FANAdeLdF

Wasn't that the film with the hilarious death scene?

Cinema Paradiso.

Sure, Mandela was a terrorist, whereas General Pinochet brought democracy to Chile. I'm sure you and Mrs T had a lot to agree on, John Cocker. Shame no one in their right mind buys into this nonsense any more nowadays. With a few notable exceptions, obviously. As for Botha's laughable gesture back in 1985, you can hear Mandela's reply in full here: http://library.ucsc.edu/content/free-nelson-mandela

Now who's being naïve? ---------- Post added 24-06-2013 at 00:52 ---------- Good luck to them. The number of times UK residents have typed and sent messages and forum posts containing the name Snowden over the last few days, they'll have their work cut out

You had asked if due legal process might not sometimes be rather limiting. Yes indeed. The limits as prescribed by law are there for your protection. And mine, and Harleyman's, and everyone else's. Exactly. If the police believe they have probable cause to intercept someone's communications, they have to make a case for it. If it's then legally approved, fine. If not, there will have been good reasons for the legal system's refusal to OK the surveillance measure. It's the difference between systems governed by guidelines as given in the Fourth Amendment, and Stasi-era East Germany.

If pragmatism amounts to "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it", then you can keep it. (Google the quote if you must, although I'm sure you already know it) The Fourth Amendment is quite clear on what's permitted and what isn't. As soon as one bypasses the legal safeguards that protect personal liberty, one turns criminal. True, Jefferson could surely not have imagined the travesties that were revealed about his republic in the last few days. Talk about the Cold War : that was the standard justification of the Stalinists whenever they eliminated dissidents.

"Even though we know governments do all kinds of things I was shocked by the information about the US surveillance operation, Prism. To me, it's abusively using government powers to interfere in individuals' privacy." The words of Ai Weiwei, China's most prominent dissident. Let's not get into "but China's still worse". Two wrongs don't make a right.

What's the alternative ? Torturing suspicious-looking folks until they tell you the history of the world ? Reality differs somewhat from TV shows starring Kiefer Sutherland.

Voilà the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution : "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The last three line, by the way, describe what I mean by due legal process. So I will ask you again Harleyman : who was violating the constitution ? The NSA or Snowden ? And if you stick with your line of the ends justifying the means, is the US constitution still worth the paper it was written on ? ---------- Post added 23-06-2013 at 23:02 ---------- Are you calling Snowden a terrorist now ?

It's called irony, WeX. Hard to spot, but a right laugh once you get there.

Oh, it's quite simple. Due legal process. Will you answer my questions now? Yes of course I would demand an explanation. I would, as I do, very much like to know how a system as refined as the US could have missed all the early warning signs prior to 11th September 2001. And no, I don't believe there was a conspiracy. More likely to have been gross negligence. Pretty much in line with the neo-cons' foreign and domestic policy, not to mention their budget deficit ballooning, between 2001 and 2009.

Along with the old chestnut, "Revelations about our spying on the Chinese will trivialise their rotten system, which shows no respect for its citizens". Unlike the NSA, of course. It's the same old song: one rule for us, another one for everyone else.

A traitor to whom ? The US constitution ? Let the man speak for himself: "The N.S.A. has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your emails or your wife’s phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards." Does that sound constitutional to you ? Wholesale snooping without targeting criminals by going through the appropriate legal channels ? Is Snowden a traitor for bringing these practices to the public's attention ? If the revelations are so trivial because we all know it's going on anyway, why is the US political establishment getting so hysterical right now ? Shouldn't their response sound as relaxed as yours ?

See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tBCvDJCPOg Right at the beginning, and from 1:40

The general in In the Loop, the big-screen version of The Thick of it. Was great to see him in something scripted by Armando Iannucci. Some amazing lines in there too.