only government that has ever used nuclear weapons, and Washington used them against a defeated government that was trying to surrender. Today the craziness in Washington is much worse. Decision-making councils are full of crazed neoconservative war-mongers, such as National Security Advisor Susan Rice, a threat to humanity. Washington think tanks and media are over-represented by neoconservatives such as William Kristol who wants to know “what good are nuclear weapons if you can’t use them?”
The sleazy European politicians and media who took Washington’s money provided for their own economic security, but they betrayed the security of the entire world. By enabling Washington’s hegemony, they unleashed Washington’s arrogance. This arrogance now threatens not merely the independence of every country but life on earth.
Instead of meeting unilaterally alone with Washington, the European countries should stand together. After all, supposedly there is an EU. If there is an EU, Washington should meet with the EU, not with its constituent parts individually, no one of which can stand up to Washington’s intimidation and bribes...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... obo-spying
'...The vast majority of the GuardianUS's revelations thus far have concerned NSA domestic spying: the bulk collection of telephone records, the PRISM program, Obama's presidential directive that authorizes domestic use of cyber-operations, the Boundless Informant data detailing billions of records collected from US systems, the serial falsehoods publicly voiced by top Obama officials about the NSA's surveillance schemes, and most recently, the bulk collection of email and internet metadata records for Americans. Future stories in the GuardianUS will largely continue to focus on the NSA's domestic spying.
But contrary to what some want to suggest, the privacy rights of Americans aren't the only ones that matter. That the US government - in complete secrecy - is constructing a ubiquitous spying apparatus aimed not only at its own citizens, but all of the world's citizens, has profound consequences. It erodes, if not eliminates, the ability to use the internet with any remnant of privacy or personal security. It vests the US government with boundless power over those to whom it has no accountability. It permits allies of the US - including aggressively oppressive ones - to benefit from indiscriminate spying on their citizens' communications. It radically alters the balance of power between the US and ordinary citizens of the world. And it sends an unmistakable signal to the world that while the US very minimally values the privacy rights of Americans, it assigns zero value to the privacy of everyone else on the planet.
This development - the construction of a worldwide, ubiquitous electronic surveillance apparatus - is self-evidently newsworthy, extreme, and dangerous. It deserves transparency. People around the world have no idea that all of their telephonic and internet communications are being collected, stored and analyzed by a distant government. But that's exactly what is happening, in secrecy and with virtually no accountability. And it is inexorably growing, all in the dark. At the very least, it merits public understanding and debate. That is now possible thanks solely to these disclosures.'
..but he DID give up a defense strategy, regardless if it's a defense against something that rarely happens.
Conversations on the phone or on line between totally innocent people are not a 'defense strategy'. Paying attention to Russia's TWO warning about the elder of the brothers who set up those bombs during the Boston marathon, and subsequently failing to ask for a legitimate court order to check their email (the older brother sent out e-mails asking for info on how to build a bomb) would have been "intelligence".
Instead the NSA was too busy at the time spying on the peaceful Occupy protests.
..but he DID give up a defense strategy, regardless if it's a defense against something that rarely happens.
Conversations on the phone or on line between totally innocent people are not a 'defense strategy'. Paying attention to Russia's TWO warning about the elder of the brothers who set up those bombs during the Boston marathon, and subsequently failing to ask for a legitimate court order to check their email (the older brother sent out e-mails asking for info on how to build a bomb) would have been "intelligence".
Instead the NSA was too busy at the time spying on the peaceful Occupy protests.
And tea party organizations.
If this level of government disregard of the Constitution does not unify us. I wonder what can?
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
The Al Jazeera news agency is reporting that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has safely landed in Caracas, Venezuela. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro had offered asylum to the former U.S. intelligence contractor on Friday who was believed to be waiting in transit at a Moscow airport.
Guillermo Thomas who is a spokesman for the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela told aljazeera.com that Snowden is currently in the country and that he is thrilled to be there. “We are very blessed to have Mr. Snowden in our country, it is a pleasure,” Thomas said. “There were no direct flights across the Atlantic from Moscow to Venezuela. The only flight for Snowden to avoid U.S. extradition was to travel through Cuba. We would like to thank our friends in Cuba for making this journey possible and such a success.” Thomas continued, “Mr. Snowden is a hero and should be treated as one. We are pleased to provide this hero a home where he can live and be safe.”
Unfortunately, I can't find anything on Al Jazeera English or Arabic.
Maybe we will see something official here in the coming hours.
I wanted to turn to a moment on CNN’s Piers Morgan last month when Morgan asked Alan Dershowitz, the attorney and Harvard professor, if anything Glenn Greenwald has done as a journalist "borders on criminality." This was Dershowitz’s response.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Well, it doesn’t border on criminality; it’s right in the heartland of criminality. The statute itself does punish the publication of classified material if you know that it’s classified. And so, Greenwald, in my view, clearly has committed a felony. And for him to take umbrage at the question—now, he’s right, though, that the government doesn’t usually go after the publishers. They don’t go after The New York Times, The Washington Post in the Pentagon Papers case, though they could have. They don’t go after other newspapers in the WikiLeaks case, though they could have. They have made a discretionary decision to go after the leaker, but not the publisher. But, look, Greenwald’s a total phony. He is anti-American. He loves tyrannical regimes. And he did this because he hates America. This had nothing to do with publicizing information.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s attorney Alan Dershowitz. Glenn Greenwald, your response?
GLENN GREENWALD: Well, first of all, it’s really quite amusing that somebody who poses as a civil libertarian would go on CNN and say that journalists are committing felonies by reporting on what the government is doing, almost as funny as a journalist like David Gregory, a self-professed journalist like David Gregory, making the same sort of suggestion. And, I mean, look, Alan Dershowitz is one of the country’s most bloodthirsty radicals. He advocated for torture warrants. He supports all forms of Israeli aggression. And if I weren’t being attacked by the Alan Dershowitzes of the world, I’d be genuinely concerned. And all that really is about is some personal resentment over his effort to censor a BDS—Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions—event at Brooklyn College, and I defended Brooklyn College’s academic freedom, and we won, and he lost, and he’s still bitter. But, you know, the broader point that he’s trying to make is essentially that if you shine light on what the United States government is doing in the dark, that that somehow makes you anti-American. And, to me, everything about the Constitution is devoted to checking and limiting abuses of power by the United States government. That’s why the freedom of the press is guaranteed in the First Amendment. It’s a pure vindication of what are supposed to be our—the defining American values to do the kind of reporting that we’re doing.
Comments
You don't think that such a thing could happen in the U.S? Maybe that's the difference between Europeans and Americans - Europeans know what too much power in the hands of the few can lead to.
Well, here is how Americans are: As kids we know nothing, then as we get older we slowly realize how bullshit the world is, and we also begin to realize how corrupt politicians are. Also, ones who read and watch a lot of news here begin (in later teens and early adulthood) to know which channels and newspapers are the most biased and "more true than others." We know the news is changed and "disguised", but that doesn't mean the event isn't true or is not happening. If a fertilizer plant exploded, it exploded. Simple as that. If a country is mad at another country for whatever reason the news gives, we know there is much more going on than whatever the news said.
The reason why many don't care, in my opinion, is that there lives are so great that they don't care.
But just know that all Americans are not the same, and we are not dumb. You didn't say that, I just want to disclose that. Like I said before, many are living nicely so they don't care what is really happening, and that is a problem, but you can't blame them for being worry-free if they are not being physically harmed.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
I have nothing against Americans, and i understand perfectly well why the majority of people don't give a toss about the government. Same in England, which is where I'm from, by the way. But In England, I think the government are kept on a tighter leash, though still with little success. The British government don't give a fuck about the people of Britain, as was evidenced in the run-up to the Iraq war, when they completely ignored the massive outrage and demonstrations. Another example is the massive austerity cuts in the wake of the financial crisis, which targeted the poor, and protected the bankers who caused the whole mess in the first place.
I just wonder how far Americans will let their government go before doing something about it. Allowing people like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden to be flushed down the shitter because of their whistle-blowing is not cool.
Well, that my friend is called extreme paranoia and you sound like many extremists here who believe the government will do such a thing and are currently planning it.
In order to do that they would have to use the military and/or police force to do that, and since those people have families they will most likely not do such a thing. (I hope). If it does more people got guns today and there will be a backlash.
Granted such a thing kind of happened during the 40s and 50s with McCarthy, but it wasn't as extreme as the scenario you are making up. By the way, I would be one of those people because I cannot believe America is such a great ally to Israel. lol. But that's another topic entirely.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
I usually have talks with friends about how we wish our government here were like England's. We don't know exactly how the gov't there works, but it seems better than here.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
They're not much better. At the moment the countries run by a couple of public school boys who are both in the pocket of the bankers. I just don't think they can get away with quite as much as in the U.S. People in the U.K have a tendency to take to the streets and burn shit down when they're pushed too far. Though that doesn't happen nearly half as much as it happens in France.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... ian-troops
US military blocks entire Guardian website for troops stationed abroad
Troops deployed to Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East and South Asia have 'theater-wide block' to Guardian
Spencer Ackerman in New York
guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 July 2013
The US military has blocked access to the Guardian’s website for troops in the Middle East and south Asia, after disclosures about widespread US surveillance.
On Friday, the Pentagon and the US army told the Guardian that automated content filters installed on Department of Defense (DoD) networks to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of classified information had blocked access to selected aspects of the Guardian’s website.
But in for troops in Afghanistan, the Middle East and south Asia, the restriction applies to the entire website.
“This is a theater-wide block,” reads a page that loads when troops in Afghanistan using the Defense Department’s non-classified internet protocol (NIPR) network attempt to access the Guardian online...
James Clapper, EU play-acting, and political priorities
Fixations on denouncing Edward Snowden distract, by design, from the serious transgressions of those who are far more powerful
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 July 2013
'...it has been undeniably clear that James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, outright lied to the US Senate - specifically to the Intelligence Committee, the body charged with oversight over surveillance programs - when he said "no, sir" in response to this question from Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"
That Clapper fundamentally misled Congress is beyond dispute. The DNI himself has now been forced by our stories to admit that his statement was, in his words, "clearly erroneous" and to apologize. But he did this only once our front-page revelations forced him to do so: in other words, what he's sorry about is that he got caught lying to the Senate. And as Salon's David Sirota adeptly documented on Friday, Clapper is still spouting falsehoods as he apologizes and attempts to explain why he did it.
How is this not a huge scandal? Intentionally deceiving Congress is a felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison for each offense. Reagan administration officials were convicted of misleading Congress as part of the Iran-contra scandal and other controversies, and sports stars have been prosecuted by the Obama DOJ based on allegations they have done so.
Beyond its criminality, lying to Congress destroys the pretense of oversight. Obviously, members of Congress cannot exercise any actual oversight over programs which are being concealed by deceitful national security officials.
...But Clapper isn't the only top national security official who has been proven by our NSA stories to be fundamentally misleading the public and the Congress about surveillance programs. As an outstanding Washington Post article by Greg Miller this week documented:
"[D]etails that have emerged from the exposure of hundreds of pages of previously classified NSA documents indicate that public assertions about these programs by senior US officials have also often been misleading, erroneous or simply false."
Please re-read that sentence. It's not just Clapper, but multiple "senior US officials", whose statements have been proven false by our reporting and Edward Snowden's disclosures. Indeed, the Guardian previously published top secret documents disproving the claims of NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander that the agency is incapable of stating how many Americans are having their calls and emails invaded without warrants, as well as the oft-repeated claim from President Barack Obama that the NSA is not listening in on Americans' calls without warrants. Both of those assertions, as our prior reporting and Miller's article this week demonstrates, are indisputably false.
...In what conceivable sense is this not a serious scandal? If you, as an American citizen, let alone a journalist, don't find it deeply objectionable when top national security officials systematically mislead your representatives in Congress about how the government is spying on you, and repeatedly lie publicly about resulting political controversies over that spying, what is objectionable? If having the NSA engage in secret, indiscriminate domestic spying that warps if not outright violates legal limits isn't a "scandal", then what is?
For many media and political elites, the answer to that question seems clear: what's truly objectionable to them is when powerless individuals blow the whistle on deceitful national security state officials. Hence the endless fixation on Edward Snowden's tone and choice of asylum providers, the flamboyant denunciations of this "29-year-old hacker" for the crime of exposing what our government leaders are doing in the dark, and all sorts of mockery over the drama that resulted from the due-process-free revocation of his passport. This is what our media stars and progressive columnists, pundits and bloggers are obsessing over in the hope of distracting attention away from the surveillance misconduct of top-level Obama officials and their serial deceit about it.
What kind of journalist - or citizen - would focus more on Edward Snowden's tonal oddities and travel drama than on the fact that top US officials have been deceitfully concealing a massive, worldwide spying apparatus being constructed with virtually no accountability or oversight? Just ponder what it says about someone who cares more about, and is angrier about, Edward Snowden's exposure of these facts than they are about James Clapper's falsehoods and the NSA's excesses.
What we see here, yet again, is this authoritarian strain in US political life that the most powerful political officials cannot commit crimes or engage in serious wrongdoing. The only political crimes come from exposing and aggressively challenging those officials.
How is it anything other than pure whistleblowing to disclose secret documents proving that top government officials have been systematically deceiving the public about vital matters and/or skirting if not violating legal and Constitutional limits? And what possible justification is there for supporting the ability of James Clapper to continue in his job despite what he just got caught doing?
EU Leaders
Then we come to the leaders of various EU states. These leaders spent the last week feigning all sorts of righteous indignation over revelations that the NSA was using extreme measures to spy indiscriminately not only on the communications of their citizens en masse but also on their own embassies and consulates - things they learned thanks to Edward Snowden's self-sacrificing choice to reveal to the world what he discovered inside the NSA.
But on Tuesday night, the governments of three of those countries - France, Spain and Portugal - abruptly withdrew overflight rights for an airplane carrying Bolivian President Evo Morales, who was attempting to fly home from a conference in Russia. That conduct forced a diversion of Morales' plan to Austria, where he remained for 13 hours before being able to leave this morning.
These EU governments did that because they suspected - falsely, it now seems - that Morales' plane was also carrying Snowden: the person who enabled them to learn of the NSA spying aimed at their citizens and themselves that they claim to find so infuriating. They wanted to physically prevent Bolivia from considering or granting Snowden's request for asylum, a centuries-old right in international law. Meanwhile, the German government - which has led the ritualistic condemnations of NSA spying that Snowden exposed - summarily rejected Snowden's application for asylum almost as soon as it hit their desks.
A 2013 report from Open Society documents that Spain and Portugal were among the nations who participated in various ways in rendition flights - ie kidnapping - by the US. In particular, the report found, "Spain has permitted use of its airspace and airports for flights associated with CIA secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations." Similarly, "Portugal has permitted use of its airspace and airports for flights associated with CIA extraordinary rendition operations." The French judiciary previously investigated reports that the French government knowingly allowed the CIA to use its airspace for renditions.
So these EU states are perfectly content to allow a country - when it's the US - to use their airspace to kidnap people from around the world with no due process. But they will physically stop a plane carrying the president of a sovereign state - when it's from Latin America - in order to subvert the well-established process for seeking asylum from political persecution (and yes: the US persecutes whistleblowers).
All of this smacks of exactly the kind of rank imperialism and colonialism that infuriates most of Latin America, and further exposes the emptiness of American and western European lectures about the sacred rule of law. This is rogue nation behavior. As human rights law professor Sarah Joseph put it:
As the Index on Censorship said to EU states this morning: "Members of the EU have a duty to protect freedom of expression and should not interfere in an individual's attempts to seek asylum. Edward Snowden is a whistleblower whose free speech rights should be protected not criminalised."
As usual, US officials and their acolytes who invoke "the law" to demand severe punishment for powerless individuals (Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning) instantly exploit the same concept to protect US political officials, their owners and their allies from the worst crimes: torture, warrantless eavesdropping, rendition, systemic financial fraud, deceiving Congress and the US public about their surveillance behavior. If you're spending your time calling for Ed Snowden's head but not James Clapper's, or if you're obsessed with Snowden's fabricated personality attributes (narcissist!) but apathetic about rampant, out-of-control NSA surveillance, it's probably worth spending a few moments thinking about what this priority scheme reveals.
By Timothy Heritage and Steve Gutterman
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Edward Snowden should find another country to seek refuge in, a Russian official said on Thursday, signaling Moscow's growing impatience over the former U.S. spy agency contractor's stay at a Moscow airport.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Russia had received no request for political asylum from Snowden and he had to solve his problems himself after 11 days in the transit area of Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport.
President Vladimir Putin has refused to extradite the American and Russian officials have delighted in his success in staying out of the United States' clutches since revealing details of secret U.S. government surveillance programs.
But Moscow also has made clear that Snowden is an increasingly unwelcome guest because the longer he stays, the greater the risk of the diplomatic standoff causing lasting damage to relations with Washington.
"He needs to choose a place to go," Ryabkov told Reuters. "As of this moment, we do not have a formal application from Mr Snowden asking for asylum in the Russian Federation."
Ryabkov told Itar-Tass news agency separately that Russia "cannot solve anything for him" and the situation should now be resolved "one way or the other".
His remarks echoed comments by Putin, who has urged Snowden, 30, to leave as soon as he can.
France and Italy, both U.S. allies, said they had rejected asylum requests from Snowden.
"Like many countries France has received, via its ambassador in Moscow, an asylum request from Edward Snowden. For legal reasons and given the applicant's situation, it will not be processed," Interior Minister Manuel Valls said in a statement.
Valls had said earlier that France's relations with the United States would not allow it to harbor Snowden.
Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino said any asylum request would have to be presented in person at the border or on Italian territory, which Snowden had not done.
"As a result there do not exist the legal conditions to accept such a request, which in the government's view would not be acceptable on a political level either," she told parliament.
On Monday, Putin said Snowden could only be granted asylum by Moscow if he agreed to stop actions that could harm the United States.
Putin's press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, said on Tuesday that Snowden had withdrawn his interest in asylum in Russia after Putin spelled out the terms. His options have narrowed further since then as no country has agreed to grant him asylum.
INDEPENDENCE DAY
Russian officials have kept Snowden at arm's length since he landed from Hong Kong on June 23, saying the transit area where passengers stay between flights is neutral territory and he will be on Russian soil only if he goes through passport control.
Moscow has also done nothing to trumpet his presence or parade him before cameras and Putin has avoided the temptation to mock Obama when asked about the affair in public. He said last week he would prefer not to deal with it at all.
Relations with Washington have been strained since Putin's return to the presidency last year. He has accused the United States of backing protesters demanding his removal and Washington is concerned that he is cracking down on dissent.
But there have been signs of an improvement as the sides try to cooperate more on security since the April 15 Boston marathon bombings, in which two ethnic Chechens are the main suspects. The United States has also shown some restraint in its remarks.
"We continue to talk with the Russian government every day (about Snowden), absolutely every day, including myself," U.S. ambassador Michael McFaul told reporters. "We hope to resolve this ... in a way that we want to have it ended and so far we're very happy with our interactions with the Russian government."
In a message to Obama on U.S. Independence Day, Putin said the United States and Russia shared a special responsibility for global security and counter-terrorism and that he is certain they can agree on key issues despite differences, the Kremlin said.
Russia's Interfax news agency underlined Washington's own determination to keep ties on an even keel, quoting an unnamed source as saying Snowden's case had not been raised by U.S. Justice Department officials at recent talks in Moscow.
Russia has, however, reveled in the diplomatic fallout since Bolivian President Evo Morales, a Putin ally, was held up on his way home from an energy meeting in Moscow because a number of European countries refused initially to let his plane into their airspace over suspicions that Snowden was on board.
Bolivia blamed the delays on Washington and the Russian Foreign Ministry criticized three European Union member states.
"The actions of the authorities of France, Spain and Portugal could hardly be considered friendly actions towards Bolivia," it said. "Russia calls on the international community to comply strictly with international legal principles."
(Additional reporting by Natalie Huet in Paris; Writing by Timothy Heritage; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
George Orwell.
"Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. I will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. I will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process" -- Barrack Obama 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... -nsa-prism
NSA leaks: UK blocks crucial espionage talks between US and Europe
First talks to soothe transatlantic tensions to be restricted to data privacy and Prism programme after Britain and Sweden's veto
Ian Traynor in Vilnius
guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 July 2013
Britain has blocked the first crucial talks on intelligence and espionage between European officials and their American counterparts since the NSA surveillance scandal erupted.
The talks, due to begin in Washington on Monday, will now be restricted to issues of data privacy and the NSA's Prism programme following a tense 24 hours of negotiations in Brussels between national EU ambassadors. Britain, supported only by Sweden, vetoed plans to launch two "working groups" on the espionage debacle with the Americans....
be safe amigo.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/05/world/ame ... ?hpt=hp_t1
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Good news, I hope he can make it there.
I hope he doesn't.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Why? Would you prefer that your government get away with operating in total secrecy, and in possible violation of the law? Why would you possibly want that? Do you work for the government?
We already discussed my views, Byrnzie. :fp: :roll:
Yes, he informed the public of what the gov't was doing, but he DID give up a defense strategy, regardless if it's a defense against something that rarely happens.
"Possible violation." Everyone here is innocent until proven guilty, which they are not proven guilty yet, so nothing wrong has happened.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... ZpUZ_O_Nz4
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... 25b2ebf321
Edward Snowden: '...let's be clear: I did not reveal any US operations against legitimate military targets. I pointed out where the NSA has hacked civilian infrastructure such as universities, hospitals, and private businesses because it is dangerous. These nakedly, aggressively criminal acts are wrong no matter the target. Not only that, when NSA makes a technical mistake during an exploitation operation, critical systems crash. Congress hasn't declared war on the countries - the majority of them are our allies - but without asking for public permission, NSA is running network operations against them that affect millions of innocent people. And for what? So we can have secret access to a computer in a country we're not even fighting? So we can potentially reveal a potential terrorist with the potential to kill fewer Americans than our own Police? No, the public needs to know the kinds of things a government does in its name, or the "consent of the governed" is meaningless.'
Do you think James Clapper should be prosecuted for lying to Congress under oath, or is it just Edward Snowden that you feel needs to be prosecuted for exposing the lies of the government to the American people and the World?
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/07 ... g-roberts/
Has Washington’s Arrogance Undone Its Empire?
Paul Craig Roberts
July 1, 2013
No one likes a bully, and Washington’s NATO puppets have been bullied for six decades. British prime ministers, German chancellors, and French presidents have to salute and say “yes sir.”
They all hate it, but they love Washington’s money; so they prostitute themselves and their countries for Washington’s money. Even a person of Winston Churchill’s stature had to suck up to Washington in order to get his bills and his country’s bills paid.
But what the bought European leaders are finding is that Washington doesn’t pay enough for the prostitution required. One year out of office Tony Blair was worth $35 million dollars. But that’s not enough to get Blair on the waiting list for $50 million 200 foot yachts, to have a chalet in Gstaad, $50 million penthouses in Paris and New York, and a private plane to fly between them, or to wear a $736,000 Franck Muller watch on his wrist, sign his name with a $700,000 Mont Blanc jewel-encrusted pen, and drink $10,000 “martinis on a rock” (gin or vodka poured over a diamond) at New York’s Algonquin Hotel.
In a world in which every member of the Forbes Four Hundred is a billionaire plus or multi-billionaire, $35,000,000 just doesn’t cut it. In 2006 the manager of one hedge fund was paid $1,700,000,000 for one year’s thieving. Another 25 were paid $575,000,000 for their skills in front-running trades. $35 million is probably the annual budget for their household servants.
The British seem content in their role as Washington’s favorite lackey, but France and Germany have not enjoyed that role. France’s last real leader, General de Gaulle, would have nothing to do with it and refused to join NATO. Germany, dismembered with East Germany occupied by the Soviets, had no choice. Germans’ gratitude to President Reagan for their unification resulted in re-unified Germany falling under Washington’s hegemony.
However, if news reports from Berlin are true, Germany has had enough. The catalyst was Edward Snowden’s revelations that Washington spies on everyone including its allies, both Germany and the EU in particular. Moreover, Washington uses Britain as the Trojan Horse within the EU as a backup spy in case NSA misses something.
According to news reports, the German, French, and EU governments are upset to find out that their extreme subservience to Washington has not protected them and their citizens from being spied upon. Here they are, fighting Washington’s wars in far distant Afghanistan, the fate of which is completely unrelated to their own, and what does Washington do but embarrass them by spying on the personal lives of their citizens.
Who does the Merkel government represent, Germans are asking, Germans or the NSA? Why does the Merkel government kowtow to Washington? The next question will be: “what does Washington’s spies have on Merkel?”
With the German government put on the spot by Washington’s betrayal, news headlines are: “Germany Ready to Charge UK and US Intelligence Over Bugging Operations.”
Little wonder Washington and its media whores hate Edward Snowden. “A spokesman for the [German] Federal Prosecutor said the office was preparing to bring charges against” the UK and US intelligence services. In light of the Snowden affair, it will be wonderful if Germany issues arrest warrants and Washington and London refuse to extradite its NSA and UK spy operatives who have violated every law and every trust.
The German Justice Minister, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenburger, demanded an “immediate explanation” why Washington was applying to Germany policies “reminiscent of the actions against enemies during the Cold War.”
The president of France has said that France will not again cooperate with Washington on any issue until France receives “full assurances” that Washington will cease spying on France.
The president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, and the EU Commissioner for Justice, Viviane Reding, demand Washington’s answer to Snowden’s revelations that Washington has betrayed its own allies.
The question that must be asked is: do any of these protests from politicians who are almost certain to be on Washington’s payroll mean anything, or are they just make-believe protests to quiet the domestic European populations who have been betrayed by their elected leaders? Why would the French president and the German justice minister think any reassurance from Washington meant anything? When in human memory has Washington told the truth about anything? When has Washington’s reassurance meant anything?
The Tonkin Gulf? Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Iranian nukes? Assad’s sarin gas attack? FBI orchestrated “terror attacks”? It is a proven fact that the US government lies every time it opens its mouth. Compared to Washington, Stalin, Hitler, Tojo, Mao, Castro, Chavez, and Pol Pot were truthful.
Washington’s reply to Europe’s demands for explanation is: “We will discuss these issues bilaterally with EU member states,” but “we are not going to comment publicly on specific alleged intelligence activities.”
You know what that means. Bilateral means that Washington is going to talk with each EU country separately, using the information NSA has obtained to blackmail each complainant into silence. Whereas the EU together could stand up to Washington, separately the countries can be browbeat and offered more money or threats that illicit love affairs will be revealed to shut them up. Washington is betting on its power to intimidate individual countries with the threat of isolation and being cut off from money. If the EU countries agree to the secret bilateral explanations from Washington, the affair will end and the spying on Europe will continue while Washington and the EU politicians deny that the spying continues.
By now the entire world must know that Washington is not merely lawless, but also totally out of control, reveling in arrogance and hubris, driven by desires for hegemony over the entire world. Washington is so paranoid and distrustful that it doesn’t even trust its own citizens or the European puppet governments that it has bought and paid for.
Washington is the only government that has ever used nuclear weapons, and Washington used them against a defeated government that was trying to surrender. Today the craziness in Washington is much worse. Decision-making councils are full of crazed neoconservative war-mongers, such as National Security Advisor Susan Rice, a threat to humanity. Washington think tanks and media are over-represented by neoconservatives such as William Kristol who wants to know “what good are nuclear weapons if you can’t use them?”
The sleazy European politicians and media who took Washington’s money provided for their own economic security, but they betrayed the security of the entire world. By enabling Washington’s hegemony, they unleashed Washington’s arrogance. This arrogance now threatens not merely the independence of every country but life on earth.
Instead of meeting unilaterally alone with Washington, the European countries should stand together. After all, supposedly there is an EU. If there is an EU, Washington should meet with the EU, not with its constituent parts individually, no one of which can stand up to Washington’s intimidation and bribes...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... obo-spying
'...The vast majority of the GuardianUS's revelations thus far have concerned NSA domestic spying: the bulk collection of telephone records, the PRISM program, Obama's presidential directive that authorizes domestic use of cyber-operations, the Boundless Informant data detailing billions of records collected from US systems, the serial falsehoods publicly voiced by top Obama officials about the NSA's surveillance schemes, and most recently, the bulk collection of email and internet metadata records for Americans. Future stories in the GuardianUS will largely continue to focus on the NSA's domestic spying.
But contrary to what some want to suggest, the privacy rights of Americans aren't the only ones that matter. That the US government - in complete secrecy - is constructing a ubiquitous spying apparatus aimed not only at its own citizens, but all of the world's citizens, has profound consequences. It erodes, if not eliminates, the ability to use the internet with any remnant of privacy or personal security. It vests the US government with boundless power over those to whom it has no accountability. It permits allies of the US - including aggressively oppressive ones - to benefit from indiscriminate spying on their citizens' communications. It radically alters the balance of power between the US and ordinary citizens of the world. And it sends an unmistakable signal to the world that while the US very minimally values the privacy rights of Americans, it assigns zero value to the privacy of everyone else on the planet.
This development - the construction of a worldwide, ubiquitous electronic surveillance apparatus - is self-evidently newsworthy, extreme, and dangerous. It deserves transparency. People around the world have no idea that all of their telephonic and internet communications are being collected, stored and analyzed by a distant government. But that's exactly what is happening, in secrecy and with virtually no accountability. And it is inexorably growing, all in the dark. At the very least, it merits public understanding and debate. That is now possible thanks solely to these disclosures.'
Conversations on the phone or on line between totally innocent people are not a 'defense strategy'. Paying attention to Russia's TWO warning about the elder of the brothers who set up those bombs during the Boston marathon, and subsequently failing to ask for a legitimate court order to check their email (the older brother sent out e-mails asking for info on how to build a bomb) would have been "intelligence".
Instead the NSA was too busy at the time spying on the peaceful Occupy protests.
And tea party organizations.
If this level of government disregard of the Constitution does not unify us. I wonder what can?
Where did you hear that?
I'm seeing various tweets that he has landed, but nothing solid.
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/20 ... nfo%2FpAvI
Unfortunately, I can't find anything on Al Jazeera English or Arabic.
Maybe we will see something official here in the coming hours.
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/7 ... operations
I wanted to turn to a moment on CNN’s Piers Morgan last month when Morgan asked Alan Dershowitz, the attorney and Harvard professor, if anything Glenn Greenwald has done as a journalist "borders on criminality." This was Dershowitz’s response.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Well, it doesn’t border on criminality; it’s right in the heartland of criminality. The statute itself does punish the publication of classified material if you know that it’s classified. And so, Greenwald, in my view, clearly has committed a felony. And for him to take umbrage at the question—now, he’s right, though, that the government doesn’t usually go after the publishers. They don’t go after The New York Times, The Washington Post in the Pentagon Papers case, though they could have. They don’t go after other newspapers in the WikiLeaks case, though they could have. They have made a discretionary decision to go after the leaker, but not the publisher. But, look, Greenwald’s a total phony. He is anti-American. He loves tyrannical regimes. And he did this because he hates America. This had nothing to do with publicizing information.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s attorney Alan Dershowitz. Glenn Greenwald, your response?
GLENN GREENWALD: Well, first of all, it’s really quite amusing that somebody who poses as a civil libertarian would go on CNN and say that journalists are committing felonies by reporting on what the government is doing, almost as funny as a journalist like David Gregory, a self-professed journalist like David Gregory, making the same sort of suggestion. And, I mean, look, Alan Dershowitz is one of the country’s most bloodthirsty radicals. He advocated for torture warrants. He supports all forms of Israeli aggression. And if I weren’t being attacked by the Alan Dershowitzes of the world, I’d be genuinely concerned. And all that really is about is some personal resentment over his effort to censor a BDS—Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions—event at Brooklyn College, and I defended Brooklyn College’s academic freedom, and we won, and he lost, and he’s still bitter. But, you know, the broader point that he’s trying to make is essentially that if you shine light on what the United States government is doing in the dark, that that somehow makes you anti-American. And, to me, everything about the Constitution is devoted to checking and limiting abuses of power by the United States government. That’s why the freedom of the press is guaranteed in the First Amendment. It’s a pure vindication of what are supposed to be our—the defining American values to do the kind of reporting that we’re doing.