It is my understanding that one or more provisions of the Patriot Act has been litigated by the Federal Supreme Court and it would seem to me that there has been more than enough time pass that every provision...that one thinks violates their rights...would have been litigated by now.

the same supreme court that rolled back the voters act?

what makes you think they care about doing anything 'supreme courtish'?

No, that's not what I mean.

There is little congruence these days - if there ever was - between how dependent a nation is on the grace of the United States and the rights afforded to its own citizens domestically.

E.g. Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos? A real beacon of Liberty in the South Pacific? But tighter than hell with our government. E.g. Egypt till we took the former leader out - it was where we contracted out our torture needs. Cf. Switzerland, which has always maintained a fiercely independent stance, but possesses among the highest standards of liberty. Cf. Iceland, ditto.

As a nation, we've never selected our friends or made decisions about aid and assistance depending in any big way on how closely the domestic front resembles our Bill of Rights, as it once was lived here.

You're right, none of it is impressive. It's super easy to evade capture from the US government while traveling abroad with a revoked passport and be protected by foreign governments at the same time. Easy peasy. Pretty common stuff really. The more I think about it, the more common this clown is.

Have you actually ever visited any of those countries or are you just regurgitating what you've read online in the western media?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

King, that's just not how it works. Lawyers don't get a roving commission to contest every part of the law. It depends on aggrieved clients who want to challenge something that affects them. To challenge a law, you must have "standing", which means a concrete connection to the provision you are challenging. When taxpayers attempted to challenge that part of the income tax that funded the Vietnam War, they were thrown out of court. Without that connection, you cannot stay in court. It must be a very particularized connection. In some historic cases, the Supreme Court has held that only Congress itself has standing to challenge some executive orders. There is no system by which each and every law gets routinely strutinized by some panel of lawyers and gets challenged in court. No, the passage of time really doesn't have anything to do with it. It's a very tiny part of the statutes that have ever been brought to court for a determination of validity.

are you referring to 'United States v. Malinowski'?

don't forget the secret fisa court.

L am pretty much aware of all that you have stated and understand what you have stated...but I was being somewhat facetious...for as many people that I have heard complain about how the Patriot Act has trampled on their rights...and the amount of time that has passed...it just seems that every provision would have been challenged in court by now.

BTW what is your thinking about military courts compared to civilian courts.

should me and you mutt revolutionise the united states?

What you are saying is that Snowden "believes" the US is violating the law, but he's not an attorney. It might even be in fact that the only laws broken here is by Snowden himself.

If Snowden believes the US was violating the law so much, he should have contacted an attorney - and not flee the country.

Just so you know, you're trying to explain this to a guy who actually faked his own death here.

Pigshit. PF was a seventy year old man who died of a stroke approaching 11 years ago. In adition I understand how it works just fine..thank you very much.

You are just an ignorant perverted cocksucker that is also a fucking fruit cake.

Who knows what he believes...or what his motives were/are.

The comparison between military courts and civilian courts is pretty complicated. While I was in the JAG Corps, young, idealistic, and without experience in civilian courts, I thought that the military system was monstrously unfair. Indeed, there are some elements that I still dislike about it. But, having seen the alternative, the criminal justice system as it works in Illinois and in federal courts, I see that the military system has some areas where it is better and fairer. Especially in the quality of legal defense services provided. I no longer think that the system of courts martial is terrible. Each system has plusses and minuses, somebody's calculus of fairness weighed against other interests, like cost and manpower, and differing ideas of decency and fairness. What I've learned from this is to master the rules and process and use every advantage in each system for the benefit of a client - and those benefits will be different from place to place - and to find ways around the disadvantages of each system. Maybe that's not a great answer but it's the best I can do.

That's the other problem... Why China? Why Russia? Why not fly straight to Ecuador or Iceland?

RIP Pathfinder. Long live theking.

I'm blushing again. Thanks.

is really anyone out there who believes that prisma is all about finding out possible terrorist actions? just think the ammount of data that each single day is getting out and in the united states.i dont think that a terrorist will call his partner to ask him if everything's going well with the bomb.the targenting group in so called prisma operation, is only the people.have no doubt about it.
if not,those bastards from hellstan wouldn't be able to perform they barbarian action during
boston's marathon.snowden is not a traitor.

the opinion that really put thinks the way they are....very good!

I asked because over the years attorneys that I have known that have had experience in both systems...for the most part...felt that the military system of justice is...overall...fairer. Thanks for your input.

DWB - yes, they are saying he has been in the transit area for the past two days.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51DDHAP97HL.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminal

So mother Russia cannot arrest him? Because... They have no authority in the "transit area"? This does not make sense to me. If someone pulls out a gun there do they say "We cannot enter because it is in the transit area?".

When they say "transit area" do they really mean "debriefing room"?

Bingo.:thumbsup

Well said.

2Richard: Any examples of "missing rights"? :)

Russia can arrest anybody in the transit area w/o any problems. On the other hand:

1) The guy haven't commuted any crime in Russia. Do you want him to be arrested for no reason? Sorry, but here in Russia (as you pointed it out already) we have "a huge lack of civilian rights", so our police can not arrest or kill you "just for fun". This is not America.

2) Russia has no mutual extradition agreement with the USA (because your country has refused to sign it). So the guy can not be extradited to the States according to the law.

Do you trust them on that? Honestly.

http://www.moonbattery.com/pervert.jpg

Fucking fruit cake...

http://apocalypsecakes.files.wordpre.../sodomnew1.jpg

:stoned

ADG

since i will travel via Moscow in August i just looked it up - transit visas are not necessary when the stay does not extend 24 hours and you dont leave the transit area

i assume he didnt plan to stay there longer than 24 hours and came without one - but i also assume that Russia does not make any trouble because of that now

That makes more sense. I've yet to be in an airport where you can just loiter in the hall once you come off the plane. So if he's been there for 24 hours already, max that visa is good for 72 hours.

Of course there is still the other possibility that he's not there at all and this is just smoke and mirrors to get him somewhere else quietly. Between Julian Assange, everyone else at Wikileaks, and the several nations helping him, I'm sure they could come up with something to pull off a little slight-of-hand. Like the trip to Havana that he wasn't on, for example. Hell, maybe he was on it and flew in the cockpit of the plane. I think at this point it's fair to say he is getting a lot of help, so there is no telling where that help ends.

I was going to answer but CyberSEO did so perfectly below...

Beautifully said. :thumbsup

However, Rochard isn't going to be able to comprehend that. Because in his world, only Americans have rights and freedom. You red commie bastards got jack. :upsidedow

Correct, under 24 hours no transit visa. Over 24 hours and up to 72 hours, you need one. But at this point I think all of us can guess he's getting special treatment, because he doesn't even have a passport, which is needed for a transit visa. His refugee document from Ecuador takes him to Ecuador and is only good for a certain amount of airlines and countries based on agreements, it's not lollygagging around the world.

Found this quote from Assange...

in case he's still there on August 8, I will say hello ;)

Get chased by any mountain lions lately?

http://img.addfunny.com/funnypicture...ardsnowden.jpg

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...75094032_n.jpg

http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibti...18june2013.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/LnFK1Id.jpg

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards...someecards.png

:stoned

ADG

Pics or it didn't happen.

:1orglaugh

:thumbsup

Oops, my question was directed to Rochard of course, not to Richard :upsidedow

you don't have the mental capacity to interpret a sc ruling from another fucking country so just stfu. you wouldn't even know where to begin.


not perfectly stated at all

snowden traveled to russia on a revoked passport.

we don't have an extradition treaty with russia due to a little thing called the cold war, maybe you fucking heard of it.

So what? A revoked passport is not a reason for arrest and furthermore it's not a reason for extradition. Think about it like he had a valid passport but lost it somewhere in the transit zone. No crime - no arrest. He might be unable to leave Russian airport however. But who knows... maybe he've got a new passport from another country already? Or maybe he will get it tomorrow?

A cold war between Russia and the USA? Sorry but I never heard about it. Perhaps in some alternative reality but surely not in this world. The only cold war I heard about was between the USA and USSR (officially ended more than 20 years ago).

BTW, do the USA and UK have a mutual extradition agreement? As far I remember there was a real (not cold) war among them some time ago... ;)

Or he may already be long gone.

Someone with the USA after them probably isn't exactly going to be announcing their every legit move. Smoke and mirrors, all the way.

Sure. Nobody know the truth now :2 cents:

lol, right. he's a wanted fugitive with a revoked passport. you can make it like that's no big deal in russia, maybe it's not, maybe your airports are a known hideout for international fugitives on the lamb. either way, use your common sense. he traveled there illegally. end of story.

so what if it *ended* 20 years ago, that's the fucking reason we don't have an extradition treaty with you, i didn't decide that, i am simply telling you that.

and yes, the usa and uk have an extradition treaty.

End of story? LOL it's has just began :pimp

I didn't get it. Why do you tell me these alternative reality stories then? There was a cold war between The USA and Soviet Union. It has ended many years ago when Russian Federation (the country I live in) didn't even exist. Last time on my mind when Russia asked the USA to sign the extradition agreement was in 2011. But it wasn't signed again. Is it because of cold war?

Do you have an extradition agreement with say... Latvia or Estonia? Those also were parts of Soviet Union in case if you didn't know.

Don't be that stupid, man.

The refugee travel document is what got him to Russia. Or so they say. In reality, who really knows what is going on? As far as any of us know, he's drinking Vodka with Putin right now and reading Obama's emails. He may have never even left Hong Kong. You're dealing with a spy, corrupt nations, sensitive data, and Wikileaks. Anything is possible.

look, i didn't make the decision against a fucking treaty, i am trying to explain to you that due to the fucking cold war america has opted not to sign your fucking treaty/.

that has no bearing on my level of stupid man, it's a simple fact. it has nothing to do with me, why you can't grasp that i have no idea.

that's really beside the point by now in this thread. anything, real or bullshit, is fodder for anti-american rhetoric. i mean, bringing up an extradition treaty with britain to make a point against usa not having one with russia? and i should debate with that level of mentality?

jfc.

listen methface.

That's not insulting at all.

I comprehend that perfectly. It's not difficult to understand at all.

I saw you tried, but I didn't get it just because it's a nonsense.

And even don't try please. You told me a very interesting alternative reality story (I'm appreciate that) trying to explain the things you have no fuckin' clue about. I see you've tried hard but you failed. Don't blame yourself, blame CNN and Fox News that have sucked your brain off :2 cents:

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh also..