Ecuador 'analysing' Snowden asylum request: FM

[Publicus]

PS. According to Snowden and as reported in South China Morning Post, NSA have been hacking big time into critical targets in a large emerging nation in the east.

Whose complaining?

Beijing .

Gimme more coz I love it .

[SinglePot]

wheat farmer in Wisconsin ain't got no problem

[Publicus]

What are the Las Vegas odds on him ACTUALLY making it to Caracas?

You're quite on the mark with Caracas so ask and ye shall receive.

However, there's more than you asked for, and with some measure of surprise too. Without mentioning a prominent wagering house specifically, current odds say the following:

"Our wagers can't get enough of this game of cat and mouse. No matter what the various authorities say we're seeing one way traffic for a one way flight to South America."

Hence the question:

Which country will Edward Snowden enter next?

• 2/1 Venezuela
• 5/1 Bolivia
• 5/1 Ecuador
• 5/1 Cuba
• 6/1 United States
• 9/1 Nicaragua
• 12/1 Germany
• 15/1 Iceland
• 16/1 Norway
• 18/1 Russia

After Russia the numbers start getting even more lopsided.

It's odd so I'd mention that another odds maker, as of July 3rd and which hasn't changed since, had Russia as the 11-10 favorite for Snowden to end up, this despite Snowden having withdrawn his request for asylum. The odds are based on Putin having invited Snowden to apply. Many wagers continue to believe Putin may have to make good on his offer because while South American leaders invite, Snowden continues to stay put. To these wagers, Putin's and Snowden's silence, plus Snowden's staying put, speaks more than the talk out of South America.

As one who doesn't wager, this is only a matter of interest to me, to see what others think and believe.

[jamhar]

What are the Las Vegas odds on him ACTUALLY making it to Caracas?

...

...

Which country will Edward Snowden enter next?

• 2/1 Venezuela
• 5/1 Bolivia
• 5/1 Ecuador
• 5/1 Cuba
• 6/1 United States
• 9/1 Nicaragua
• 12/1 Germany
• 15/1 Iceland
• 16/1 Norway
• 18/1 Russia

After Russia the numbers start getting even more lopsided.

....

As one who doesn't wager, this is only a matter of interest to me, to see what others think and believe.

OK Pub, JT

You got me interested in this topic again

Where can I bet?

[SinglePot]

somewhere in the US would be most appropriate I think.

[FDog]

I think it would be very difficult for the US to get a conviction of espionage on him.

Is China and Russia really the 'enemy' anyway?

It has been said that the information on his computers are encrypted so unlikely they can get any info out of them without knowing the key and pretty near impossible for the court to get any evidence that he gave any information to China and Russia.

Snowden never made any information public at all. What he did do was give information to the newspaper. It is the newspaper that made the information public. Why hasn't the editor of that paper been charged?

Wrong.

You're grabbing wildly in the air.

Snowden violated his contract of non disclosure - that in itself is automatic prison time.

Speaking with reporters and/or editors of a newspaper to provide the classified national and global security documents and information is conspiracy to commit espionage- more prison time. (Whether the government chooses to charge the journalists involved with conspiracy and conscious acts is a decision the government can easily make consistent with the law, tho it's rarely if ever been done in the past.)

When Snowden secretly fled the country with the information and the documents he violated his contract and several aspects of the Espionage Act - even more prison time.

A government lawyer carried in on his deathbed could get a guilty verdict against Snowden in a court of law. Moreover, the particular court where the US Government files espionage and related charges, US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, has hangin' judges in espionage cases (referenced above in a previous post by me).

The government is already relieved of any burden to provide any additional specifics of the Espionage law Snowden violated. He's already violated more than enough to be convicted. He's just not as smart as Drake and he's a lot dumber than Boyce, likely equally as stupid as Andrew Daulton Lee.

Maybe Putin can blast Snowden off to the space station for a couple of years, but then what goes up must come down.

I don't agree with you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/05/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-spy

[SinglePot]

guardian is weakening its position.

Snowden provided information for China which was published in South China Post.

their hero is losing momentum.

they know it.

[sustento]

What are the Las Vegas odds on him ACTUALLY making it to Caracas?

...

...

Which country will Edward Snowden enter next?

• 2/1 Venezuela
• 5/1 Bolivia
• 5/1 Ecuador
• 5/1 Cuba
• 6/1 United States
• 9/1 Nicaragua
• 12/1 Germany
• 15/1 Iceland
• 16/1 Norway
• 18/1 Russia

After Russia the numbers start getting even more lopsided.

....

As one who doesn't wager, this is only a matter of interest to me, to see what others think and believe.

OK Pub, JT

You got me interested in this topic again

Where can I bet?

William Hill in the UK have him 2/1 in the US and 9/4 in Venezuela on the 1st January 2014.

[mania]

I don't agree with you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/05/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-spy

+1

Snowden made classified information about widespread surveillance available to the American public.

That's a curious definition of an enemy for US legislators to adopt.

[SinglePot]

"U.S. Hacked China Universities, Mobile Phones, Snowden Tells China Press

The United States government hacked into Chinese mobile phone companies to collect text messages and spied on the Tsinghua University, troubled National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden told South China Morning Post in a series of articles posted on line this Saturday."

[SinglePot]

guardian

"What isn't valid is the blithe assertion, absent evidence, that the former NSA contractor actively collaborated with America's enemies. Snowden made classified information about widespread surveillance available to the American public. That's a curious definition of an enemy for US legislators to adopt"

Is releasing info to china press active collaboration?

[FDog]

So where is your evidence that China and Russia drained his laptops of the information?

Or is this just more hot air again.

[FDog]

guardian

"What isn't valid is the blithe assertion, absent evidence, that the former NSA contractor actively collaborated with America's enemies. Snowden made classified information about widespread surveillance available to the American public. That's a curious definition of an enemy for US legislators to adopt"

Is releasing info to china press active collaboration?

No

[mania]

"U.S. Hacked China Universities, Mobile Phones, Snowden Tells China Press

The United States government hacked into Chinese mobile phone companies to collect text messages and spied on the Tsinghua University, troubled National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden told South China Morning Post in a series of articles posted on line this Saturday."

Yes and??

BTW if your going to quote someones article by fair use laws you should link it or your stealing

http://www.headnine.com/business/r.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Fkenrapoza%2F2013%2F06%2F22%2Fu-s-hacked-china-universities-mobile-phones-snowden-tells-china-press%2F

Back to the subject... Are you suggesting pointing out a crime is somehow to be construed as espionage?

From the article you quoted

Tsinghua in Beijing is one of China’s biggest research institutions. Snowden said it was the victim of numerous hacks,

including a recent one in January 2013. He did not say what the spy agencies were looking for.

So you are pointing out a case of do as we say not as we do?

Does the US not constantly hammer China about cyber hacking?

Yet what do we see here??

The bigger problem is same as it always was'

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.”

― Thomas Paine

[SinglePot]

guardian

"What isn't valid is the blithe assertion, absent evidence, that the former NSA contractor actively collaborated with America's enemies. Snowden made classified information about widespread surveillance available to the American public. That's a curious definition of an enemy for US legislators to adopt"

Is releasing info to china press active collaboration?

No

I don't agree with you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/05/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-spy

+1

Snowden made classified information about widespread surveillance available to the American public.

That's a curious definition of an enemy for US legislators to adopt.

Snowden made classified information about surveillance to the Chinese public.

That's a curious definition of ........a whore.

[SinglePot]

guardian

"What isn't valid is the blithe assertion, absent evidence, that the former NSA contractor actively collaborated with America's enemies. Snowden made classified information about widespread surveillance available to the American public. That's a curious definition of an enemy for US legislators to adopt"

Is releasing info to china press active collaboration?

No

I disagree.

[SinglePot]

stop hammering the US and start hammering the true enemies of democracy.

Countries that don't play by our rules. Dictatorships.

[Publicus]

What are the Las Vegas odds on him ACTUALLY making it to Caracas?

...

...

Which country will Edward Snowden enter next?

• 2/1 Venezuela
• 5/1 Bolivia
• 5/1 Ecuador
• 5/1 Cuba
• 6/1 United States
• 9/1 Nicaragua
• 12/1 Germany
• 15/1 Iceland
• 16/1 Norway
• 18/1 Russia

After Russia the numbers start getting even more lopsided.

....

As one who doesn't wager, this is only a matter of interest to me, to see what others think and believe.

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.

[Publicus]

I think it would be very difficult for the US to get a conviction of espionage on him.

Is China and Russia really the 'enemy' anyway?

It has been said that the information on his computers are encrypted so unlikely they can get any info out of them without knowing the key and pretty near impossible for the court to get any evidence that he gave any information to China and Russia.

Snowden never made any information public at all. What he did do was give information to the newspaper. It is the newspaper that made the information public. Why hasn't the editor of that paper been charged?

Wrong.

You're grabbing wildly in the air.

Snowden violated his contract of non disclosure - that in itself is automatic prison time.

Speaking with reporters and/or editors of a newspaper to provide the classified national and global security documents and information is conspiracy to commit espionage- more prison time. (Whether the government chooses to charge the journalists involved with conspiracy and conscious acts is a decision the government can easily make consistent with the law, tho it's rarely if ever been done in the past.)

When Snowden secretly fled the country with the information and the documents he violated his contract and several aspects of the Espionage Act - even more prison time.

A government lawyer carried in on his deathbed could get a guilty verdict against Snowden in a court of law. Moreover, the particular court where the US Government files espionage and related charges, US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, has hangin' judges in espionage cases (referenced above in a previous post by me).

The government is already relieved of any burden to provide any additional specifics of the Espionage law Snowden violated. He's already violated more than enough to be convicted. He's just not as smart as Drake and he's a lot dumber than Boyce, likely equally as stupid as Andrew Daulton Lee.

Maybe Putin can blast Snowden off to the space station for a couple of years, but then what goes up must come down.

I don't agree with you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/05/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-spy

I related only some of what Prof Alan Derschowitz of the Harvard Law School said on CNN a while back about Snowden, the Espionage Act, conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act and much more that I did not include in the post with which you disagree. You are welcome, I suppose, to take up the matter of law with Prof Derschowitz directly if you like.

However, since you and I are arguing the point, I'd appreciate the basis for your disagreement with Prof Derschowitz as related to this Forum by me.

Just one more detail from the professor among the many details he related while on CNN: Had Snowden said one sentence to his, say, hair stylist about any of this, it's conspiracy to commit espionage. Now, of course the hair stylist very likely would not have comprehended one sentence from Snowden about his activities or his plans, so it's 99.9% likely the stylist would not be considered or charged as a co-conspirator. For Snowden, it's 100% certain he would be charged with conspiracy to commit espionage against the United States.

And while on the topic, Derschowitz said to CNN, in part, of the left wing Guardian writer Glen Greenwald's Snowden stories, "Well, it doesn't border on criminality – it's right in the heartland of criminality. The statute itself, does punish the publication of classified material, if you know that it's classified," explained Derschowitz. "Greenwald – in my view – clearly has committed a felony."

Dershowitz also said of Greenwald, "Greenwald's a total phony. He is anti-American, he loves tyrannical regimes, and he did this because he hates America. This had nothing to do with publicizing information."

So I'd appreciate if you could advise me as to the professor's response after you visit his website to tell the criminal defense attorney he's all wet. Here's Prof Derschowitz on Fox TV:

.

Will Edward Snowden face legal action in US?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2484682261001/will-edward-snowden-face-legal-action-in-us/

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.

[antfish]

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.

[lannarebirth]

stop hammering the US and start hammering the true enemies of democracy.

Countries that don't play by our rules. Dictatorships.

"I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids." -- Commander Jack D. Ripper

[lannarebirth]

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

[Publicus]

stop hammering the US and start hammering the true enemies of democracy.

Countries that don't play by our rules. Dictatorships.

"I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids." -- Commander Jack D. Ripper

Non sequitur.

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

Don't let those secret courts sap all the precious bodily fluids.

Checks and balances is 7th Grade Civics, middle school. Three branches of government, separate but equal, checks and balances and all of that blah blah blah.

Congress is the superior branch of the US Government. Only the Congress can levy taxes and, in fact, has the power of the purse. Only Congress can remove the president in an extraordinary proceeding. Congress can override a president's veto. Only the Congress can and does remove judges from the US Judiciary and can/does enact laws limiting topics/issues the courts can consider, decide, to include the Supreme Court.

Conversely, Congress is the sole and final judge of its Membership and its Members can be removed only by the vote of the Members of Congress themselves or by the direct vote of the electorate. The executive or the judiciary have nothing to do with it.

Checks and baloney. Separate and unequal. Of the three branches of government, only Congress (acting with 3/4 of the states) can vote to amend the Constitution - the executive branch and the judicial branch are bystanders to a Constitutional amendment.

Sleeping through Civics class was the smartest thing I did that school year. I was awake and alert when it mattered most in school - U.S. History class, Grade 11, when I got to find out what really happened, what actually goes on. Copperheads, Luddites, Confederates, wingnuts, heroes, McCarthyism, Watergate, radical Republicans, the New Deal, the Raw Deal, and more - all absorbed with bodily fluids intact.

[F430murci]

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 law 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 many 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.

[Publicus]

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.

Whistleblowing is explicitly prohibited in laws governing the conduct and behaviors of employees engaged in the national security of the United States. Snowden, it's repeatedly been pointed out, should have taken his grievances to the Congress which enacted the laws he so strongly objects against. Instead Snowden went to the CCP-PRC and then to Russia. That's not a whistleblower. That's a rat.

The American Library Association needs to take an 11th Grade U.S. History class and to stay awake this time.

[lannarebirth]

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.

[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 ,m uch narrower, 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.

[F430murci]

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.

[lannarebirth]

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 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.

[lannarebirth]

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.

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