Home | About | Donate

In Latest Vindication of Snowden, Court Rules UK Mass Surveillance Illegal


#1


#3

Why would a secret court, interpreting secret laws need to rule against the government? It must be very evident that there is zero basis for this blanket surveillance. The court likely realises that politicians will point at their ruling saying "they said it was Ok" only puts themselves in the dock.


#4

Those are some serious accusations.

The first thing that I noticed is a complete lack of substantiation for your charges, a typical trait of trolls.

Can you back up your claims?

mcp

NOTE ADDED: The post to which I responded has been deleted. It accused CD of being a tool of corporate interests and urged a boycott of this site.


#8

So, who's going to jail for 10 to 20 years? A clerk? A janitor? I know, the parking lot attendant. Charged by Slick Oily under the US Espionage Act. Right!


#9

I often find myself giving the finger to my laptop's camera.


#10

I find myself now wondering about the premises and arguments for the December 2014 ruling. It is listed as a PDF at the IPT website under 'operations'.


#11

In glancing at the ITP decision and counsel listings, the respondents are "instructed" by the Treasury Solicitor. On its webpage under the "What we do"section:

" We are a non-ministerial government department providing legal services to the majority of central
government departments, often representing government departments and other publicly funded bodies in England and Wales. Within government, we contribute to legislation and advise on employment law, for example, in the civil service. We enable the government to operate effectively within the rule of law.

TSol is a non-ministerial department, supported by 1 body. (end copy)

( That one body is the Bank of England )


#13

i can't give it the finger because i have a piece of tape covering the camera on my laptop. i have not disabled the microphone...


#14

Ah so they broke the law, "violating Articles 8 and 10 of the European convention on human rights." Does that mean someone somewhere is going to be charged for doing this. I won't be holding my breath. Does it mean we can now sue? It's a welcome ruling but what does it mean, exactly? Seems like business as usual.


#15

Shadow banking, shadow government, what these developments do is frame the question sharply : Who, exactly, is in charge? "The buck stops here" went away a long time ago. Congress blames the President, and vice-versa, and the people are left to wonder. This is a direct result of years spent honing the meme that "It's out of our hands". If this statement is true, then why do we continue to pay these people?


#17

"States Secret Privilege".

Watch "Kill the Messenger" a documentary about Sybil Edmonds and that will give us not even the tip of the iceberg.

The question, eventually, has to be, "What do we intend to DO about all this?"

"Voting" for ANY of the current field of "candidates" for president will never change anything regarding the secret government shenanigans.

I believe we MUST draft someone who is NOT a politician to run as an independent so we can at least get a voice in the debates!

I nominate Chris Hedges. He is the guy I would like to see in those debates with Hillary! and Jeb/Scott.

"They" are writing the script and all we seem to do is go along and react to their B.S. It is high time that WE the people change the damn subject!