Ecuador 'analysing' Snowden asylum request: FM

[Publicus]

Don't let the question sap your bodily fluids.

[Publicus]

As I have said here many times it is the FISA court and it's secret nature that is the problem, Secret courts that hear no opposing view or interest are effectively "captured" by the agency that appears before it. There are any number of things involving the US government and its laws that I disagree with, but I accept, because due process under constitutional guidelines was carried out in forming those laws. That is no longer the case.

The introduction of ever widening "special needs' provisions granted by secret courts with no adversarial arguments allowed is a huge overreaching powergrab by government and makes a mockery of seperation of powers and the "checks and balances" that most Americans understand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

Issuance of warrants has never been an adversarial process where the court hears both sides. Comes down to having faith that judges and courts put into positiins by election (state) or by those we elect (federal) follow and apply the law. There is a big difference in you thinking what the is or should be and what the law actually is.

Nevertheless, if you are still bound up about both sides not getting to present evidence at warrant hearings after this's my posts, you are so confused about the judicial process that you will never understand and will continue to think, speak and write in half truths.

The reality is this has been going on for a long time and how has it impacted your life other than giving you something else to fret about and hate the government about.

I'm not talking about warrants, I'm talking about creating new ,much more expansive, interpretations of law. Law that could be challanged at the Supreme Court if from another court. How does one go about challenging FISA court rulings at the Supreme Court if the whole proceeding is held in secret? Who has standing to challenge? I'm asking, because i don't know.

The issues were litigated by two sides on several occasions. A week or so ago, I cited some if the seminal decision from 2006, 2007, and 2008 controlling the very law you don't like.

The issue has already been decided and the law is what it is. Chief Justice John Roberts appointed the 3 judge appellate panels to decide many of the issues in public opinions that I accessed through Westlaw.

You are way too late. The writing was on the wall and I got into huge fights my ex catholic wife who voted for Bush in 2004 on these very issues. Once the Supreme Court balanced changed, and anyone paying attention in 2004 would have known at least two slots were opening quickly, the 4th amendment was going to get hammered in the name of national security by conservative courts.

Nothing will change with our current Chief Justice and a 5-4 court.

Yeah, the country's going to have to wait until after the 2016 presidential election before any possibility can exist to change the court's right wing majority. How long after 2016 is an open question, but a few of the right wingers on the court will be increasingly getting on in their years. Madam President Clinton likely will get a pivotal appointment or two between 2017 and 2020 - and certainly can turn the court around between 2021 and 2024. For a long time to come afterward. The Obama-Hillary Clinton court.

Assuming.

[F430murci]

Issuance of warrants has never been an adversarial process where the court hears both sides. Comes down to having faith that judges and courts put into positiins by election (state) or by those we elect (federal) follow and apply the law. There is a big difference in you thinking what the is or should be and what the law actually is.

Nevertheless, if you are still bound up about both sides not getting to present evidence at warrant hearings after this's my posts, you are so confused about the judicial process that you will never understand and will continue to think, speak and write in half truths.

The reality is this has been going on for a long time and how has it impacted your life other than giving you something else to fret about and hate the government about.

I'm not talking about warrants, I'm talking about creating new ,much more expansive, interpretations of law. Law that could be challanged at the Supreme Court if from another court. How does one go about challenging FISA court rulings at the Supreme Court if the whole proceeding is held in secret? Who has standing to challenge? I'm asking, because i don't know.

The issues were litigated by two sides on several occasions. A week or so ago, I cited some if the seminal decision from 2006, 2007, and 2008 controlling the very law you don't like.

The issue has already been decided and the law is what it is. Chief Justice John Roberts appointed the 3 judge appellate panels to decide many of the issues in public opinions that I accessed through Westlaw.

You are way too late. The writing was on the wall and I got into huge fights my ex catholic wife who voted for Bush in 2004 on these very issues. Once the Supreme Court balanced changed, and anyone paying attention in 2004 would have known at least two slots were opening quickly, the 4th amendment was going to get hammered in the name of national security by conservative courts.

Nothing will change with our current Chief Justice and a 5-4 court.

Real cases involving new technologies and government encroachments on a person's reasonable expectations of privacy would seem to belie your claim. Conservative court or Liberal, if the cases are heard, I think people would be far more accepting of what the government sees as it's perogatives. It just seems like an exceedingly difficult pathway to having a case heard and probably purposely..

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71822.html

What you are saying makes zero sense. It is nothing but garbly gook. Real cases? Real cases are already in place. Stare decisis is in place.

Nothing purposeful about not hearing it again, and again and once again. That is not how our court system works. When appellate law is in place, appellate and review courts don't keep addressing it over and over. Stare decisis. Stability in the law and District of trial levels are bound to follow. Cannot deviate.

Look up 4th amendment issues addressed by Supreme Court since 2007 including Roberts dissent in 2006 in the Georgia case. Disturbing the thought processes or just erroneous belief systems people possess and use to condemn the government or US.

[F430murci]

I'm not talking about warrants, I'm talking about creating new ,much more expansive, interpretations of law. Law that could be challanged at the Supreme Court if from another court. How does one go about challenging FISA court rulings at the Supreme Court if the whole proceeding is held in secret? Who has standing to challange? I'm asking, because i don't know.

There's a special, extraordinary, Fisa appeals court to which a decision by the Fisa court can be appealed. There isn't any provision in the Fisa law for an appeal to the U..S. Supreme Court.

The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) is a U.S. federal court authorized under 50 U.S.C. § 1803 and established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (known as FISA for short). It is a three judge panel whose sole purpose is to review denials of applications for electronic surveillance warrants (called FISA warrants) by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (or FISC). Each judge of the FISC, in turn, has the jurisdiction to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal police agencies (primarily the Federal Bureau of Investigation) against suspected foreign intelligence agents inside the United States. The Court of Review is not an adversarial court; rather, the only party to the court is the federal government, although other parties may submit briefs as amici curiae. Records of the proceedings are kept, but they are classified, although copies of the proceedings with sensitive information redacted may be made public. The government may appeal decisions of the Court of Review to the Supreme Court, which hears appeals on a discretionary basis.

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

Apparently the Supreme Court does have discretion to hear these cases and other parties may submit briefs. Who these parties might be, and how they even came to know of the courts rulings, I have no idea.

Exactly, you don't know and you don't listen to anyone that does know. Your extremely confused apparently out of a deep desire to just not want to accept reality. You mix and match so many different concepts of which you don't understand and then state things as fact based on things that are not even logical or related.

You keep saying the same stuff over and over about the law, the constitution and the courts as if what your saying is facts, but it is not even close to fact.

Edited July 7, 2013 by F430murci

[keemapoot]

^ @ 430,

In fairness, it is difficult to grasp the procedural reasons and appellate process for those without legal training. Stare Decisis is even more difficult for those from civil law countries to understand. You are precisely right on target though in your posts.

[F430murci]

^ @ 430,

In fairness, it is difficult to grasp the procedural reasons and appellate process for those without legal training. Stare Decisis is even more difficult for those from civil law c

ountries to understand. You are precisely right on target though in your posts.

I get that. My beef is stating things as fact though when they are far from fact. I am cool with opinion, it should be, or I wish it was or whatever. I don't like the status of the law and I wish it was different.

[lannarebirth]

I'm not talking about warrants, I'm talking about creating new ,much more expansive, interpretations of law. Law that could be challanged at the Supreme Court if from another court. How does one go about challenging FISA court rulings at the Supreme Court if the whole proceeding is held in secret? Who has standing to challenge? I'm asking, because i don't know.

The issues were litigated by two sides on several occasions. A week or so ago, I cited some if the seminal decision from 2006, 2007, and 2008 controlling the very law you don't like.

The issue has already been decided and the law is what it is. Chief Justice John Roberts appointed the 3 judge appellate panels to decide many of the issues in public opinions that I accessed through Westlaw.

You are way too late. The writing was on the wall and I got into huge fights my ex catholic wife who voted for Bush in 2004 on these very issues. Once the Supreme Court balanced changed, and anyone paying attention in 2004 would have known at least two slots were opening quickly, the 4th amendment was going to get hammered in the name of national security by conservative courts.

Nothing will change with our current Chief Justice and a 5-4 court.

Real cases involving new technologies and government encroachments on a person's reasonable expectations of privacy would seem to belie your claim. Conservative court or Liberal, if the cases are heard, I think people would be far more accepting of what the government sees as it's perogatives. It just seems like an exceedingly difficult pathway to having a case heard and probably purposely..

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71822.html

What you are saying makes zero sense. It is nothing but garbly gook. Real cases? Real cases are already in place. Stare decisis is in place.

Nothing purposeful about not hearing it again, and again and once again. That is not how our court system works. When appellate law is in place, appellate and review courts don't keep addressing it over and over. Stare decisis. Stability in the law and District of trial levels are bound to follow. Cannot deviate.

Look up 4th amendment issues addressed by Supreme Court since 2007 including Roberts dissent in 2006 in the Georgia case. Disturbing the thought processes or just erroneous belief systems people possess and use to condemn the government or US.

Apparently, you didn't read anything that I have presented. I know what stare decisis means. It basically means let the decisions of prior courts stand. Most especially, if from a higher court. I get that. What I have been alluding to is not that, but the practice of taking prior court decisions and expanding their meaning. Allowing a sole petitioner, using overreaching language to craft a story that would allow for NEW powers to be included under old, limited, decided law. They're looking for a new definition of an old law.

Courts do that sometimes, and when they do, sometimes those NEW, more expansive interpretaions of priorly decided law are challenged. Sure, new law gets crafted, but not without some mechanism for recission before still higher courts.

Edited July 8, 2013 by lannarebirth

[jamhar]

OK Pub, JT

You got me interested in this topic again

Where can I bet?

TV Forum Rule #16, no betting allowed, no facilitation of betting.

I anyway know you're joshing and I know I don't wager. This is entirely a matter of curiosity and finding out what others think and believe. It's purely informational.

As to another poster quoting Wm Hill, I quoted him week before last on the Jan 1st 2014 date and place so I passed over him this time for the very reason, i.e., I'd cited Hill previously. If I recall correctly without having to consult my previous post on this, Snowden's odds at Wm Hill of ending up in the US have swung against him considerably.

Thanks for pointing that out Pub

Of course i was kidding. If i wanted to bet, I would not get my information from TV

But this topic regarding this RBT turns my stomach

So I'll pass on this topic for a while.

[midas]

I would like to point out to all three gentlemen one important fact: Edward Snowden did not undermine trust.

There was no trust to undermine. All Snowden did was prove the obvious.

If there was any trust the US would not have been bugging the offices of the EU and Germany. If there was any trust, France would not be spying on us.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/07/hypocrites-and-bullies-speak-on.html

[mania]

Yes it is as always

Do as we say not as we do.

We are exempt from all laws, morals,liberties etc. we claim to uphold.

[SinglePot]

We also have the following development:

Edward Snowden Poll Finds More Americans Now Think He Did The Wrong Thing

More Americans now think Edward Snowden did the wrong thing in releasing classified documents about U.S. surveillance programs, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll.

According to the new poll, 38 percent of Americans think that Snowden, a former contractor for the National Security Agency, did the wrong thing, while 33 percent said he did the right thing. Still, 29 percent of Americans remain unsure about Snowden's actions.

A separate series of YouGov polls conducted for The Economist also found ratings of Snowden dropped over the course of the past two weeks, while at the same time support for his prosecution has risen.

the American Library Association recognize Edward Snowden as a whistleblower who, in releasing information that documents government attacks on privacy, free speech, and freedom of association, has performed a valuable service in launching a national dialogue about transparency, domestic surveillance, and overclassification.

http://www.americanlibrariesmagazine.org/blog/council-i-supports-whistleblower-edward-snowden

But i guess what the smart people from the library association have to say don't get much attention by the more common Americans who watch colored TV to get their information instead of reading books.

or social media?

We are in the "too much Information" age.

that is what this whole Snowden thing is about.

[SinglePot]

Governments, corporations and armies operate on a 'need to know' basis. Everywhere in the world.

We may not like it. BUT. Total transparency is not a realistic option unfortunately.

The world is competitive and greedy.

[Scott]

One post has been deleted. This topic is beginning to veer way off course. Stick to the topic of his asylum claim and the countries likely to accept him.

[Publicus]

Nicaragua Reveals Edward Snowden's Letter Pleading For Asylum

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-asylum-letter-nicaragua-2013-7#ixzz2YQgd77AX

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130707/nicaragua-reveals-details-snowden-asylum-request

MANAGUA, July 6 (Bernama) -- Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said Friday his government would be willing to grant political asylum to Edward Snowden, the US intelligence whistleblower, "if conditions permit." (Emphasis added.)

Ortega also confirmed that his government had received a formal asylum request from Snowden via its embassy in Moscow, China's Xinhua news agency reported. (Beijing's Xinhua state news organ reported?? About Nicaragua?!)

"Of course, if conditions permit, we will receive Snowden with pleasure and give him asylum here," Ortega added.

Ahh, yes, "if conditions permit." Of course!!!

So Snowden continues to grovel to leftist and authoritarian censoring governments in Latin America to "save" him from due justice. Snowden is so desperate he will say anything against the United States. A desperate man is not a man most of us give credence or credibility to, or much listen to.

Of course Ortega never says what the circumstances may be and what standards or provisos may exist to the circumstances of his disingenuous invitation. The same or similar is true of the left wing leaders of Venezuela, Equador, Bolivia - all have issued what to date are disingenuous invitations. Cuba, however, has remained silent as far as I can determine.

Yes, all these Latin America left wing blowhards - all purple rhetoric, no action, to date at least. Unless something shakes loose pretty soon, Snowden may well stay put in the Moscow airport transit lounge indefinitely. There are some impressively strong odds on that happening.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted.

[Jingthing]

It's about time Snowden flies somewhere and/or gets nabbed by the feds.

How long can this Russian airport drama last?

[Scott]

Off-topic post deleted. This thread is about the Snowden's asylum bid. Stay on topic.

[Publicus]

Here's The Letter The US Sent Venezuela Urging Them To Arrest Edward Snowden If He Shows Up

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-letter-the-us-is-sending-to-venezuela-urging-them-to-arrest-edward-snowden-if-he-shows-up-2013-7#ixzz2YR5n4LYj

The U.S. urged the government of Venezuela on July 3 to arrest Edward Snowden if he should go there, according to a diplomatic note prepared by the U.S. Embassy in Caracas and obtained by The Guardian.

The release of the letter comes after Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro offered Edward Snowden asylum in his country.

The note calls for Snowden's "provisional arrest for the purpose of extradition," highlighting the extradition treaty signed between the United States and Venezuela in 1922.

A physical description of Snowden is given, along with his revoked passport number. It also says he may be in possession of another passport "which he previously reported as lost or stolen."

I would add that any "lost or stolen" passport is cancelled. So it should be impossible for Snowden to travel on a cancelled passport as well. It's a question of whether the fact of cancellation would appear in the immigration database of foreign countries due to the ability of a given foreign country to update such data or to process such data at all.

As far as the US Government is concerned, trying to travel on a cancelled passport is illegal and punishable by law, although at this point Snowden would already be facing enuff charges to put him away for a long time. If Snowden falsely reported his previous passport as lost or stolen, he'd be further up sh*t's creek without a paddle.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Publicus

[Scott]

Some posters seem to think that because they reply to a post that makes it permissible for the post to remain. If you reply to a part of a post that is not germane to the topic, your post will be deleted. If you are going to continuously hit the report button, you will get suspended.

Moderators do not generally discuss matters about other members.

This topic is about Snowden's asylum request and those issues related to it. There is another topic which pertains to other aspects of of Snowden and the NSA.

[SinglePot]

Has Snowden got Internet access? How is he communicating with the outside world in his asylum seeking efforts? Via embassies in Moscow with Putin's approval?

"Ortega also confirmed that his government had received a formal asylum request from Snowden via its embassy in Moscow, China's Xinhua news agency reported. (Beijing's Xinhua state news organ reported?? About Nicaragua?!)"

What's happening with his relationship with wikileaks and Assange now that Ecuador is off?

Seems like Xinhua's got more info than the Guardian at the moment.

[mania]

Has Snowden got Internet access? How is he communicating with the outside world in his asylum seeking efforts? Via embassies in Moscow with Putin's approval?

"Ortega also confirmed that his government had received a formal asylum request from Snowden via its embassy in Moscow, China's Xinhua news agency reported. (Beijing's Xinhua state news organ reported?? About Nicaragua?!)"

What's happening with his relationship with wikileaks and Assange now that Ecuador is off?

Seems like Xinhua's got more info than the Guardian at the moment.

Article clearly states via its Moscow embassy

""Ortega also confirmed that his government had received a formal asylum request from Snowden via its embassy in Moscow.""

Why would Putin want to deny efforts to leave Russia when he has already stated it is best if Snowden does leave?

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-07/06/c_132516725.htm

Edited July 8, 2013 by mania

[SinglePot]

Has Snowden got Internet access? How is he communicating with the outside world in his asylum seeking efforts? Via embassies in Moscow with Putin's approval?

"Ortega also confirmed that his government had received a formal asylum request from Snowden via its embassy in Moscow, China's Xinhua news agency reported. (Beijing's Xinhua state news organ reported?? About Nicaragua?!)"

What's happening with his relationship with wikileaks and Assange now that Ecuador is off?

Seems like Xinhua's got more info than the Guardian at the moment.

Article clearly states via its Moscow embassy

""Ortega also confirmed that his government had received a formal asylum request from Snowden via its embassy in Moscow.""

Why would Putin want to deny efforts to leave Russia when he has already stated it is best if Snowden does leave?

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-07/06/c_132516725.htm

yeah. I know that.

What about answers to the other questions?

and has he got a change of underwear?

[Publicus]

Has Snowden got Internet access? How is he communicating with the outside world in his asylum seeking efforts? Via embassies in Moscow with Putin's approval?

"Ortega also confirmed that his government had received a formal asylum request from Snowden via its embassy in Moscow, China's Xinhua news agency reported. (Beijing's Xinhua state news organ reported?? About Nicaragua?!)"

What's happening with his relationship with wikileaks and Assange now that Ecuador is off?

Seems like Xinhua's got more info than the Guardian at the moment.

Article clearly states via its Moscow embassy

""Ortega also confirmed that his government had received a formal asylum request from Snowden via its embassy in Moscow.""

Why would Putin want to deny efforts to leave Russia when he has already stated it is best if Snowden does leave?

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-07/06/c_132516725.htm

Every country that's been mentioned as a candidate for Snowden's hope for asylum has said, specifically and explicitly, that Snowden - the applicant - must make his application on the particular country's soil. The governments have said being on their soil means either being in the country itself or being in its embassy.

So how did Snowden get to the Nicaraguan embassy from the transit terminal of the particular Moscow airport so he could file the application in person? Snowden doesn't have a viable passport and Putin's government repeatedly has said Snowden's technically not in Russia, meaning he's in the transit terminal only and exclusively.

Did Snowden crawl through some sewer pipes, to and from the Nicaraguan embassy? Did Putin and the Nicaraguan ambassador together declare a transit terminal toilet temporarily to be Nicaraguan soil? My point of course is that this doesn't pass the smell test.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Publicus

[SinglePot]

did the us nail the rat Gadaffi in the sewer pipe?

did the us nail Bin Laden?

did people jump out of windows from the twin towers?

Let's get some f****** perspective before I bang on about an emerging nation in the east.

[Scott]

I am afraid that I might have missed something. Where does it say that he must be in the country or on the soil of the country to claim asylum. Some countries might want that, but surely not all.

Just curious.

[paully]

^ It seems to be a standard 'line' Scott, although I'm not sure what convention/document it would be in. From the BBC:

"Countries which have so far given no response

Cuba, Iceland, France, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Switzerland (Iceland, Netherlands, Switzerland - applications must be in country to seek asylum)

Countries unlikely to offer asylum

Brazil, Finland, Norway, Ireland, Spain, Poland, Austria, India, China, Russia (Austria, Finland, Ireland, Spain - applications must be in country to seek asylum)"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23165992

[Scott]

Thanks.

[antfish]

did the us nail the rat Gadaffi in the sewer pipe?

did the us nail Bin Laden?

did people jump out of windows from the twin towers?

Let's get some f****** perspective before I bang on about an emerging nation in the east.

what?

[Publicus]

Congress: Asylum Country To Put Itself Directly Against the United States

The head of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, told CNN that he "absolutely" thinks that one of the countries will give Snowden travel documents.

Rogers said the U.S. should look at trade agreements with the nations that are offering asylum "to send a very clear message that we won't put up with this kind of behavior."

Sen. Robert Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he wasn't surprised that those three nations were offering asylum. "They like sticking it to the United States," Menendez told NBC's "Meet the Press."

He also mentioned re-examining U.S. trade policies and foreign aid to any country that might take in Snowden.

"Clearly such acceptance of Snowden to any country ... is going to put them directly against the United States, and they need to know that," he said.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/dempsey-edward-snowdens-leaks-undermined-us-2013-7#ixzz2YSr7ZMl1

[Publicus]

I am afraid that I might have missed something. Where does it say that he must be in the country or on the soil of the country to claim asylum. Some countries might want that, but surely not all.

Just curious.

Same same.

I've read in more sources I can count at this point that almost all countries, perhaps virtually all governments, require an asylum seeker to be present in the country by the definition I've related in the above post in order to apply for asylum. The idea is that, in such a serious matter as asylum, you can't make inquiries from outside the country where you seek asylum as if you might be shopping around. One needs to be in the country as proof that you seriously want asylum in the country to which you are applying and that you have a serious reason to apply.

Likewise one can't request an advisory opinion from abroad concerning whether one qualifies or might qualify for asylum. You have to be present in the country in order to have standing to apply for asylum. I started to research the question but there's so much about asylum, and so little specifically about standing, that I easily quit the search to try to find something to show you specifically.

The UK requires one's presence, the US requires presence, other countries mentioned in the Snowden search require physical presence etc etc. It's clear that physical presence in the country is broadly required by many if not all governments.