If you anally* rape a 13-year-old, move to France and all will be forgiven because humiliating the US is game #1. And letting anal rapists hang out in your country is not at all humiliating.




*Wikipedia doesn't say so but yeah he got her in the butt. Everyone down with that?

ETA Wikipedia says so elsewhere.

Not too long ago, a bunch of Hollywood folks were openly sympathetic about him, making him seem like a victim of an unjust US. I forget when I saw that. Some awards ceremony.

It was statutory rape, no doubt. But there are many who believed his side of the story, that it was consensual. The plea deal he agreed to involved no prison time, which was specifically approved and supported by the defense lawyers and the victim. Then the judge and the prosecutor attempted to give him jail time anyway after he'd already pleaded guilty, which is when he fled.

"Sulky Cultivator in the Woods" just saw that... :)

Yep. But fleeing is a crime itself. The guy needs to face the music or continue being a fugitive. It's unclear what would happen to him if he returned to the US. He might not even get jail time. Or they could throw the book at him.

It's game #1.

See, Tisdale writes that as if he didn't know that the countries signed extradition treaties. Snowden may merely head for a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US and be legally in the clear. Tisdale knows that but prefers to play game #1 with you, the reader. It's all in fun... unless you're the 13-year-old.

Physician, heal thyself: we are learning that the British version of PRISM is bigger than PRISM. But exposing that doesn't play game #1.

Polanski was born in Paris, and so is/was a citizen of France.

The following is also in Wikipedia about Polanski...

This sounds to me a bit like "humiliating the US is game #1" is in the eye of the beholder.

13-year-olds love Quaaludes and anal so I'm not surprised she was super into it. No actually 13-year-olds can't consent to anything, that's why the charge is statutory.

If documented, that would be super easy to address on appeal.

"...and that's why it was perfectly OK for him to get away with the statutory anal rape of a 13-year-old."

"I'm leaving this country -- before it kicks me out!"

No UT, his attorneys were advising him that...

...at least according to this page in Wikipedia.

"...and might even deport him," says the page that you quoted. Regardless, that would be super easy to address on appeal, if documented.

-30-

As the stepmother of a 15-year-old girl, I completely agree with you. I was just expounding on why several prominent people in Hollywood still support him, as glatt noted. He's an asshole, no doubt, but not a serial violent rapist. His own victim didn't want him to go to prison.

I agree that harboring a political fugitive like Snowden is largely about thumbing their nose the US, and trying to pretend that their own problems aren't at least as big if not bigger. Just like if Ai Weiwei ever got on US soil, we would not be giving him back to China either.

Yes, I might add that it's completely unfair for me to bring Polanski into it; because all I have to say is he gave her ludes and hit her in the pail, and I stake some kind of weird moral high ground that I'm not exactly entitled to.

And the beat goes on...this time it's "DROPMIRE"

The Guardian
Ewen MacAskill
6/30/13

New NSA leaks show how US is bugging its European allies
Exclusive: Edward Snowden papers reveal 38 targets including EU, France and Italy

off topic

I had forgotten about this aspect of your life. Teenagers are a trial and an ordeal unmatched in parenting. Doing it as a stepparent doubles the degree of difficulty. From one veteran of the teen wars to another, stay strong sister, stay strong.

You have to be wary of Putin's intentions but this is interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23135734

And I should trust Putin's public remarks, take them at face value because....??? Please refresh my memory, because I can't recall any reason to do so.

politics aside, does anyone disagree that the security of our free nation depends upon certain things? Sometimes we have to collect information to determine if people in and outside of the US would be our enemies and attempt to do something like..say...bomb a federal building, or fly a plane into a New York sky scraper. These folks exist, and are planning daily to do harm to the United States. If we stick our collective heads in the sand then we will end up asking questions like...HOW COULD WE NOT HAVE KNOWN?!?!?!? Seriously? Foreign nations who collect on us, and whom we collect on will take the public stance of how wrong this is are just trying to get one up on the good ole US. We all know what we do. We try not to poke each other in the eye in public. These guys who disclose secret information to the general public through leaks are traitors to their nation and harm us in many, many ways. They also signed non-disclosure statements to qualify for access to the information they have leaked, and for that reason alone they should be jailed.

You should also not trust him with any of your jewelry.

Joe the disagreement lies with the determination of when the security state becomes counter-productive to its own claimed goals. The leakers are traitors to the state but they are not traitors to the people.

I have trouble with each of these statements,
primarily because I don't think there is a bright red line
between being " a traitor " a " whistleblower " and " civil disobediance "

When leaks occur about government activities, the first reaction
of the government is to publicly label the person a "spy" or "traitor"
and the government usually seeks some kind of criminal charge(s).
This is what is happening with Snowden now.
Only time will tell if harm was done, and if the government charges are valid.

....

Then with respect to signing non-disclosure charges, again I don't think there's a bright red line.

The case of Thomas Drake, starting in the 2002, is a prime example
of someone signing all sorts of non-disclosure documents
and advancing through promotions up through the CIA and NSA.
He followed all the proscribed legal procedures to correct issues.
He then publicly disclosed problems he had identified as "illegal",
and was then indicted by the government, as I described above.

Basically, the conflict in non-disclosure agreements is "informed consent"
A person cannot consent to something (secrets) they do not yet know
If consent is a pre-condition and only after consenting they can learn the secret,
their non-disclosure agreement may well become the lesser issue.

similar to prefacing a conversation with:

"I'll tell you, but you have to promise not to get mad."

Really. Regardless of the answer to that question, it can't be an example of informed consent. Setting aside the whole difference between a conscious action like repeating information and experiencing a feeling, such an agreement is like prior restraint.

Certainly there's a question as to whether or not the material that has been revealed constitutes a harm to our national security or an embarrassment to our government, or both and to what degree. That's a conversation worth having. Our whole system of government has as one of its cornerstones openness in contrast to secrecy.

V, we are probably using different terms to speak of different ideas.

"Prior restraint", as you say, is what the authority/owner is attempting to impose
by having the power to impose a non-disclosure clause or agreement.

"Informed consent" is what the person needs for a good-faith and
continued binding to any contract or (non-disclosure) agreement.

When a person discovers or encounters something they were not informed about,
their "informed consent" may be tainted, and thereby also is their continued obligation to a signed document.

Analogies are not good arguments, but having said that I still
think about something like this: Imagine military personnel are required
to sign non-disclosure agreements regarding all battlefield activities,
and then something like the My Lai Massacre in Viet Nam occurs.

Can the government impose prior restraint on everything, anything,
if the continuity of a person's conscience is (or knowledge) is broken ?

Sure, force/punishment can be used to make the person weigh the alternatives.
But in the long run we see thru civil disobedience that it often backfires.

People give UNinformed consent all the time.

eta: We all give incompletely informed consent, all the time. There are vanishingly few circumstances where our consent is required and where we know all the information. But often, we can know enough.

I think in a case like what we're seeing and hearing about Snowden, I don't know what agreement he'd signed, I imagine he probably violated the letter of such an agreement. I don't have the actual evidence, so I don't know, just speculating here. I also don't know what he's revealed, but what I've read indicates that he's revealed the existence of programs and behavior, but none of the content. Perhaps he's gone as far as confirming what some parties suspected. I don't know if that's a crime, and I'm not even sure what he's done is wrong or important. If it is as serious as some folks are saying, then I would seriously question the organizations and policies that led to such a "damaging" act. How rigorously are these people who have access to such sensitive material vetted? I know we're in a time where more and more and more and more information is redacted or withdrawn or on a need to know basis--this movement troubles me.

I do agree with regular.joe that there *IS* a legitimate need for state secrets. But it is not a need without limits or oversight. All things done in secret I believe inevitably leads to corruption and failure. I'd like to reach other limits before my state faces corruption or failure.

Me too. And I agree there are limits, both in the direction of secrecy and in transparency.

FWIW, Thomas Drake made an hour-long public presentation
to the Press Club which is available on YouTube (3Wp2BGLMqDM).
There's a lot fluff in the first 25 min, but then he gets to the meat
of his own case and what he was observing in/after 2002
- illegal "warrant-less wire taps" on large numbers of people.
- "legal - but secret" collection of data on large numbers of people
- unnecessary "over-classification" and secrecy "at the highest level"
- wasteful expenditures of huge sums of $, for little or no gain

I think that his presentation and the Q&A following raised exactly
the issues we are seeing, now in detail, with Snowden.

Drake's case put an end to the illegal warrant-less wire taps,
and he was exonerated on the "legal- but secret" programs
that wasted billions of $.
Eventually, the government case against him was dropped.

My point is/has been, that a good-faith, informed, Agreement is necessary in on the part of both parties.

Divulging classified information has always been illegal; but, the government has always had difficulty in successfully prosecuting such cases. That's because the standard in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt" which can be created if a violator uncovered illegal activity, official misconduct, wasn't clear on what was classified and what wasn't, feared reprisal as an internal whistleblower; or, had a crystalizing moment in which the violator became a conscientious objector to something subsequently learned.

So the government went the corporate route back around '86-'87 and started having everyone with a security clearance sign nondisclosure agreements; otherwise, lose their security clearances and most likely their jobs ... including military personnel who would be immediately processed for separation. I signed mine.

The nondisclosure agreements in themselves did not make divulging classified information illegal, there were already laws on the books for that. The agreements reminded people that it was illegal and more importantly provided for forfeiture to the government of any tangible gains a violator may realize from the breach of security. The government can sue violators just as corporations can sue individuals who violate nondisclosure agreements protecting proprietary information. These are civil cases in which the burden of proof is simply "a preponderance of the evidence" that they broke the law.

Shades of O.J.

Snowden could have stayed for trial in the court of public opinion and sought a Presidential pardon; but no, he ran like a traitor. Even if he never sees a day in jail here, the government can try to seize his assets anywhere they may be and every chance it gets for the rest of his life.

We know Snowden has forced a discussion of a part of the US government that even Congressman cannot audit. We spend more on these 'secret' budget items than other countries spend on their entire military. And we know this 'secret' government is taking liberties that threatens foundations of a democracy.

Whether Snowden is a scoundrel or a hero has yet to be determined. Because we still do not know how 'out of control' this part of our government is. And because we have not yet defined what is legal and illegal. Years from now, when that decision is made, only then can we define Snowden's actions.

Calling him a rat because he ran is a cheapshot that ignores what is more important.

We know George Jr had a memo on his desk warning of bin Laden's actions involving planes or buildings. We had sufficient intelligence. "All lights were flashing red." Instead of blaming the problem, we gave the 'secret' government unrestricted access. We are now living with that legacy based in the Cheney's paranoia.

We must decide how excessive this 'secret' government has become. Limits currently are not defined. Boundary lines only exist on paper. We are discussing this only because of Snowden's actions. Snowden really is not the story. The story is about excessive government actions and the legacies of Mission Accomplished.

Pentagon papers were not about Ellsberg. They were also about a government that had become wacko extremist so as to not think or act rationally. In that case, we massacred 50,000 Americans to no useful purpose. Snowden is about a spy system without limits that has not yet caused wars and unnecessary deaths. WikiLeaks were saying same.

On the other hand, this is the type of war we wage where we don't kill [a lot of] people.

Planes or buildings. Well there are a shit ton of planes and a shit ton of buildings, so that sounds like something we should DEFINITELY get more specific information on, otherwise there's nothing that can really be done! Amiright? So how do you get more specific information without spying?

I'm not saying there isn't excessive spying going on, just asking a few difficult questions.

Snowden says he will release more information in the future so that will give better insight about his intentions.

I can understand how Snowden believes that PRISM is wrong and unconstitutional, however, I am confused why he is releasing evidence that the US spies on its European allies. This is not illegal or unconstitutional and won't do much besides deteriorate our relationship with them. Also, countries spying on each other is pretty common practice (not that this necessarily justifies it). We have had a lot of issues with the French and Israelis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us...nail-mail.html

It's not just your email and phone meta data. The old system of "mail covers" (where the USPS would record the metadata for snail mail of specific addresses upon the individual request of law agencies) has been expanded to automatic collection of all snail mail metadata.

Happy 4th of July, guys. Enjoy your independence and freedom. :right:

My question was supposed to be rhetorical.

We know that terrorist attacks were routinely averted without spying; that may 'violate civil rights' and other nation's integrity and interests. An LAX bomber was caught by an alert Border Agent while to cross from British Columbia to Washington. Because the leader in Washington was told lights were flashing red. And therefore ordered all government agencies to be vigilant. The resulting capture then may averted a potential Time Square bombing, a bombing in Canada was averted, an attack on the Raddison in Aman Jordan was averted, and an attack on tourists in Egypt was averted.

Not averted was the bombing of the USS The Sullivans. But those terrorists overloaded their boat with explosives causing that boat to sink.

Because they completely ignored warnings - the same flashing red lights - then George Jr's administration did nothing to avert 11 September. Then used it as an excuse for unlimited spying, extraordinary rendition, secret prisons, holding over 600 innocent people in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Mission Accomplished, and even performing torture (as if acting like a Nazi Gestapo agent was acceptable).

We have numerous despicable and illegal actions to undo or discover. Many were ongoing because they were kept secret (as WikiLeaks demonstrated) or because their actions involve new technologies not yet defined by laws (in a Congress with many who say they want America to fail).

The Eagle and the Snowman was because the US government intentionally tried to subvert presidential elections in Australia. Because the powers that be knew a socialist must be a communist. Many leaks occurred because government actions were contemptuous. Ie Viet Nam resulted in the Pentagon Papers. Watergate and all other Nixon activities were finally exposed by people doing what would otherwise be called illegal.

Nobody can yet honestly say whether Snowden is a traitor or a hero. Too many facts are unknown; and maybe for years.

But we do know that major attacks are easily averted with less intelligence gathering and more intelligence in the leadership. Most failures to avert such attacks are found in leadership; not in insufficient spying.

We have examples of attacks averted because the leadership was intelligent. And other attacks permitted because the leadership was inspired by rhetoric rather than their job.

We must still publicly decide the limits of electronic spying. That (and not Snowden) should be an entire discussion that so many are still trying to avoid.

We also know that terrorists are adaptive and smart enough to exploit any limitations we impose upon ourselves. So are drug cartels, human trafficking organizations, global MBAs ... etc. [I threw MBAs in there just for you.]

Maybe not for years. Maybe we could find out in months by putting him on trial and letting the discovery process work. Heroes welcome that process, traitors shun it. If he's found to be a hero, he'll be exonerated. If he's found to be a traitor; but, later proved to be a hero, he can be pardoned. If we had to wait until all of the possibilities played out before even beginning the process, every petty thief claiming to be a Robin Hood would be walking free.

We know that our top general leadership, which also appoints subordinate specializing leaders, is derived from a popularity contest, not an intelligence contest. Increased spying is a compensating mechanism used by people capable of adjusting to this fact as oppose to people who can't and just complain about it. The cognoscenti know the mechanism works, just not as well as having more intelligent leaders. Adults can accept not being privy to how and when it has worked in the interest of continued success, others just poo poo the whole idea because they're not privy.

They should both be an entire discussion. The limits of electronic spying needs to be discussed for all the reasons given in this thread. Snowden et al. needs to be discussed to protect altruistic citizens from their own government. Adults can handle both conversations:

On the issue of leaking classified information - We have specialized courts for everything from contesting traffic violations to immigrant sanctuary status. Even the hard-nosed US military can take someone who has refused to fight, find them to be a conscientious objector and simply separate them from service. Perhaps we need specialized courts for those claiming whistleblower status. Courts that can not only adjudicate; but, recommend directly to the President whether or not a pardon is warranted even if the law was broken. This would help maintain confidence in the integrity of our security methods for those whose lives depend directly upon them (e.g. military personnel) and the population at large which can pressure the President to act on the court's recommendations.

The alternative would be going back to compartmentalized information if the government decides the compromise of shared information is potentially more dangerous to national security than the limitations of compartmentalization in preventing terrorist attacks. This would also make it once again more difficult for those with altruistic motives to uncover government abuse of power.

On the issue of government monitoring - After a reasonable time period following recent events, the government should poll the American people via the US Census taking apparatus using a questionnaire covering "hypothetical" monitoring methods. The questions would cover monitoring methods previously used, currently used, others currently available, and viable wish list methods for which the technology may not yet even exist without disclosing which category each falls into. Next to each method would be three pair of Yes/No check boxes. One each for: 1) Do you object to the government using this method on you? 2) Do you object to the government using this method on people in other countries? 3) Would you want our enemies to know if we did this (public disclosure)? The results of the poll could be made public since it contains hypothetical capabilities and the world already knows the US government doesn't always fall in line with the majority of Americans. People can vote for elected officials who endorse it.

Less criticism and I told you so(s) and more constructive criticism with proposed solutions is what we need. A) A Whistleblower Court that can take defendants into protective custody least intrusive on their civil liberties until final disposition of their cases. B) Three criteria polling on government's potential monitoring methods administered via the US Census taking apparatus. That's my :2cents:. What's yours?

Unfortunately WE don't have sufficient facts to even guess where the boundaries should be. But we do know the boundaries do not exist when intelligence services take all information. And then say, we will not look at it unless the super secret court says we can.

The telco companies and others, including Google and Microsoft, want to tell a US public what they have been forced to surrender. We cannot even know that. Without even that information, then we have few if any facts to define the boundaries. The 'secret' government is hiding behind its skirts to even keep such facts from most Senators and Congressmen. And was even denying the Supreme Court access to such information - on a theory that it is National Security.

Even the President does not know unless he asks the right questions. This is, in part, a legacy of Cheney who subverted intelligence so egregiously that the intelligence community became even more secretive and less forecoming. Even a cover up of torture and extraordinary rendition became normal operations.

BTW, a November voting booth (not the Census) is where public plebiscites are best enacted. Unfortunately, some (ie California's Propositions) get subverted by a legacy of their original purpose. But we have a bigger problem. Insufficient information. And a system that will make excuses to keep us ill informed. Because even secret prisons and torture made that secrecy necessary and routine.

:D Now TW, you're just trying to be ironic again.

How was this determined?

:lol: at lamplighter

I can't find the link, but there were stories about a few days back, that there had been a special briefing for congress on the NSA matters. However, it was just at the end of a congressional sitting session, and more than half of your duly elected representatives chose to skip the presentation rather than miss their scheduled flights back home.

I mean, not like it was important or anything.

Okay, I'll admit that when I started this thread, I was not clear about what was going on and what was properly controversial and what was not.

This article from the New York Times captures what I think is most worrying. It is the failure of the oversight mechanisms (esp FISA) that are supposed to keep bodies like the NSA in check.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us...rs-of-nsa.html

Sing it Julian Assange
 

Just whistle while you work (whistling)
Just whistleblow while you work (downloading)
And cheerfully together we can tidy up the place
And covertly together we can empty out the place
So hum a merry tune (humming)
So tell a secret or two (uploading)
It won't take long when there's a song to help you set the pace
It won't take long to right their wrong and help you save the day

And as you sweep the room
And as you leave the room
Imagine that the broom is someone that you love
Imagine that the gloom is someone else's doom
And soon you'll find you're dancing to the tune
But soon you'll find you're singing another tune
When hearts are high the time will fly so whistle while you work...
When treason is high the reasons won't fly so whistleblow while you work...

Stop asking rational questions. :p:

HIGH TREASON
by José Emilio Pacheco
translation of “Alta traición” and comments by Dave Bonta

I continue to be astounded by the vast array of resources being used in NSA surveillance programs.
It's as if someone said, Let's tap every possible way that people can communicate with one another.

To wit:

Attachment 44667


Washington Post
7/10/13

The NSA slide you haven’t seen
/

Has anyone seen Madam Defarge's knitting lately ?

.

Snowdon's a fool, otherwise he'd have headed straight for where the US government can't touch him...

Wall Street.

Snowden made an appearance today and his remarks are below:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...in_russia.html

Hanging, firing squad; or, drone?

Now, now, don't you know Berrigan... uh, I mean Snowdon is a hero? He should be rewarded for telling us what anyone who was paying attention knew in 2007. :rolleyes:

Venezuela may be punishment enough...

or Russia. As long as the rest of the planet is populated with these petty dictatorships it doesn't put much pressure on our homegrown fascism to ease up. I liked it better when Snowden was hanging with free folks in Hong Kong, but we're determined to drag the free world down.

Petty dictatorships? Aint nuttin petty about Putin's dictation!


FTR, I disagree with the recent posts disapproving of Snowden, but that's becoming a matter of opinion, not information, and I'm not in the mood for that kind of argument. But I think it's time to stop claiming to be the "Free world".

Mind you, US hegemony is still less fucked up than that of China or Russia.

I'm tired of every cocksucker that betrays this country automatically being made a folk hero.

Hegemony? We're just carrying on the family tradition.

Why not let bygones be bygones so Snowden can come back. He can settle down in a nice protected neighborhood somewhere in Florida. To show there's no hard feelings, we'll even buy him a brand new hoodie and have George Zimmerman keep an eye on him.

Not a holiday camp in Cuba?

This article in Der Spiegel http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...-a-911589.html quotes Jimmy Carter as supporting Snowden and even saying "Amerika hat derzeit keine funktionierende Demokratie", i.e. America does not have a functioning democracy.

Has this made it to the US media yet?

Oh no, that would be an inconvenient narrative.

It's showing up on a few second rate "news" sites, but no major news source besides Der Spiegel is reporting it.

The cost of digital data storage has gone down so much, nothing is not feasible !

ACLU
Catherine Crump,
July 17, 2013

You Are Being Tracked: How License Plate Readers Are Being Used to Record Americans' Movements
The entire report is down-loadable as a PDF file.
(See, everyone can store data cheaply, even you :cool:)

I bitched about the plate readers monitoring Interstate 80, years ago, but I was called paranoid, and told not to worry.

Everything you need to know about PRISM.

Because the plate readers were not the problem. And must be everywhere in our future. The problem is who controls the data. A major difference. Plate readers will be ubiquitous. Welcome to innovation. We never solve a problem by stifling innovation. First define the resulting problems. Then address them. Who controls the data?

Otherwise the problem is cars that have license plates.

... and bicyclists don't :eyebrow: