... We've rejected and ignored rulings on our support for the Contra terrorists and non-adherence to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, for example.
The International Criminal Court in the Hague, Netherlands is hardly "a bunch of Third World guys". Anyhow, whether we should be subject to the only arbiter of international law (I think we should) is a whole different debate. The fact is that we aren't. So, the only reason to not be more transparent about the torture program that everybody in the already world knows about and that we've already admitted to is to protect the torturers from even the personal accountability of publicity.
The pro-sale argument essentially is that out of all the things we could possibly do for Saudi Arabia the only acceptable one is to sell them arms while they are actively killing Yemenis.
27-71 according to the Senate website. NC's Burr & Tillis both voted with the majority, as did SC's Graham and Scott and TN's Alexander and Corker. 22 Dems, 4 GOP and Bernie were in the minority.
So let's say you have a home or business in an area with a high crime rate. To help protect your property, you've got a really good surveillance system. You've got hi-def cameras all over, sound pick-ups - nothing for a block away goes unrecorded. Maybe you call the police and offer to let them use your resources, including all your recordings going back several months. Or should you say nothing about your resources until or unless the police comes to your door with a warrant?
No, I don't. It's all a matter of scope, not principle. Maybe a difference that AT&T is trying to make money, but other than that, it's no different in principle. I have joked from time to time that the only difference in living in a motor home and living in your car is the size of your vehicle. Not exactly correct, but in fact it is the same principle.
1. All of America is not "an area with a high crime rate."
2. "nothing for a block away goes unrecorded" includes all activities that have nothing to do with "high crime rate."
3. The police could/should be given recordings related to crimes, not the O Really's nude passes by the windows and sex noises.
4. A warrant would only cover recordings related to crimes.
5. Scale can make an analogy silly, and does in this case.
6. "trying to make money" compared to an act of public service in one's own interest to reduce neighborhood crime is a big difference.
7. "the size of your vehicle" is not "the only difference in living in a motor home and living in your car". Others include beds, kitchen, toilet, shower, waste disposal, refrigeration, etc.
8. AT&T is recording things that even your theoretical "nothing for a block away goes unrecorded" couldn't.
O Really wrote:So let's say you have a home or business in an area with a high crime rate. To help protect your property, you've got a really good surveillance system. You've got hi-def cameras all over, sound pick-ups - nothing for a block away goes unrecorded. Maybe you call the police and offer to let them use your resources, including all your recordings going back several months. Or should you say nothing about your resources until or unless the police comes to your door with a warrant?
While your surveillance system may record what's going on in the neighbors' front yards, its only recording what is publicly visible. There's no expectation of privacy.
AT&T on the other hand was recording and passing along private conversations. THAT should require a court order in each individual case. And not "FISA court" style automatic rubber stamp.
This guy was a District Health Director with the Georgia Department of Public Health, a state government job, and thus a state government employee. Like other state employees, he can't make public statements that would appear to create a conflict with his ability to perform his duties. A "lay minister" is not ordained and has no more protection for his "sermons" than any other person's writings or statements. Sorta like claiming "attorney-client privilege" by an unlicensed attorney or even a "jailhouse lawyer."
Plus, it's not "religious discrimination" to assess what he's publicly saying. His being Christian, or any other religion, is not the issue. And, one should never, ever trust Faux Noise's spin on an issue without researching it further. Finally, as O Really implies, it's not "Big Brother is Watching You" if one has freely chosen to work for government. If there's any issue here at all it should be in The Worker Thread.
The county's animal services recently sent out loads of threatening letters to pet-owning residents, warning them that failing to get their pets properly licensed could lead to $250 fines. The county was going extract money from them either way.
But how did the county know who owned pets if they weren't licensed? It turns out they got their mitts on direct mail lists from stores that tracked customer purchasing habits through membership cards and the like. For the stores and the private retail environment, they're tools to more directly market consumers with goods they may want or need. In the hands of government, it becomes a lot more sinister. A woman who no longer owned a pet received one of these threatening letters and wondered what was going on.
Those who were all for the NSA's surveillance on Americans and all for forcing tech companies to break encryption, are suddenly having second thoughts.
... We've rejected and ignored rulings on our support for the Contra terrorists and non-adherence to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, for example.
The International Criminal Court in the Hague, Netherlands is hardly "a bunch of Third World guys". Anyhow, whether we should be subject to the only arbiter of international law (I think we should) is a whole different debate. The fact is that we aren't. So, the only reason to not be more transparent about the torture program that everybody in the already world knows about and that we've already admitted to is to protect the torturers from even the personal accountability of publicity.
... The State Department pushed back against the accusations Tuesday evening, saying an ICC probe into the actions of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is not "warranted or appropriate" and denying the ICC has jurisdiction to investigate because the United States is not party to the court. Some American military personnel have already been prosecuted for crimes in Afghanistan, including murder, and from 2009 and 2012, the Justice Department investigated CIA abuse of detainees but ultimately prosecuted no one.
If the ICC does proceed with an investigation, it is unlikely any Americans will be charged and sent to trial in The Hague....
