h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

But I know that doing stuff like this doesn't intimidate people, it just makes them more determined, and if you do it to someone who's connected with a journalist it's going to get reported, and if you do it to someone who's involved in reporting these kind of shenanigans in the first place, that goes double, and if you do it to someone who's connected with a journalist who's involved with etc, etc, it's multiplied by several factors of ten.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23750289
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
(That NYT piece is long, so make a cup of tea and grab a slice of cake before you settle down to read it).

So does that make 'them' not very bright too, and does my own not-very-bright-ness make me an ideal candidate for recruitment?

This whole story just keeps getting worse. It's bad enough that the current administration has charged more people under the espionage act than all other administrations preceding this one. But that they are targeting journalists, is beyond the pale. They're charging people with spying and aiding the enemy... but who are these people giving classified information to exactly?... The PUBLIC! The public is now the enemy of the US Government.

Civil liberties have been thrown out the window. They're putting people on secret lists that bar them from traveling or subject them to outrageous detention, interrogation and unwarranted searches with no recourse to legal representation. They're forcing other citizens and even companies to be complicit in what amounts to illegal searches and seizures and baring them also from any legal representation, due process or even from telling anyone, including lawyers, what is happening to them. What is happening to the owner of Lavabit, Snowden's previous encrypted email service, should be very shocking to every citizen. He's being threatened with imprisonment under a secret order and he's not allowed to even talk to his attorneys about it. How is that legal? How does the USPatriot Act supersede basic constitutionally protected rights?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/19/lavabit_founder_in_hot_water_snowden_nsa_tempora/

Also, after Obama had his press conference last week and stated that he wanted more oversight of security and surveillance measures, he appoints James Clapper to be in charge of the oversight team... Clapper, the man who LIED TO CONGRESS ABOUT THESE VERY ISSUES!

http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/greenwald-terrorist-dictatorship.html

http://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/58706689501/uniquely-trustworthy

This Modern World cartoon.

I think it's a stretch of logic to say that the public is the enemy if someone puts classified information into the public domain, but I know what you mean. We don't live in a 60s spy thriller any more where the only people that ever get to see stuff like this are people from MI6, the CIA, the KGB, SMERSH, UNCLE, KAOS, The Section etc, and people they've recruited to spy for them.

I was actually on a watch list a few years ago. The first time I tried to go back to visit the UK after moving here I got to the airport to check in and they had these new fangled terminals where you put in your credit card (the one you bought the ticket with) to get a slip which you then take to the check-in desk to offload your luggage. Well, my credit card wouldn't work. I knew there was nothing wrong with it and it hadn't expired. After a short while a man came over and asked me if there was a problem and I told him the machine wouldn't read my card.

It turned out that it was because I - or someone with my name, I never found out which - was on the no-fly list. This would have been late 2004 I think, so it was early days for the list. The matter was resolved and I made my trip. My green card is up for renewal in about ten months. I wonder what the outcome of that will be?

I'd like to think that if I was taken into a room where I might be kept and questioned for up to nine hours without any legal representation I'd have the nerve to answer none of their questions without a lawyer present, which, obviously, isn't going to be forthcoming, and that I might, just to relieve the boredom ask "Well, gentlemen, it looks like we're in for a long and tedious nine hours. Soooooo, what do you reckon to England's chances of retaining the Ashes this coming winter?"

Was there ever any real doubt that the Obama administration knew about it ahead of time?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/greenwald-partner-detained/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitter

...meanwhile;

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/16/opinion/morrissey-cruz-gop/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/19/ted-cruz-renounces-canadian-citizenship-in-statement/?iref=allsearch

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/19/ted-cruz-releases-birth-certificate/?iref=allsearch

There's a moral to the story, high levels of overseas deployment create windows of opportunity.




The American constitutional law requires the President, the vice President and Senators to be native born American citizens.

Parentage is irrelevant, only the question as to whether one was born on American soil counts.

Even if one' are illegal immigrants, if one is born within the territories of the USA, one is a native born citizen.

Even if both one's parents are native born citizens themselves, if one is born outside the territories of the USA, one is not.

Amendment, 2nd to last line, that should be 'one's parents'.

The requirement is for a president to be a "natural born citizen", not "native". Even the articles you cite state that legal experts agree that Cruz qualifies as a natural born US citizen.

No one seriously questioned John McCain's citizenship even though he was born in the Panama Canal zone.

But more importantly, can we PLEASE wait until at LEAST 2015 before diving into the 2016 election.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-12-2013/can-t-you-at-least-wait-until-jon-stewart-gets-back---2016-presidential-election-coverage
Also, watch the video that follows it regarding how Australia holds elections, hint, they only take ONE MONTH!

(Not everyone will be able to view that video on that website, but maybe you can find a locally available version. Search for the title: Can't you at least wait until Jon Stewart gets back - 2016 presidential election coverage.)

A good slogan (from the original article in post 1):

Journalism may be embarrassing and annoying for governments but it is not terrorism.

Nor is taking photographs, but we probably remember the stories from a few years ago of people being prevented by the police from taking pictures, being forced to take the film out and expose it to the sunlight or delete the files from their memory card, being hauled into police stations when they refused.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQucfv0slOE
"We don't have to have any laws to take your details". Oh dear

"A few years ago?"


http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/08/20/new-york-cops-detain-man-for-video-recording-implying-iphone-could-be-weapon/

Bradley Manning gets 35 years. I'm not going to offer any comment on that because I don't know enough about the ins and outs of the case or the process, although I hear that he'll be unlikely to serve anything like the full term, and the time he's been in confinement already will be taken into account.

However, putting it into perspective, most of the spivs, wide boys and crooks whose greed and lack of morals caused the world's economy to implode a few years ago are still sitting in their offices, collecting their bonuses, spending Saturday morning on the links, being chauffered around in their limos and generally living the good life, while the kind of shenanigans that they're well known for and which get the rest of us so angry are still going on and raking in the profits. I think I heard a report a few days ago that with all the lawsuits and court cases JP Morgan is facing, from class action suits to cases brought by regulatory authorities, they might overrun their budget for paying fines by more than six billion dollars.

And that's most likely how it's going to stay.

Also, more directly related to his case, there isn't any significant investigation and no punishment for the issues exposed by Manning.

http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/2013/06/as-debate-continues-what-manning.html

He should have been discriminate with what he turned over to wikileaks, but we should definitely be investigating and prosecuting some people involved in the wrongdoings he exposed.

That's very true and very pertinent. The two biggest crooks of recent years are those who started the Iraq war, and they're both currently enjoying a level of income and luxury most of us could only dream of.

http://newsthump.com/2013/08/21/bradley-manning-wishing-hed-just-shot-an-unarmed-black-teenager/

Yep, you can often say far more with humour than you can in normal discourse.