These sites decided to close themselves down. That said, the Internet as a whole is generally used for positive things. Yes, there is criminality, but not at a rate greater than one would expect. This, its utility is inept greater that an email encryption site, or any other enterprise likely to aid criminals.
But I think this whole thing is funny given how you guys talk in such absolutes, buts seem to have had no problem with the government cracking down on Swiss banks and other tax havens. Who cried for Wegelin & Co when they shut down? Very few people because they were likely helping criminals more than providing a legitimately needed service. Whenyou have a business like that, don’t be surprised when the government has something to say about it.
Only the same way a mugging victim “chooses” to hand over their wallet. He closed down his website because the alternatives were to either betray their customers’ constitutional rights, or take on the US government in a rigged court where he’d be charged with more crimes if he dared to take any of the measures necessary to defend himself.
Oh bullshit. One of these companies wasn’t even approached at all by the government. Regardless, it’s in question whether you have a constitutional right to email privacy, and most importantly, you don’t have a right to harbor criminals or impede law enforcement investigations.
Don’t you think it’s strange that they guy is being so thoroughly strangled by the government that he must shut down because he has no ability to right back, but still has a legal defense fund open for donations? He gave up. Which is his right, but let’s not pretend he is some noble guys standing up for the little guy.
He’s a businessman, just like the Swiss bankers, who has a business that is generally not worth defending on some distorted view of what is and isn’t private.
Please cite the Supreme Court ruling that makes any of the relevant NSA programs unconstitutional.
…
Yes, I thought as much.
The CEO of Lavabit does not possess the prerogative to declare a law unconstitutional.
In what way do any of the relevant NSA programs consist of Congress penalizing people for exercising their right to free speech? I have yet to have Homeland Security bust down my door and clap me in irons for calling someone a n00b during a TF2 game.
If the police install a camera at a busy intersection, are they violating the Fourth Amendment rights of everyone who passes by that camera? Are they legally obligated only to turn the camera on if someone calls them to tell them a crime is occurring?
Frankly, I think they’d be more horrified by the fast that we let women and blacks vote and own property.
Pure slippery slope. Come back when you have evidence of any of this information actually being used for blackmail, or evidence of “lying” in a context where telling the truth wouldn’t be an act of treason.
The government is not some bizarre alien entity. The government derives its sovereignty from the people and is elected by the people. The reason these NSA monitoring programs exist is because the people demanded them.
Er, you were supposed to put the “United Way” update between this statement and your admission and defense of misleading the people’s elected representatives.
It’s hard to get a ruling in your favour when Obama’s modus operandii has been to criminalise any ability to establish legal standing to the court’s liking. For Al-Awlaki, the only person whose case they would accept was the man who would be murdered without trial if he attempted to make use of it. For Hedges v. Obama, the Second Court of Appeals overturned the decision against Obama on the grounds that until you’d actually been locked up in an oubliette without access to the courts, you don’t have legal standing to oppose the threat. It’s a depraved mindset that would and did make murder “legal”, on the grounds that the only person with legal standing to take the matter to the court has been rendered physically incapable of doing so.
You couldn’t have chosen a worse example - a League of Legends player has been imprisoned for five months, with the possibility of another eight years, for a sarcastic comment explicitly labeled as a joke, on the grounds that it was a “terroristic threat”.
He lied to Congress. This isn’t just not an act of treason, it is a crime. Obama is literally putting a criminal in charge of reporting the results of an investigation into his own actions.
Then it sounds to me like your beef is with a thousand years of English/American legal tradition, not with four years of Obama.
He did make a threat of a terroristic nature, did he not?
Divulging classified information is also a crime. Why is your outrage not directed at the member of Congress who forced Mr. Clapper to commit a felony?
Oh, and no, it isn’t an act of treason;
[QUOTE=The Constitution]
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
[/QUOTE]
Bass ackwards, as usual. The issue is the use of raw power to subvert a thousand years of Anglo-American legal tradition by denying access to the courts.
No, he did not. Try reading for comprehension rather than speed next time.
Nonsense. Classified information is discussed within the halls of government all the time, by obvious necessity.
See previous point. Even if Clapper did not with to tell the truth for some reason, he was certainly not forced to tell lies; he simply chose to do so.
Nobody was denying Mr. al-Alwaki access to the courts. If he was truly innocent, he could have presented himself in the US and stood trial. By hiding in a lawless region of the world, he forced the use of extraordinary measures against him.
Then cite the way in which the relevant statement was not a terroristic threat.
“Within the halls of government” is a little different than “While posturing for style points on the media circus that is open session, thanks to the omnipresent C-SPAN camera”.
Stood trial for what crime? And how could he have returned when he was undoubtedly on the no-fly list?
Merely saying the words “I think I’ll shoot up a kindergarten” does not automatically make a statement a threat - I did it just then, and only the most idiotic of police officers could conclude that I was serious.
Then he should have declined to answer without perjuring himself.
Indeed; this is what makes Smapti’s assertion that Clapper was “forced” to perjure himself particularly risible. Is Clapper afflicted with some neurological condition that renders him incapable of controlling his voicebox? Is he four years old? Did he consume a large bowl of Sugar-Frosted Meth Flakes before giving his testimony?
And he failed to give the logical response, “I respectfully decline to answer until the session is closed to outside audiences” because…? Geez, I meant that “neurological condition” line as a bit of snark, but I suppose it can’t be ruled out.
True story; in 2008, I made a statement in an online chatroom along lines similar to that, which resulted in my being interviewed by the Secret Service.
Supposing that you were generally intending to commit such a crime, the relevant law enforcement agencies would be viewed in retrospect as being remiss in their duties if, having seen your comment, they had just shrugged it off.
Except that the law doesn’t allow him that option, since he wasn’t being ordered to testify against himself.
To the people planning to murder him? Who had a history of buying innocent people and locking them up for years, commanded by a man who refuses to punish torturers? And not because he had been accused of any crime, but just because their boss wanted him dead? Would you try to throw yourself on Obama’s mercy, if you were in Al-Awlaki’s position?
Only by the mentally retarded. People with normal cognitive function understand the concept of quoting people.
Oh really? What crime would he supposedly have committed by stating he could not legally answer the question in a public venue?
It occurs to me that to avoid all this crap in the first place, we could seriously just dial back our spying a bit. Less crap for people to leak, less for people to get worked up over. I’ve personally never been much of a fan of spying and I find it distasteful. However, I accept it because it saves lives. How many lives, I dunno, but it seems more and more that its not worth the cost we lose in privacy and surveillance. I won’t make a stand about what’s legal and what’s not, that’s for the lawyers to decide, but it does seem like the government is taking in far more information than it knows what to do with, and far more than can be useful. I wish we’d just stop the spying games almost completely.
And I promise that I will not become one of those people who, if the government fails to prevent an attack, complains about how we should have been protected with more spying. I was against the Patriot Act on 9/12 and I remain so today.
What are you talking about? Either the truth can be legally stated in open session* (in which case Clapper should have done so) or not (in which case Clapper could not be charged with contempt for insisting on closed session before answering).
*Given that any possible illegality would arise from law created by Congress, a Congressional demand that the information be stated in open session would, ipso facto, remove any question of illegality in any case.
Obviously, spying is not a relevant metric in any case. The government already had the identities of the Boston Marathon bombers without having to spy on anyone, and they still whiffed it. For the government to claim that it needs expanded spying authority to keep us safe is like someone showing you slides of his recent round-the-world cruise on his new 60" plasma TV claiming that he needs more money to make ends meet.