Ray McGovern and the Sam Adams party have presented the Sam Adams award to Edward Snowden. I am delighted. This from Ray’s account of the event:
In brief remarks from his visitors, Snowden was reassured — first and foremost — that he need no longer be worried that nothing significant would happen as a result of his decision to risk his future by revealing documentary proof that the U.S. government was playing fast and loose with the Constitutional rights of Americans.
Even amid the government shutdown, Establishment Washington and the normally docile “mainstream media” have not been able to deflect attention from the intrusive eavesdropping that makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. Even Congress is showing signs of awaking from its torpor.
In the somnolent Senate, a few hardy souls have gone so far as to express displeasure at having been lied to by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and NSA Director Keith Alexander — Clapper having formally apologized for telling the Senate Intelligence Committee eavesdropping-related things that were, in his words, “clearly erroneous” and Alexander having told now-discredited whoppers about the effectiveness of NSA’s intrusive and unconstitutional methods in combating terrorism.
Coleen Rowley, the first winner of the Sam Adams Award (2002), cited some little-known history to remind Snowden that he is in good company as a whistleblower — and not only because of previous Sam Adams honorees. She noted that in 1773, Benjamin Franklin leaked confidential information by releasing letters written by then-Lt. Governor of Massachusetts Thomas Hutchinson to Thomas Whatley, an assistant to the British Prime Minister.
The letters suggested that it was impossible for the colonists to enjoy the same rights as subjects living in England and that “an abridgement of what are called English liberties” might be necessary. The content of the letters was so damaging to the British government that Benjamin Franklin was dismissed as colonial Postmaster General and had to endure an hour-long censure from British Solicitor General Alexander Wedderburn.
There has been a determined attempt by government to justify the need to intercept everybody’s communications, all the time. We have, yet again, had MI5 claim there are many thousand violent Islamic terrorists running around the UK, (yet somehow not managing to kill anybody). The cry of “paedophiles” is raised, as always. I can imagine them suggesting the entire population be shot dead, and justifying it as making sure they get the paedophiles. The tabloids would go with that.
There still had not been a single credible claim by the mainstream media that any named individual has died, despite that contingency being trotted out all the time as the reason Snowden and Manning should not have revealed state crimes and abuse of power. I am hopeful that, with the internet still largely free to the dissemination of information, out next massive whistleblower is only weeks away.
There is no such word as ‘Zoern’, its Zorn or Zornig.
Macky They sat in picnic chairs watching the Cast Lead war on captive people in Gaza as you said. Strange though that I cannot find on Google images any of the many photos around at the time. I think the CAMERA/Israel Project have been busy.
~~~
Nevermind. Yes I’m glad that Souter has been taken out of circulation. Also the coroner Crickmore who stole £2m from the estates of the dead. There are many more who have escaped justice but pleased that the W Yorks police are being investigated for their cosy relationship with Sa Vile.
@ Nevermind – it was a typo, sorry.
Hi Dreoilin
That’s kind of you, glad you liked the book. Yes there are plenty of local references, but nothing that would stand in the way of comprehension methinks.
You know why they need so much attention. Because there’s no fanaticism anymore, just mild disgust.
If you’re a Catholic, you outgrow all the nonsense and then, all those lunatics in dresses fucking altarboys, What’s it got to do with you? It’s distasteful. Just lock the old pervs up.
Same if you’re a Jew. You quickly outgrow the nonsense, then, What’s it got to do with you, these sweaty natives exterminating the weaker tribe in a radioactive wasteland? They’re an embarrassment. You don’t want to have to explain their antics when you’re trying to marry a beautiful, rich Nordic or Nilotic atheist. Just ship them to the Hague for trial already, get them out of your hair.
“They sat in picnic chairs” – some people, a few people, how many people. Give me fucking strength, the ‘people’ are not to be judged by the horrific actions of a few. Because what would that make us, part of the nation who has caused up to a million deaths in Iraq?
Ben Franklin
“Alzo, the strength and validity of the original poster’s remarks can be debunked using whatever facts you can summon, without any need for the original poster’s inpiut. Now, that might get a response, but there is no guarantee.”
You’re right, they can be – but not always. Let’s take a couple of examples.
When we read posts about the price of a pair of shoes that the Duchess of Cambridge was wearing, or about 3 of the 8 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court being Jewish, or about new Cairperson of the FED being Jewish (as well as several of her predecessors), or about AJ Sonia Sotomayor liking Israel and having some (American) Jewish friends : I cannot debunk these comments with facts, because they are factually correct. But surely one is entitled to ask the posters for the relevance of these facts or what wider or larger conclusions the posters draw from them? In fact, one would have expected the posters to make their wider points as a matter of course – in the interests of rational discussion, be it said. The fact that they didn’t – and failed to do so even after prompting from others – must surely lead one to the following conclusions
– either there is no wider conclusion and the comments were made innocently with the simple aim of providing information (information easily obtained elsewhere, by the way)
– or the comment does draw a wider or broader conclusion but is, for some strange reasons, unwilling to share that conclusion with the other readers.
in the penultimate line : “the commenter” (and not “the comment”).
I’ll rephrase the whole of the second indent as follows:
” – or the commenter does draw a wider or broader conclusion for himself but is, let us say, too “coy” to share that conclusion with his readers”
“But surely one is entitled to ask the posters for the relevance of these facts or what wider or larger conclusions the posters draw from them?”
Yes, one is.
@ Ben Franklin
Probably not the right question to put to a man who writes about near asteroid misses (and govt attempts to cover up same) and conspiracies to murder journalists while driving their cars but still, I’ll try again :
do you agree that posters should take responsibility for what they post – and that one of the forms this responsibility could take would be to respond to legitimate questions?
Then ask Ben about what he posts, rather than snidely trying to discredit him. Have you looked at any of his research?
“But surely one is entitled to ask the posters for the relevance of these facts or what wider or larger conclusions the posters draw from them?”
Of course you are entitled to ask.
Just as they are entitled to not reply.
Freedom of speech is not freedom to dictate.
Fred: yep. You muzt ansver our quvestions! Still, sometimes the quvestions have a point.
der Zoern è bella
La vita Gottes!
“Fred: yep. You muzt ansver our quvestions! Still, sometimes the quvestions have a point.”
We can all draw our conclusions from an absence of reply just as we can from a reply.
You can’t have freedom to speak without freedom to not speak. It’s just not freedom.
“Give me fucking strength, the ‘people’ are not to be judged by the horrific actions of a few.”
Are you trying to out-juvenile Village ?
My previous quote of 90% of Israeli support for the mass murder spree of trapped defenseless people, called “Cast Lead”, was an underestimate, as the figure was actually 94%, and even more amazing is that almost as many american jews supported it also ! Are they also suffering from irrational fear ?!
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.fr/2009/02/american-jews-supported-operation-cast.html
“do you agree that posters should take responsibility for what they post – and that one of the forms this responsibility could take would be to respond to legitimate questions?”
That’s a broad swath. Can you break it down for me? Responsibility for the consequences arising from one’s own comment? Maybe so, if some demonstrable harm can be connected to the expression/s. However, I see no responsibility to reply. Rhetorical questions, by their nature, do not require an answer, in fact, they are discouraged. Maybe what is ‘unsaid’ is more powerful than if one actually expresses. Regardless of the poster’s motives, the silent treatment is not proscribed.
A Node; You think it’s Hab?
If Aguirre asked me to put down my bong it would have been obvious.
Right, Macky. No sources for the first ‘fact’ and for the second:
*according to the ADL* American Jews were nearly as supportive as Israelis were.
According to the ADL? Do you normally credit the ADL? Strange because it certainly appears to be defaming the average person. But let’s look at what it was based on:
The telephone survey of 400 American Jewish adults was conducted between January 13-19, 2009 (with a hiatus Friday evening-Saturday for the Jewish Sabbath) for ADL by The Marttila Communications Group, and has a margin of error of +/-4.9%.
Four hundred people. Yeah, good to go. You carry on with your demonisation of the commons: doesn’t work for me.
Ben, course it’s Habbakuk. No arguments, snide stuff.
or rather, any argument obscured by irresistible urge to snidety…
@ Ben (and others)
Of course there is no obligation on the original poster to answer. But it is not unreasonable to assume that if he doesn’t, he is either unable to or is unwilling to (and if the latter, it is reasonable to ask oneself why).
“Rhetorical questions, by their nature, do not require an answer,..”
OK, but let’s take a concrete example: when someone inform us that 3 of the 8 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court are Jewish, is it rhetoric to ask that someone why he is bringing this (easily ascertainable for anyone interested) fact to our attention?
Tech; I thought he was nearly bursting at his seams to avoid the tells. It won’t be long. He really has an issue with self-congtrol.
Ben
if it quacks like a duck …..
Macky they are weaned on causing death and destruction.
“that 3 of the 8 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court are Jewish,”
That is a fact that can’t be disputed. I also have heard the current POTUS is black. I will now go flagellate myself for recognizing these facts.
“Right, Macky. No sources for the first ‘fact’ and for the second:”
So you cant’t use Google ?
“The war provoked mixed reactions inside Israel, with the Jewish majority largely supporting it, and the Arab minority mostly opposing it. A poll taken on January 8, 2009, showed that 91% of the Jewish public supported the war, and 4% opposed it, while a separate poll conducted from January 4–6 showed a 94% approval of the war among Jews and 85% disapproval among Israeli Arabs.[474]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War#Reactions_in_Israel
I still cant’t believe you try to equate Israeli Public support FOR Cast Lead with British Public OPPOSITION to the Iraq War !!