FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Disappointed US slams Russia for allowing Edward Snowden free speech

Disappointed US slams Russia for allowing Edward Snowden free speech

(3:02) According to the US government, Edward Snowden is not a whistleblower, pedals propaganda, and should be denied free speech. You couldn't make this up.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: 0dnalgnec (1615 days ago)
**** cengland0 and his idiotic comments! go fu*k yourself cengland0 you retarded, amoral, lying piece of shit!
ReplyVote up (2533)down (145)
Original comment
**** cengland0 and his idiotic comments! go fu*k yourself cengland0 you retarded, amoral, lying piece of shit!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: 0dnalgnec (1615 days ago)
FUCCKK YOU cengland0!
ReplyVote up (2287)down (153)
Original comment
FUCCKK YOU cengland0!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1615 days ago)
check out this article! LINK old school! Kremlin Turns Back To Typewriters To Avoid Security Leaks. Also, the bolivian president just deleted his email account, lol.
ReplyVote up (2449)down (135)
Original comment
check out this article! LINK old school! Kremlin Turns Back To Typewriters To Avoid Security Leaks. Also, the bolivian president just deleted his email account, lol.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1615 days ago)
Nobel Prize for Snowden LINK : ‘Heroic effort at great personal cost’: Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
ReplyVote up (235)down (157)
Original comment
Nobel Prize for Snowden LINK : ‘Heroic effort at great personal cost’: Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Unimpressed (1613 days ago)
Seeing that other recepients of that prize include Obama, Arafat, Mandela... that's a VERY dubious honor.
ReplyVote up (213)down (144)
Original comment
Seeing that other recepients of that prize include Obama, Arafat, Mandela... that's a VERY dubious honor.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1613 days ago)
A Swedish sociology professor has nominated Edward Snowden for the Nobel Peace Prize. He says the NSA whistleblower could help “save the prize from the disrepute incurred by the hasty and ill-conceived decision” to give the 2009 award to Barack Obama.
ReplyVote up (126)down (156)
Original comment
A Swedish sociology professor has nominated Edward Snowden for the Nobel Peace Prize. He says the NSA whistleblower could help “save the prize from the disrepute incurred by the hasty and ill-conceived decision” to give the 2009 award to Barack Obama.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: cengland4ever (1615 days ago)
Funny how freedom of speech and democracy is only important to America when it is policing someone elses country. Basically they use the terms as justification to remove foreign governments, and then use the same morality they accuse others of in their own country. Freedom of speech is a continual fight - there are many advocates of a 'free society' who don't believe in freedom at all, and all the cengland0's of the world will gladly relinquish their freedoms slowly, one at a time, in the name of preventing atrocities, until they wake up one day in a police state and are bewildered as to how they go there. Whether we like it or not, people like Snowden are integral to the freedoms we enjoy. Check out early Russian broadcasts about defectors and whistleblowers - the terms used are identical to the USA. The USA has indeed learned a lot from Russia.
ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment
Funny how freedom of speech and democracy is only important to America when it is policing someone elses country. Basically they use the terms as justification to remove foreign governments, and then use the same morality they accuse others of in their own country. Freedom of speech is a continual fight - there are many advocates of a 'free society' who don't believe in freedom at all, and all the cengland0's of the world will gladly relinquish their freedoms slowly, one at a time, in the name of preventing atrocities, until they wake up one day in a police state and are bewildered as to how they go there. Whether we like it or not, people like Snowden are integral to the freedoms we enjoy. Check out early Russian broadcasts about defectors and whistleblowers - the terms used are identical to the USA. The USA has indeed learned a lot from Russia.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
Funny how many of you selectively use freedom of speech as an excuse. First, it's not about freedom of speech as much as it is about arresting him and bringing him back to the USA to face the charges he's accused of. If he's innocent like he thinks, he should be able to go free after his trial. Also, I doubt our constitution means releasing top secret information so it can be used by terrorists is allowed under the freedom of speech. And then many of you boreme guests and other users want to limit the free speech rights of corporations and not allow them to publish news articles or TV spots for whatever they want (such as backing a political candidate). Regarding your term whistleblowers, the officials within the USA do not consider him a whistleblower and considers him a criminal that has illegally released non-public information to the public.
ReplyVote up (106)down (105)
Original comment
Funny how many of you selectively use freedom of speech as an excuse. First, it's not about freedom of speech as much as it is about arresting him and bringing him back to the USA to face the charges he's accused of. If he's innocent like he thinks, he should be able to go free after his trial. Also, I doubt our constitution means releasing top secret information so it can be used by terrorists is allowed under the freedom of speech. And then many of you boreme guests and other users want to limit the free speech rights of corporations and not allow them to publish news articles or TV spots for whatever they want (such as backing a political candidate). Regarding your term whistleblowers, the officials within the USA do not consider him a whistleblower and considers him a criminal that has illegally released non-public information to the public.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1615 days ago)
OK, *rolls up sleeves*, let's start to unpack this sorry excuse for logical thought. 1) The "Freedom of speech" (FOS) issue relates to the guy from AP's comment. Just because someone may have committed a crime does not mean they lose the right of free speech. 2) Yes, obviously if he's innocent he should go free. Who has said otherwise? 3) The FOS is referring to his speaking at the airport - not the release of the material (who said otherwise?) 4) Which boremeans specifically want to limit free speech rights of corporations? 5) Guest's comment about "whistleblowers" ; relates to the fact that the current US statements are identical to how the Russians *used* to broadcast. Your own assertion that he is not a whistleblower but a criminal parallels this too. Welcome back comrade cengland0 - it's good to see you using the old Soviet ways again.
ReplyVote up (101)down (68)
Original comment
OK, *rolls up sleeves*, let's start to unpack this sorry excuse for logical thought. 1) The "Freedom of speech" (FOS) issue relates to the guy from AP's comment. Just because someone may have committed a crime does not mean they lose the right of free speech. 2) Yes, obviously if he's innocent he should go free. Who has said otherwise? 3) The FOS is referring to his speaking at the airport - not the release of the material (who said otherwise?) 4) Which boremeans specifically want to limit free speech rights of corporations? 5) Guest's comment about "whistleblowers" ; relates to the fact that the current US statements are identical to how the Russians *used* to broadcast. Your own assertion that he is not a whistleblower but a criminal parallels this too. Welcome back comrade cengland0 - it's good to see you using the old Soviet ways again.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
1) Are you sure about this? If you are a felon, you lose the right to carry a gun -- confirmed. You also lose the right to not be a slave -- stated specifically in the constitution. I followed a case where a store was being broken into over and over again. The owner determined they were coming in from a panel in the ceiling so he laid down a piece of metal on the floor and had it electrified. Eventually someone broke in again and died in the process due to the actions of the store owner. The judge in that case ruled that people committing a felony has no rights so the store owner was not prosecuted and cannot be sued for wrongful death of a person. 2) He needs to turn himself in and face judgment to show that he's innocent. The fact he is still hiding leads me to believe he thinks he will be found guilty so he does not want to return to the USA. 4) I cannot remember exactly who wants to limit free speech of corporations but I've had many conversations here about corporations buying politicians. I explain that corporations are not allowed to give any financial donations to candidates so where are they getting this from. Getting down to the details, it turns out they are upset that companies are allowed to spend unlimited dollars on advertisement spots on TV or newspaper.
ReplyVote up (55)down (112)
Original comment
1) Are you sure about this? If you are a felon, you lose the right to carry a gun -- confirmed. You also lose the right to not be a slave -- stated specifically in the constitution. I followed a case where a store was being broken into over and over again. The owner determined they were coming in from a panel in the ceiling so he laid down a piece of metal on the floor and had it electrified. Eventually someone broke in again and died in the process due to the actions of the store owner. The judge in that case ruled that people committing a felony has no rights so the store owner was not prosecuted and cannot be sued for wrongful death of a person. 2) He needs to turn himself in and face judgment to show that he's innocent. The fact he is still hiding leads me to believe he thinks he will be found guilty so he does not want to return to the USA. 4) I cannot remember exactly who wants to limit free speech of corporations but I've had many conversations here about corporations buying politicians. I explain that corporations are not allowed to give any financial donations to candidates so where are they getting this from. Getting down to the details, it turns out they are upset that companies are allowed to spend unlimited dollars on advertisement spots on TV or newspaper.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1615 days ago)
1) no, are *you* sure? If anyone is charged with something (whether innocent or guilty, charged maliciously or not - just charged) you think they should not be allowed to speak publicly? Have I understood you correctly? 5) You seem to have skipped over this one, comrade
ReplyVote up (101)down (63)
Original comment
1) no, are *you* sure? If anyone is charged with something (whether innocent or guilty, charged maliciously or not - just charged) you think they should not be allowed to speak publicly? Have I understood you correctly? 5) You seem to have skipped over this one, comrade
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
He would be more than charged with the crime if he turned himself in. So here's another way to show how bad what he did is. Imagine if a general in Afghanistan revealed to the general public where the soldiers were planning to attack next and where the soldiers were planning on sleeping that night. Think that general would be called a whistleblower by releasing this information or do you think there are major crimes involved here? Snowden revealed secret information about how we prevent terrorism in this country and now the terrorists have already changed their operating procedures to prevent detection. Additionally, American citizens have freedom of speech while they are inside the USA. We do not guarantee constitutional rights outside of the USA. Washington DC is not a state and citizens are not allowed to own guns there. This proves that even in a US territory, you do not get all the same rights as those living in one of the 50 states. Imagine if you're in Russia how few rights you have.
ReplyVote up (50)down (101)
Original comment
He would be more than charged with the crime if he turned himself in. So here's another way to show how bad what he did is. Imagine if a general in Afghanistan revealed to the general public where the soldiers were planning to attack next and where the soldiers were planning on sleeping that night. Think that general would be called a whistleblower by releasing this information or do you think there are major crimes involved here? Snowden revealed secret information about how we prevent terrorism in this country and now the terrorists have already changed their operating procedures to prevent detection. Additionally, American citizens have freedom of speech while they are inside the USA. We do not guarantee constitutional rights outside of the USA. Washington DC is not a state and citizens are not allowed to own guns there. This proves that even in a US territory, you do not get all the same rights as those living in one of the 50 states. Imagine if you're in Russia how few rights you have.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1615 days ago)
Hypothetical, hypothetical - yes, if I were hung upside down by my toes by the Emperor Ming, I'd have less freedom - but so what? And so what if you can't own a gun in DC or waitresses cannot carry drinks into a bar in Indiana? These have nothing to do with the price of fish (although they are similar to your red herrings). Let's say a crime was committed by someone with a moustache, you were wrongly picked up and charged. Do you agree you should lose the right to speak in public? (in the land of the free and the home of the brave?)
ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment
Hypothetical, hypothetical - yes, if I were hung upside down by my toes by the Emperor Ming, I'd have less freedom - but so what? And so what if you can't own a gun in DC or waitresses cannot carry drinks into a bar in Indiana? These have nothing to do with the price of fish (although they are similar to your red herrings). Let's say a crime was committed by someone with a moustache, you were wrongly picked up and charged. Do you agree you should lose the right to speak in public? (in the land of the free and the home of the brave?)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
The more he speaks, the more secret information he can release. That secret information is not protected under our 1st amendment. In fact, the information he can release by continuing to talk can be used to prosecute with additional charges.
ReplyVote up (71)down (101)
Original comment
The more he speaks, the more secret information he can release. That secret information is not protected under our 1st amendment. In fact, the information he can release by continuing to talk can be used to prosecute with additional charges.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1615 days ago)
Um - he's probably already released it to the Guardian. Now, (as you don't want to address the moustache example) what about a reverse principle? Supposing some plucky Russian blew the whistle on KGB monitoring citizens of Russia and its allied states. He says he'll be tried as a political prisoner (and you've seen how those damn Russkies treat their prisoners). He's not broken any laws in the USA and has been granted asylum in a third-party country. Here's the question: if he's temporarily holed-up in JFK, would you stop him talking to the media?
ReplyVote up (101)down (67)
Original comment
Um - he's probably already released it to the Guardian. Now, (as you don't want to address the moustache example) what about a reverse principle? Supposing some plucky Russian blew the whistle on KGB monitoring citizens of Russia and its allied states. He says he'll be tried as a political prisoner (and you've seen how those damn Russkies treat their prisoners). He's not broken any laws in the USA and has been granted asylum in a third-party country. Here's the question: if he's temporarily holed-up in JFK, would you stop him talking to the media?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
If you mean the JFK airport, he can talk if he wants but he should be warned that anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law. Also, if he releases additional secret information, he could be silenced with whatever means necessary up to and including force. What would probably happen is that the government would probably keep the media and other people away from him while they take him into custody so if he does talk, nobody would be around to hear him.
ReplyVote up (69)down (104)
Original comment
If you mean the JFK airport, he can talk if he wants but he should be warned that anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law. Also, if he releases additional secret information, he could be silenced with whatever means necessary up to and including force. What would probably happen is that the government would probably keep the media and other people away from him while they take him into custody so if he does talk, nobody would be around to hear him.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1615 days ago)
Yes - "JFK" as shorthand for the airport. Bingo, so as long as "anything you say may be taken down and used in evidence against you" is understood, you're cool with Snowden being allowed to speak in Moscow. Then you seem to be saying it's OK for the KGB to kill him on American soil if he released further "secret" information?
ReplyVote up (101)down (72)
Original comment
Yes - "JFK" as shorthand for the airport. Bingo, so as long as "anything you say may be taken down and used in evidence against you" is understood, you're cool with Snowden being allowed to speak in Moscow. Then you seem to be saying it's OK for the KGB to kill him on American soil if he released further "secret" information?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
I'm not saying it's okay for him to speak in Moscow because he doesn't have the free speech rights in another country. You asked about the JFK airport which is in the USA. I also don't think it's okay for the KGB to kill him unless he commits another crime while he is in Russia that qualifies for the death penalty. The crime he is currently accused of was committed in the USA so he needs to be held accountable here. Although we could have some black ops attempt to kill him if he attempts to release additional information while being in another country. We would do the same for any spy that tried to release top secret information.
ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment
I'm not saying it's okay for him to speak in Moscow because he doesn't have the free speech rights in another country. You asked about the JFK airport which is in the USA. I also don't think it's okay for the KGB to kill him unless he commits another crime while he is in Russia that qualifies for the death penalty. The crime he is currently accused of was committed in the USA so he needs to be held accountable here. Although we could have some black ops attempt to kill him if he attempts to release additional information while being in another country. We would do the same for any spy that tried to release top secret information.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1615 days ago)
And while you really should check out Kafka, I think you're well up to speed on 1984 - specifically "double-think". You seem to say "he can talk if he wants" then "It's not OK for him to speak". Then it's not OK for the KGB to kill someone in the same circumstances on US soil, but you "could have some black ops attempt to kill him... in another country." It's your ability defend actions perpretrated by the USA whilst decrying the same actions if committed by others that makes your position so untenable.
ReplyVote up (101)down (71)
Original comment
And while you really should check out Kafka, I think you're well up to speed on 1984 - specifically "double-think". You seem to say "he can talk if he wants" then "It's not OK for him to speak". Then it's not OK for the KGB to kill someone in the same circumstances on US soil, but you "could have some black ops attempt to kill him... in another country." It's your ability defend actions perpretrated by the USA whilst decrying the same actions if committed by others that makes your position so untenable.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
Don't think for any moment that the KGB wouldn't try to kill one of their people that defected to the USA if they could -- especially if they had secret information that could be valuable to us.
ReplyVote up (61)down (101)
Original comment
Don't think for any moment that the KGB wouldn't try to kill one of their people that defected to the USA if they could -- especially if they had secret information that could be valuable to us.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1615 days ago)
We're not talking about what the KGB would or would not do - we're talking about whether you, cengland0, have a tenable morality. At the moment we seem to have two instances of you holding contradictory beliefs at the same time: hence the reference to double-think
ReplyVote up (101)down (61)
Original comment
We're not talking about what the KGB would or would not do - we're talking about whether you, cengland0, have a tenable morality. At the moment we seem to have two instances of you holding contradictory beliefs at the same time: hence the reference to double-think
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
I don't believe any of my statements were contradictory. You may have read into something that I didn't say or misconstrued something. Please clarify what you think I said in the two separate comments and I will let you know what I meant by it.
ReplyVote up (76)down (101)
Original comment
I don't believe any of my statements were contradictory. You may have read into something that I didn't say or misconstrued something. Please clarify what you think I said in the two separate comments and I will let you know what I meant by it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: 0dnalgnec (1615 days ago)
your stupidity is resilient as a cockroach, you dumb fu*k!
ReplyVote up (101)down (67)
Original comment
your stupidity is resilient as a cockroach, you dumb fu*k!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1614 days ago)
Sorry for picking this up late - you seem to think it wrong for the KGB to kill someone on US soil, but OK for American "black ops" to kill him on foreign soil
ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment
Sorry for picking this up late - you seem to think it wrong for the KGB to kill someone on US soil, but OK for American "black ops" to kill him on foreign soil
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1614 days ago)
If the we had a Russian spy in custody and were interrogating them, I would expect the KGB to attempt to kill the spy. They can try if they want and I would not shed a tear if they succeed. People in that business know the risks involved when you defect to other countries.
ReplyVote up (84)down (101)
Original comment
If the we had a Russian spy in custody and were interrogating them, I would expect the KGB to attempt to kill the spy. They can try if they want and I would not shed a tear if they succeed. People in that business know the risks involved when you defect to other countries.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1614 days ago)
yeah, good point! the same goes for prison nurses who might just get attacked by an HIV infected prisoner whilst doing their part in keeping the country safe from threats. That nurse, just like the spies, knew the risks of working in a prison, i wouldn't share a tear for her if she died of AIDS as a result of that attack. Or people who eat cancerous unlabeled food products... they know the risks, they know companies put all sorts of chemicals in the food; if they didn't want to get cancer, they should have buy food labeled as safe instead of just regular food. they knew the risks of eating and if they died of cancer i wouldn't shed a tear for them. The same goes for people who drink shale gas contaminated water from the tap: they knew that there might be a risk of getting disease from drinking contaminated water, even if the FDA said it's safe; If they die because of that water i wouldn't shed a tear for them, they knew that there are potential risks. Cengland0 Empathy= zero! selfishness = over 9000!
ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment
yeah, good point! the same goes for prison nurses who might just get attacked by an HIV infected prisoner whilst doing their part in keeping the country safe from threats. That nurse, just like the spies, knew the risks of working in a prison, i wouldn't share a tear for her if she died of AIDS as a result of that attack. Or people who eat cancerous unlabeled food products... they know the risks, they know companies put all sorts of chemicals in the food; if they didn't want to get cancer, they should have buy food labeled as safe instead of just regular food. they knew the risks of eating and if they died of cancer i wouldn't shed a tear for them. The same goes for people who drink shale gas contaminated water from the tap: they knew that there might be a risk of getting disease from drinking contaminated water, even if the FDA said it's safe; If they die because of that water i wouldn't shed a tear for them, they knew that there are potential risks. Cengland0 Empathy= zero! selfishness = over 9000!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1614 days ago)
You have got to be kidding me. You think the dangers of being a spy is the same as drinking tap water? The CIA has a star on their wall for each spy that has died while on duty. Can you show me anyone that has died from drinking tap water near a shale gas mine?
ReplyVote up (55)down (101)
Original comment
You have got to be kidding me. You think the dangers of being a spy is the same as drinking tap water? The CIA has a star on their wall for each spy that has died while on duty. Can you show me anyone that has died from drinking tap water near a shale gas mine?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1614 days ago)
You're cooking up a perfect storm here, cengland0. Is this what you intended? As for data: how many people are posting to support your position, and how many against?
ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment
You're cooking up a perfect storm here, cengland0. Is this what you intended? As for data: how many people are posting to support your position, and how many against?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1614 days ago)
Are you trying to say that since more people are posting against me that I must somehow be wrong in my views? Well, we shall see. If Snowden is ever brought to justice and found guilty would you then admit that you were wrong?
ReplyVote up (66)down (101)
Original comment
Are you trying to say that since more people are posting against me that I must somehow be wrong in my views? Well, we shall see. If Snowden is ever brought to justice and found guilty would you then admit that you were wrong?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1614 days ago)
Denial! denial and rationalizations everywhere!
ReplyVote up (115)down (65)
Original comment
Denial! denial and rationalizations everywhere!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1615 days ago)
"If he's innocent like he thinks, he should be able to go free after his trial." Really? Snowden just looked at Bradley Manning. Banged up for 3 years before a trial even began. At least 11 months in solitary confinement - 23 hours a day, forced to sleep naked without pillows and sheets on his bed, and restricted from physical recreation or access to television or newspapers even during his one daily hour of freedom from his cell.
ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
"If he's innocent like he thinks, he should be able to go free after his trial." Really? Snowden just looked at Bradley Manning. Banged up for 3 years before a trial even began. At least 11 months in solitary confinement - 23 hours a day, forced to sleep naked without pillows and sheets on his bed, and restricted from physical recreation or access to television or newspapers even during his one daily hour of freedom from his cell.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
Bradley Manning's case is not a good one to compare because he has not been found "Not Guilty" yet.
ReplyVote up (61)down (104)
Original comment
Bradley Manning's case is not a good one to compare because he has not been found "Not Guilty" yet.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1615 days ago)
You really should give Kafka a go.
ReplyVote up (101)down (77)
Original comment
You really should give Kafka a go.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1615 days ago)
What are you talking about? Of course Bradley Manning's case is a good comparison. Would you stay in the US if you were Snowden?
ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment
What are you talking about? Of course Bradley Manning's case is a good comparison. Would you stay in the US if you were Snowden?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
You're asking if I would stay in the USA if I committed a crime that I know I was guilty of?
ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment
You're asking if I would stay in the USA if I committed a crime that I know I was guilty of?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1615 days ago)
No, I'm asking if you would expect a fair trial in the US if you were going to whistleblow on the NSA, considering what has happened to Bradley Manning?
ReplyVote up (101)down (73)
Original comment
No, I'm asking if you would expect a fair trial in the US if you were going to whistleblow on the NSA, considering what has happened to Bradley Manning?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
So you do not believe Bradley Manning is receiving a fair trial? He is not able to have a counsel and not able to defend himself against all acquisitions? How someone is treated during their time in custody does not have any bearing on if they get a fair trial or not.
ReplyVote up (86)down (101)
Original comment
So you do not believe Bradley Manning is receiving a fair trial? He is not able to have a counsel and not able to defend himself against all acquisitions? How someone is treated during their time in custody does not have any bearing on if they get a fair trial or not.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1615 days ago)
Banging someone up for 3 years, 11 months of which is in solitary confinement, so that a person is psychologically broken before a trial even begins, is not a fair trial or a presumption of innocence. So if you were going to whistleblow on the NSA, would you stay in the US considering what has happened to Bradley Manning?
ReplyVote up (102)down (52)
Original comment
Banging someone up for 3 years, 11 months of which is in solitary confinement, so that a person is psychologically broken before a trial even begins, is not a fair trial or a presumption of innocence. So if you were going to whistleblow on the NSA, would you stay in the US considering what has happened to Bradley Manning?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1615 days ago)
Here, here!
ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment
Here, here!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1615 days ago)
hear hear!
ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
hear hear!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1615 days ago)
I stand corrected
ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment
I stand corrected
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1615 days ago)
lol
ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment
lol
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
What you are describing about his custody terms has nothing to do with him receiving a fair trial. Those are mutually exclusive. Anyway, can you give me a reliable source about these acquisitions you claim about the torture he went through while in custody? I'm not denying it, I just haven't heard about that part until now so I'd like to read up on it. The first few pages on a Google search did not confirm anything you stated about those conditions.
ReplyVote up (70)down (101)
Original comment
What you are describing about his custody terms has nothing to do with him receiving a fair trial. Those are mutually exclusive. Anyway, can you give me a reliable source about these acquisitions you claim about the torture he went through while in custody? I'm not denying it, I just haven't heard about that part until now so I'd like to read up on it. The first few pages on a Google search did not confirm anything you stated about those conditions.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1615 days ago)
A trial is more than just the bit in court. Here are 2 links about Bradley Manning's treatment: LINK LINK
ReplyVote up (101)down (65)
Original comment
A trial is more than just the bit in court. Here are 2 links about Bradley Manning's treatment: LINK LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
After reading the first link, it appears some of the conditions were because he was a suicide risk. If you think that is bad, my dad was strapped to his hospital bed where he couldn't even scratch his own nose when it itched just because he was pulling out his own IV tubes that were keeping him alive. In my opinion, anyone that is trying to hurt themselves is already in some mental state that needs to be addressed by someone to prevent them from taking action. He was sleeping naked because his clothing could be used to hang himself. The article even states, "Prisoners placed on suicide watch typically are stripped of their clothes." Regarding the solitary confinement, that is typical in cases of political crimes or famous/infamous people. Having those people put into general population sometimes find them being killed by other prisoners. I bet that solitary confinement was for their own safety. As for me, I like to be alone so if I were put in prison, I would rather be all by myself. At least I wouldn't have to worry about being stabbed with a shiv or raped in the shower. The solitary confinement is not unusual according to this sentence, "Solitary confinement may be assigned originally for a few months, but as many prisoners react negatively to the conditions, they may continue to rack up infractions that could keep them isolated for years." and "About 2.3 million people are incarcerated in the United States, and an estimated 80,000 of them are in solitary confinement" Even with these solitary confinements, 50% of all the suicides that occur in prisons are done by the small 2-8% of people in solitary. So now that I had a good article to read the background on why he was in solitary, I do not find this to be unusual and he was not treated any different from other prisoners that are on suicide watch.
ReplyVote up (77)down (101)
Original comment
After reading the first link, it appears some of the conditions were because he was a suicide risk. If you think that is bad, my dad was strapped to his hospital bed where he couldn't even scratch his own nose when it itched just because he was pulling out his own IV tubes that were keeping him alive. In my opinion, anyone that is trying to hurt themselves is already in some mental state that needs to be addressed by someone to prevent them from taking action. He was sleeping naked because his clothing could be used to hang himself. The article even states, "Prisoners placed on suicide watch typically are stripped of their clothes." Regarding the solitary confinement, that is typical in cases of political crimes or famous/infamous people. Having those people put into general population sometimes find them being killed by other prisoners. I bet that solitary confinement was for their own safety. As for me, I like to be alone so if I were put in prison, I would rather be all by myself. At least I wouldn't have to worry about being stabbed with a shiv or raped in the shower. The solitary confinement is not unusual according to this sentence, "Solitary confinement may be assigned originally for a few months, but as many prisoners react negatively to the conditions, they may continue to rack up infractions that could keep them isolated for years." and "About 2.3 million people are incarcerated in the United States, and an estimated 80,000 of them are in solitary confinement" Even with these solitary confinements, 50% of all the suicides that occur in prisons are done by the small 2-8% of people in solitary. So now that I had a good article to read the background on why he was in solitary, I do not find this to be unusual and he was not treated any different from other prisoners that are on suicide watch.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1615 days ago)
You can't seriously believe what you've just written? Anyway, your hastily assembled opinion is opposite to Juan Mendez, who was appointed by the UN to investigate Bradley Manning's treatment, and after a 14 month investigation concluded: "…that the 11 months under conditions of solitary confinement (regardless of the name given to his regime by the prison authorities) constitutes at a minimum cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 16 of the convention against torture…" He also said that the solitary confinement was: "…an effort to coerce him into 'cooperation' with the authorities, allegedly for the purpose of persuading him to implicate others" (source is Guardian link before). Manning's solitary confinement ended on April 20, 2011. I guess he must have changed his mind about suicide.
ReplyVote up (117)down (84)
Original comment
You can't seriously believe what you've just written? Anyway, your hastily assembled opinion is opposite to Juan Mendez, who was appointed by the UN to investigate Bradley Manning's treatment, and after a 14 month investigation concluded: "…that the 11 months under conditions of solitary confinement (regardless of the name given to his regime by the prison authorities) constitutes at a minimum cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 16 of the convention against torture…" He also said that the solitary confinement was: "…an effort to coerce him into 'cooperation' with the authorities, allegedly for the purpose of persuading him to implicate others" (source is Guardian link before). Manning's solitary confinement ended on April 20, 2011. I guess he must have changed his mind about suicide.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1615 days ago)
your rationalization skills are phenomenal! and by rationalization i mean this LINK
ReplyVote up (102)down (111)
Original comment
your rationalization skills are phenomenal! and by rationalization i mean this LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
It's not making excuses. What I do is think about a better way to handle a situation. At this time, I cannot think of a better way to handle it without spending a lot more money. So it is acceptable behavior. You people in other parts of the world seem to criticize us in the USA but never offer any better solutions. You want us to just get rid of all our guns, make the rich pay for the poor, make all our corporations government owned, etc. You have no idea what the ramifications of those changes would be and if it's anything close to what is happening in the UK, I would prefer to keep our system the same way it is now. Remember that we left the Tyrannical government of the UK and got our independence from them and fought and sacrificed lives to get away from the tyranny of England. Why would we want to be like them now?
ReplyVote up (85)down (121)
Original comment
It's not making excuses. What I do is think about a better way to handle a situation. At this time, I cannot think of a better way to handle it without spending a lot more money. So it is acceptable behavior. You people in other parts of the world seem to criticize us in the USA but never offer any better solutions. You want us to just get rid of all our guns, make the rich pay for the poor, make all our corporations government owned, etc. You have no idea what the ramifications of those changes would be and if it's anything close to what is happening in the UK, I would prefer to keep our system the same way it is now. Remember that we left the Tyrannical government of the UK and got our independence from them and fought and sacrificed lives to get away from the tyranny of England. Why would we want to be like them now?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1615 days ago)
as i said: phenomenal!
ReplyVote up (112)down (73)
Original comment
as i said: phenomenal!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1615 days ago)
I can think of a better way - How about letting him out on bail before his trial (if there's a real risk of him running, then tag him) and bring the trial forward rather than hang around for 3 years. And since it's only money that seems to matter to you, it'll probably also cost less too. It took me about 30 seconds to come up with that.
ReplyVote up (101)down (78)
Original comment
I can think of a better way - How about letting him out on bail before his trial (if there's a real risk of him running, then tag him) and bring the trial forward rather than hang around for 3 years. And since it's only money that seems to matter to you, it'll probably also cost less too. It took me about 30 seconds to come up with that.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
Bail is an option given to people accused of lower crimes. For example, I doubt the British shoe bomber terrorist we caught over here was offered any bail. Bail does not guarantee the person will return for their court case. Besides, we have in our constitution that everyone is "offered" a speedy trial. You may wave that right if you wish. This happens frequently because the defense wishes to delay the case until it is no longer fresh on the jury's mind and also to gather more evidence to support their "Not Guilty" plea. So when you hear it was 3 years before a trial, do not assume it was because we are cruel over here. It was most likely due to the defense council's recommendation to delay.
ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment
Bail is an option given to people accused of lower crimes. For example, I doubt the British shoe bomber terrorist we caught over here was offered any bail. Bail does not guarantee the person will return for their court case. Besides, we have in our constitution that everyone is "offered" a speedy trial. You may wave that right if you wish. This happens frequently because the defense wishes to delay the case until it is no longer fresh on the jury's mind and also to gather more evidence to support their "Not Guilty" plea. So when you hear it was 3 years before a trial, do not assume it was because we are cruel over here. It was most likely due to the defense council's recommendation to delay.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1614 days ago)
"Bail is an option given to people accused of lower crimes" - For me, this is the crux of the matter. Whistle blowing is not a crime. People should not be deterred from whistle blowing, they should be encouraged. We know that power corrupts. We see it in banks, corporations, governments, individuals, groups, globally and throughout history. Very few things justify secrecy. Surveillance of everybody on the planet in my view should not be secret. It is too big to be secret. Snowden only told us what is going on. He should be celebrated and we should be discussing whether mass surveillance of the world's population is inevitable, and if so, how it should work - because we KNOW that power corrupts.
ReplyVote up (101)down (55)
Original comment
"Bail is an option given to people accused of lower crimes" - For me, this is the crux of the matter. Whistle blowing is not a crime. People should not be deterred from whistle blowing, they should be encouraged. We know that power corrupts. We see it in banks, corporations, governments, individuals, groups, globally and throughout history. Very few things justify secrecy. Surveillance of everybody on the planet in my view should not be secret. It is too big to be secret. Snowden only told us what is going on. He should be celebrated and we should be discussing whether mass surveillance of the world's population is inevitable, and if so, how it should work - because we KNOW that power corrupts.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1614 days ago)
He wasn't a whistle blower, he was a top secret information leaker. What you think should not be secret is immaterial and doesn't matter. The fact is that he had an oath to keep that secret and knew what the penalty was for releasing it. Like I said in earlier messages, In banking, I also have non-public information and can be jailed if I release it. It's not just government information that matters. There are laws that prohibit the release of specific information. An example is releasing information about a merger or buyout before an official announcement. I will guarantee that if you're caught telling anyone -- including a family member -- you will go to jail.
ReplyVote up (130)down (85)
Original comment
He wasn't a whistle blower, he was a top secret information leaker. What you think should not be secret is immaterial and doesn't matter. The fact is that he had an oath to keep that secret and knew what the penalty was for releasing it. Like I said in earlier messages, In banking, I also have non-public information and can be jailed if I release it. It's not just government information that matters. There are laws that prohibit the release of specific information. An example is releasing information about a merger or buyout before an official announcement. I will guarantee that if you're caught telling anyone -- including a family member -- you will go to jail.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1614 days ago)
Snowden leaked something that is secret, that should not be secret. Therefore, he's a whistle blower.
ReplyVote up (139)down (88)
Original comment
Snowden leaked something that is secret, that should not be secret. Therefore, he's a whistle blower.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1614 days ago)
Bradley Manning leaked usa war crimes because he believes in the constitution.the only way left for people like them to stay alive is to leak to the press if any of these two men had said what they where going to do to the correct chain above them theres a good chance their lives would have been at risk
ReplyVote up (162)down (59)
Original comment
Bradley Manning leaked usa war crimes because he believes in the constitution.the only way left for people like them to stay alive is to leak to the press if any of these two men had said what they where going to do to the correct chain above them theres a good chance their lives would have been at risk
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1614 days ago)
It is only your opinion that it should not be secret; however, the NSA has been able to thwart over 50 terrorist plans because of what they were doing and Snowden took an oath to not release that information. Now that it is public knowledge, the terrorists have already begun changing their strategies to hurt people without being detected by the NSA first. That means this information should not have been released. I cannot believe you think technical details of what goes on in our government agencies to keep us safe should not be secret. Think we should also release locations and plans to all our nuclear silos and power plants?
ReplyVote up (148)down (77)
Original comment
It is only your opinion that it should not be secret; however, the NSA has been able to thwart over 50 terrorist plans because of what they were doing and Snowden took an oath to not release that information. Now that it is public knowledge, the terrorists have already begun changing their strategies to hurt people without being detected by the NSA first. That means this information should not have been released. I cannot believe you think technical details of what goes on in our government agencies to keep us safe should not be secret. Think we should also release locations and plans to all our nuclear silos and power plants?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1614 days ago)
Knowing that power corrupts, I can't believe you think it is better not to know that the whole world is spied on by all governments - because that's how it will be if not already. Specifically about terrorists, Bin Laden knew or suspected which is why he didn't use a mobile. It would be wrong to assume that public awareness of PRISM aids terrorists. Avoiding email, mobiles etc. will slow down the organisation of future attacks - so presumably, there will be less attacks. Having to meet up more in person may be more risky for the terrorist... And oh, the location of nuclear silos and power plants is already public information. That's why we have submarines.
ReplyVote up (177)down (57)
Original comment
Knowing that power corrupts, I can't believe you think it is better not to know that the whole world is spied on by all governments - because that's how it will be if not already. Specifically about terrorists, Bin Laden knew or suspected which is why he didn't use a mobile. It would be wrong to assume that public awareness of PRISM aids terrorists. Avoiding email, mobiles etc. will slow down the organisation of future attacks - so presumably, there will be less attacks. Having to meet up more in person may be more risky for the terrorist... And oh, the location of nuclear silos and power plants is already public information. That's why we have submarines.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1614 days ago)
You must be naive to assume that the government doesn't have a file on all their citizens already. And people sort of knew that the government had the ability to monitor calls but didn't know the details on how. There were instances where the government was able to monitor what is going on in a conversation by turning on the microphones of people's cell phones and this is how they caught some mafia people. LINK Corporate executives remove their batteries from their cell phones prior to going into meetings. Additionally, knowing that email and social websites are monitored is not anything new. If you thought that data was secure before Snowden's leak, you have been misled.
ReplyVote up (55)down (103)
Original comment
You must be naive to assume that the government doesn't have a file on all their citizens already. And people sort of knew that the government had the ability to monitor calls but didn't know the details on how. There were instances where the government was able to monitor what is going on in a conversation by turning on the microphones of people's cell phones and this is how they caught some mafia people. LINK Corporate executives remove their batteries from their cell phones prior to going into meetings. Additionally, knowing that email and social websites are monitored is not anything new. If you thought that data was secure before Snowden's leak, you have been misled.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1613 days ago)
Your story about corporate executives removing batteries (very interesting btw) shows how law vs crime is continually evolving, just as NSA surveillance is. My worry is not about how surveillance is used against crime, but how it will be used against anyone dissenting government/corporate actions. That's why PRISM should not be secret. How else can we have transparency?
ReplyVote up (154)down (57)
Original comment
Your story about corporate executives removing batteries (very interesting btw) shows how law vs crime is continually evolving, just as NSA surveillance is. My worry is not about how surveillance is used against crime, but how it will be used against anyone dissenting government/corporate actions. That's why PRISM should not be secret. How else can we have transparency?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1614 days ago)
50 terrorist plans can we have proof of them please???
ReplyVote up (130)down (74)
Original comment
50 terrorist plans can we have proof of them please???
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1614 days ago)
LINK LINK LINK LINK There are more if you just google it.
ReplyVote up (2448)down (66)
Original comment
LINK LINK LINK LINK There are more if you just google it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1614 days ago)
the nsa saying its stopped 50 terrorist plans is not proof its just them trying to prove they are working in your best interests. after 911 the word terrorist got a whole new meaning eg a usa gun club group who dont like the gov can now be classed as a terrorist group and be spied on by the nsa is that correct??? or any group or club that doesnt like what their gov is doing can also be classed as a terrorist group is that right too???
ReplyVote up (101)down (72)
Original comment
the nsa saying its stopped 50 terrorist plans is not proof its just them trying to prove they are working in your best interests. after 911 the word terrorist got a whole new meaning eg a usa gun club group who dont like the gov can now be classed as a terrorist group and be spied on by the nsa is that correct??? or any group or club that doesnt like what their gov is doing can also be classed as a terrorist group is that right too???
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1614 days ago)
Are these the same type of threats as "Saddam has chemical weapons and can mobilise them in 45 minutes?"
ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment
Are these the same type of threats as "Saddam has chemical weapons and can mobilise them in 45 minutes?"
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1614 days ago)
probabbly...
ReplyVote up (134)down (68)
Original comment
probabbly...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1614 days ago)
We did not have an embassy in Iraq we we relied on joint intel provided by the USA and UK. It was mainly based on Saddam's fear of Iran and turned out to be wrong. Did you have better intel at that time? If so, why didn't you step forward and tell our governments that you know for a fact he doesn't have any WMD's and provide your proof so the war could have been prevented?
ReplyVote up (60)down (252)
Original comment
We did not have an embassy in Iraq we we relied on joint intel provided by the USA and UK. It was mainly based on Saddam's fear of Iran and turned out to be wrong. Did you have better intel at that time? If so, why didn't you step forward and tell our governments that you know for a fact he doesn't have any WMD's and provide your proof so the war could have been prevented?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1614 days ago)
More interestingly why wasn't Hans Blix believed? Or do you have better intel than Dr Hans Blix?
ReplyVote up (101)down (77)
Original comment
More interestingly why wasn't Hans Blix believed? Or do you have better intel than Dr Hans Blix?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Wulfrune Wulfrune (1613 days ago)
Given how much Cary (cengland0) is disliked here, I'm surprised Cary actually continues to post stuff. He should take up a hobby, given that there's very little gun control in the USA, he should do what I do..... He should take up shooting birds..... the brighter the plumage, the brighter & better the explosion from my 12 gauge. What you say Cary? This something that would appeal to you?
ReplyVote up (72)down (101)
Original comment
Given how much Cary (cengland0) is disliked here, I'm surprised Cary actually continues to post stuff. He should take up a hobby, given that there's very little gun control in the USA, he should do what I do..... He should take up shooting birds..... the brighter the plumage, the brighter & better the explosion from my 12 gauge. What you say Cary? This something that would appeal to you?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1614 days ago)
rationalizations! rationalizations everywhere!
ReplyVote up (101)down (80)
Original comment
rationalizations! rationalizations everywhere!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1614 days ago)
yeah, PICS or it didn't happen!
ReplyVote up (131)down (51)
Original comment
yeah, PICS or it didn't happen!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: what? (1614 days ago)
so you're saying that if your boss does something illegal like, idk murdered a 10 year old to protect the company for which you work for, and you see it on the company surveillance camera the next day. but you signed a confidentiality agreement that says you can't tell anyone what your boss did or you will go to jail, will it be ok with you if you were to go to jail for ratting on your boss?
ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment
so you're saying that if your boss does something illegal like, idk murdered a 10 year old to protect the company for which you work for, and you see it on the company surveillance camera the next day. but you signed a confidentiality agreement that says you can't tell anyone what your boss did or you will go to jail, will it be ok with you if you were to go to jail for ratting on your boss?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1614 days ago)
That's out of scope of this conversation because what the NSA is doing is not illegal. They have court orders that give them the right to do it. Additionally, if you want to use the whistleblower concept because he thought it was illegal activity, he could have escalated it. They have methods for escalation and leaking the top secret information to the media was not the correct procedure.
ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment
That's out of scope of this conversation because what the NSA is doing is not illegal. They have court orders that give them the right to do it. Additionally, if you want to use the whistleblower concept because he thought it was illegal activity, he could have escalated it. They have methods for escalation and leaking the top secret information to the media was not the correct procedure.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: what? (1614 days ago)
so you're saying that the NSA acted in accordance with section 215 of the NDAA, even though the ACLU started a lawsuit contesting the legality of the actions taken by the NSA based on section 215, and even though the NDAA might be a unconstitutional law in the first place? are you saying the ACLU is wrong and the NSA is right?
Original comment
so you're saying that the NSA acted in accordance with section 215 of the NDAA, even though the ACLU started a lawsuit contesting the legality of the actions taken by the NSA based on section 215, and even though the NDAA might be a unconstitutional law in the first place? are you saying the ACLU is wrong and the NSA is right?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1614 days ago)
Until that lawsuit is settled, we will not know what is decided by the supreme court. However, it was legal at the time they were doing it and remains legal until overturned by the supreme court. Since it's legal and was legal at the time, Snowden did not have the right to leak the information. Even if it was illegal, he still cannot release top secret information to the media like he did -- he must follow the proper escalation process and he failed to do so.
ReplyVote up (48)down (101)
Original comment
Until that lawsuit is settled, we will not know what is decided by the supreme court. However, it was legal at the time they were doing it and remains legal until overturned by the supreme court. Since it's legal and was legal at the time, Snowden did not have the right to leak the information. Even if it was illegal, he still cannot release top secret information to the media like he did -- he must follow the proper escalation process and he failed to do so.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: what? (1614 days ago)
are you saying that you never heard of nullity of a law? you're saying that if the supreme court decides the NSA acted in accordance to the letter of the NDAA law you would still have no problem with the unconstitutionality of the law in question? Are you saying that the NDAA is a constitutional law?
ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment
are you saying that you never heard of nullity of a law? you're saying that if the supreme court decides the NSA acted in accordance to the letter of the NDAA law you would still have no problem with the unconstitutionality of the law in question? Are you saying that the NDAA is a constitutional law?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1614 days ago)
good point! i wonder what the answer is?
Original comment
good point! i wonder what the answer is?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1614 days ago)
People that have education specifically for this purpose thinks it's constitutional including the President who signed it into law. He was a former lawyer. If someone wishes to challenge it and it gets to the supreme court and is determined to be unconstitutional, then we can talk about it at that time. As far as I know, the NSA had all the correct authority to do what they did because they acquired a court order which is required by our constitution.
Original comment
People that have education specifically for this purpose thinks it's constitutional including the President who signed it into law. He was a former lawyer. If someone wishes to challenge it and it gets to the supreme court and is determined to be unconstitutional, then we can talk about it at that time. As far as I know, the NSA had all the correct authority to do what they did because they acquired a court order which is required by our constitution.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: what? (1614 days ago)
never mind what other people think... Are you saying that the NDAA is a constitutional law? what do you think? is it constitutional or not?
Original comment
never mind what other people think... Are you saying that the NDAA is a constitutional law? what do you think? is it constitutional or not?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1614 days ago)
good point! i would be curious to know the answer to that question, would everyone else?
Original comment
good point! i would be curious to know the answer to that question, would everyone else?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1614 days ago)
wouldn't *
Original comment
wouldn't *
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: what? (1614 days ago)
but what he did was against the law. are you saying people shouldn't respect the law?
Original comment
but what he did was against the law. are you saying people shouldn't respect the law?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1614 days ago)
Things are never black and white like that. Would the world be a better, safer, fairer, more peaceful place if we did not know that governments are surveilling everybody?
Original comment
Things are never black and white like that. Would the world be a better, safer, fairer, more peaceful place if we did not know that governments are surveilling everybody?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1614 days ago)
The world is a worse place because the terrorists know how we thwarted over 50 of their plans to hurt innocent people. They are changing their tactics and I hope it's not someone that I know that gets killed first. It is unbelievable that you feel it's a better to have terrorists kill innocent people for the sake of giving out top secret information to the general public.
ReplyVote up (137)down (58)
Original comment
The world is a worse place because the terrorists know how we thwarted over 50 of their plans to hurt innocent people. They are changing their tactics and I hope it's not someone that I know that gets killed first. It is unbelievable that you feel it's a better to have terrorists kill innocent people for the sake of giving out top secret information to the general public.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: what? (1614 days ago)
so you don't want people to respect the law?
Original comment
so you don't want people to respect the law?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Pavel (1614 days ago)
The USA 'demands' he be handed over?! Let's be clear, the USA are in no position to demand anything from anyone, least of all from a country as powerful as Russia. Talk about a superiority complex!
ReplyVote up (144)down (141)
Original comment
The USA 'demands' he be handed over?! Let's be clear, the USA are in no position to demand anything from anyone, least of all from a country as powerful as Russia. Talk about a superiority complex!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1614 days ago)
Russia was a threat to the USA during the cold war but that ended during President Reagan. The only country I fear now is China.
ReplyVote up (110)down (140)
Original comment
Russia was a threat to the USA during the cold war but that ended during President Reagan. The only country I fear now is China.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Pavel (1614 days ago)
The USA doesn't have a clue what to be scared of. Its citizens feel the need to arm themselves against their own government, yet think they have enough power to make demands on a nation such as Russia which is certainly not answerable in any way to the USA. The sooner the USA understand that its foreign policy is hugely detrimental, then the sooner they can begin to forge true diplomatic bonds - then and only then may they *ask* for the cooperation of Russia, China or anyone else. Them having a hissy fit and stomping their feet will not work.
ReplyVote up (225)down (125)
Original comment
The USA doesn't have a clue what to be scared of. Its citizens feel the need to arm themselves against their own government, yet think they have enough power to make demands on a nation such as Russia which is certainly not answerable in any way to the USA. The sooner the USA understand that its foreign policy is hugely detrimental, then the sooner they can begin to forge true diplomatic bonds - then and only then may they *ask* for the cooperation of Russia, China or anyone else. Them having a hissy fit and stomping their feet will not work.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1614 days ago)
Wow - America has invaded Russia more times than Russia has invaded America
ReplyVote up (192)down (112)
Original comment
Wow - America has invaded Russia more times than Russia has invaded America
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1614 days ago)
the only country you need to fear is your own.its not china thats brainwashing you to post like the way you do
ReplyVote up (152)down (134)
Original comment
the only country you need to fear is your own.its not china thats brainwashing you to post like the way you do
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1614 days ago)
The USA is a wonderful place to live. There are so many people that want to come here that we have to put controls and limit the number of immigrants that we allow each year. Many want to experience the American dream. You're more than welcome to fear us but I love this country. And if you think the UK doesn't monitor it's citizens, then you are the one that is misled. I have never had any expectations of 100% privacy in this country so I'm shocked that people are surprised about what the NSA was doing.
ReplyVote up (111)down (149)
Original comment
The USA is a wonderful place to live. There are so many people that want to come here that we have to put controls and limit the number of immigrants that we allow each year. Many want to experience the American dream. You're more than welcome to fear us but I love this country. And if you think the UK doesn't monitor it's citizens, then you are the one that is misled. I have never had any expectations of 100% privacy in this country so I'm shocked that people are surprised about what the NSA was doing.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Furley (1613 days ago)
Are you using immigration as a mark of quality of life? Have you bothered to look up immigration statistics for other countries? Not far behind the USA in terms of immigration is Russia, and a couple of places below the USA is the Ukraine. By your reasoning these must be pretty fantastic places to live. Sadly for you, countries have stopped fearing you long ago. This is why North Korea ignores you, this is why Russia laughs when you 'demand' it to hand over Snowden.
ReplyVote up (191)down (108)
Original comment
Are you using immigration as a mark of quality of life? Have you bothered to look up immigration statistics for other countries? Not far behind the USA in terms of immigration is Russia, and a couple of places below the USA is the Ukraine. By your reasoning these must be pretty fantastic places to live. Sadly for you, countries have stopped fearing you long ago. This is why North Korea ignores you, this is why Russia laughs when you 'demand' it to hand over Snowden.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1613 days ago)
I think cengland0 has probably stopped posting, or shaven. He's removed his profile pic. Shame, because I always enjoyed our battles. He never changed his mind, but nor did I. Very rarely do people ever change their minds even though nobody is right all the time. It's always the other person who is wrong. I guess that's human nature. It's probably an outdated survival trait.
ReplyVote up (120)down (125)
Original comment
I think cengland0 has probably stopped posting, or shaven. He's removed his profile pic. Shame, because I always enjoyed our battles. He never changed his mind, but nor did I. Very rarely do people ever change their minds even though nobody is right all the time. It's always the other person who is wrong. I guess that's human nature. It's probably an outdated survival trait.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1613 days ago)
Maybe that was one crack too many about having a moustache like Stalin's - and he was taking/generating a lot of flak on the topic of Snowden. If he's gone, I'll miss him in an odd way, but I do/did find him curious. For an intelligent and dedicated arguer, his style seemed designed to take up as much time as possible from everyone else without seeking a conclusion - almost like a "Libertarian" guerilla holding down as large a force of the opposition as possible. Is it possible (or am I being paranoid) that given the amount of time he spends/spent on this site at all hours of the day, that he isn't really a banker, but a paid blogger aiming to show his reactionary views were more widespread than they really are? Meanwhile, I'm going to shave my moustache off.
ReplyVote up (125)down (120)
Original comment
Maybe that was one crack too many about having a moustache like Stalin's - and he was taking/generating a lot of flak on the topic of Snowden. If he's gone, I'll miss him in an odd way, but I do/did find him curious. For an intelligent and dedicated arguer, his style seemed designed to take up as much time as possible from everyone else without seeking a conclusion - almost like a "Libertarian" guerilla holding down as large a force of the opposition as possible. Is it possible (or am I being paranoid) that given the amount of time he spends/spent on this site at all hours of the day, that he isn't really a banker, but a paid blogger aiming to show his reactionary views were more widespread than they really are? Meanwhile, I'm going to shave my moustache off.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1613 days ago)
""Is it possible (or am I being paranoid) that given the amount of time he spends/spent on this site at all hours of the day, that he isn't really a banker, but a paid blogger aiming to show his reactionary views were more widespread than they really are?"" that's what i've been saying since i started being active on boreme! but i gave him the benefit o the doubt anyway... i guess i was also paranoid...
ReplyVote up (196)down (103)
Original comment
""Is it possible (or am I being paranoid) that given the amount of time he spends/spent on this site at all hours of the day, that he isn't really a banker, but a paid blogger aiming to show his reactionary views were more widespread than they really are?"" that's what i've been saying since i started being active on boreme! but i gave him the benefit o the doubt anyway... i guess i was also paranoid...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1613 days ago)
no the nsa have taken cary in for a friendy chat (waterboarding) for looking like stalin and his russian connections. when he returns from is fiendly chat he will be a different man or woman depends on the brainwashing he gets
ReplyVote up (123)down (108)
Original comment
no the nsa have taken cary in for a friendy chat (waterboarding) for looking like stalin and his russian connections. when he returns from is fiendly chat he will be a different man or woman depends on the brainwashing he gets
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1613 days ago)
LOL! the metadata they collected from him was used in a computer software/algorithm and the computer decided he's a potential right wing, home grown terrorist, LOL JK (seems that ending a comment with "lol jk" doesn't help much, as we've seen in the case of Justin Carter)
ReplyVote up (108)down (111)
Original comment
LOL! the metadata they collected from him was used in a computer software/algorithm and the computer decided he's a potential right wing, home grown terrorist, LOL JK (seems that ending a comment with "lol jk" doesn't help much, as we've seen in the case of Justin Carter)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1613 days ago)
cengland0 is always with us, watching over as we try to figure him out, just like God does.
ReplyVote up (110)down (107)
Original comment
cengland0 is always with us, watching over as we try to figure him out, just like God does.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1613 days ago)
Does God have a moustache too?
ReplyVote up (106)down (280)
Original comment
Does God have a moustache too?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1613 days ago)
are we saying cary is like god eg never existed??or maybe he did exist this could go on for 1000's of years
ReplyVote up (87)down (282)
Original comment
are we saying cary is like god eg never existed??or maybe he did exist this could go on for 1000's of years
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1613 days ago)
Latest comment: 1000's of years? AAAAGGGGHHHH!
ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment
Latest comment: 1000's of years? AAAAGGGGHHHH!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1614 days ago)
the uk may well monitor its citizens that why i fear the uk gov (eg 1984 becomming real) but in the uk the brainwashing has not kicked in yet.i also fear what the usa is doing only because of the way the uk gov looks up to it only to make the same mistakes eg iraq
ReplyVote up (126)down (89)
Original comment
the uk may well monitor its citizens that why i fear the uk gov (eg 1984 becomming real) but in the uk the brainwashing has not kicked in yet.i also fear what the usa is doing only because of the way the uk gov looks up to it only to make the same mistakes eg iraq
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1614 days ago)
Has anyone leaked the details of the UK monitoring their citizens? I don't think so but you still know it's happening. That's the whole point. We know it happens but we didn't need to know the details like what Snowden released. Now the terrorists have enough information to evade detection.
ReplyVote up (91)down (136)
Original comment
Has anyone leaked the details of the UK monitoring their citizens? I don't think so but you still know it's happening. That's the whole point. We know it happens but we didn't need to know the details like what Snowden released. Now the terrorists have enough information to evade detection.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1614 days ago)
Hang on I've just realised something. It's all market forces. Snowden leaked the material because he would gain more kudos. The NSA only has itself to blame - if it didn't want people to whistle-blow, it should offer more kudos. You should approve of him, cengland0
ReplyVote up (195)down (92)
Original comment
Hang on I've just realised something. It's all market forces. Snowden leaked the material because he would gain more kudos. The NSA only has itself to blame - if it didn't want people to whistle-blow, it should offer more kudos. You should approve of him, cengland0
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1614 days ago)
never looked at it this way! kudos is where it's at, he only acted in the capitalist spirit.
ReplyVote up (121)down (96)
Original comment
never looked at it this way! kudos is where it's at, he only acted in the capitalist spirit.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1614 days ago)
funny how you should point out the second amendment of the US constitution when it comes to gun rights, but you don't do the same thing when it comes to the first and fourth amendments when it comes to the NSA spying practices and the unconstitutionality of the NDAA, as another guest pointed out. it's called a double standard.
ReplyVote up (165)down (90)
Original comment
funny how you should point out the second amendment of the US constitution when it comes to gun rights, but you don't do the same thing when it comes to the first and fourth amendments when it comes to the NSA spying practices and the unconstitutionality of the NDAA, as another guest pointed out. it's called a double standard.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1614 days ago)
The first amendment has limitations. An example is that you cannot yell "bomb!" in a crowded theater to instill panic. You are not allowed to give out insider information to the public regarding corporate profits, mergers, buyouts, etc until it is released officially to the public at a news conference. You cannot give out top secret information to the enemy. What he did was illegal and should not be applauded for breaking the law and putting our citizen's lives at risk. How can you think it is okay that people will probably die because of this leaking? What if it was one of your family members that get blown up in the next terrorist plot -- how would you feel then?
ReplyVote up (86)down (123)
Original comment
The first amendment has limitations. An example is that you cannot yell "bomb!" in a crowded theater to instill panic. You are not allowed to give out insider information to the public regarding corporate profits, mergers, buyouts, etc until it is released officially to the public at a news conference. You cannot give out top secret information to the enemy. What he did was illegal and should not be applauded for breaking the law and putting our citizen's lives at risk. How can you think it is okay that people will probably die because of this leaking? What if it was one of your family members that get blown up in the next terrorist plot -- how would you feel then?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1614 days ago)
you conveniently forgot to address the 4th amendment and tried to change the subject by asking me irrelevant questions. good thing i decided to not answer them until you address the fact that when it comes to defending the 4th amendment you pretend it doesn't exist, but when it comes to guns... oh boy, the constitution is holy! it's just like the Christians do with the bible: pick and choose whatever they like. Yes, it is called a double standard.
ReplyVote up (152)down (83)
Original comment
you conveniently forgot to address the 4th amendment and tried to change the subject by asking me irrelevant questions. good thing i decided to not answer them until you address the fact that when it comes to defending the 4th amendment you pretend it doesn't exist, but when it comes to guns... oh boy, the constitution is holy! it's just like the Christians do with the bible: pick and choose whatever they like. Yes, it is called a double standard.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1614 days ago)
What about the 4th amendment? The 4th amendment says the government can search if they have a court order and they have one.
ReplyVote up (66)down (117)
Original comment
What about the 4th amendment? The 4th amendment says the government can search if they have a court order and they have one.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1614 days ago)
i'll just leave this LINK here (it's to undermine the credibility of the NSA). this one's to undermine the credibility of the NSA and FISA even more LINK . ACLU says you're wrong. The lying people in the US government say you're right. I'm just gonna put my WORD and HONOR on the ACLU this time, thank you very much for the desperate attempts at proving the US government is still the legitimate government of the US citizens. We're not buying it. nobody does.
ReplyVote up (142)down (1239)
Original comment
i'll just leave this LINK here (it's to undermine the credibility of the NSA). this one's to undermine the credibility of the NSA and FISA even more LINK . ACLU says you're wrong. The lying people in the US government say you're right. I'm just gonna put my WORD and HONOR on the ACLU this time, thank you very much for the desperate attempts at proving the US government is still the legitimate government of the US citizens. We're not buying it. nobody does.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1614 days ago)
one last queston: do you Cengland0 think that the NDAA is a constitutional law? is the NDAA a constitutional law in YOUR opinion?
ReplyVote up (118)down (84)
Original comment
one last queston: do you Cengland0 think that the NDAA is a constitutional law? is the NDAA a constitutional law in YOUR opinion?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1614 days ago)
damn it! what i wanted to ask was: In YOUR opinion, does the NDAA law respect the US constitution and all the amendments in it?
ReplyVote up (108)down (68)
Original comment
damn it! what i wanted to ask was: In YOUR opinion, does the NDAA law respect the US constitution and all the amendments in it?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1614 days ago)
First, I'm not saying that I'm right. I'm basically stating the position of the NSA. If the ACLU thinks they are right and that the NSA is breaking the law, they should continue with their lawsuit. The supreme court will determine who is right and their decision will become law. That's the power the supreme court has.
ReplyVote up (86)down (130)
Original comment
First, I'm not saying that I'm right. I'm basically stating the position of the NSA. If the ACLU thinks they are right and that the NSA is breaking the law, they should continue with their lawsuit. The supreme court will determine who is right and their decision will become law. That's the power the supreme court has.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1614 days ago)
Quick! Give me one of those pink pills in my top pocket. I think I'm having a heart attack. "First, I'm not saying that I'm right."
ReplyVote up (121)down (77)
Original comment
Quick! Give me one of those pink pills in my top pocket. I think I'm having a heart attack. "First, I'm not saying that I'm right."
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1614 days ago)
I cannot predict the decision of the Supreme Court and neither can anyone else so how could I presume that I'm right. I also don't know if I'm wrong. Does that make you feel better? At least I understand why the NSA believes they have the right to monitor international calls.
ReplyVote up (73)down (121)
Original comment
I cannot predict the decision of the Supreme Court and neither can anyone else so how could I presume that I'm right. I also don't know if I'm wrong. Does that make you feel better? At least I understand why the NSA believes they have the right to monitor international calls.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1614 days ago)
In YOUR opinion, does the NDAA law respect the US constitution and all the amendments in it?
ReplyVote up (105)down (76)
Original comment
In YOUR opinion, does the NDAA law respect the US constitution and all the amendments in it?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: 0dnalgnec (1614 days ago)
forget it! ceng-c*nt takes naps when somebody starts asking tough questions! bankers have come to expect that they can get away with anything, and for that they don't feel they should explain themselves or their amoral deeds to no one! bloody bastards! I'm talking to you ceng-c*nt! you c*nt!
ReplyVote up (114)down (66)
Original comment
forget it! ceng-c*nt takes naps when somebody starts asking tough questions! bankers have come to expect that they can get away with anything, and for that they don't feel they should explain themselves or their amoral deeds to no one! bloody bastards! I'm talking to you ceng-c*nt! you c*nt!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Unimpressed (1613 days ago)
Crawl back into your sewer kiddie. With your style, that's where you belong, not in a supposedly civilised discussion of exalted topics like constitutional rights of citizens. Back under your rock now.
ReplyVote up (50)down (108)
Original comment
Crawl back into your sewer kiddie. With your style, that's where you belong, not in a supposedly civilised discussion of exalted topics like constitutional rights of citizens. Back under your rock now.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: 0dnalgnec (1613 days ago)
if by sewer you mean your mum's C*NT, i'll let you get out of it before i go in, you inbred piece of sheit!
ReplyVote up (101)down (71)
Original comment
if by sewer you mean your mum's C*NT, i'll let you get out of it before i go in, you inbred piece of sheit!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Unimpressed (1613 days ago)
Ah, the ACLU sez so... I'm impressed no end... yawn. Did you ask the clowns at the PETA too per chance? Just to get the second opinion, y'know.
ReplyVote up (61)down (118)
Original comment
Ah, the ACLU sez so... I'm impressed no end... yawn. Did you ask the clowns at the PETA too per chance? Just to get the second opinion, y'know.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1614 days ago)
do you mean the usa gun club who dont like the gov terrorists or a group or club who dont like there gov terrorists or do you mean the terrorist who aleady knows how to evade detection eg 911 oh but your gov had already detected that one but where asleep at the switch at the time?? and let it happen maybe cos most of the terrorists in the planes could be traced back as cia trained?? false flag springs to mind
ReplyVote up (101)down (55)
Original comment
do you mean the usa gun club who dont like the gov terrorists or a group or club who dont like there gov terrorists or do you mean the terrorist who aleady knows how to evade detection eg 911 oh but your gov had already detected that one but where asleep at the switch at the time?? and let it happen maybe cos most of the terrorists in the planes could be traced back as cia trained?? false flag springs to mind
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: 0dnalgnec (1614 days ago)
there was this kid when i was in 7th grade and he was so stupid that a teacher asked him to go to the blackboard and write the alphabet just to have a laugh; this kid went in front of the class, picked up the chalk and started writing: A, B, C, D, E, F, G....*looks back at the class for hints after contemplating what the next letter is, one students whispers M *... so he continues M, N, O...*looks back at the class for the next hint*. By that point we were all laughing our arses off and the teacher stared at him with an empty look on he's face, and we looked at the kid, then at the teacher, back at the kid, back at the teacher and we started laughing even harder! I swear, if it wasn't for that kid i would say that this comment of yours to which i am replying, is the most retarded sh*t i have ever seen in my life! you aberrant sewage sludge banker scum!
ReplyVote up (120)down (98)
Original comment
there was this kid when i was in 7th grade and he was so stupid that a teacher asked him to go to the blackboard and write the alphabet just to have a laugh; this kid went in front of the class, picked up the chalk and started writing: A, B, C, D, E, F, G....*looks back at the class for hints after contemplating what the next letter is, one students whispers M *... so he continues M, N, O...*looks back at the class for the next hint*. By that point we were all laughing our arses off and the teacher stared at him with an empty look on he's face, and we looked at the kid, then at the teacher, back at the kid, back at the teacher and we started laughing even harder! I swear, if it wasn't for that kid i would say that this comment of yours to which i am replying, is the most retarded sh*t i have ever seen in my life! you aberrant sewage sludge banker scum!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Unimpressed (1613 days ago)
You know kiddie, if one compares the grammar and general literacy of cengland's posts with yours, one can easily see who's the undereducated retard here; and it's not he.
ReplyVote up (79)down (119)
Original comment
You know kiddie, if one compares the grammar and general literacy of cengland's posts with yours, one can easily see who's the undereducated retard here; and it's not he.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: 0dnalgnec (1613 days ago)
hello MAD! still sucking cengland0's duck penis, innit mate?
ReplyVote up (128)down (70)
Original comment
hello MAD! still sucking cengland0's duck penis, innit mate?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1613 days ago)
not guilty again m'lud, have you booked yourself in for a lobotomy yet like i advised you to do.
ReplyVote up (62)down (155)
Original comment
not guilty again m'lud, have you booked yourself in for a lobotomy yet like i advised you to do.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: 0dnalgnec (1613 days ago)
there we have it luv! now i can tell you to go FU*K yourself, you fu*king cengland0 Fandom piece of sheit!
ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment
there we have it luv! now i can tell you to go FU*K yourself, you fu*king cengland0 Fandom piece of sheit!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1613 days ago)
as i said before dont worry the science behind lobotomies was awarded a nobel prize so its perfectly consensus and safe and you will be cured of the need to be abusive to everyone
ReplyVote up (84)down (101)
Original comment
as i said before dont worry the science behind lobotomies was awarded a nobel prize so its perfectly consensus and safe and you will be cured of the need to be abusive to everyone
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1613 days ago)
Although i should add 0dnalgnec is so thick it's odds on the general public wouldn't notice the difference
ReplyVote up (78)down (104)
Original comment
Although i should add 0dnalgnec is so thick it's odds on the general public wouldn't notice the difference
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: 0dnalgnec (1613 days ago)
your dick: 8==D. MY DICK: 8======D. now suck on it!
ReplyVote up (101)down (77)
Original comment
your dick: 8==D. MY DICK: 8======D. now suck on it!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1613 days ago)
what a dipshit
ReplyVote up (76)down (101)
Original comment
what a dipshit
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
I guess 55% is considered the majority. However, they do not mention the margin of error which occurs in every random sampling in surveys. If only 100 people were surveyed, this margin of error would be huge but if 300 million people were surveyed, the margin would be smaller. Without further data, I cannot believe that 55% of Americans believe he's only a whistle blower and only 34% consider him as a traitor so what happened to the other 11%? How was this question worded? Did the people polled know all the fact about the case? Do they even know who he is? Are they getting all their information from the media alone?
Original comment
I guess 55% is considered the majority. However, they do not mention the margin of error which occurs in every random sampling in surveys. If only 100 people were surveyed, this margin of error would be huge but if 300 million people were surveyed, the margin would be smaller. Without further data, I cannot believe that 55% of Americans believe he's only a whistle blower and only 34% consider him as a traitor so what happened to the other 11%? How was this question worded? Did the people polled know all the fact about the case? Do they even know who he is? Are they getting all their information from the media alone?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
glortman glortman (1615 days ago)
51% is considered a majority. There are several problems with the media's presentation of statistics based on polls, but your statistical commentary also needs some help. After a certain sample size, the real factor determining the accuracy of any poll is its randomness. Most polls currently use automated digit dialers that select phone numbers at random from published lists. White people were over-represented in this poll (73%) and independents and democrats (32%, 35%) were more well represented than republicans (23%) LINK There are two kinds of error in polls. One is the error in the sample. In this poll that error was +/- 2%, meaning that the actual population seeing Snowden as a whistle-blower could actually be 57% or 53%, which are still 'majority' numbers. The second type of error 'margin of error' or the confidence interval (CI) referred to in most polls (19 times out of 20, you might hear them say), refers to the likelihood you would get the same result if you conducted the same poll 20 times. With a CI of 95%, you could do the same poll 20 times with different same-sized sample of the population and get the same result. The sample size was pretty good, more than 2000 voters. The sample error is low, and the CI is high. The other 11 percent was 'don't know' or 'no answer'. It is probably an accurate poll. The question actually was "Do you think Snowden has gone too far or not far enough?" 55% felt he has not gone far enough. I would agree there is a problem of interpretation here, since, "too far" does not automatically equal "traitor", but most Americans seem to like to think in binary and reductionistic syllogisms.
Original comment
51% is considered a majority. There are several problems with the media's presentation of statistics based on polls, but your statistical commentary also needs some help. After a certain sample size, the real factor determining the accuracy of any poll is its randomness. Most polls currently use automated digit dialers that select phone numbers at random from published lists. White people were over-represented in this poll (73%) and independents and democrats (32%, 35%) were more well represented than republicans (23%) LINK There are two kinds of error in polls. One is the error in the sample. In this poll that error was +/- 2%, meaning that the actual population seeing Snowden as a whistle-blower could actually be 57% or 53%, which are still 'majority' numbers. The second type of error 'margin of error' or the confidence interval (CI) referred to in most polls (19 times out of 20, you might hear them say), refers to the likelihood you would get the same result if you conducted the same poll 20 times. With a CI of 95%, you could do the same poll 20 times with different same-sized sample of the population and get the same result. The sample size was pretty good, more than 2000 voters. The sample error is low, and the CI is high. The other 11 percent was 'don't know' or 'no answer'. It is probably an accurate poll. The question actually was "Do you think Snowden has gone too far or not far enough?" 55% felt he has not gone far enough. I would agree there is a problem of interpretation here, since, "too far" does not automatically equal "traitor", but most Americans seem to like to think in binary and reductionistic syllogisms.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: cengland4ever (1615 days ago)
cengland0 - you are now discussing this with yourself! Still - it's worth doing as this is a very important fundamental discussion on how our society functions. I may not agree with you, but I like the fact you clearly research and care about the situation.
Original comment
cengland0 - you are now discussing this with yourself! Still - it's worth doing as this is a very important fundamental discussion on how our society functions. I may not agree with you, but I like the fact you clearly research and care about the situation.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
It just annoys me how people believe everything they hear in the media. Sometimes they are right, sometimes not. Take that information with a grain of salt until you get the information from the source or research it yourself.
Original comment
It just annoys me how people believe everything they hear in the media. Sometimes they are right, sometimes not. Take that information with a grain of salt until you get the information from the source or research it yourself.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1615 days ago)
Are you not worried about how this data may be used against anyone protesting the government or corporations in the future?
Original comment
Are you not worried about how this data may be used against anyone protesting the government or corporations in the future?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
From what I understand, the data collected and stored are those to and from international locations. My domestic phone calls are not monitored so I do not worry about that.
Original comment
From what I understand, the data collected and stored are those to and from international locations. My domestic phone calls are not monitored so I do not worry about that.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1615 days ago)
But aren't you worried that the system is open abuse? From The Guardian: "Where the NSA has no specific information on a person's location, analysts are free to presume they are overseas". LINK
Original comment
But aren't you worried that the system is open abuse? From The Guardian: "Where the NSA has no specific information on a person's location, analysts are free to presume they are overseas". LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
You missed some very important pieces in that article. 1) "reasonably believed to be outside the United States" and "whose location is not known will be presumed to be a non-United States person **unless such person can be positively identified as a United States person**" I'm more than positive that I have enough data from my citizenship that they will positively identify me as a United States person.
Original comment
You missed some very important pieces in that article. 1) "reasonably believed to be outside the United States" and "whose location is not known will be presumed to be a non-United States person **unless such person can be positively identified as a United States person**" I'm more than positive that I have enough data from my citizenship that they will positively identify me as a United States person.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1615 days ago)
I was asking about abuse - isn't that why you don't support gun control - as insurance against rogue government?
Original comment
I was asking about abuse - isn't that why you don't support gun control - as insurance against rogue government?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
I do support gun control -- just not the removal of all guns. I support not giving guns to known felons and people with confirmed mental disorders. So I'm not open to the idea that 100% of USA citizens should be allowed to have any gun they want. Regarding the potential abuse from monitoring, the courts have given warrants for the purpose of monitoring specific activity. I have to assume those courts know the details of what they are monitoring and that I am probably not included in the specifics of the warrant.
Original comment
I do support gun control -- just not the removal of all guns. I support not giving guns to known felons and people with confirmed mental disorders. So I'm not open to the idea that 100% of USA citizens should be allowed to have any gun they want. Regarding the potential abuse from monitoring, the courts have given warrants for the purpose of monitoring specific activity. I have to assume those courts know the details of what they are monitoring and that I am probably not included in the specifics of the warrant.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1615 days ago)
Suppose you took a stand against fois gras. You write comments on BoreMe, a UK site. That's probably enough to have you checked out if that's what the authorities want to do. Isn't that why you support only "minor" gun control - because of possible rogue government sometime in the future?
Original comment
Suppose you took a stand against fois gras. You write comments on BoreMe, a UK site. That's probably enough to have you checked out if that's what the authorities want to do. Isn't that why you support only "minor" gun control - because of possible rogue government sometime in the future?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1615 days ago)
Re-read the link you posted. The IP address is also used to determine where the person is located. Mine is clearly within the USA. Besides, I consider this doing something in public which has no reasonable expectations of privacy. And as an FYI, just because the domain name is registered by someone in the UK, that doesn't mean the server is located there. The server could be in the UK but I don't know that for sure.
Original comment
Re-read the link you posted. The IP address is also used to determine where the person is located. Mine is clearly within the USA. Besides, I consider this doing something in public which has no reasonable expectations of privacy. And as an FYI, just because the domain name is registered by someone in the UK, that doesn't mean the server is located there. The server could be in the UK but I don't know that for sure.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL