I was just thinking.
If Snowden applied for asylum in the UK, he could not be extradited to the
US because of your cruel and unusal punishments.
Just like most Islamic countries and places like China.

On 6/30/2013 2:14 AM, harryagain wrote:
I was just thinking.
If Snowden applied for asylum in the UK, he could not be extradited to the
US because of your cruel and unusal punishments.
Just like most Islamic countries and places like China.



.....and the British would never eavesdrop on anyone.

On Sunday, June 30, 2013 3:14:48 AM UTC-4, harryagain wrote:
I was just thinking.

If Snowden applied for asylum in the UK, he could not be extradited to the

US because of your cruel and unusal punishments.

Just like most Islamic countries and places like China.

The village idiot at it again. The US has an extradition
treaty with the UK. People facing charges are routinely
extradited both directions all the time.

On 6/30/2013 9:27 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, June 30, 2013 3:14:48 AM UTC-4, harryagain wrote:
I was just thinking.

If Snowden applied for asylum in the UK, he could not be extradited to the

US because of your cruel and unusal punishments.

Just like most Islamic countries and places like China.

The village idiot at it again. The US has an extradition
treaty with the UK. People facing charges are routinely
extradited both directions all the time.

You can't tell an idiot he's an idiot. Logic 101 doesn't engage within
their pathetic world.

Well, Snowdon did leak the fact that the NSA was monitoring the telephone conversations of tens of thousands of Americans, but...

...it seems the American people were OK with that, as recently attested to by one Miss America contestant.

So, while he may have leaked a major secret if the US government, it turns it wasn't such a big deal after all cuz the US general public didn't get all too twisted out of shape over it when they found out.

So, if Snowdon had a jury trial, I expect they'd just slap him on the wrist. Maybe they'd give him a year in a comfy jail just cuz he did break his oath to keep his knowledge a secret.

But, as a result of what that ornery SOB done, the US government knows that the American public aren't really very adverse to having their telephone and e-mail conversations monitored so that the home grown terrorists amongst them can be caught before they have a chance to do any serious harm. Call that "The price of freedom in the modern world."

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:14:48 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

I was just thinking.
If Snowden applied for asylum in the UK, he could not be extradited to the
US because of your cruel and unusal punishments.
Just like most Islamic countries and places like China.


Harold "The Liar" Armitage has stuck his nose under the tent again.

1) Cruel and Unusual punishment is against the law

2) Corporal punishment is against the law, too

Ah you say "Bush water boarded 3 people."

Fact is, it was legal under the law and not cruel and unusual
punishment.

Aside from being a psychopathic liar, you are an idiot!

George Washington was against torture on moral grounds. But he also
acknowledged that under some circumstance it may be necessary.

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:27:54 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sunday, June 30, 2013 3:14:48 AM UTC-4, harryagain wrote:
I was just thinking.

If Snowden applied for asylum in the UK, he could not be extradited to the

US because of your cruel and unusal punishments.

Just like most Islamic countries and places like China.

The village idiot at it again. The US has an extradition
treaty with the UK. People facing charges are routinely
extradited both directions all the time.

That must be very painful.

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:50:13 -0500, gonjah wrote:

On 6/30/2013 2:14 AM, harryagain wrote:
I was just thinking.
If Snowden applied for asylum in the UK, he could not be extradited to the
US because of your cruel and unusal punishments.
Just like most Islamic countries and places like China.



....and the British would never eavesdrop on anyone.

The Brit's used to hang pickpockets in the square. Guess what was
happening in the gathered crowd of un lookers...wait for it...

Pickpocketing

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 17:24:55 +0200, nestork
wrote:

But, as a result of what that ornery SOB done, the US government knows
that the American public aren't really very adverse to having their
telephone and e-mail conversations monitored so that the home grown
terrorists amongst them can be caught before they have a chance to do
any serious harm. Call that "The price of freedom in the modern world."

Given our population size, not many people vote.They are disengaged.

Just the other day a 19 year old testified in open court she could not
read or write cursive. Going into her Senior year.

This isn't our grandfather's America.

On 06-30-2013 15:11, Oren wrote:
Just the other day a 19 year old testified in open court she could not
read or write cursive. Going into her Senior year.

I know how, but I never do. Well, I _read_ it ten or twenty words per year.

http://ideas.lang-learn.org/WWW.php?itemid=145

http://ideas.lang-learn.org/WWW.php?itemid=4217

--
Wes Groleau

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable.
€” John F. Kennedy

On Sunday, June 30, 2013 11:24:55 AM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
Well, Snowdon did leak the fact that the NSA was monitoring the

telephone conversations of tens of thousands of Americans, but...



..it seems the American people were OK with that, as recently attested

to by one Miss America contestant.



So, while he may have leaked a major secret if the US government, it

turns it wasn't such a big deal after all cuz the US general public

didn't get all too twisted out of shape over it when they found out.



So, if Snowdon had a jury trial, I expect they'd just slap him on the

wrist.

Jury's generally don't determine the sentence, usually
a judge does that. If the jury convicts on even a fraction
of all the counts they would charge him with, the judge
can and should send him away for a very long time. I'd
say 20 years would about cover it.




Maybe they'd give him a year in a comfy jail just cuz he did

break his oath to keep his knowledge a secret.



But, as a result of what that ornery SOB done, the US government knows

that the American public aren't really very adverse to having their

telephone and e-mail conversations monitored so that the home grown

terrorists amongst them can be caught before they have a chance to do

any serious harm. Call that "The price of freedom in the modern world."









--

nestork

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:56:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Jury's generally don't determine the sentence, usually
a judge does that. If the jury convicts on even a fraction
of all the counts they would charge him with, the judge
can and should send him away for a very long time. I'd
say 20 years would about cover it.


The sentence is set by law. The judge determines what law applies. She
is the arbitrator.

The jury is the finder of facts, facts from the evidence, only.

If Snowden makes it to:

The Administrative Maximum (ADX) facility in Florence, Colorado,
houses offenders requiring the tightest controls

He will be there longer than 20 years.

Any movement from the facility, will possibly require the Director's
approval. This place is under a mountain...

http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/flm/index.jsp

Back behind the down yonder

"gonjah" wrote in message
...
On 6/30/2013 2:14 AM, harryagain wrote:
I was just thinking.
If Snowden applied for asylum in the UK, he could not be extradited to
the
US because of your cruel and unusal punishments.
Just like most Islamic countries and places like China.



....and the British would never eavesdrop on anyone.

We havea far more advanced spy system than anyone else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCHQ

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:50:13 -0500, gonjah wrote:

On 6/30/2013 2:14 AM, harryagain wrote:
I was just thinking.
If Snowden applied for asylum in the UK, he could not be extradited to
the
US because of your cruel and unusal punishments.
Just like most Islamic countries and places like China.



....and the British would never eavesdrop on anyone.

The Brit's used to hang pickpockets in the square. Guess what was
happening in the gathered crowd of un lookers...wait for it...

Pickpocketing

Is that so?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching#Decline

wrote in message
...
On Sunday, June 30, 2013 3:14:48 AM UTC-4, harryagain wrote:
I was just thinking.

If Snowden applied for asylum in the UK, he could not be extradited to
the

US because of your cruel and unusal punishments.

Just like most Islamic countries and places like China.

The village idiot at it again. The US has an extradition
treaty with the UK. People facing charges are routinely
extradited both directions all the time.

You're not very well informed are you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradi...to_extradition

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:25:21 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

....and the British would never eavesdrop on anyone.

We havea far more advanced spy system than anyone else.

Harold "The Liar" Armitage has stuck his nose of the tent again.

The reason your government believed Iraq had WMD's.??!

Was it MI6 that screwed the pooch?

"advanced" is questionable.

Go have tea and crumpets. Come back later.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:14:48 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

I was just thinking.
If Snowden applied for asylum in the UK, he could not be extradited to the
US because of your cruel and unusal punishments.
Just like most Islamic countries and places like China.


Harold "The Liar" Armitage has stuck his nose under the tent again.

1) Cruel and Unusual punishment is against the law

2) Corporal punishment is against the law, too

Ah you say "Bush water boarded 3 people."

Fact is, it was legal under the law and not cruel and unusual
punishment.

Aside from being a psychopathic liar, you are an idiot!

George Washington was against torture on moral grounds. But he also
acknowledged that under some circumstance it may be necessary.

If it was legal why was it neccessary to do it in Cuba?
What's GeorgeWashinton got to do with it?

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:28:47 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

The Brit's used to hang pickpockets in the square. Guess what was
happening in the gathered crowd of un lookers...wait for it...

Pickpocketing

Is that so?

Harold "The Liar" Armitage has stuck his nose under the tent again.

Exactly so!

_Capital punishment in the United Kingdom_

"...In 1808 Romilly had the death penalty removed for pickpockets and
lesser offenders, starting a process of reform that continued over the
next 50 years. The death penalty was mandatory (although it was
frequently commuted by the government) until the Judgement of Death
Act 1823"

Nobody really trust you red belly devils, Pickpockets plied their
trade at a pickpocket hanging' in those days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_Kingdom#Reform

"harryagain" wrote in message
...
What's GeorgeWashinton got to do with it?
It's all about the buck.

On Sunday, June 30, 2013 5:32:59 PM UTC-4, harryagain wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Sunday, June 30, 2013 3:14:48 AM UTC-4, harryagain wrote:

I was just thinking.



If Snowden applied for asylum in the UK, he could not be extradited to

the



US because of your cruel and unusal punishments.



Just like most Islamic countries and places like China.



The village idiot at it again. The US has an extradition

treaty with the UK. People facing charges are routinely

extradited both directions all the time.



You're not very well informed are you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradi...to_extradition

I'm informed. You just don't realize that there is nothing
in your like that would prevent Snowden from being extradited,
like any other common criminal. Even Ecuador is apparently having
second thoughts about letting him in, or he wouldn't still be
stuck at the Moscow airport. The skunk is now floating trial
baloons to see if the US will agree to terms for him to surrender.

Some great life this guys have. The imbecile Snowden went from
a six figure job to facing decades in prison or exile to some
foreign place, always not knowing when the next govt might toss
him out, the US could grab him, can't travel, etc. The other one,
Assange, he's been living under house arrest at the Ecuadorian Embassy
in London for over a year now. What clever guys.

On Sunday, June 30, 2013 5:13:57 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:56:38 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



Jury's generally don't determine the sentence, usually

a judge does that. If the jury convicts on even a fraction

of all the counts they would charge him with, the judge

can and should send him away for a very long time. I'd

say 20 years would about cover it.





The sentence is set by law. The judge determines what law applies. She

is the arbitrator.



The law, in most cases, only sets a range of sentences for a
crime. The judge in this case would then determine what
actual sentence to hand down. There are federal guidelines
that they also use, but the judge still has discretion.

On 07-01-2013 13:14, wrote:
Some great life this guys have. The imbecile Snowden went from
a six figure job to facing decades in prison or exile to some
foreign place, always not knowing when the next govt might toss
him out, the US could grab him, can't travel, etc. The other one,
Assange, he's been living under house arrest at the Ecuadorian Embassy
in London for over a year now. What clever guys.

Right or wrong, he's hardly an imbecile. Stupid people tend to have
histories that make them ineligible for security clearances. Seems
obvious to me that he was telling the truth about his motives.

He _KNEW_ what the consequences would be and chose to do it anyway.

--
Wes Groleau

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable.
€” John F. Kennedy

On Monday, July 1, 2013 6:57:32 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 07-01-2013 13:14, wrote:

Some great life this guys have. The imbecile Snowden went from

a six figure job to facing decades in prison or exile to some

foreign place, always not knowing when the next govt might toss

him out, the US could grab him, can't travel, etc. The other one,

Assange, he's been living under house arrest at the Ecuadorian Embassy

in London for over a year now. What clever guys.



Right or wrong, he's hardly an imbecile. Stupid people tend to have

histories that make them ineligible for security clearances.

You mean like the genius Pvt Bradley Manning? He had a top security
clearance too. As do 500,000 or so other persons.





Seems

obvious to me that he was telling the truth about his motives.



Seems obvious to me that his motive is his desire for fame,
at any cost. He's admitted that he specifically took this job
to get classified information that he could leak. So, there goes
the innocent patriot that just happened on the govt doing something
bad. Not that it had an merit to begin with, because if that were
his concern, there are ways he could have gone about it other than
handing over classified docs to the foreign press.

And what he has leaked since has *nothing* to do with NSA
violating the rights of US citizens. For example, he leaked
that the US has intercepted Putin and Medveydev's communications.
THAT is exactly what NSA is supposed to be doing.




He _KNEW_ what the consequences would be and chose to do it anyway.


I think he's only starting to realize what the consequences
will be.

On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 18:57:32 -0400, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 07-01-2013 13:14, wrote:
Some great life this guys have. The imbecile Snowden went from
a six figure job to facing decades in prison or exile to some
foreign place, always not knowing when the next govt might toss
him out, the US could grab him, can't travel, etc. The other one,
Assange, he's been living under house arrest at the Ecuadorian Embassy
in London for over a year now. What clever guys.

Right or wrong, he's hardly an imbecile. Stupid people tend to have
histories that make them ineligible for security clearances. Seems
obvious to me that he was telling the truth about his motives.

I heard on the news that there might have been failures in the
security clearance process, going back to the 90's iirc. Interviews
reported that never took place, etc. If so, I still don't know if
his clearance was one of those that were't done right.

He _KNEW_ what the consequences would be and chose to do it anyway.

When I was in college, in a small fraternity, I answered the pay phone
and the guy said he was the FBI, investigating a guy in the house, a
senior. I said, How do I know you're FBI. He said "You can call me
back. The FBI phone number is inthe front cover of the phone book".

So I hung up and called that number, but I'd forgotten to get his
name. Somehow it didnt' take them long to find the guy who called
me, maybe 3 minutes. The guy they called about was a strange guy, "I
just got back from Fla" (rhymes with ma, pa, and fah) but he wasnt' a
traitor or anything. The phone call took from 5 to 10 minutes

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:11:47 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 17:24:55 +0200, nestork
wrote:

But, as a result of what that ornery SOB done, the US government knows
that the American public aren't really very adverse to having their
telephone and e-mail conversations monitored so that the home grown
terrorists amongst them can be caught before they have a chance to do
any serious harm. Call that "The price of freedom in the modern world."

Given our population size, not many people vote.They are disengaged.

Just the other day a 19 year old testified in open court she could not
read or write cursive. Going into her Senior year.

Yet she knew the word "cursive", a word I've almost forgotten.

I think they don't teach cursive writing anymore in a lot of places.
It's pitiful. How long would it take. 5 minutes a letter? = 130
minutes.

She was a bad witness. But I have doubts about the relevancy of
her not reading cursive. She was on the phone with him. There was no
reading involved.

Whether he did it or not, and I wouldnt' be surprised if he was the
one on top and the boy was the one screaming for help, there is too
much doubt now for a conviction.

We had an incident where I live where a volunteer patrol, more
organized than his, with walkie-talkies, a centrally based dispatcher,
and regular patrols, and one of them got in a fight with a boy who
might have been looking for a car to steal from (he'd been arrested
for something like that a month earlier, but that was not admissable)
, and the young man hit the boy with a walkie-talkie and was charged
with assault.

But he had no gun and so there was no killing.

(The felony charge was dropped and he was convicted of a misdemeanour,
and given probation since it was his first offense Hopefully it won't
hurt his career future, like a felony would.)

Soon after the conviction was announced, the boy's family announced it
would NOT sue. I wish I knew what went on behind the scenes.

This isn't our grandfather's America.

"micky" wrote in message
...

Given our population size, not many people vote.They are disengaged.

Just the other day a 19 year old testified in open court she could not
read or write cursive. Going into her Senior year.

Yet she knew the word "cursive", a word I've almost forgotten.

I think they don't teach cursive writing anymore in a lot of places.
It's pitiful. How long would it take. 5 minutes a letter? = 130
minutes.


They may not teach cursive writing any more. I thought I saw a where a bill
was mentioned to make it required in North Carolina.

I would have thought it would have been a normal course in school.

I wonder if keyboarding (typing ) is required now or maybe texting on a cell
phone with thumbs...

On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 11:13:43 -0400, micky
wrote:

I heard on the news that there might have been failures in the
security clearance process, going back to the 90's iirc. Interviews
reported that never took place, etc. If so, I still don't know if
his clearance was one of those that were't done right.

Interesting is that the backgrounds are done by contractors?? It is
said they were not doing a "secondary", which would corroborate the
first.

When my federal BG checks were made there was a backlog at the FBI.

When my first BG check was complete I was already a career employee -
non-probationary, but permanent.

After that, a BG check was made every 5 years.

I've never heard of these BG investigation done by a contractor, until
this case. Given the level of clearance, this should be done by
federal law enforcement and not by civilian contractors. IMO

On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 12:43:50 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"micky" wrote in message
.. .

Given our population size, not many people vote.They are disengaged.

Just the other day a 19 year old testified in open court she could not
read or write cursive. Going into her Senior year.

Yet she knew the word "cursive", a word I've almost forgotten.

I think they don't teach cursive writing anymore in a lot of places.
It's pitiful. How long would it take. 5 minutes a letter? = 130
minutes.


They may not teach cursive writing any more. I thought I saw a where a bill
was mentioned to make it required in North Carolina.

I think I saw that. I wonder if it passed.

I would have thought it would have been a normal course in school.

I wonder if keyboarding (typing ) is required now or maybe texting on a cell
phone with thumbs...

Now that is called advanced thumbing.

On Sunday, June 30, 2013 3:14:48 AM UTC-4, harryagain wrote:
I was just thinking.

If Snowden applied for asylum in the UK, he could not be extradited to the

US because of your cruel and unusal punishments.

Just like most Islamic countries and places like China.

No More Death Penalty for killing US police!

On Sunday, June 30, 2013 9:27:54 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sunday, June 30, 2013 3:14:48 AM UTC-4, harryagain wrote:

I was just thinking.



If Snowden applied for asylum in the UK, he could not be extradited to the



US because of your cruel and unusal punishments.



Just like most Islamic countries and places like China.



The village idiot at it again. The US has an extradition

treaty with the UK. People facing charges are routinely

extradited both directions all the time.

BP and the Rockefellers Tory *******s!

On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 1:18:07 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 11:13:43 -0400, micky

wrote:



I heard on the news that there might have been failures in the

security clearance process, going back to the 90's iirc. Interviews

reported that never took place, etc. If so, I still don't know if

his clearance was one of those that were't done right.



Interesting is that the backgrounds are done by contractors?? It is

said they were not doing a "secondary", which would corroborate the

first.



When my federal BG checks were made there was a backlog at the FBI.



When my first BG check was complete I was already a career employee -

non-probationary, but permanent.



After that, a BG check was made every 5 years.



I've never heard of these BG investigation done by a contractor, until

this case. Given the level of clearance, this should be done by

federal law enforcement and not by civilian contractors. IMO

In the case of Snowden, I'm not sure any background check would
have resulted in them denying him a clearance. I haven't seen
anybody saying he was nuts, anti-American, ranting about govt
spying, had a criminal record, etc. They do some checking, but
they can't read someone's mind.

On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 14:54:17 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 1:18:07 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 11:13:43 -0400, micky

wrote:



I heard on the news that there might have been failures in the

security clearance process, going back to the 90's iirc. Interviews

reported that never took place, etc. If so, I still don't know if

his clearance was one of those that were't done right.



Interesting is that the backgrounds are done by contractors?? It is

said they were not doing a "secondary", which would corroborate the

first.



When my federal BG checks were made there was a backlog at the FBI.



When my first BG check was complete I was already a career employee -

non-probationary, but permanent.



After that, a BG check was made every 5 years.



I've never heard of these BG investigation done by a contractor, until

this case. Given the level of clearance, this should be done by

federal law enforcement and not by civilian contractors. IMO

In the case of Snowden, I'm not sure any background check would
have resulted in them denying him a clearance. I haven't seen
anybody saying he was nuts, anti-American, ranting about govt
spying, had a criminal record, etc. They do some checking, but
they can't read someone's mind.

i THINK YOU're right. I shouldn't have brought it up (and only
thought to do so because the tv news did, but they did so as a
separate story and they didn't say he would have been excluded with
better checking.

wrote in message
...
On Sunday, June 30, 2013 5:32:59 PM UTC-4, harryagain wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Sunday, June 30, 2013 3:14:48 AM UTC-4, harryagain wrote:

I was just thinking.



If Snowden applied for asylum in the UK, he could not be extradited to

the



US because of your cruel and unusal punishments.



Just like most Islamic countries and places like China.



The village idiot at it again. The US has an extradition

treaty with the UK. People facing charges are routinely

extradited both directions all the time.



You're not very well informed are you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradi...to_extradition

I'm informed. You just don't realize that there is nothing
in your like that would prevent Snowden from being extradited,
like any other common criminal. Even Ecuador is apparently having
second thoughts about letting him in, or he wouldn't still be
stuck at the Moscow airport. The skunk is now floating trial
baloons to see if the US will agree to terms for him to surrender.

Some great life this guys have. The imbecile Snowden went from
a six figure job to facing decades in prison or exile to some
foreign place, always not knowing when the next govt might toss
him out, the US could grab him, can't travel, etc. The other one,
Assange, he's been living under house arrest at the Ecuadorian Embassy
in London for over a year now. What clever guys.

Or very moral ones.

On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 14:54:17 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

In the case of Snowden, I'm not sure any background check would
have resulted in them denying him a clearance. I haven't seen
anybody saying he was nuts, anti-American, ranting about govt
spying, had a criminal record, etc. They do some checking, but
they can't read someone's mind.

The guy was under the radar, for sure.

Barry will "investigate" what happened. Stand by...