Page 12 of 59 FirstFirst ... 2891011121314151622 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 582
Like Tree27Likes

Thread: Privacy Alert! Big Brother is watching and listening, UPDATED

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #111
    A Map Of Where Drones Are Allowed In The U.S.
    The Electronic Frontier Foundation releases the Federal Aviation Administration's drone authorization list. See who's allowed to fly drones in your neighborhood!
    By Colin LecherPosted 02.08.2013 at 3:15 pm3 Comments
    The FAA's Drone List EFF

    If you want to fly more than a hobbyist's drone in the United States, you have to get permission from the Federal Aviation Administration. We've know for a while about some drones--the ones keeping an eye on the U.S.-Mexico border, for example--but this list of applications through October 2012, obtained and mapped..., is the most up-to-date look at domestic-drone permissions we've got.
    The list is broken down by "entities," places like colleges or local sheriff's offices that have applied to the FAA for a license to use drones. The 81 entities on the list, 20 more than on the first list we saw from the EFF, are mixed: a lot of drones are going to government agencies like police departments, a lot to universities and colleges, others to drone manufacturers, and one to an Indian tribal agency. For some reason, Ohio seems to have been granted a lot of permits in this round.
    On this interactive map, you can find out what type of drones many applicants were authorized to use: We know the Nellis Air Force base in Nevada has a license to use an MQ-1 Predator drone, and the University of Colorado, Boulder, has a license to use a NexSTAR miniature UAS drone to do experiments into weather and wireless networks. But we don't know what everyone's allowed to use. The U.S. Army, for instance, has, permission to fly drones in the "general location" of the Pentagon. Type of drone? "Unknown."
    What this list also doesn't tell us is how many drones are flying around or how many drones each entity is flying. Like, does the U.S. Army have some gigantic fleet of drones at the Pentagon? This doesn't say.
    It's enough to make you downright paranoid, but the "stated objectives" included for some of the license applicants might ease your mind a little. Cornell University once used a home-brew drone for a science experiment, while California Fire Services formerly had permission to use drones for fighting wildfires.
    But yeah, that whole Pentagon thing.
    Check out the list here.

  2. #112
    Congress Calls for Accelerated Use of Drones in U.S.

    February 3rd, 2012 by Steven Aftergood
    A House-Senate conference report this week called on the Administration to accelerate the use of civilian unmanned aerial systems (UAS), or “drones,” in U.S. airspace. The pending authorization bill for the Federal Aviation Administration directs the Secretary of Transporation to develop within nine months “a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system.” “The plan… shall provide for the safe integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system as soon as practicable, but not later than September 30, 2015.” The conference bill, which still awaits final passage, also calls for establishment of UAS test ranges in cooperation with NASA and the Department of Defense, expanded use of UAS in the Arctic region, development of guidance for the operation of public unmanned aircraft systems, and new safety research to assess the risk of “catastrophic failure of the unmanned aircraft that would endanger other aircraft in the national airspace system.” The Department of Defense is pursuing its own domestic UAS activities for training purposes and “domestic operations,” according to a 2007 DoD-FAA memorandum of agreement. (“Army Foresees Expanded Use of Drones in U.S. Airspace,” Secrecy News, January 19, 2012.)

    Posted by Deb Simon atFriday, February 03, 2012

  3. #113
    Edward Snowden's live Q&A: eight things we learned

    Key points from the whistleblower's responses to questions about the NSA leak

    Edward Snowden seemed confident the public were on his side, but was less impressed with the media response to the NSA leaks. Photograph: AP

    On Monday the whistleblower Edward Snowden gave an exclusive live Q&A to the Guardian to answer questions about the biggest intelligence leak in NSA history and revelations about government surveillance. Here are some key things we learned:
    1. There is very little information on private individuals the intelli...

    The reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA [Defence Intelligence Agency], etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT [signals intelligence] databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on – it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed …

    If I target for example an email address, for example under FAA 702, and that email address sent something to you, Joe America, the analyst gets it. All of it. IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything. And it gets saved for a very long time – and can be extended further with waivers rather than warrants.
    2. Snowden waited to release the documents, hoping Obama would bring c...

    Obama's campaign promises and election gave me faith that he would lead us toward fixing the problems he outlined in his quest for votes. Many Americans felt similarly. Unfortunately, shortly after assuming power, he closed the door on investigating systemic violations of law, deepened and expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political capital to end the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantánamo, where men still sit without charge.
    3. He fears that the US will stop at nothing to silence him

    All I can say right now is the US government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.
    4. Snowden is confident he has the public on his side

    If the Obama administration responds with an even harsher hand against me, they can be assured that they'll soon find themselves facing an equally harsh public response.
    5. But he is less impressed with the media response

    Initially I was very encouraged. Unfortunately, the mainstream media now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicionless surveillance in human history.
    6. Encryption offers protection

    Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on. Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find ways around it.
    7. He isn't too upset about being called a traitor by Dick Cheney

    Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein, and King, the better off we all are. If they had taught a class on how to be the kind of citizen Dick Cheney worries about, I would have finished high school.
    8. And if Snowden had been planning to defect to China he'd be petting...

    The US media has a knee-jerk 'RED CHINA!' reaction to anything involving HK or the PRC, and is intended to distract from the issue of US government misconduct. Ask yourself: if I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn't I have flown directly into Beijing? I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now.

    Read the full Q&A here.

  4. #114
    Iceland approached by 'middleman' over possible Edward Snowden asylum

    Journalist says he was asked by unnamed intermediary to notify Icelandic government that Snowden may want to seek asylum

    Banner supporting Edward Snowden in Hong Kong. Photograph: Kin Cheung/AP

    Iceland has received an informal approach from an intermediary who claims Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who exposed the US government's secret surveillance programs, wants to seek asylum there.

    Snowden, the former employee of contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, who worked in an NSA facility in Hawaii, made world headlines after providing details of the program to the Guardian and Washington Post and then fleeing to Hong Kong.In a column in the Icelandic daily Frettabladid, WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson claimed that a middleman had approached him on behalf of Snowden.

    "On 12 June, I received a message from Edward Snowden where he asked me to notify the Icelandic government that he wanted to seek asylum in Iceland," Hrafnsson, who is also an investigative journalist in Iceland, told Reuters.

    The Icelandic government, which has refused to say whether it would grant asylum to Snowden, confirmed it had received the message from Hrafnsson."Kristinn Hrafnsson has contacted two ministries in an informal way but not the ministers. There has been no formal approach in this matter," a government spokesman said.

    Hrafnsson declined to name the go-between to Reuters.

    Snowden has mentioned Iceland as a possible refuge. Iceland has a reputation for promoting internet freedoms, but Snowden has said he did not travel there immediately from the United States as he feared Iceland could be pressured by Washington.
    "Iceland could be pushed harder, quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known, and I would not put that past the current US administration," Snowden said in an online forum in the Guardian on Monday.

    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden for questioning over allegations of sex crimes, visited Iceland several times in the run-up to some of the website's major releases. Assange denies any wrongdoing.WikiLeaks won a ruling this year in Iceland's supreme court against MasterCard's local partner. The court upheld a lower court's ruling that the payment card firm had illegally ended its contract with the website. Wikileaks' funding had been squeezed without the ability to accept card payments.

  5. #115

  6. #116
    June 20, 2013 Will the Real Traitor Please Stand Up?

    By Jonathon Moseley

    Okay, who is the real traitor? Is Edward Snowden a heroic whistleblower or a traitor? Well, maybe Snowden is a bit of both. He is both a hero and a traitor, arising from different aspects of his dramatic actions. Snowden was a computer whiz and former Booz Allen contract employee handling secret work for the National Security Agency (NSA). If Snowden crosses over to revealing real substantive secrets to China and Russia, obviously that will be a horse of a different color.
    But is another traitor Gen. Keith B. Alexander, Chief of the NSA, who testified before Congress on June 18? Gen. Alexander swore to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Gen. Alexander shredded the Constitution and then deceived the U.S. Congress and the public about it on June 18.
    On June 18, the NSA Director told us that "these programs" stopped specific threats of terrorism. Approximately 50 acts of terrorism were prevented. Whoa, there, cowboy! Yellow penalty flag on the field!
    We're not talking about "these programs" -- but about one program in particular. Obviously, there are some NSA programs that are appropriate. Some NSA programs do exist that certainly helped stop terrorism. If you didn't catch that dishonest scam, you need to sharpen your bureaucracy recognition skills.
    Alexander lumped together appropriate and effective NSA programs with inappropriately, offensively, and stupidly collecting all telephone calls of all American citizens indiscriminately. The NSA dog and pony show (Alexander brought a supporting cast of characters) tried to deceive Congress and the American people in order to justify the unconstitutional and inappropriate NSA surveillance that Edward Snowden revealed.

    In effect, Alexander is arguing that anything and everything the NSA wants to do has to be accepted and supported, if there is something somewhere that the NSA does that helps keep the country safe. Everything goes. We are not allowed to make a distinction between some NSA activities which are more offensive than others.Alexander's team offered us a burlesque fan-dance striptease in the hearing. While saying they can't bare all, they tried to show enough leg in between the moving fans to keep the customers interested and the money flowing. Yet the examples prove how unconstitutional the NSA's intrusions into our privacy really are.
    Every striptease glimpse the NSA and FBI offered underscored why they are scoundrels: They gave examples of international telephone calls across borders. Yet the surveillance program that Snowden exposed monitors purely domestic phone calls wholly within the United States.

    They described situations in which there is probable cause to believe that a person is involved in terrorism, or talking to a known terrorist (across borders). Yet the surveillance Snowden exposed occurs without any probable cause. The NSA is snooping on everyone indiscriminately. So the glimpses they gave us were not a pretty sight. If there were probable cause, then there wouldn't be a controversy.
    A little old lady caller to C-SPAN asked the killer question: Have there been any prosecutions if the NSA detected and stopped 50 terrorist plots? You know the answer. Further, all of this highlights the difference between Obama and Bush. Bush's activities -- as far as we know -- only involved international phone calls across our borders and only focused on specific, identifiable individuals under suspicion. Obama's Administration is targeting the entire U.S. population (at least those with telephones).
    President Barack Obama, leading student of Clintonian double-speak, tells us that we need to strike a balance between our privacy and keeping the country safe. We already struck that balance. It's called the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Our Founders struck a balance between privacy and national safety and protection from crime. The Fourth Amendment speaks eloquently for itself:
    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 probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    But Obama plays an old Clinton trick. When your violation of a rule is exposed, change the subject and demand a conversation about developing a new, perfect rule. Ignore the fact that you violated the existing rule, by talking about what the perfect rule might be.
    Some are trying to cry "Look over there! A cloud shaped like a bunny!" to distract people from the real issues. Do you have privacy rights in telephone call data, since that data belongs to the telephone company?

    Well, is your social security number private? Heck, yeah! But your social security number is issued to you by the U.S. Government, by the Social Security Administration. Yet it is very clear in the law that your SSN is private information that you have a right to have protected.Then on June 18 Alexander joined James R. Clapper, Jr., Director of National Intelligence, in committing perjury in a Congressional hearing before our very eyes. Snowden claimed that NSA technicians -- like him -- can listen in to anyone's telephone conversations any time they want. He announced this in his now-notorious news media interview from a Hong Kong hotel.
    Yet on June 18, Gen. Alexander denied in the Congressional hearing that NSA staff can listen in on phone calls. Or did he? The Obama Administration is answering that question in terms of what is legally permitted -- not what is actually possible.
    "You got the right answer to the wrong question!" legal consultant Norm ("Storm") Bradford loves to bellow. Notice the shell game: Snowden didn't say it was legally permitted. Snowden said he could do it -- technically (while he still worked as an NSA contractor). In response, the administration says it isn't legally allowed. They are not talking about whether it is technically possible.
    It's a "Non-Denial Denial" perfected by the Clinton Administration. They are answering a question different from the one being asked. Such evasion can actually convince us that they have something to hide, that they are in fact guilty.

    But then when pushed to the line, Alexander told a whopper, which snuck past most observers: When asked if it is technically possible, Alexander answered no. But let's recall that James Clapper told a similar flat-out lie to Congress on March 12, 2013, when he said the NSA isn't doing what Snowden now revealed that it is in fact doing.

    On the one hand, they tell us, the NSA won't listen in to the content of telephone calls without a specific court order. So we know they can listen in to the substance of the phone call. But on June 18, Alexander said they are technically unable to listen in to the content of telephone calls. If you believe that, you probably have never heard of the Federalist Papers.The NSA and the Administration admit that if they get a court order, they are allowed to listen to the content of telephone calls. So it is possible. What Snowden says is clearly true. If the NSA got a court order, of course they are technically capable of listening in. So what's to stop an NSA technician -- like Snowden -- willing to ignore the law from listening in on anyone he wants?

    Many say Snowden helped our enemies. Hogwash. Anyone engaged in terrorism, espionage, or crime already knew that the government can get a warrant -- based on probable cause -- to wiretap their phones and even plant a hidden microphone. This changes nothing for people engaged in "probable cause" eligible behavior. And, they will never know if the government is on to them.
    So is Snowden a scoundrel or a political savior? When faced with the same violation of the U.S. Constitution, Edward Snowden chose the Constitution over his job and his life. Gen. Alexander chose his job over the Constitution. This is why Snowden inspires (hesitant) admiration. But perhaps there are no angels in this story.

  7. #117
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Why NSA’s “Metadata” Collection Should Disturb You

    By Daniel Amico on June 20, 2013

    There is much confusion about the NSA’s secret surveillance program Prism. It doesn’t record the content of all of our private phone and other digital communications. Rather, it stores so-called “metadata” about them for future reference, in perpetuity. By its own admission, the federal government is collecting massive amounts of ‘metadata’ on every single American.

    Metadata can actually reveal more about you than the actual content of your phone calls. The data points that are collected and stored in perpetuity are: call duration, call location, the number of both parties involved, time of the call, date of the call and other “unique identifiers.” Nowadays a private citizen can easily look up a number and find to whom it belongs. Don’t you think the NSA has a more effective listing system than the Yellow Pages that we have access to?

    Integrated together, the collected metadata forms a very rich and informative pattern of communication. The content or purpose of calls can easily be deduced. Truly, the metadata the NSA is collecting should cause far more concern than if the government was simply recording every single phone call “for quality assurance purposes.”

    Some hypothetical examples:

    • They know you rang your Senator and Congressman right after taking a call from your local Tea Party Chairman, on the very same day the local Tea Party started a campaign to stop their state’s ObamaCare healthcare exchange. But of course there is no way NSA agents could possibly piece together your political affiliation from that information.
    • They know you called your local school board more than you ever have, the very same month a new radical-progressive textbook was being imposed by Common Core. But no one could possibly guess what you could have been talking about; it was a private conversation, after all.
    • They know you spoke to your parent’s nursing home late one night. Early the next morning, you called a funeral home and then three different local banks in quick succession, and then a lawyer who specializes in wills and estates. The purpose of all this call activity could not possibly be guessed at.
    • And they would never analyze your metadata in conjunction with your internet search histories, which are provided to them by your internet service provider in bulk, rather than on a case-by-case with a warrant as the Fourth Amendment requires.
    • And surely none of this information would ever make its way to the IRS.

    Metadata helps the NSA create a map or network of associations for every citizen. All the agency has to do is open its data storage tanks and run some analysis. And the metadata is being stored forever. After all, why would the government throw away such a treasure trove? Why would it invest billions in hyper-advanced data storage facilities just to delete it all every year or so?

    So, while Big Brother might not have the time to sort through all your information right now, that’s little comfort. If Big Brother ever wants to strip away your privacy and delve deep into your personal life, ALL the information he needs is right there at his fingertips.

    TAKE ACTION: Tell Congress to stop NSA seizing of phone records
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  8. #118
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Edward Snowden vs. the Sovietization of America

    by Justin Raimondo —

    ot publicize their fight. It is a mugging that happens in the dark – the familiar modus operandi of all criminals.

    The very court order giving the government carte blanche to monitor all the communications of Verizon – and, now we learn, of all major internet and phone service providers – was top secret classified information. Indeed, this is among the gravest of Snowden’s alleged “crimes” – leaking this Top Secret document, which is nothing more than a perfunctory court order, of the sort that are routinely public in any free society. This document was deemed so sensitive that only a very few High Muckamucks were given access to it – which has fueled speculation Snowden may have had help from someone higher up on the Soviet totem pole, perhaps some Lieutenant Commissar somewhere in the bowels of the NSA who had a pang of conscience….

    We are told that the reason for all this secrecy is that we don’t want to let the “terrorists” in on how we’re tracking and fighting them. But the reality is that Al Qaeda and like minded groups are already aware we’re tracking them – though, on 9/11, it appeared they were tracking us, as Bill Safire pointed out in one of his last columns for the New York Times:

    A threatening message received by the Secret Service was relayed to the agents with the president that ‘Air Force One is next.’ According to the high official, American code words were used showing a knowledge of procedures that made the threat credible.”

    Safire swore this was told to him by Karl Rove, who said the President was going back to Washington until the Secret Service “informed him that the threat contained language that was evidence that the terrorists had knowledge of his procedures and whereabouts.” As Safire put it:

    “That knowledge of code words and presidential whereabouts and possession of secret procedures indicates that the terrorists may have a mole in the White House – that, or informants in the Secret Service, FBI, FAA, or CIA.”

    Safire later disavowed this story, but I believed him the first time, and still do. Yet this knowledge went down the Memory Hole, along with Safire himself, and no one talks about it anymore – and the NSA sure isn’t talking. We still don’t know all the important facts about the catalyst for the all-pervasive surveillance our “war on terror” has conjured into being, let alone the invasions we’ve launched in its name. The Panopticon uncovered by Snowden is not some recent invention: it was born before the Bush administrationremember “Echelon”? – and has metastasized ever since.

    It started under Bill Clinton, but in the post-9/11 atmosphere the tentacles of the Surveillance State grew like kudzu. For twelve years, the US government has been fighting a nameless enemy – it’s gone far beyond just Al Qaeda – using methods it refuses to reveal, but the events of the past few weeks have thrown back the curtain on the true nature of that struggle. Washington is waging war on those they consider the real enemy – the American people.

    Why else would they vacuum up all the phone calls made in this country, and store them away for future reference? Why would they create a huge surveillance apparatus that employs tens of thousands of people and deploys sophisticated technologies on solving the “problem” of how to keep track of the movements, thoughts, and opinions of millions of Americans? And why would they keep the law itself – or, at least, their twisted “interpretation” of it – a state secret? This is the ultimate in authoritarianism – a secret law that you don’t even know you’re breaking (how can you know when it’s a secret?).

    The Soviet empire is dead: only the ruins persist. Yet the system Lenin and his successors created lives on right here in America. “If you see something,” says Big Sis, “say something.” The KGB would’ve agreed wholeheartedly. So, you object to the government scooping up your phone calls and emails – what do you have to hide, comrade? Left-wing commentators, from Mother Jones to Talking Points Memo, are sliming Snowden like Pravda once slimed dissidents. Pro-government media are playing down the Snowden revelations – poor Rachel Maddow has to get really really creative in order to think up other stuff to cover – and Washington is just as united against Snowden as Moscow, circa 1930, was against “Trotskyite wreckers.” And then there’s this – the nagging suspicion that the former “community organizer” who sounds so reasonable, so intelligent, so positively Stevie Wonder-ish, is really an aspiring tyrant in the guise of an American President.

    Such suspicions have previously been confined to the outer reaches of the political spectrum, where the Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim crowd hangs out. And, yes, we’ve already heard all about the Bill Ayers-wrote-his-books theory, and the other crap the neocons have been handing out to their easily indoctrinated followers in the official “conservative” movement. With the Snowden revelations, however, which show how the President – who campaigned in 2008 as a civil libertarian crusader – ratcheted up the Surveillance State into a smoothly humming Panopticon, the real face of Barack Hussein (yes, Hussein) Obama is revealed to the world.

    And it isn’t pretty.

    President Obama nationalized the auto and healthcare industries in his first term, to the applause of our pro-government “progressives”: now we learn he secretly nationalized the nation’s biggest internet service providers right under our noses, forcing them into the role of snoops – and the cheers from his progressive amen corner are deafening. Like Winston Smith at the end of George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, they have suddenly discovered that they love Big Brother.

    There are notable exceptions, which only prove the rule: Glenn Greenwald, the reporter and columnist who broke this story, and who exemplifies the old-fashioned liberal in the tradition of Randolph Bourne and Oswald Garrison Villard, has come under relentless attack from the all-too-familiar left-wing defenders of the Regime. And speaking of regime defenders: Chris Hayes has expressed some reservations, but lately taken to simply avoiding the topic of Snowden. Maddow has dropped all mention of it from her show (and these people wonder why their ratings are tanking). Good old Nat Hentoff is horrified, but since he came out, so to speak, as pro-life, liberals have given themselves a good reason not to listen to him anymore. Over at Fox, there is outright editorial dissonance, with commentators visibly torn between their kneejerk inclination to bash the President and their reflexively authoritarian-neoconservative instincts whenever “national security” is supposedly involved.

    Is it, though? Some high mucka-muck recently testified before Congress that no less than fifty terrorist attacks worldwide were prevented due to the all-seeing Eye of Sauron the NSA, and yet every time they get specific it turns outthe case they point to could have been broken without this supposedly invaluable aid.

    Think of it this way: our government has set up a system whereby an “analyst” can key in the right code and call up all your emails, all your phone calls, all the locations you’ve visited – and with whom – as far back as you care you imagine. Are we really supposed to believe they have done this in order to fight scattered bands of “terrorists” hiding out in caves somewhere in the mountains of Shitholistan?

    If you believe that, you deserve to live in a Soviet America, comrade. Because that’s just where you’re headed.


    So Andrew Sullivan has disappeared behind a pay wall, never to be seen or heard from again. There’s a lesson or two in there somewhere.

    That was a tweet, actually, which I thought good enough to include as an addendum to this column. I’ll often tweet column ideas before they’re written – or, in this case, as I write – and you can check out my Twitter feed by goinghere. But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

    I’ve written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon (ISI Books, 2008 ).

    You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here.

    Read more by Justin Raimondo

    Edward Snowden vs. the Sovietization of America by Justin Raimondo —
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  9. #119
    Breaking: US Government Charges Edward Snowden With Espionage

    Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, June 21, 2013, 5:42 PM
    NSA Leaker Edward Snowden Charged

    The US government formally charged Edward Snowden with espionage in leaks about NSA surveillance programs. The charges were filed in the Eastern District of Virginia.
    The Washington Post reported:
    Federal prosecutors have filed a sealed criminal complaint against Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked a trove of documents about top-secret surveillance programs, and the United States has asked Hong Kong to detain him on a provisional arrest warrant, according to U.S. officials.
    Snowden was charged with espionage, theft and conversion of government property, the officials said.

  10. #120
    Stop Watching US petition here:

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts