Why us furrrners get upset at some US foreign policy etc

[Mysturji]

We don't actually know that Snowden didn't do this - within the constraints of where he could vacation.

Really? He couldn't find anywhere better than China? I don't think he looked. I think it was a spur of the moment decision. Poor planning for such a big decision.

The congressmen who care already know this information - it has been presented to them in secret briefings. The problem is that they aren't allowed to talk about those briefings, since they are secret. At best, they can ask public questions like the "spying on millions of Americans" question that the NSA chief lied in answer to.

Which is why I'd send it to ALL of them. I didn't/don't KNOW that they knew this already.

Sending them this information privately won't help. Congressmen can only act on it once it becomes public. That's why giving it to select reporters was exactly the right thing to do.

See my point 7.

As for ending up in a safe asylum, requiring that one face no consequences for crossing the government may not be a realistic expectation. That's why we don't see these kinds of revelations more regularly - for them to be revealed, people like Snowden have to put getting the truth out above their own personal welfare.

"No consequences" is most certainly not "realistic". One could never go home. One could never go to many places. One would be looking over one's shoulder. One would need security.
But at least one would not be in prison, and be able to enjoy the nice weather.

[Warren Dew]

We don't actually know that Snowden didn't do this - within the constraints of where he could vacation.

Really? He couldn't find anywhere better than China? I don't think he looked. I think it was a spur of the moment decision. Poor planning for such a big decision.

He picked Hong Kong - not mainland China - because he felt he would have popular support in Hong Kong. He was right; Hong Kong went out of its way to avoid extraditing him.

He said his ideal location would be Iceland, but a vacation there might have set off alarms, and also if he didn't get asylum he'd be extradited to the U.S.

[Cormac]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23430126

I'm with the House Republicans on this. One of the prices of liberty and freedom is the assumption of certain risks because the consensus is that freedom from government scrutiny and intrusions is worse than the risk of terrorist attacks that invasive spying upon the general public purports to prevent.

Quite frankly I'd prefer less NSA and more civilian-carried guns...like Israel...so that the citizenry has the means, as a group, to take down terrorists when they make attempts to terrorize people.

My privacy is ALWAYS more important to me, absent a credible and verifiable threat, than are the cowardly feelings of people who will sacrifice all their liberty and privacy for a little illusory safety. Just like handguns, the government doesn't get to infringe on my right to free speech and privacy just because it decides it needs to do so. It must have my permission to do so.

Brilliant, provided that Palestinians and Arab Israelis have equal access to weaponry.

[Seth]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23430126

I'm with the House Republicans on this. One of the prices of liberty and freedom is the assumption of certain risks because the consensus is that freedom from government scrutiny and intrusions is worse than the risk of terrorist attacks that invasive spying upon the general public purports to prevent.

Quite frankly I'd prefer less NSA and more civilian-carried guns...like Israel...so that the citizenry has the means, as a group, to take down terrorists when they make attempts to terrorize people.

My privacy is ALWAYS more important to me, absent a credible and verifiable threat, than are the cowardly feelings of people who will sacrifice all their liberty and privacy for a little illusory safety. Just like handguns, the government doesn't get to infringe on my right to free speech and privacy just because it decides it needs to do so. It must have my permission to do so.

Brilliant, provided that Palestinians and Arab Israelis have equal access to weaponry.

No. No one is or should be obligated to either supply or facilitate the possession of arms by anyone. It's up to the individual, and your right to keep and bear arms does not include a right to demand that others supply them.

But should the Arabs obtain arms, they have a right to keep and bear them just like everybody else.

If the whole planet's adult population were armed, all these petty differences would soon work themselves out and peace would reign. Which isn't to say billions might not die, but who cares about that? Adapt or die.

[Cormac]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23430126

I'm with the House Republicans on this. One of the prices of liberty and freedom is the assumption of certain risks because the consensus is that freedom from government scrutiny and intrusions is worse than the risk of terrorist attacks that invasive spying upon the general public purports to prevent.

Quite frankly I'd prefer less NSA and more civilian-carried guns...like Israel...so that the citizenry has the means, as a group, to take down terrorists when they make attempts to terrorize people.

My privacy is ALWAYS more important to me, absent a credible and verifiable threat, than are the cowardly feelings of people who will sacrifice all their liberty and privacy for a little illusory safety. Just like handguns, the government doesn't get to infringe on my right to free speech and privacy just because it decides it needs to do so. It must have my permission to do so.

Brilliant, provided that Palestinians and Arab Israelis have equal access to weaponry.

No. No one is or should be obligated to either supply or facilitate the possession of arms by anyone. It's up to the individual, and your right to keep and bear arms does not include a right to demand that others supply them.

But should the Arabs obtain arms, they have a right to keep and bear them just like everybody else.

If the whole planet's adult population were armed, all these petty differences would soon work themselves out and peace would reign. Which isn't to say billions might not die, but who cares about that? Adapt or die.

Fine.

The Palestinians can bring weaponry in through their tunnels. Is it ok for them to walk around with armalites and so on?

[Seth]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23430126

I'm with the House Republicans on this. One of the prices of liberty and freedom is the assumption of certain risks because the consensus is that freedom from government scrutiny and intrusions is worse than the risk of terrorist attacks that invasive spying upon the general public purports to prevent.

Quite frankly I'd prefer less NSA and more civilian-carried guns...like Israel...so that the citizenry has the means, as a group, to take down terrorists when they make attempts to terrorize people.

My privacy is ALWAYS more important to me, absent a credible and verifiable threat, than are the cowardly feelings of people who will sacrifice all their liberty and privacy for a little illusory safety. Just like handguns, the government doesn't get to infringe on my right to free speech and privacy just because it decides it needs to do so. It must have my permission to do so.

Brilliant, provided that Palestinians and Arab Israelis have equal access to weaponry.

No. No one is or should be obligated to either supply or facilitate the possession of arms by anyone. It's up to the individual, and your right to keep and bear arms does not include a right to demand that others supply them.

But should the Arabs obtain arms, they have a right to keep and bear them just like everybody else.

If the whole planet's adult population were armed, all these petty differences would soon work themselves out and peace would reign. Which isn't to say billions might not die, but who cares about that? Adapt or die.

Fine.

The Palestinians can bring weaponry in through their tunnels. Is it ok for them to walk around with armalites and so on?

The right to keep and bear arms is both universal and unlimited. The authority to USE them is an entirely different matter.

[Ian]

Hogwash. Try buying a Tomahawk cruise missile for personal use. It is neither universal nor unlimited, and rightfully so.

[Cormac]

Hogwash. Try buying a Tomahawk cruise missile for personal use. It is neither universal nor unlimited, and rightfully so.

In fairness, I'm not sure you could have a well regulated militia these days without some advanced weaponry like missiles...

[Seth]

Hogwash. Try buying a Tomahawk cruise missile for personal use. It is neither universal nor unlimited, and rightfully so.

Here's the interesting thing about US law, if it's merely a "destructive device" and is not a "WMD" (nuclear, biological, chemical) weapon, I can absolutely own a cruise missile...if I can find one for sale that's not stolen property...and if I qualify to possess any classified materials or systems.

You see, cruise missiles are manufactured by private industry. They own those missiles until the DOD takes possession of them and pays for them. They have to have various licenses and permits to be able to build PARTS of them (like the classified guidance systems and the explosives) and they operate under security rules set by the DOD that are contractual in nature.

However, the company absolutely owns them. Moreover, if the DOD breaches a contract or fails to pay for them, they are still the property of the manufacturer who can sell them to anyone who has the requisite licenses, permits and authorizations to possess them.

If I want to, I can get a Class 10 FFL and a security clearance and begin manufacturing them myself if it pleases me to do so.

Whether I can sell them on the open market depends on who I'm trying to sell them to. Under ITAR I can't sell to foreigners without State Department permission and they would be classified as NFA items so I can only sell to someone who passes the background checks and gets a Form 4 approved. While it's doubtful such a sale would actually go through, there is no actual legal impediment to me buying a cruise missile from a manufacturer so long as I have the proper authorizations.

This principle does not apply to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons however.

But I've got an acquaintance who is a Class 10 FFl who owns tanks, artillery field pieces, explosive rounds for them, machine guns, SBRs, SBSs and all manner of genuine military weaponry that he has purchased legally from various sources.

The DOD tries to control access to military-grade weaponry two ways: First by making it a contractual obligation for the manufacturer to ONLY sell or distribute to the DOD; and second by classifying high technology items so Joe Blow doesn't have the security clearance to possess the item.

Here's an example of how "leakage" occurs that allows some pretty high-tech military gear to get to civilians.

A year or two ago Vectronix, a Swiss company that manufactures a most remarkable pair of binoculars called the Vector 21 which is a laser rangefinder that can range out to 25 kilometers that also has various sensors built in to allow it to determine direction, range and angle. It can be interfaced with a GPS and it can calculate all sorts of things. You can aim it at a target, get your position by GPS, and then get the GPS coordinates of the target with one measurement. You can determine the height, width or distance from another object using geometry that's built in. You can adjust artillery fire by lasing the fall of the shot and the unit automatically calculates the correction to send to the artillery targeting unit.

It's a very sophisticated piece of gear that costs about $25,000 each. The US military owns thousands of them. But the same unit is available to civilians, albeit with some military-specific programs missing.

Anyway, Vectronix shipped a truckload of Vector 21s to the military but it went missing in transit. Eventually the insurance paid for the lost units. Some time later the shipment was found. It now belonged to the insurance company, who was under no legal compulsion to give them to the US Army (because they didn't belong to the army) or back to Vectronix (because Vectronix got an insurance settlement. And since they are not classified items, they were sold on the open market by the insurance company to recompense their outlay.

This kind of thing happens all the time.

Now, the one thing that is precluded by the NFA is the manufacture of machine guns "for sale to civilians" that was in the 1986 update. You can still make and market a machine gun, but you can only sell it to a government agency or authorized foreign buyer.

Because a "lost" machine gun (as in the binoculars) is still a machine gun, the insurance company wouldn't be able to sell them to just anyone even if that person was qualified under the NFA, because of the manufacturing ban.

See, it's NOT illegal to own a machine gun, or a silencer, or a short-barreled rifle, and indeed the BATFE has no latitude in issuing a tax stamp for a Class III weapon to a person who is qualified under the law to possess it. They couldn't ban the ownership of machine guns, so they controlled the MANUFACTURE of them instead. And that law can be changed at any time to make it legal for civilians to buy machine guns manufactured after 1986.

A pre-ban H&K MP-5 submachine gun sells for about $15,000 in the NFA market.

A post-ban H&K MP-5 submachine gun manufactured last week sells for about $850...to an authorized government agency.

So all the NFA ban did was raise the price of owning a machine gun, it didn't stop anyone from owning one if they can find and afford one.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Here's the interesting thing about US law, if it's merely a "destructive device" and is not a "WMD" (nuclear, biological, chemical) weapon, I can absolutely own a cruise missile...if I can find one for sale that's not stolen property...and if I qualify to possess any classified materials or systems. "

In other words, you can't own one.

[Tero]

There is no need to book a "vacation" in Iceland. You just book a flight to Europe via Icelandair and het off the plane in Iceland. It stops there anyway.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There is no need to book a "vacation" in Iceland. You just book a flight to Europe via Icelandair and het off the plane in Iceland. It stops there anyway.

I've always wanted to patrol the Denmark Straits for escaping German warships.

[Seth]

"Here's the interesting thing about US law, if it's merely a "destructive device" and is not a "WMD" (nuclear, biological, chemical) weapon, I can absolutely own a cruise missile...if I can find one for sale that's not stolen property...and if I qualify to possess any classified materials or systems. "

In other words, you can't own one.

Sure I can.

[Mysturji]

Well said, that man!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23512671

[Mysturji]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23790912

A National Security Agency surveillance system illegally gathered up to 56,000 personal emails by Americans annually, declassified court documents show.

Officials revealed that a judge in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruled the programme illegal in 2011.