#Snowden: Amnesty International Knows What Time It Is.

[JackRiddler]

JUNE 24, 2013
USA must not hunt down whistleblower Edward Snowden

The US authorities must not prosecute anyone for disclosing information about the government’s human rights violations, Amnesty International said after Edward Snowden was charged under the Espionage Act.

The organization also believes that the National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower could be at risk of ill-treatment if extradited to the USA.

"No one should be charged under any law for disclosing information of human rights violations by the US government. Such disclosures are protected under the rights to information and freedom of expression," said Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law and Policy at Amnesty International.

"It appears he is being charged by the US government primarily for revealing its and other governments’ unlawful actions that violate human rights.”

[...]

MORE
http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/usa-must-not-hunt-down-whistleblower-edward-snowden

[bemildred]

1. NSA PRISM Spying The NSA Has No Idea How Much Secret Data Edward Snowden Took ...

U.S. intelligence agencies still don't know how much sensitive material former Booz Allen contractor Edward Snowden obtained before leaking top-secret documents and fleeing the country, Mark Hosenball of Reuters reports.

Snowden was able to cover some of his tracks when he accessed information about the operations of the National Security Agency (NSA) and its British equivalent, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), U.S. officials told Reuters.

It's definitely unclear how much information he actually has. On Sunday Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Snowden had roughly 200 documents in his possession.

Earlier this month, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald told The New York Times that Snowden gave him “thousands” of documents, “dozens” of which Greenwald says are newsworthy.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-secret-data-snowden-took-worried-2013-6

[tavalon]

156. Well, too fucking bad!

Perhaps they could be a little less secretive and then this wouldn't be so bad for them.

[bemildred]

2. FORMER US OFFICIAL: The NSA Thinks Edward Snowden Copied 'Almost Everything That Place Does'

“They think he copied so much stuff — that almost everything that place does, he has,” one former government official, referring to the NSA, told The Post. “Everyone’s nervous about what the next thing will be, what will be exposed.”

Earlier this month, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald told The New York Times that Snowden gave him “thousands” of documents, “dozens” of which Greenwald says are newsworthy.

Greenwald recently told CNN he knows Snowden "has in his possession thousands of documents, which, if published, would impose crippling damage on the United States’ surveillance capabilities and systems around the world.”

From The Post:

It’s unclear whether officials in Hong Kong or in Russia, where Snowden fled over the weekend, obtained any of the classified material. A spokesman for the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, which has been assisting the former National Security Agency contractor, strenuously denied reports that foreign governments had made copies of the documents.

http://www.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-copied-a-lot-of-nsa-files-2013-6

[rhett o rick]

4. Is anyone, especially the deniers, concerned that the "spy" system was so poorly

controlled that someone like Snowden could access all that information? Where was his boss and his boss's boss? Sounds to me like the whole program was run pretty sloppy.

Why arent we worried that a more devious person than Snowden hasnt already given the same information to other countries?

No the deniers want to try to get the horses back into the barn by punishing Snowden. Then they would climb back into their authoritarian denial bubbles.

There are those among us that welcome the comfort of fascism. We've seen them right here in DU city.

[zeemike]

9. Some people feel safe when things are tightly controled.

For them real freedom is a scary thing...and it seems that many of them are now in control of our government functions.
I really never thought I would live to see this day, but here it is.

[bemildred]

13. Alduous Huxley, author of the required-reading-list classic, Brave New World:

"Morality is always the product of terror; its chains and strait-waistcoats are fashioned by those who dare not trust others, because they dare not trust themselves, to walk in liberty."

[zeemike]

21. Yep..and we should all read it again.

Cause he understood where we were going even back then.
Today, our prophets are science fiction writers and comedians.

[frylock]

55. man, i was going to post something along those lines..

I agree completely with you.

[zeemike]

61. Ha....beat you to it...

[ReRe]

114. Here's their tight control ;-)

A scary but true article by James Bamford in Wired Magazine back in March of 2012. This is the kind of stuff they will not read. They stick their fore fingers in their ears and say "No. no. no. no. no, I will NOT listen, I will not learn."


http://www.Wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/

[siligut]

12. Yes, another concern Snowden has raised

How secure is our data once the NSA collects it? Who has access to while it is in NSA's hands? I read that there are cases of people using the information to track ex-wives.

The people who welcome fascism are those who are part of it and the people who are part of it are sell-outs who want more than they can earn on their own merit.

[sabrina 1]

110. I think it's being sold. And that is the reason why they are panicking. Congress funds

these Security Contractors to whom they have relinquised their duty to protect the American people, for money. Billions are poured into these Mega 'Security' Corporations every year on the pretext that it is for our 'security'.

It makes no sense. How on earth can storing all that data in any way help to protect anyone? So since it makes no sense, you know they are lying. But why would they do it then, why would they lie?

I remember the huge controversy during the Bush years over Private Corps collecting data and Congress holding a hearing over it. But as usual, nothing came of it.

We assumed back then the data, which was not just being collected here, but airc, in Mexico and elsewhere, was to sell for profit.

Does anyone remember this controversy? The ads stating that you 'can find anyone anywhere' and all you need to do is pay $100 and they will get all the information you need.

Gen. Clark was running for president at the time, and to test the truth of the ads, a reporter paid the fee to get info on Clark. Airc, they sent info on his cell phone. The reporter did not reveal the info, but contacted Clark to let him know his phone was not safe. He was outraged. And it may have been after that that there were hearings in Congress.

Imagine the money to be made by finding out people's purchasing habits, who has a criminal record etc.

I will not be surprised to learn that none of this was about security at all, that these Corporations have been getting billions of dollars since 9/11 under the pretext that it is for 'terror' when in reality it is for BUSINESS.

The whole WOT has been more profitable for these Corps than they could have dreamed of.

Booz Allen is one of those multi-billion dollar corporations. The current Director of Intelligence was a former CEO of Booz Allen. He is not the only one with a position in gov. dealing with Intel who worked for one of these Corporations.

Connect the dots, CEOs of Mulit Billon Dollar Security Corporations go through a revolving door between their businesses and the Government. Conflict of interest staring anyone with half a brain function, in the face.

That would explain the total panic to distract from the issue itself, and focus on the messengers.

[ReRe]

118. Have you seen this?

It's from Mar 2012, but it's still as good as new (you'll see what I mean.) An article by James Bamford about the NSA...

http://www.Wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/

[sabrina 1]

162. That is an amazing article, frightening, out of control, and I wonder if it's too late for us?

Thank you for the link. It's obvious that Snowden is not the problem, but maybe dozens more like him, might be the solution. No wonder they are so angry. They have so much to hide and if it were not for the courageous whistle-blowers, like Binney and Drake and Snowden, we would not even know the little we do know. I can't imagine what we don't know.

[Democracyinkind]

26. You're pointing out the most shocking, and the most overlooked aspect of this story.

Either they're all a bunch of amateurs who have no clue what they're doing or all of this is money making kabuki with not the least intent of protecting anything except for special corporate interests.

Or both.

[magellan]

49. +1000

And I think it's the latter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. I'll offer a third possibility

Since quite honestly all NSA does will overfill a data center or two, well beyond four laptops.

Anything is leaked in the future, you got no way to know...blame Snowden for it. This will diminish the leak. It's kabuki theater, just of a different type.

[ReRe]

112. It's world control and money.

This country has created a monster, both Repubs and Democrats. Check this article out by James Bamford, published in Wired Magazine back in March of 2012. Everything in the article is as relevant as the day he wrote it and very informative if you want to scrape the surface of how the NSA has changed since GWB entered office:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/

[alsame]

145. Yep, power and profit are the motives. nt

[sibelian]

130. Yes, I've been suprised at the lack of amazement that snowden's actions were possible at all

It doesn't really look very good on the resume, does it?

[onyourleft]

37. Thank you. Those are...

...very good questions.

[JDPriestly]

52. If they didn't already have this information, wouldn't Russia and China

be offering the moon and a villa in France for it? Or something Snowden might like? A harem in the south of Russia?

But they aren't. We didn't know the extent and scope of this surveillance. That is why we are, at last I am, stunned by this news.

But the governments of large and powerful countries may have known it for a long time -- or guessed it.

So far, to our knowledge, Russia and China have not offered much at all to Snowden.

Maybe we just don't know about it, but that we haven't heard anything to that effect thus far makes me wonder whether they have known about these programs all along.

I am just speculating, but it is odd that we haven't heard much outrage from these countries. They probably spy on us too. Do you think?

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. They probably spy on us too. Do you think?

That's Tuesday. They spy on us, we spy on them, it's all good in the hood. And from time to time they catch one of our spies, we catch one of theirs and we make a show of an exchange.

One of my poli sci instructors, I think I am as cynical as he was...he was a CIA man, retired. He liked to compare global relations to children on the high wire...young kids. Nothing more dangerous for everybody than a tanter tantrum that might get all to fall...most of the time there is a net...when not...well people die..

As to the relative value...they are enjoying the US being shown as a police state too much. The propaganda value of that internally...

[JDPriestly]

104. Precisely. I wonder what they are really looking for?

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. This is propaganda gold.

We are the freest country on earth...

Remember that Snowden chap? You are tracking your population.

We want to protect corporate copyright rights.

Collective world wide guffaws are about to break out.

It's not what they do, it's what we do.

[KurtNYC]

149. This article from Canada tries to put some pieces together -- "Giant Blackmail machine"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/nsa-spying-and-intelligence-collection-a-giant-blackmail-machine-and-warrantless-wiretapping-program/5340204?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nsa-spying-and-intelligence-collection-a-giant-blackmail-machine-and-warrantless-wiretapping-program

It repeats Russ Tice's claims:

“Okay. They went after–and I know this because I had my hands literally on the paperwork for these sort of things–they went after high-ranking military officers; they went after members of Congress, both Senate and the House, especially on the intelligence committees and on the armed services committees and some of the–and judicial. But they went after other ones, too. They went after lawyers and law firms. All kinds of–heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges. One of the judges is now sitting on the Supreme Court that I had his wiretap information in my hand. Two are former FISA court judges. They went after State Department officials. They went after people in the executive service that were part of the White House–their own people...

[HiPointDem]

119. i think 'they' and 'us' are pretty intertwined.

[ReRe]

116. Check out this article...

... in Wired Magazine by James Bamford.

http://www.Wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/

[ReRe]

113. Have you read this article by James Bamford:

http://www.Wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/

If not, do so soon!

[bemildred]

140. I have read The Puzzle Palace.

Good book, a bit out of date, but you know it has only gotten worse.

[ReRe]

141. Please read the Wired article by James

I too, have read many of his books. But what is in the article is directly related to the NSA issue that is up in the air right now. Yes, it is a Mar 2012 article, but it's still a great article. Really gives one some prospective as we live thru this period of our history.

[bemildred]

142. Don't tell me what to read, and don't whine at me either.

I read what I choose.

[ReRe]

143. Wow.

Excuse the hell out of me, bemildred. I won't ever bother you again. I promise.

[bemildred]

144. Good. nt

[kas125]

164. Geez, I don't blame you, that was totally uncalled for and rude.

You didn't give orders and you didn't whine, so I don't get it, but I think I'll stay away from that person, too. Wow.

[railsback]

3. I find this all so fascinatingly delusional

By 'human rights violations', I'm assuming that that means 'surveillance'. We all want to be protected, feel safe in our homes, safe within our nation's borders. We write laws and fund entities to carry out these missions, but now we're afraid that we might get inadvertently caught up in something, so its better to hogtie everything we've done to feel safe and secure, and put faith in our fellow citizens that they won't do anything crazy. Its so… libertarian.

[Maedhros]

5. You may be willing to give up our Constitutional freedoms so you can "feel" safe.

Many progressives, including myself, are not. Please stop impeding our efforts to protect our freedom.

[railsback]

7. LoL. You're NOT giving up your Constitutional 'freedoms'

Good Gawd.

[zeemike]

15. You are right, we are not giving it up

It is being taken from us...because a few want to give it up and it seems they rule.

[railsback]

86. Well, no. What's being taken away are things like

the right to vote, and abortion rights. You have every right to protect your privacy by not making yourself susceptible.

[zeemike]

95. And you have every tight to protect yourself from

Abortion too...don't have sex....and the right to vote too....get your papers in order and line up like a good little obedient authoritarian dupe.

If they can take away your first and forth amendment rights guaranteed by the constitution and you are OK with it then you have no complaint about abortion and voting now do you?

[railsback]

100. Well, no, you can accidentally get pregnant like the Virgin Mary

and have the right to abort it. You don't accidentally freely give your information to a company to store on their servers.

[zeemike]

102. The right to an abortion is not in the bill of rights.

The right to be secure in your papers and effects IS.
And there is good reason for that...which you seem to ignore.
Ether we have a constitutional government or we don't...and you ether support it or you don't.

[railsback]

108. The RIGHT to an abortion is the LAW

What does the Bill of Rights have anything to do with that??

[truebrit71]

17. You are correct...no-one voluntarily gave them up...they were taken...

...which is so much better, yes?

[Maedhros]

19. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you are a Liberal.

Generally, Liberals err on the side of civil liberties. If you don't feel strongly about your First and Fourth Amendment rights, then that is your prerogative. However, please don't impede those of us who are fighting to retain them.

[kenny blankenship]

44. I wouldn't assume anyone who joined DU, post Bush, is a liberal.

They may be liberal of course; but where were they before while America was being dragged into a neofascist dystopia? Don't assume they're liberal, just because they've suddenly decided that they are Democrats. The President after all is also a Democrat, nominally.

[Progressive dog]

58. Neofascist dystopia - lol

I'm assuming that's sarcasm, but at first I actually thought you meant it.

[railsback]

101. Ha

Liberals aren't so full of themselves, and demand all facts brought to the forefront before coming to sound conclusions.

Which, of course, makes most here 'wannabe liberals'?

[railsback]

64. A serious overreaction

You can be as private as you want, but you yourself cut into your own 'freedoms' by signing onto contracts and agreements that store your information in undisclosed locations, viewed by unnamed administrators, who does Gawd knows what with. Do you really believe there aren't other Snowdens out there, digging through your shit? C'mon. Like I've said before, the 4th Amendment was written by our Founding Fathers, who were smugglers, and wanted to protect their shit in their homes. Weeks took it a step further and made it so nothing seized without warrants would be admissible in court. So far, so good. Home protected. But now people voluntarily expose themselves, storing information outside the safe haven of the home, GAMBLING that its secure. And who's watching them to make sure they're not illegally violating your 'freedoms'?

So, good luck with that fight for the freedoms you keep voluntarily giving up.

[mhatrw]

151. WTF on you on about? Do I "voluntarily" give up my freedom when I make a phone call?

I don't remember signing any paper that said the government can listen in or know who I called for how long.

[rhett o rick]

72. How can they be a liberal if they dont support civil liberties? nm

[Douglas Carpenter]

83. EXACTLY! they are only monitoring all our electronic communications and that is their prerogative

Some people here are so arrogant that they think the public should be monitoring the government instead of the government monitoring the public.

[railsback]

84. The 'public' is full of dimwits, dullards, baggers, libertarians..

That public?

[Douglas Carpenter]

87. we all need to have all our communication monitored by the government or they wouldn't be doing it

It's for own good. "Ours is not to question why. Ours is but to do or die."

[railsback]

90. Certainly full on Libertarianism

I'd like to fly down I-5 doing 120, but the government tells me I can't. Some times, I have to piss so bad, I'd like to whip out my pecker in the middle of a crowd and just relieve myself.. but I'd get arrested. Its government fascism, all right.

[Douglas Carpenter]

92. I don't think so. The government has just much a right to stop people from doing that as they have a

right to track and keep records of all our communications. Again it is all for our own good and I for one am grateful for it.

[mhatrw]

152. You and our leaders what the government spying on us. I don't.

That doesn't make me a Libertarian, but it does make you and our leaders authoritarian.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

27. Privacy is a Human Right.

[railsback]

54. Like the KKK

[frylock]

60. how long have you been a member?

of the KKK?

[railsback]

66. As long as you have

We're all the same now, you see, defending our rights to privacy and free speech.

[mhatrw]

153. So you hate the ACLU. We get the picture. n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

71. Are you an authoritarian?

[railsback]

75. Peoples is peoples, right?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

78. In other words, you don't trust the people to do the right thing.

[railsback]

80. If we trusted people to do the right thing

there'd be no laws, no police force, just one big happy family.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

81. Oh, I see,...you're an extremist....

As in, you can't picture something in between.

[railsback]

88. How is that being extremist?

Do we all or do we all not have 4th Amendment Rights?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

93. That's funny considering you were a control freak a moment ago.

[railsback]

96. Well, you're assuming that through sarcasm, I support 4th Amendment rights to the KKK

that they deserve their privacy, too, just like everyone else.. which, of course, I don't. The point should have been obvious.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

98. That's different as the KKK is a terrorist organization....

However, since it's a right wing one composed of white people the US government doesn't feel it needs to declare a "war on terror" on them, nor do they feel every member needs to be eliminated before victory on that "war on terror" can be declared and we can go back to a "pre-1865" mindset.

[mhatrw]

154. Why don't members of the KKK deserve human rights?

I'm trying to follow you here. Aren't human rights inalienable?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

160. Yeah,...to listen to them whine, you'd think they were the victims.

[ReRe]

146. And it's the 4th Amendment to the Constitution too.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

161. Republicans only care about #2. But then, they ARE full of shit.

[RetroLounge]

35. of course you do

RL

[railsback]

53. Of course you don't

[frylock]

56. what do you call it when people have unreasonable assumptions that they will be kept safe..

7/24/365?

[railsback]

68. What do you call people who unreasonably assume that Big Corp is keeping their info safe?

Delusional?

[frylock]

69. i volunteer to give my information to Big Corp..

the horror! Vons knows that I bought Progresso soup last week!!!

[railsback]

70. Yep, with your credit or debit card, address, where you like to ship

your date of birth, sex, kids, what you frequently buy..

Doh.

[99Forever]

77. I don't recollect granting you the fucking authority...

... to speak for me. When I want you, I'll fucking let you know, in writing.

The only "we" you speak for is yourself. If you to be a weak sister and give up YOUR rights, have at it. What you CAN'T do, is give away other peoples. Now, go crawl into your spiderhole and hide from the scary terrorists.

[railsback]

79. Oh, sorry, didn't know I was speaking to ad hominem master Glenn Greenwald himself!

Well, it seems the only ones fearing anything are those foilers believing the government is spying on them this very moment, and that they're losing their 4th Amendment rights due to their own actions. Of course that's absurd, but having doubled, tripled, QUADRUPLED down on the conspiracies, its not me hiding in your spider hole.

[99Forever]

89. People who believe the government is spying on them are called...

... realists. Ones that don't are called fools and chumps.

[railsback]

91. Like Death Panels. In reality, it is like a Death Panel

except its completely voluntary, but you can make it out to be pure evil to fit the paranoia.

[99Forever]

94. ???????

Seriously, you are too fucking lame to even waste my time with.

[railsback]

97. Ah, so NOT being lame is being paranoid

Well, you certainly are a 'jeenyus', I'll grant you that.

[reformist2]

6. The Snowden-bashers don't have the "courage" to bash Amnesty Int'l...

[railsback]

8. They're delusional

There.

[Civilization2]

43. Ask Bradley Manning how well his human rights are holding up!

Take off you blinders, this is a corporate-military anti-democratic apparatus at its worst.

[RetroLounge]

38. Really, you come here and then bash Amnesty?

Fucking Troll

RL

[yurbud]

10. good for them

[NightWatcher]

11. human rights violations? I thought that term was reserved for genocide, starvation, torture...

not lifting data from cell phone calls

Keep watering down the language and then wonder why words have no power. "Human rights violation" should mean severe and harsh actions, not wiretapping or internet monitoring, or cell phone snooping.

[JackRiddler]

18. The Fourth Amendment protects human rights.

You wish to water down the concept to the point where evident violations aren't violations because only genocide counts. What's a bit of political surveillance or indefinite detention after all?

[Dr Fate]

22. Exaclty. They should wait until that starts happening.

Before they start moaning about things that are in no way connected to "humans" or "rights."

[BeyondGeography]

30. This comes off as a pathetically eager swipe at the U.S.

Storing communications data to be accessed on an as-needed, court-approved basis = human rights violation?

[one_voice]

46. +1

[Number23]

85. I agree. When someone else posted this same thing yesterday, I actually checked the Amnesty web sit

to verify. I couldn't believe it. It does come across as a political swipe and Amnesty is usually tops in my book.

With all of the insane crap going on right now in the world even as we type, deciding that the abuses of the Patriot Act somehow equate to "human rights violations" is beyond bizarre.

[Mojorabbit]

107. I see it completely opposite of you. I see where they

and the ACLU are coming from clear as can be.
Peace, mojo

[ucrdem]

124. DUzy.

With all of the insane crap going on right now in the world even as we type, deciding that the abuses of the Patriot Act somehow equate to "human rights violations" is beyond bizarre.

[HiPointDem]

122. "as-needed, court-approved" = big joke. secret court, no warrant necessary.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/306995-new-documents-suggest-nsa-has-power-to-spy-without-warrant

& the fact that one freaking request covers millions of people should tell anyone all there is to know about that.

[BeyondGeography]

139. Write back when you can document a real-world human rights violation

You can use this board, where you can carry on as you wish without fear of retribution (document said retribution if you disagree), while Edward Snowden has a front-row seat for Putin's Bolotnaya Square show trial.

[HiPointDem]

163. spying on the population en masse *is* a human rights violation. and using the internet isn't

secret, it's public.

[ucrdem]

126. It is. nt

[Union Scribe]

73. Not at all.

Voting rights, reproductive rights, work-place rights, marriage equality, and yes privacy. All of those are also human rights.

[HiPointDem]

121. the only human rights are not to be starved, tortured or killed? is that the new platform of

the democratic party?

[ucrdem]

125. It's very silly and damages AI's credibility. nt

[mhatrw]

155. Yeah. And racism should be reserved for slavery.

Right, Paula?

[ProSense]

14. This was posted

already and I repeat my response:

"It appears he is being charged by the US government primarily for revealing its and other governments’ unlawful actions that violate human rights.”

Where did that come from?

I understand Amnesty's claims in its role as as a human rights organization, but to claim that a program conducted within the laws of this country is "unlawful" is a ridiculous.

It's no different from Snowden's claim of "criminality."

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3083417

[RC]

24. Oh really?

[ProSense]

29. The NSA was created as a spying agency.

It was signed into law with that explicit mission by President Carter.

Legislative history

Introduced in the Senate as S. 1566 by Edward Kennedy (D–MA) on May 18, 1977
Committee consideration by: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee on the Judiciary
Passed the Senate on March 20, 1978 (95-1)
Passed the House on September 7, 1978 (246-128)
Reported by the joint conference committee on October 5, 1978; agreed to by the Senate on October 9, 1978 (Without objection) and by the House on October 12, 1978 (226-176)
Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 25, 1978

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18, 1977, by Senator Ted Kennedy and was signed into law by President Carter in 1978. The bill was cosponsored by the nine Senators: Birch Bayh, James O. Eastland, Jake Garn, Walter Huddleston, Daniel Inouye, Charles Mathias, John L. McClellan, Gaylord Nelson, and Strom Thurmond.

The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources to spy on political and activist groups, which violates the Fourth Amendment. The act was created to provide Judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security. It allowed surveillance, without court order, within the United States for up to one year unless the "surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". If a United States person is involved, judicial authorization was required within 72 hours after surveillance begins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

[RC]

33. Ever hear of "Mission Creep"?

The NSA of Carter is not the NSA all the world knows and loves now.

[ProSense]

42. Sure,

"Ever hear of "Mission Creep"? The NSA of Carter is not the NSA all the world knows and loves now."

...but have you ever heard the NSA mission, even in known instances of overreach, described as a "human rights violation"?

There have been clear instances of illegal activities so to now define a program in which metadata is being collected within the scope of the law as a "human rights violation" is a stretch.

To call it "unlawful" is inaccurate.

[reorg]

82. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

[JackRiddler]

34. Golly, this was posted! Why am I not a team or a computer

or a 24-hour-a-day monitor, or just lucky, to know everything that was posted?

Well here it is again. I like it.

[RetroLounge]

41. "I repeat my response"

That is all you ever do.

Happy 100,000 posts by the way. Did you get a wristwatch?

RL

[uponit7771]

74. ....and of course they bash without link or quote

[ucrdem]

129. Posting duplicate threads is only bad when you do it.

And they make sure you and the rest of the universe know it, too.

[sibelian]

134. I think it's a question of degree, ucrdem.

[mhatrw]

157. Exactly. Rounding up the Jews was perfectly lawful.

I mean, it was the law of Germany. Right?

[Dr Fate]

20. We cheer on another pro-Chinese group attacking President Obama again?

I thought this was supposed to be a liberal site?

[zeemike]

23. pro-Chinese group ?

Oh I forgot....you are ether with us or against us...Bush taught us all that.

[Dr Fate]

25. They are defending Hong Kong Eddie are they not?

You do the math.

[zeemike]

32. Who is this Hong Kong Eddie you speak of.

Another mythical figure made up by right wingers to make you believe the "with us or against us" meme?
That kind of math don't add up.

[RC]

31. How Liberal is Obama with all the Republicans he has appointed?

[JackRiddler]

36. A response like that used to qualify obviously...

as satirical.

Is that how it is meant? Or is this more highlighting that we've seeing the new McCarthyism?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Yeah. The Chinese just swoon over AI's defense of the Dalai Lama and Aung san suu kyi.

[sibelian]

132. What's Obama got to do with being liberal?

?

[OKNancy]

28. Some here only support Amnesty Inter. when it's convenient. Re: Chavez

http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/venezuela/report-2012

At least be consistent

[sheshe2]

47. +1

[JackRiddler]

65. Are you consistent?

No authority is definitive or always right. I say in this case Amnesty is spot on. Do you agree or disagree?

[HiPointDem]

123. no, they only support amnesty when it's convenient.

[xchrom]

40. Du rec. Nt

[gcomeau]

45. No Human Rights Violations Or Illegal Actions Were Exposed. -eom

[KittyWampus]

48. What about for disclosing sensitive classified information regarding China/Russia?

[frylock]

62. you said it was old news..

everyone already knew this was happening. no big, amiright?

[MotherPetrie]

51. K&R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Yep. And, it's "time" for more whistleblowers like Snowden worldwide.

[secondwind]

59. why do I see this man as a traitor ??? he specifically went out and got a job so he could do this.

[JackRiddler]

63. Do what? Expose a treason of 10 years or more?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. Thomas Paine

[sibelian]

135. It is simple.

Your information is your property, not the property of the State. It does not become their property by their passing saying it is. Property is not a "legal construct", it is a social, human construct.

In the absence of any State-sanctioned mechanism to return your rightful property to you, only non-State-sanctioned methods can be employed to make that possible.

[idwiyo]

76. K&R

[struggle4progress]

105. Could be. Or maybe Amnesty is wandering off course here. That happens sometimes

[ucrdem]

120. Widney Brown's AI statement is seriously off the hook:

Last edited Mon Jul 1, 2013, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Utterly destroys AI's credibility. Hope it was worth it to them:

The US authorities must not prosecute anyone for disclosing information about the government’s human rights violations, Amnesty International said after Edward Snowden was charged under the Espionage Act.

The organization also believes that the National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower could be at risk of ill-treatment if extradited to the USA.

"No one should be charged under any law for disclosing information of human rights violations by the US government. Such disclosures are protected under the rights to information and freedom of expression," said Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law and Policy at Amnesty International.

"It appears he is being charged by the US government primarily for revealing its and other governments’ unlawful actions that violate human rights.”

(snip)

link to full-text original: http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/usa-must-not-hunt-down-whistleblower-edward-snowden

This is straight-up partisan politics camouflaged as philanthropy .

[bobduca]

109. My Monthly donation to ACLU at work!

[ReRe]

111. K&R

Make no mistake, he who hates human rights/civil rights is the one who should be hunted down and imprisoned. Not a conscientious whistle blower who steps forward to tell the truth about the wrong that a government is doing to it's people, and now, to the people of the world.

Just because a country creates a law that protects its unlawful behavior doesn't make it's behavior any less unlawful. Unethical immorality cannot be legislated into ethical morality.
All laws should be deemed and proven morally ethical BEFORE being allowed to come to a vote.

[ucrdem]

115. What "human rights violations" did Snowman disclose? As for knowing the time. . .

. . . it might be time to review Amnesty's profitable non-profit status because this is a sad and sorry piece of partisan political hit-jobbery.

Not cricket, AI.


p.s. good catch. Thanks for exposing Amnesty International as a RW propaganda mill.

[Douglas Carpenter]

127. EXACTLY!!Amnesty International are just right-wing shills -ALWAYS HAVE BEEN! Everybody knows that!!

[ucrdem]

128. Let's not get carried away. nt

[sibelian]

131. "Thanks for exposing Amnesty International as a RW propaganda mill."

Well, that's not really true, is it?

[ucrdem]

133. Hi sibelian, in this case at least it appears to be.

I've seen other instances of dubious AI claims which I can dig up later, but for now, just focusing on this June 24 press release and the accompanying statement from Widney Brown, which I quoted in full in reply #120 just above, how else would you explain it?



p.s. reply #120: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3099734

[Douglas Carpenter]

136. I call them human rights Nazis!!Trying to force their free speech and privacy rights down everyone's

throats!! Imagine anyone questioning the right of the state to monitor and record all our electronic communications!! Does anyone here want to grow old in a world where we would have to tell our grandchildren that the government is no longer allowed to keep records of who and when we talked or text on the phone or keep records of when and to whom we sent E-mails and what websites we visited? Who on earth would want to live in a country where the government cannot do that? They want to call the NSA surveillance programs human rights violations ??!! I say it is they who are clandestine services abusers!!

As Thomas Jefferson once put it so eloquently, "When the government is afraid of the people you have tyranny. When the people are afraid of the government you have freedom." - or it was something like that anyway, I'm not really sure

[ucrdem]

137. They are what they do and they appear to be playing partisan politics.

In which case they should identify themselves as a partisan political advocacy group and make that crystal clear to all donors and in all materials. They probably would lose certain tax privileges.

[Douglas Carpenter]

138. No doubt!!! Just ask ANY Tea Party or Right-Wing Republicans - They LOVE Amnesty International

and the ACLU and all those groups. Has anyone here ever heard of an Amnesty International operative who wasn't extremely right-wing? When they reported on human rights abuses supported by the Republicans - no doubt that was just a diversionary tactic. But frankly we are seeing all these human rights NGO's - Human Rights Watch, ACLU, National Lawyers Guild - you name it campaigning for their right-wing Republican masters with their disinformation campaigns - trying to convince the public that there is anything whatsoever wrong with the government recording who and when we communicate with - Rightwing shills - that's what they are. And it's time to pull their tax status - And the International Committee of Red Cross and Red Crescent Society - better watch it too. We are on to them-- All of them !~! Right-wing shills!!

[mhatrw]

159. Why stop there? I say we torture them. n/t

[HiPointDem]

117. kr

[ReRe]

147. Wow...

...There's some evil SOBs out this AM. Who would ever think your great OP would be responded to in the way it has been? I already had to add someone to my ignore list this am, a totally uncalled for slap in the face from out of nowhere. Again, thank you for your OP.

[Douglas Carpenter]

148. about two weeks ago - I was in my favorite local bar -a place where some of the movers and shakers

of the territory occasionally meet and chat and what have you. I saw a fairly well known lawyer who I chatted with before on a few occasions. I thought I would try to strike up a friendly conversation with him and try to get some idea of how he saw things. He happened be a Constitutional lawyer who worked for a federal judge. So, I thought I would just ask him if he agreed with the statement, "The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is?' He snapped at me saying, "That is not a question! You are lecturing me!." I tried to tell him no, I was not intending to at all. I just was curious what he thought of that particular cliche." "No you are lecturing - you are not asking a question at all!" Well, needless to say, I decided to go home where my dog Shane would be waiting for excitedly for me. What bothers me most, is that I was under the impression that this particular lawyer was a real nice guy. And out of the blue - he just plain slapped me in the face. All I can guess is that for some reason I do not understand he took what I thought was my friendly attempt at casual conversation the wrong way. What can you say? Life is like that some times.

[ReRe]

150. Fair weather friend, I guess...

... If I was you (not telling you what to), I would never approach him again. He might walk up to you someday and apologize.