Our Country is dying FAST!

[rrhill]

 

[rrhill]

 

[rrhill]

 

[joninliverton]

"People have known that for years"

Really Jon?

Till now the UK denied spying!
read: http://www.humanipo.com/news/6507/UK-government-denies-spying-claims

also in the news today...

German minister seeks answers from UK over spying 'catastrophe'

Britain's European partners will seek urgent clarification from London about whether a British spy agency has tapped international telephone and Internet traffic on a massive scale, Germany's justice minister said on Saturday.

Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said a report in Britain's Guardian newspaper read like the plot of a horror film and, if confirmed as true, would be a "catastrophe".
read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/22/us-usa-security-britain-germany-idUSBRE95L09E20130622

The Germans have their own spy service too, so I don't know what they're getting all flustered about. To Tampa, their are British laws that stop what you have concerns about. They do not have total access to your personal information, what they are monitoring are words or symbols within phone calls and internet traffic that might indicate you are involved in terrorist activity.

Think back when you were travelling to the uk last year..and all other Americans and your friends that travel or were at the Olympics last year, when there are confirmed cases where attacks were foiled by the intelligence agencies. What would you rather have, your friends and families killed by mad idiots or your emails and maybe phone calls monitored for words that may indicate terror.

 

[tampa24]

Think back when you were travelling to the uk last year..and all other Americans and your friends that travel or were at the Olympics last year, when there are confirmed cases where attacks were foiled by the intelligence agencies. What would you rather have, your friends and families killed by mad idiots or your emails and maybe phone calls monitored for words that may indicate terror.

Well that part's a no-brainer. Of course I want to be safe and I want all my other fellow law-abiding citizens to be safe. (Including my British cousins across the pond. xo) As I said in my earlier post though, it's not so much what they are doing with that info right now in the battle against terrorism. If they could give us an ironclad guarantee that all this data gathering would always be used only to prevent terrorism...I think most people would be fine with it. But they can't credibly make a promise like that. It's what the future uses of all that info will portend that worry me. I think it should give everyone some pause.

 

[Ambivalent]

LOL thanks for the "kind words" and yes Rick and I are already "off site" buddies so he knows I'm a good person - blush. Rick is also a fantastic guy who I enjoy communicating with.

*****************************

Hey, Jon -

1.) GREAT - I'm glad that you and Rick are friends off-site: that's super (I believe friendship is, as Aristotle suggested, one of the best things, if not THE best thing, in life.)
2.) I do hope that Rick will be posting again; although I didn't agree with his analysis this time, I do share the sense that he is a really intelligent, and really sincere guy: and I also respect and admire that he is taking the trouble to think about large issues.
3.) Jon, I do apologize if my words in any of the posts in this thread seemed unduly harsh, judgemental, or unkind to you - such that the "scare quotes" were required in your last post (supra) ~ if, indeed, they were scare-quotes! LOL! However, I said the things I thought were necessary for me to say, and tried (for once) not to make too much of a meal, of it. Also, given my chequered past, I am quite capable of having very hot - HOT HOT HOT arguments about politics, and loving the person with whom I had the argument, the next day ;-)))

Yours,
"A" XOXOXOXOXOXO

P.S. If you'll forgive me for being unduly narcissistic, or at least narrow-of-focus, Jon: it seems to me that you and I have one of the most sheerly hilarious epistolary relationships I have yet enjoyed. I imagine that we are quite unlike one another, in taste, style, background, and substantive opinions ~ and we frequently quarrel furiously ~ BUT, still, I do recognize in you, someone whom I LIKE ;-) LOL!

 

[Ambivalent]

I don't agree with that Jon. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Total access to all personal information of every citizen will only create a slippery slope to widespread abuse of such access. Totalitarian countries have had and do have government informers and "minders" in workplaces, in apartment buildings, as well as shops and stores. They use this info to deny or grant people jobs, promotions and so on.

I'm all for stopping and preventing terrorism. If they really did all this only to be used for that sole purpose, I'd be okay with it. But... How many of us believe that over coming decades that the access to all that personal information will only be used by the government within the narrow scope of keeping the country safe from terrorism? After going through great time and much expense to collect all this info...the natural inclination by bureaucrats is to try to keep finding more uses for it, beyond the original parameters, in order to justify the expense. How many of us will like those other ideas they might come up with in secret?

*******************************************************************************

Hey, Tampa -

This is an important civil liberties issue, and warrants debate. My sense of this falls (I think) somewhere between yours, and Jon's.

The way the NSA data-collection programme is SUPPOSED to work, is this:
*Telephone and Internet companies typically retain their records for only a few years, due to the expense involved.
*The NSA has gotten the ability to save those records indefinitely, and retrieve them, indefinitely. But these are (in the first instance) records of call- and Internet-contact times and numbers/addresses, with no content attached.
*IF the FBI, CIA, or other national security agencies get a lead on someone who is suspected of terrorist activity, then, the NSA can search this database for calls or e-mails to known terrorist hubs.
*If the NSA believes that there IS terrorist activity happening, then they can petition the judiciary for a warrant, to open and examine content, of these documents: but a warrant is required. However, if they GET a warrant, the content CAN be accessed.

Now, this is a lot different, from the government listening in on EVERY conversation. And, I think it is a defensible plan, to ensure public safety. This is essentially the case that President Obama made on "Charlie Rose", last week: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12981 William Saletan, of Slate Magazine, also issued a persuasive defence of this policy, recently - with significant caveats: http://www.slate.com/articles/techn..._database_a_defense_of_mass_surveillance.html

The caveats, though, Tampa, ARE important. When such masses of data (or avenues to data) are collected, and ARE available for scrutiny (notwithstanding safeguards) the potential for abuse is ever-present, and real. Saletan, in his article, suggested that further safeguards are necessary. And one of his colleagues at Slate, Ryan Gallagher, recently published an article suggesting that the process is not QUITE as clean as President Obama suggested, and that sometimes information regarding American citizens IS viewed, without proper judicial authority (though I think, for the record, Gallagher's headline is deliberately provocative, and that President Obama had no intention to mislead people as to the broad outlines of the information-gathering policy): http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t..._public_on_nsa_surveillance_of_americans.html

So, Tampa, I think you're right, in this regard. A new information-gathering policy, which hitherto has been enacted only administratively, ought to have public assent, going forward. I suspect that, if the American public is aware of the policy, and there are safeguards in place, there will be not so many objections as one might suspect. Officials of the FBI and the NSA have recently testified that the NSA information-collection programme has helped to avert 50 terrorist plots, including plots to bomb the New York Stock Exchange, and the New York subway. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-York-Stock-Exchange-citys-subway-system.html

However, the SCOPE of the programme, and its limits, must surely be clearly known, and assented to by the public, and by elected officials. And not simply be a matter of administrative fiat. Such basic knowledge is the price, but also the glory, of democracy.

There is no question that achieving the right balance, between liberty and security, is always tricky. It is an ongoing and thoroughly vexatious problem. In posting this letter, I am well aware that the public in Canada and the U.K., are much more accepting and tolerant of government intrusions upon public liberty, than is the public in the U.S.A. That is why y'all had a REVOLUTION, I suppose ;-))) BUT - in any country, the fundamental questions of maintaining a proper balance between personal freedom and the safety of the community, are eternal.

I hope that, in the U.S.A., there will be a good and enlightened debate about this matter, and that a reasonable solution will be found. At any rate, it is a fascinating question with respect to issues of security, liberty, and law.

Yours,
"A" XOXOXOXOXOXO

P.S. A little postscript to all virulent Obama-haters, survivalists, conspiracy theorists, et. al. ~ let me pre-empt your inevitable comments, right at present. For, I don't wish to engage in correspondence about a lot of paranoid suppositions:
* You make like or dislike or hate Barack Obama (and his foreign and domestic policies) but he is neither a fascist, a communist, nor even a democratic socialist. In world-historical terms (though not in American terms) he is a moderate conservative. Nothing more, and nothing less.
* If you think the government of the U.S.A. has the TIME, or is well-ORGANIZED enough, to investigate your favourite brand of underwear, your favourite sexual positions, or your favourite television-programmes, you are NUTS, and ought to betake yourself IMMEDIATELY to the nearest mental-health facility. Because, your family and FRIENDS don't even care about those things.
* The current U.S. Administration is quite a bit more scrupulous about civil liberties than many previous ones - and, if you doubt that, just give my old friend Henry Kissinger, a ring ;-)
* Finally, in the U.S.A. (as in Britain and Canada, currently): most of the awful things that governments do to people have less to do with some heinous, overarching, conspiracy, than with simple mistakes, and occasional ineptitude. *Though, in this regard, I have to say, governments often come off not a great deal worse, than the private sector.*
* So, please - if you have some terrible intuition that Barack Obama is engaged in a terrible plot to subvert the U.S. Constitution, or destroy you PERSONALLY: I ask that you not address me personally, in this chimerical vendetta. Because, a priori, I regard you as a very silly person, and the discussion simply WON'T go well ;-)))) (On the other hand, I am open to real discussions about governance, checks and balances, and the role of law, in a free society.)

 

[joninliverton]

Good posts as always Ambi. You see my friend I read the complete post on this side of the forum, but fall to sleep on your posts on the other side for obvious reasons lol. Back on track, you state there is a fine balance between security and liberty, to which I agree and I also agree that the laws of any land should point out the demarcation points. However, one can not simply draw a line between the both because times constantly change and most importantly terrorists methods of communicating also change - especially if they know via "freedom of speech" that their communications are getting intercepted.

I do think that the liberty issue is covered in your explanation "If the NSA believes that there IS terrorist activity happening, then they can petition the judiciary for a warrant, to open and examine content, of these documents: but a warrant is required. However, if they GET a warrant, the content CAN be accessed."

The liberty fact that may alarm you about the uk is the number of cameras that watch the public in major cities and motorways. Some people think this is Big Brother however, it was these cameras that identified the 7 july bombers of London (albeit a bit late for those who committed suicide) and have more recently also avoided similar catastrophies. I also know it is impossible to monitor these cameras, phone lines, emails and other internet traffic in real time. That is why they have sophisticated methods that pick certain numbers, phrases etc. And yes, we British are now more accepting of these activities, just as we are of queues and other things that most other countries' peoples' would complain about.

 

[rrhill]

U.S. pressures Hong Kong to extradite Edward Snowden

The United States pressured Hong Kong on Saturday to act quickly on its request to extradite Edward Snowden, a former U.S. National Security Agency contractor charged with espionage for exposing secret U.S. surveillance activities.
"If Hong Kong doesn't act soon, it will complicate our bilateral relations and raise questions about Hong Kong's commitment to the rule of law," a senior Obama administration official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.
read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/22/snowden-hongkong-extradition.html

 

[rrhill]

NSA leaker Snowden arrives in Moscow en route to 'third country' with WikiLeaks help

The plane carrying whistleblower Edward Snowden has landed at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport. The former CIA contractor, who left Hong Kong in a bid to elude US extradition on espionage charges, is on his way to a ‘third country’ via Russia.
source: http://rt.com/news/snowden-fly-moscow-aeroflot-125/

 

[rrhill]

 

[joninliverton]

NSA leaker Snowden arrives in Moscow en route to 'third country' with WikiLeaks help

The plane carrying whistleblower Edward Snowden has landed at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport. The former CIA contractor, who left Hong Kong in a bid to elude US extradition on espionage charges, is on his way to a ‘third country’ via Russia.
source: http://rt.com/news/snowden-fly-moscow-aeroflot-125/

Next stop Havana with final destination being Venezuela. I wonder whether US warplanes will be sent to intercept the aircraft and make it land on US soil.

 

[Ambivalent]

Good posts as always Ambi. You see my friend I read the complete post on this side of the forum, but fall to sleep on your posts on the other side for obvious reasons lol. Back on track, you state there is a fine balance between security and liberty, to which I agree and I also agree that the laws of any land should point out the demarcation points. However, one can not simply draw a line between the both because times constantly change and most importantly terrorists methods of communicating also change - especially if they know via "freedom of speech" that their communications are getting intercepted.

I do think that the liberty issue is covered in your explanation "If the NSA believes that there IS terrorist activity happening, then they can petition the judiciary for a warrant, to open and examine content, of these documents: but a warrant is required. However, if they GET a warrant, the content CAN be accessed."

The liberty fact that may alarm you about the uk is the number of cameras that watch the public in major cities and motorways. Some people think this is Big Brother however, it was these cameras that identified the 7 july bombers of London (albeit a bit late for those who committed suicide) and have more recently also avoided similar catastrophies. I also know it is impossible to monitor these cameras, phone lines, emails and other internet traffic in real time. That is why they have sophisticated methods that pick certain numbers, phrases etc. And yes, we British are now more accepting of these activities, just as we are of queues and other things that most other countries' peoples' would complain about.

********************************************

Jon,

I have no worries about the security cameras, which have become such a feature of British life - and which are gradually being explored in Canada, too. From my perspective, these cameras are a tool which not only help in the detection of crime, but are a deterrent to crime. And, if one is a law-abiding person, what could one possibly have to fear, from such cameras, placed strategically in public places?

Yes, I know and understand that, for a generation of homosexual gentlemen, one generation older than mine ~ when ALL homosexual activity was illegal; a large number of gay men were, of necessity, in the closet; and "cottaging", or furtive assignations in public places, was the only way guys with the urge to have sex with another man could actually DO SO ~ the notion of cameras filming one's every move in the high street, the shopping mall, or wherever, seems. . . Orwellian.

But I think these concerns are outmoded, now. Because homosexual activity is fully legal in most of our Western countries, now; there are plenty of gay venues to meet and socialize with people; and, if one is so inclined, there is always the INTERNET, which enables one to meet a like-minded person, and simply GO HOME. (Which is, after all, best ;-)

If anything, I think that, rather than being a bother to gay people, the cameras are likely more a HELP to us, where they are employed - as they are a deterrent to theft and violence, including gay-bashing.

Therefore, I have no problem with the measures the U.K. has introduced to promote public safety. However, in terms of political and social culture, it is important to remember that both the British and Canadian publics have historically been much more accepting of government policies in the interest of public safety (as, for example, gun control) than the American public has ever been. And I imagine that it is precisely this libertarian streak, that prompted Mr. Snowden to climb upon his high horse, and ride to Hong Kong. (And now, apparently, to Russia ;-) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-us-politicians-react

"A" XOXOXOXOXOXO

 

[rrhill]

ORIGINAL NSA WHISTLEBLOWER: I Saw The Order To Wiretap Barack Obama In 2004

Russ Tice worked as an offensive National Security Agency (NSA) agent from 2002 to 2005, before becoming a source for this Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times article exposing NSA domestic spying. This week he appeared on the Boiling Frogs Showand detailed how he had his hands "in the nitty-gritty, the nuts and bolts" during his 20 years as a U.S. intelligence analyst.

Tice claimed that he held NSA wiretap orders targeting numerous members of the U.S. government, including one for a young senator from Illinois named Barack Obama.

"In the summer of 2004, one of the papers that I held in my hand was to wiretap a bunch of numbers associated with a forty-some-year-old senator from Illinois. You wouldn't happen to know where that guy lives now would you? It's a big White House in Washington D.C. That's who the NSA went after. That's the President of the United States now."
Tice added that he also saw orders to spy on Hillary Clinton, Senators John McCain and Diane Feinstein, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, Gen. David Petraeus, and a current Supreme Court Justice.

That sounds like a lot of abuse of the rules that govern NSA domestic spying. And that's exactly what Tice is claiming.

"The abuse is rampant and everyone is pretending that it's never happened, and it couldn't happen. ... I know [there was abuse] because I had my hands on the papers for these sorts of things: They went after high-ranking military officers; they went after members of congress — Senate and the House — especially on the intelligence committees and the armed services committees, lawyers, law firms, judges, State Department officials, part of the White House, multinational companies, financial firms, NGOs, civil rights groups ..."
read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-nsa-spied-on-barack-obama-2004-russ-tice-2013-6

Listen to the podcast interview with Russ Tice on the Corbett Report:
http://www.corbettreport.com/?powerpress_pinw=7540-podcast

PS: This three days old information is swept under the rug in the US. In fact a mainstream outlet that interviewed Mr. Tice, forbid him to speak about these wire taps.

 

[Ambivalent]

P.S., Jon ~

1.) Mr. Snowden fleeing to RUSSIA, is absolutely a sweet blancmange (with maple-syrup on top) for President Putin. He's already had a field-day criticizing the U.S. for its lack of transparency in its NSA data-collection procedures (which is richly ironic, coming from a former KGB operative). . . but, having America's leading dissident (who is at best a bad employee, and at worst, a traitor) flee into his arms is the bonus round. Thereby, one of the world's greatest autocrats gets to pose as a DEMOCRAT, and a defender of FREEDOM. It's like a lovely Moliere farce ;-)

2.) Mr. Snowden certainly knows how to burn his bridges! Perhaps not so surprising - numbers of his fellow-employees have described him as a self-absorbed, narcissistic jerk - and he certainly had a high opinion of his power to attract the ladies ;-) (In fairness, he IS rather CUTE!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nline-ability-attract-nubile-young-girls.html)

But. . . if one proclaims that one LOVES AMERICA (as Mr. Snowden claims he does); and one ever hopes to go HOME again. . . begging help from the Chinese, and the Russians, is not exactly the way to accomplish this goal - LOL!!!

3.) All of this is going to make a VERY GOOD motion picture. . . too bad Orson Welles isn't still around, to star in it!!! ;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oEsWi88Qv0

 

[Ambivalent]

RRHill ~

Super (and very important) points. Thanks for the links, BTW!

All of this goes directly to the concerns that Tampa was expressing, earlier, and so (I think) validates the need for a thorough public (and political) discussion of the powers of the NSA, and how they are used.

"A" XOXOXOXO

 

[tampa24]

The caveats, though, Tampa, ARE important. When such masses of data (or avenues to data) are collected, and ARE available for scrutiny (notwithstanding safeguards) the potential for abuse is ever-present, and real. Saletan, in his article, suggested that further safeguards are necessary. And one of his colleagues at Slate, Ryan Gallagher, recently published an article suggesting that the process is not QUITE as clean as President Obama suggested, and that sometimes information regarding American citizens IS viewed, without proper judicial authority (though I think, for the record, Gallagher's headline is deliberately provocative, and that President Obama had no intention to mislead people as to the broad outlines of the information-gathering policy): http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t..._public_on_nsa_surveillance_of_americans.html

So, Tampa, I think you're right, in this regard. A new information-gathering policy, which hitherto has been enacted only administratively, ought to have public assent, going forward. I suspect that, if the American public is aware of the policy, and there are safeguards in place, there will be not so many objections as one might suspect.

However, the SCOPE of the programme, and its limits, must surely be clearly known, and assented to by the public, and by elected officials. And not simply be a matter of administrative fiat. Such basic knowledge is the price, but also the glory, of democracy.

There is no question that achieving the right balance, between liberty and security, is always tricky. It is an ongoing and thoroughly vexatious problem. In posting this letter, I am well aware that the public in Canada and the U.K., are much more accepting and tolerant of government intrusions upon public liberty, than is the public in the U.S.A. That is why y'all had a REVOLUTION, I suppose ;-))) BUT - in any country, the fundamental questions of maintaining a proper balance between personal freedom and the safety of the community, are eternal.

I hope that, in the U.S.A., there will be a good and enlightened debate about this matter, and that a reasonable solution will be found. At any rate, it is a fascinating question with respect to issues of security, liberty, and law.

Good posts as always Ambi. You see my friend I read the complete post on this side of the forum, but fall to sleep on your posts on the other side for obvious reasons lol. Back on track, you state there is a fine balance between security and liberty, to which I agree and I also agree that the laws of any land should point out the demarcation points. However, one can not simply draw a line between the both because times constantly change and most importantly terrorists methods of communicating also change - especially if they know via "freedom of speech" that their communications are getting intercepted.

I do think that the liberty issue is covered in your explanation "If the NSA believes that there IS terrorist activity happening, then they can petition the judiciary for a warrant, to open and examine content, of these documents: but a warrant is required. However, if they GET a warrant, the content CAN be accessed."

The liberty fact that may alarm you about the uk is the number of cameras that watch the public in major cities and motorways. Some people think this is Big Brother however, it was these cameras that identified the 7 july bombers of London (albeit a bit late for those who committed suicide) and have more recently also avoided similar catastrophies. I also know it is impossible to monitor these cameras, phone lines, emails and other internet traffic in real time. That is why they have sophisticated methods that pick certain numbers, phrases etc. And yes, we British are now more accepting of these activities, just as we are of queues and other things that most other countries' peoples' would complain about.

I have no problem with the measures the U.K. has introduced to promote public safety. However, in terms of political and social culture, it is important to remember that both the British and Canadian publics have historically been much more accepting of government policies in the interest of public safety (as, for example, gun control) than the American public has ever been. And I imagine that it is precisely this libertarian streak, that prompted Mr. Snowden to climb upon his high horse, and ride to Hong Kong. (And now, apparently, to Russia ;-) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-us-politicians-react

Dearest Jon and Ambi,

You have laid out very good points here. And Jon... I must compliment you here on your of your best and most concisely written posts. You are indeed both witnessing a difference in cultural perspectives in the manner in which this story is playing out here in the States. Americans have always regarded anything that appeared to be government "intrusion" into daily life with disdain, suspicion and perhaps even some fear. (You can see that same streak playing out in the gun control debate. And even at times, the abortion issue.)

It's as old and ingrained as the revolutionary cry of, "No taxation without representation!!" *Shaking fist at King George III*

Terrorism presents us with challenges that are unique in our democratic experience as a very open society. These non-state actors silently declare war on us in deserts and huts in far-off lands and suddenly we have to be on a war footing 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Yet we don't usually know who they are or from whence they come. We can't mobilize for war in the traditional historic sense and bring full military weight to bear on them. So it's very frustrating. All of which the bad guys are counting on. We have to be able to fight them without closing up our whole country and society, and not allowing them the satisfaction of putting us into a siege mentality.

Unfortunately there are no good options for democratic countries. Only what could be considered some of the least bad ones. So this intelligence gathering by the government will be a very lively debate over the next several months especially...and even into coming decades I'm guessing. I would expect nothing less in a democracy.

And Jon... As far as the cameras in Britain, I felt very comfortable with them while in London. Not that I necessarily fully agreed with them in principle. (My Yankee upbringing of course. lol) But I also felt that they helped keep me safe from the "bad guys".

 

[Ambivalent]

Dearest Tampa ~

I fully agree with, and support, your call for full review and examination of the NSA's information-gathering policies. As usual, you display your great moderation, thoughtfulness, and common-sense.

Just as a joke, however - I am going to contest your deprecation of His Britannic Majesty, George III! LOL!!! You know, I often think that you Americans would have been better off, today, had you simply been slightly more. . . patient.

Tampa, I often jokingly tell American friends that yours is a country founded on a single principle: not freedom for all; not life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; but rather, the resolute determination to avoid paying one's fair share of taxes;-) And there is at least a grain of truth in this jest, because, as we all know, the French and Indian War nearly bankrupted the King's treasury: but George III and Parliament stood fast, and saved the Thirteen Colonies, from French occupation. Sinon, nous aurions maintenant cette conversation entierement en francais, monsieur!!!

However, when the American colonists were asked to pay their fair share of the COST of their salvation, they stoutly refused, took up muskets: and the rest (as they say) is history. (I will confess to having a bit of an axe to grind in this matter, though - because, though I often speak of my Scottishness on this board, the English side of my family were United Empire Loyalists, who were driven off their pleasant farm by the rebels: and so, as a matter of fact, the United States owes me and my sisters, a few green acres in Connecticut ;-)

Now - the United States has grown to become a great nation, and a great power - and has done untold GOOD, in the world. (Its people are amongst the kindest, and the most philanthropic, in the world.) Very few people appreciate all the good America has done, historically. When people speak ill of America, I always refer them to this old editorial, by the great Scots-Canadian newspaperman, Gordon Sinclair - which President Ronald Reagan always said, was a great inspiration to him, personally: "The Americans" ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn2A6nfSXM4

So, I'm SURE that the United States will recover from its present problems, and that the right balance between liberty and security will be restored.

Still, it IS true that the entire American system of government was founded precisely to make government NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE - and thereby to inhibit any POSSIBILITY of taxation, or regulation, for good public purposes. While I am sure that Americans will eventually figure out what needs to be done in terms of security, liberty, and economic progress - the classic, constitutional, "separation of powers" (which is a recipe for indecision and gridlock, and was DESIGNED as such, precisely so as to avoid the possibility of another George III) certainly doesn't make it EASY.

The Declaration of Independence stirringly exalts "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Canadian Constitution much more quietly esteems "peace, order, and good government". I suppose that says it all, when it comes to the difference between our two countries. Based on my personal history, studies, and experience: I simply believe that it is easier and simpler to make good public policy (relating to security, public safety, and economic issues) in a parliamentary system, rather than in a small "r" republican one, with division of powers.

And that is the reason, Tampa, that I am glad my ancestors chose NOT to abandon His Britannic Majesty, George III. And why it's really too bad, that y'all didn't just pay your taxes in 1776, and stick with US ;-)))

All in fun,
"A" XOXOXOXOXO ;-)

*God Save the Queen* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXj51MQL8Cw

P.S. Tampa - I really DO believe the British parliamentary system is the preferable system of government. And when people go carping on, about the evils of the British Empire ~ which gave us all, in both the United States and Canada, language, law, literature, and culture: I am oft reminded of that old Monty Python sketch, "What did the ROMANS ever do, for US?" ;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ

On the other hand, lest I become altogether too chauvinistic - the British class system isn't awfully nice. And the Brits were absolutely rotten, to the Irish ~ a terrible tragedy which is only recently beginning to be healed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb3Em1JtrI0

 

[rrhill]

U.S. revokes Snowden's passport: official source

(Reuters) - The United States has revoked the passport of former national security contractor Edward Snowden, an official source familiar with the decision said on Sunday.
It was not immediately clear how Snowden was able to travel, and the official offered no details. An aircraft thought to be carrying him landed in Moscow on Sunday after Hong Kong let the former U.S. National Security Agency contractor leave the territory, despite Washington's efforts to extradite him to face espionage charges.
source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/23/us-usa-security-passport-idUSBRE95M0CW20130623

[h=1]US politicians issue warning to Russia as Edward Snowden arrives in Moscow[/h]
US politicians attacked Vladimir Putin on Sunday and called for Russia to hand over Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor who admitted leaking top secret spying documents.
As Snowden landed in Moscow after leaving Hong Kong, where the US had requested his arrest, leading Democratic senator Chuck Schumer accused the Russian president of sticking a finger in the eye of the US.
"The bottom line is very simple: allies are supposed to treat each other in decent ways and Putin always seems almost eager to put a finger in the eye of the United States, whether it is Syria, Iran and now of course with Snowden," Schumer said on CNN's State of the Union.
"That's not how allies should treat each other and I think it will have serious consequences for the United States-Russia relationship."
read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-us-politicians-react

 

[Ambivalent]

P.P.S. Tampa -

I betcha my AMERICAN BOYFRIEND would be truly pissed-off, by this last post: so don't TELL ON ME, OK??? (Shhhhh. . . . )

"A" ;-)

*God bless America* ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEJo7x9y3D4