Andrew_Quentin

When did suspicion become a conspiracy theory?

Its far from role playing. As I said they were putting anarchist principles in practice. You say they need a leader, they showed they did not need a leader.

I did not see them being hijacked by anything but the police force. They had a message, they communicated that message, everyone heard the message. That the people were unwilling to support them more vocally, but instead were successfully divided by the media, was not a failure on the part of occupy, but an example that propaganda is very, very effective against the masses.

Fetish is quite a strange word to use. They put in practice anarchist principles and showed that such principles do actually work in practice as they managed to grab the focus of the world for maybe a month or two and communicated a very focused message, there is a difference between 99% of the people and a tiny 1%.

What killed occupy was the police forcibly removing them.

Well he can go to the witness stand but stay silent, i.e No Comment. He can be asked questions, but surely he can't be compelled to answer them.

Surely the fact that Verizon was ordered to hand over all its phone records for a period of three months means that anyone who is a Verizon customer has standing.

62 people are 0-10!?

If you can just drug people to tell the truth why doesn't the FBI just drug the Guantanamo detainees or in fact why don't we just drug every suspected criminal arrested on probable cause?

What country is that?

Why exactly did you feel the need to tell us either how paranoid you are or how much of a coward you are?

after the plane was searched and no Snowden was found.

It is so strange to see a judgment reference a previous case as Re Sealed Case.

It feels like the judge is stating: The authority for this principle can be found in Black Box.

It may be justified for civil cases to be held in secret. After all, civil cases can be resolved by mediation, arbitration, even just negotiation. When the matter concerns a petition against the government however, or against a law, there is no reason for the case to be sealed or secret.

Whats next, the congress voted in a closed secret session a new secret law?

It is legal to hang homosexuals in Iran.

Jews were legally killed as far as the Nazis were concerned.

Just become something is legal - in this case a wrong assertion because spying on citizens is against the constitution so it is illegal - does not mean that it complies with Human Rights.

Slavery, World War II and Prison Camps in a time of peace!

How are they comparable?

"why DO we continue?"

To be is rare, to not be is not. Rare things are precious for their novelty if nothing else. We are going to die in any event, so we might as well live while we can.

I was under the impression that they were flying on a privately owned plane. That does not seem to be the case, but it may be on their next leg of the journey.

I do not have direct knowledge, but I would think that if the plane is of the diplomat, then the whole plane could be considered to be territory of the nation of the diplomat, therefore the diplomat could offer him asylum while on the plane.

If I wasn't clear, I was not speaking about offering him diplomatic immunity, but rather the plane being considered as territory of the nation of the diplomat.

I would think the plane is safe and perhaps the plane could be considered as territory of the nation of the diplomat therefore the diplomat could offer him asylum on the plane if need be, but I may be wrong about the latter.

"If you were just now appalled to learn about the changes made to FISA with the PATRIOT act, you are 12 years behind the times."

The leaked documents are TOP SECRET. By definition top secret documents are not public knowledge. If top secrets becoming public knowledge is not new then what is?

What evidence is suspect?

Here is one new thing - The president has admitted that this programme exists while before in congressional committees it was denied.

The president stated that nobody listens to your data when evidence has been presented to the contrary.

No one had ever before seen a FISA court order. Most of the public was not even aware of Fisa courts. Most of the public did not know that this court has granted all requests, but two. Most of the public was not aware of secret courts interpreting secret laws while handing down secret judgments. The public did not know that a warrant was not needed but mere policy in many cases.

Etc, etc, etc.

All of this is new. The leaked documents are TOP SECRET. If top secrets becoming public knowledge is not new then what is!?

Repeated talking points ad nauseum.

Wasn't Manning tortured? Isn't Snowden going from one country to another? What makes you think the case of Assange is any different?

Have we all forgotten how 3 years ago when the revelations first appeared we here on HN were discussing in what manner he will be vanished or smeared? Only a few weeks later the news of some dropped charge re-instated appeared.

He has now been in confinement for almost 3 years. One wonders how much longer. Would he have been given a greater punishment even if he was found guilty by the Swedish court? I doubt it.

If it looks like a duck, it is more probable than anything else that it is a duck.

Yup, and it is what has always led to war.

I think you missed the point. He was basically saying that Obama and Bush are the same.

If the president can't stand up to it, who can?

The buck stops with Obama. Ignorance or incompetence is in some ways worse than lying as he might have some good reason to lie.

Welcome to rhetorics 101

Why don't you sue and find out?

Spying on an enemy government is way different from spying on civilians.

I think its rather that no one has tested the above argument. The judgement was in 1953, so it had nothing to say about the internet or data stored in the US.

Maybe time was a factor, perhaps he was ready to publish his story or close to doing so. Then there is also the tactic of hiding in plain sight.

All of what you mentioned could however be a coincidence, but that doesn't seem to be the simplest explanation.

A private contract can not make you guilty of criminal offences.