Current Affairs Surveillance in the US reaches new levels

[maqroll]

 

 

Can illegally obtained top secret information legitimately be classed as journalistic material?

If it exposes a much greater illegality, it meets all the criteria of journalistic material.

[maqroll]

Meanwhile, Bradley Manning is being sent away for 35 years for showing the world the truth about U.S. "Democracy Spreading"....

[peterms]

Can illegally obtained top secret information legitimately be classed as journalistic material?

 

Yes, of course it can. Leave aside "illegally obtained" - any leaked material from government can be designated "illegally obtained".  It doesn't cease to be journalistic material because it was leaked.  Similarly "top secret".  Governments would love to be able to have complete control over anything they say is "top secret".  The point remains that there is already legislation for getting back this material and prosecuting people.  They have chosen to bypass this, and in particular bypass the role of the courts in providing a check on their powers, by misusing terrorist legislation.

 

It the use of Schedule 7 Powers and the wider Terrorism Act appropriate here?

The lawyers' letter sets out in some detail why it is not.

 

What is more important - the safety of UK intelligence assests abroad (if such data presents a risk) or the right of journalists and newspapers to posses/publish that data if they deem it in the public interest?

 

The safety of UK citizens abroad (and at home) has been threatened far, far more by government policy, for example towards Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel and the rest, than by anything involving Snowden.

 

As for the safety of our spies, I don't think there's been any credible suggestion that Greenwald, the Guardian or anyone else have published anything which jeopardises them, has there?  It's a complete red herring.  They are angry about Assange, Snowden and Manning because they prefer us not to know what they do behind our backs, and in contravention of the law, and against our interests.  They are working against us, the security services are out of control, and we must oppose them.

[blandy]

the security services are out of control

I'm not at all sure about that. I think there's control. I think that this journalist and Guardian thing demonstrates, in this instance that the Gov't is controlling them.

 

Of course there's always an aspect where the Security services will have information on members of the Gov't and other nobs, and there's always an aspect where they will second guess what their masters might want, or what they perceive to be (genuinely) in the national interest.

 

I also think that they can influence Gov't to permit them to do things that a wiser Gov't ought not to permit them to do. Sure there's a legal gap, and the control might not be as we like it, but I don't perceive it to be absent. I think it's just not used as it should be, and probably needs an updated framework.

 

There also seems to be an eagerness to please the Americans, perhaps because the US actually funds the UK to do security activity - GCHQ in particular.

[peterms]

I mean out of democratic control, out of our control.  They act more in the interests of corporations and the Davos elite than the inhabitants of this country.  One example would be the time and effort spent on monitoring the Occupy mob compared to using their skills in tracking the concealed information, front companies and other tricks by the international companies who dodge tax - which of these two, by any reasonable and objective judgement, would anyone think is causing the greater damage to the country?  If we had proper control of these services, would we see some different priorities?

 

Agree on sucking up to the US.  There's also something there about tagging along with the playground bully, which feeds our continuing "we're a world power" delusion.

[Marka Ragnos]

Meanwhile, Bradley Manning is being sent away for 35 years for showing the world the truth about U.S. "Democracy Spreading"....

 

Um, no. He's been convicted fairly for releasing classified documents. If he wanted to blow the whistle on the government, there were dozens of legal options open to him. What he did was illegal and traitorous -- and he admits it himself.

 

Glad to see him get a reasonable sentence. Just about right. (He'll be paroled in less an 10 years.)

 

And by the way, before you flame ... I'm probably about as hard left-wing as anyone on this board. Want to see my old CPUSA membership card lol? But you don't have to be a Little America or Little England reactionary to spot a quisling.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Shifted To Neutral

[peterms]

 

Meanwhile, Bradley Manning is being sent away for 35 years for showing the world the truth about U.S. "Democracy Spreading"....

 

Um, no. He's been convicted fairly for releasing classified documents. If he wanted to blow the whistle on the government, there were dozens of legal options open to him. What he did was illegal and traitorous -- and he admits it himself.

 

Glad to see him get a reasonable sentence. Just about right. (He'll be paroled in less an 10 years.)

 

And by the way, before you flame ... I'm probably about as hard left-wing as anyone on this board. Want to see my old CPUSA membership card lol? But you don't have to be a Little America or Little England reactionary to spot a quisling.

 

 

I gather the sentence is about the same as people get for paid espionage on behalf of a foreign power.

 

It is dramatically and shockingly out of proportion both with previous sentences for leaking, and with what he did.

 

It appears to be not a judicial sentence, but a political one.

[blandy]

I mean out of democratic control, out of our control.  They act more in the interests of corporations and the Davos elite than the inhabitants of this country.  One example would be the time and effort spent on monitoring the Occupy mob compared to using their skills in tracking the concealed information, front companies and other tricks by the international companies who dodge tax - which of these two, by any reasonable and objective judgement, would anyone think is causing the greater damage to the country?  If we had proper control of these services, would we see some different priorities?

 

Agree on sucking up to the US.  There's also something there about tagging along with the playground bully, which feeds our continuing "we're a world power" delusion.

On your first point aren't you talking about 2 different aspects - or have I misunderstood? - I mean front companies, tax, etc. - that's not so much "security" as money and finance. I was talking more about espionage, terrorism, counter intelligence, that kind of thing.

I don't disagree about the way Big Co. is allowed to basically ignore or just ride roughshod over regulation, but to me it's a separate subject, really.

I do agree about the monitoring of Occupy, or various other protest groups, and the way the Police have used officers who have then behaved in some fairly appalling ways has been shown for all to see.

To me, I don't particularly want visibility of what MI-5, 6 and so on are doing. But I want the politicians to use their oversight and control more responsibly.

Going back to the main topic - surveillance ordinary folk in the US and UK - it looks like the spooks have exceeded what they're really legally allowed to do, and it looks like Gov'ts have directed them to do things that they really shouldn't. It's not lack of control, but control misused, in my book.

 

Security services seem to be being controlled to surveil and act against legitimate protest groups, who at worst commit low level minor public disorder offences, where surely they should be using their resources to concentrate on threats to the people of this country and our allies, not to threats posed against the interests of Cuadrilla or Vodaphone, or whichever Big Co. is going to roger us next.

 

So I'm sort of agreeing with the gist, but not the detail of your comments.

[Marka Ragnos]

 

 

Meanwhile, Bradley Manning is being sent away for 35 years for showing the world the truth about U.S. "Democracy Spreading"....

 

Um, no. He's been convicted fairly for releasing classified documents. If he wanted to blow the whistle on the government, there were dozens of legal options open to him. What he did was illegal and traitorous -- and he admits it himself.

 

Glad to see him get a reasonable sentence. Just about right. (He'll be paroled in less an 10 years.)

 

And by the way, before you flame ... I'm probably about as hard left-wing as anyone on this board. Want to see my old CPUSA membership card lol? But you don't have to be a Little America or Little England reactionary to spot a quisling.

 

 

I gather the sentence is about the same as people get for paid espionage on behalf of a foreign power.

 

It is dramatically and shockingly out of proportion both with previous sentences for leaking, and with what he did.

 

It appears to be not a judicial sentence, but a political one.

 

 

I'm sure it does appear that way, especially if that's how one wants to see it.

 

But when Manning was acquitted of aiding the enemy -- by far, the most dangerous charge -- was that acquittal "political," too? Or judicial? Did you make that point then?

 

So ... sometimes the military judge was acting "judicially," and sometimes she decided to act "politically," eh?

 

And was that under instructions from ... let me see ... President Obama, or by dark forces running a secret earth government from aboard spacecraft hidden behind the planet Neptune?

 

Leaking thousands of classified documents as a member of the armed forces is wrong as well as illegal, and Manning knew it -- and once again, he admits it. He'll be out by age 40, still young enough to keep goal for the local's weekend club. He's going to have countless book deals, paid interviews, and he'll get the full "Anonymous" rock star treatment. I find it very hard to feel sorry for him.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Shifted To Neutral

[blandy]

...It is dramatically and shockingly out of proportion both with previous sentences for leaking, and with what he did.

 

It appears to be not a judicial sentence, but a political one.

 

It's both, isn't it? - what he did undoubtedly showed up the US Gov'ts actions and embarrassed them politically, and there's retribution for that (perhaps more in how long it's all taken, and the conditions in which he was held). But...but... what he and wikileaks did also resulted in danger and death to people. He also embarrassed them by his actions revealing their lax security measures. As has the Snowden chap.

Manning leaked and stole classified information. Not targeted to reveal a wrongdoing or moral issue, but just a huge mass of it. I don't think from a legal sense he's got anything to complain about in terms of sentencing.

[snowychap]

And by the way, before you flame ... I'm probably about as hard left-wing as anyone on this board.

I'm not sure why that would have any relevance.

Btw, what were the dozens of legal avenues open to Manning?

[maqroll]

Any "legal avenues" would have kept the information from seeing the light of day and Manning would have been dishonorably discharged for stirring the pot. 

 

Just because what he did was "illegal" doesn't mean it was wrong, especially considering the crimes he exposed dwarfed the "crime" he committed. 

 

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are off pheasant hunting while Manning is in a prison cell.

 

Black is white, up is down.

[Marka Ragnos]

 

And by the way, before you flame ... I'm probably about as hard left-wing as anyone on this board.

I'm not sure why that would have any relevance.

Btw, what were the dozens of legal avenues open to Manning?

 

 

My point is, Manning's treachery is obvious to people across the political spectrum, even to people with a natural disinclination to the American "military-industrial complex." 

 

As for legal ways to blow the whistle as member of the military, there are many avenues. I gather you're a pretty clever person, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were capable of shouldering the burden of thinking your way down some of those avenues.

 

But I will start (and finish) with this avenue: ask for a lawyer experienced in military law. Instantly, Manning would have been afforded certain protections from the UMCJ, including right to counsel and right to remain silent.

 

It's obvious Manning made no sustained effort to use legal means of redress.

 

I'm not really sympathetic to Manning, sorry. He strikes me as a weasel. I never have got the sense of from anything we've seen that he really was out to bring sunlight to the world. His motives seem far less grand and all too human.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Shifted To Neutral

[Marka Ragnos]

 

Just because what he did was "illegal" doesn't mean it was wrong, especially considering the crimes he exposed dwarfed the "crime" he committed. 

 

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are off pheasant hunting while Manning is in a prison cell.

 

Black is white, up is down.

 

I agree with some of what you say here. I believe Bush and Cheney "legally" murdered thousands of Iraqi and Afghan citizens. I still can't believe my fellow Americans elected them. Yes, there's often a huge difference between legal and moral -- except when there's not.

.

[maqroll]

 

 

I still can't believe my fellow Americans elected them.

They didn't, the Supreme Court did...

[Eames]

Its hard to reply to all of this on my phone...but it's not surprising the lawyer for the claimant in this case has chosen to read the law that way. That's his whole raison d'etre. He has an agenda.

His opinion doesn't matter...that of the sitting judge does.

[snowychap]

...I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were capable of shouldering the burden of thinking your way down some of those avenues.

 

But I will start (and finish) with this avenue: ask for a lawyer experienced in military law. Instantly, Manning would have been afforded certain protections from the UMCJ, including right to counsel and right to remain silent.

Edit: The onus is on you to substantiate your claim if you want others to give it credibility. Edited August 21, 2013 by snowychap

[peterms]

 

I mean out of democratic control, out of our control.  They act more in the interests of corporations and the Davos elite than the inhabitants of this country.  One example would be the time and effort spent on monitoring the Occupy mob compared to using their skills in tracking the concealed information, front companies and other tricks by the international companies who dodge tax - which of these two, by any reasonable and objective judgement, would anyone think is causing the greater damage to the country?  If we had proper control of these services, would we see some different priorities?

 

Agree on sucking up to the US.  There's also something there about tagging along with the playground bully, which feeds our continuing "we're a world power" delusion.

On your first point aren't you talking about 2 different aspects - or have I misunderstood? - I mean front companies, tax, etc. - that's not so much "security" as money and finance. I was talking more about espionage, terrorism, counter intelligence, that kind of thing.

I don't disagree about the way Big Co. is allowed to basically ignore or just ride roughshod over regulation, but to me it's a separate subject, really.

I do agree about the monitoring of Occupy, or various other protest groups, and the way the Police have used officers who have then behaved in some fairly appalling ways has been shown for all to see.

To me, I don't particularly want visibility of what MI-5, 6 and so on are doing. But I want the politicians to use their oversight and control more responsibly.

Going back to the main topic - surveillance ordinary folk in the US and UK - it looks like the spooks have exceeded what they're really legally allowed to do, and it looks like Gov'ts have directed them to do things that they really shouldn't. It's not lack of control, but control misused, in my book.

 

Security services seem to be being controlled to surveil and act against legitimate protest groups, who at worst commit low level minor public disorder offences, where surely they should be using their resources to concentrate on threats to the people of this country and our allies, not to threats posed against the interests of Cuadrilla or Vodaphone, or whichever Big Co. is going to roger us next.

 

So I'm sort of agreeing with the gist, but not the detail of your comments.

 

 

Welcome back. 

 

Yes, I know what you were talking about.  I'm talking about whether we accept the given definition (given by whom?) that "security" forces are there to do "spying type things, like against furriners and lefties an' all", or if we look at the resources we have (people trained in understanding how other people conceal things electronically, legally, physically...) and apply those resources to the greatest threats we face.

 

Which gets back to the question, who are "we"?

 

If "we" are the people of the UK, then the appropriate deployment of these staff will be quite different than if "we" are the Chipping Norton set, the Notting Hill set, the City, the Murdoch empire and its arsewipe hangers-on.

 

I'm saying that the very idea that security forces are there for clamping down on political dissent from the interests of the ruling class is no more than a political construct.  If they are there to serve the country, it becomes a very different thing.  When did the interests of the country become synonymous with those of an Australian-US citizen who has undermined the free press, or corrupt bankers who are never accused of the crimes they have committed?

[peterms]

And by the way, before you flame ... I'm probably about as hard left-wing as anyone on this board. Want to see my old CPUSA membership card lol? But you don't have to be a Little America or Little England reactionary to spot a quisling.

 

CP-USA?  Is that the organisation that was kept afloat financially by a combination of money from old, unreformed USSR, and membership subs from the 15% of its members who were FBI agents?

 

Yes, I'd be delighted to see your membership card.

 

Lol.

[peterms]

I'm sure it does appear that way, especially if that's how one wants to see it.

 

But when Manning was acquitted of aiding the enemy -- by far, the most dangerous charge -- was that acquittal "political," too? Or judicial? Did you make that point then?

 

So ... sometimes the military judge was acting "judicially," and sometimes she decided to act "politically," eh?

 

And was that under instructions from ... let me see ... President Obama, or by dark forces running a secret earth government from aboard spacecraft hidden behind the planet Neptune?

 

Leaking thousands of classified documents as a member of the armed forces is wrong as well as illegal, and Manning knew it -- and once again, he admits it. He'll be out by age 40, still young enough to keep goal for the local's weekend club. He's going to have countless book deals, paid interviews, and he'll get the full "Anonymous" rock star treatment. I find it very hard to feel sorry for him.

BEEP  BEEP

 

I'm sorry, this post appears to have set off the "sockpuppet alert".

 

I'm sure it's just a minor technical malfunction, and normal posting will be resumed very soon.

 

Please do not respond in any way, as this will prolong the period of technical misfunctioning.

 

(Bcc FBI/CIA/NSA: watch this thread, guys.  Jus' sayin'.)