Is the apparent type of indiscriminate surveillance undertaken by the USA (presumably Australia as well) of its own law abiding citizens right? Seems to me that the same arguments made against WikiLeaks could be made against the N – S – A.
In the fanatically puritanical view of WikiLeaks, no one and no organization should have anything to hide. It is scarcely worth arguing against such a childish view of life…….
The dissolution of the distinction between the private and public spheres was one of the great aims of totalitarianism. Opening and reading other people’s e-mails is not different in principle from opening and reading other people’s letters. In effect, WikiLeaks has assumed the role of censor to the world, a role that requires an astonishing moral grandiosity and arrogance to have assumed. Even if some evils are exposed by it, or some necessary truths aired, the end does not justify the means.
Video here for more argument.
Even if you are against Snowden, do you really want a government contractor / official like Snowden going through your private details?
A pattern of cover up
Up to 35 CIA operatives were working in the city during the attack last September on the US consulate that resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, according to CNN.
Apparently they were running guns, or something….
Interesting analysis on Snowden
If you want to understand the difference between the two kinds of ‘conservatives,’ take a look at the debate over Edward Snowden, a contract employee at the US National Security Agency…..Mr Snowden has exposed the kind of secret surveillance on American citizens which the US Constitution forbids. The man is a hero. The ones who ought to be facing prosecution in all this are the members of the administration who are running the illegal surveillance. The one who ought to be facing impeachment is President Obama for sanctioning the snooping, which is in contravention of the fourth amendment to the Constitution which he swore to uphold.
………….The fourth amendment of the ten first amendments known as the Bill of Rights says: ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’
What this means is that there is a requirement for search warrants when any public authority wants to search individuals or their houses, or to seize any property in connection with an investigation. No law-makers have the right to over-ride this constitutional protection: the US Senate and House of Representatives are not the House of Commons.
It is not Edward Snowden who……..‘disdains allegiance to the rule of national law.’ It is President Obama and his top security officials.