NSA Ally Spied on US Law Firm 162
mendax points out a story at the NY Times about evidence that the Australian Signals Directorate notified the NSA in 2013 that it was spying on discussions between Indonesia and an American law firm. The information gathered by the Directorate included material covered by attorney-client privilege. The Times says:
"Most attorney-client conversations do not get special protections under American law from N.S.A. eavesdropping. Amid growing concerns about surveillance and hacking, the American Bar Association in 2012 revised its ethics rules to explicitly require lawyers to 'make reasonable efforts' to protect confidential information from unauthorized disclosure to outsiders. ... Several newly disclosed documents provide details of the cooperation between the United States and Australia, which share facilities and highly sensitive intelligence, including efforts to break encryption and collect phone call data in Indonesia. Both nations have trade and security interests in Indonesia, where Islamic terrorist groups that threaten the West have bases."
We have pre-Magna carta times now (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: We have pre-Magna carta times now (Score:3, Interesting)
What TRIAL? It was a trade dispute between Indonesia and the US.
You are seriously confusing this for something it's not.
Australia was spying on Indonesia. Wipe the surprise off your face.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/15/australia-and-indonesia-are-now-in-open-conflict-says-tanya-plibersek
This whole surveillance debate keeps reminding me of the gun control debate in the US. Every time I see N.S.A. it's like hearing Assault Rifle.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
only the NSA thing doesnt just affect you ignorant fucks in america like the gun control in america thing does. It affects the whole fucking world in one way or another, it makes your technology vendors untrustworthy and questionable to foreign sources.
It makes the world look down on you even further. It makes people from countries that once supported you think "why the fuck are we supporting them, fuck those guys"
the NSA thing scope is much greater than your tired gun control debate personally i say flood
Re: (Score:2)
We've been flooded with guns for over 200 years. Hell I just bought an AR-15 for 500 dollars a couple of weeks ago. Price has been coming down lately.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said I needed it. Like most things I own it was just a want. It's fun to shoot, I like to target practice and you never know what the future may bring. Guns are kind of like insurance, you hope you never need it but if you do you better have it.
Islamic terrorist groups that threaten the West (Score:5, Insightful)
> where Islamic terrorist groups that threaten the West have bases
You know if you don't stand up and say enough of this shit its never going to stop. ATM we have a better chance of getting wipped out by a meteor then we do by some bad ass strapped to a bomb. I get almost side swiped at least once per day while driving on the highway. So what if we get attacked once in a while more people are killed by their diets and the chemicals used in food, there's the governmental outrage about these food terrorist companies that are causing serious damage to out health and economy.
On top of that terrorism is good for the economy and populations control.
Re: (Score:2)
Cannot find the original post .. but sounds exactly like what Barry, my favorite NSA agent would say.
NSA - Smile, we know when you're not... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well as long as we don't get any Nukes I guess it'll be okay. You know these NSA guys have jobs that they like. If they don't have an enemy then there is no reason for those jobs. If they didn't have any terrorists to chase down then they'd have to invent some. Fortunately for job security though there are plenty of them around in places like Indonesia to keep track of. I don't know what you expect a spy agency to do but I can't find myself surprised that they spy on people. What the hell else are th
Re: (Score:2)
these food terrorist companies that are causing serious damage to out health and economy
They can't be terrorists! They make donations to the Republican party.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
You know if you don't stand up and say enough of this shit its never going to stop.
Let me guess, .... you don't think that argument applies to terrorism too?
No one with intelligence believes the transparent, logically flawed propaganda you spew.
Not all of us are going to be swayed by your "boogeyman" arguments about terrorism. 40,000
people die in the US in vehicle accidents every year. A rational person is more concerned about
safety on the road than about any terrorist "threat".
Of course highways deaths in the US don't have any bearing on the interests of multinational
corporations which have links to the US government, so the efforts of swine like you are direc
Re: (Score:2)
That was brilliant. The "You sicken me. Scum like you have polluted humanity since time began. During ..." line.
the 1930s you wore a brown shirt
Re: (Score:1)
People are not machines, and not always rational in the face of terrorism acts.
Why must you point out the obvious? Yes, they aren't rational, and that's the problem! That's exactly what people are criticizing.
It is doubtful that he is part of whatever conspiracy theory you are claiming.
He doesn't really need to be part of any sort of grand conspiracy to have a small part in subverting the principles countries like the US claim to stand for.
In fact, you sound a fair bit crazy to me with the level of abuse and rant you're willing to dish out on the drop of a argument that you dont like.
People with cold fjord's mentality are the cause of the TSA, the NSA spying, the numerous wars we've been fighting, free speech zones, unfettered border searches, stop-and-frisk, constitution-free zones, DUI checkpoints, and
Re: (Score:2)
What can be done beyond criticizing? Assuming "education", and further assuming that ineffective, does it make sense to work within the limits of operation? Or strive for the ideal you will never achieve?
I prefer to accept the limits until they can be changed, which means no stat based arguments.
cold fjord had a good rebuttal to a terrible argument, including pointing out obvio
Re: (Score:1)
What can be done beyond criticizing? Assuming "education", and further assuming that ineffective, does it make sense to work within the limits of operation? Or strive for the ideal you will never achieve?
I'd rather strive for an ideal than give up.
I prefer to accept the limits until they can be changed, which means no stat based arguments.
I prefer not to use statistics when arguing about such things. Why? Because doing so makes it seem as though you'd change your position if the statistics weren't on your side. I prefer to take the position that freedom is simply more important than safety, and even if the NSA and its buddies keep us safe, we need to stop their unconstitutional activities because they infringe upon our freedoms.
cold fjord had a good rebuttal to a terrible argument, including pointing out obvious internal inconsistencies. I did not see an argument for a particular side, and if you read it again you might see the same.
And in the statistics department, what internal inconsistencies did he
Re: (Score:1)
It appears that the earlier Slashdot story [slashdot.org] about trolls needs to be updated. They not only post, but moderate as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you blame for the food that ends up on your plate and then in your mouth on a daily basis?
Lawyer says what? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Am I to understand, that a lawyer is complaining about something sleazy and underhanded? Really? A lawyer? The same guys who sleaze their way to the top, then get political jobs so they can sleazy their way to the top again? They are the ones complaining about something possible being sleazy happening to them? Really? Let me get you a tissue.
Yes, sure, shoot the messenger.
Bored much today?
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, in a democracy, the parliament/congress and (depending on the country [wikipedia.org]) maybe judges are the ones to make laws.
Besides, we aren't discussing how moral/ethical/trusted the lawyer profession is. so your remark is offtopic in the context of "NSA violating the lawyer-client confidentiality by spying on lawyers, thus hurting the client as well".
How would you like to be on the "receiving end"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Am I to understand, that a lawyer is complaining about something sleazy and underhanded? Really? A lawyer? The same guys who sleaze their way to the top, then get political jobs so they can sleazy their way to the top again? They are the ones complaining about something possible being sleazy happening to them? Really? Let me get you a tissue.
Also the same guys and girls who are the first to defend the people from government overreach. Who serve nonprofits and NGOs and the public sector and the poor. Some lawyers are assholes. Others dedicate their lives in service.
Either way, do you really think it's a good idea to have the government listening in when you go to get legal advice about your problems with them or someone else?
Re: (Score:2)
Where will this recording stop? US international legal work is fair game to the US gov?
All international legal work conducted within the USA is fair game?
Some international related legal work within the USA is fair game?
Say your a US defence team working at the US state level:
At a state level lawyers can be recorded by federal officials so long as they affirm they won't directly help the state case?
A state case ca
Attorney client privilege (Score:3)
Is about material provided in confidence that cannot be used in court.
There's no reason the appropriate authorities can't listen in, if there is reasonable suspicion that the lawyer may be complicit in a future criminal act.
There have been cases where the lawyer became complicit in a later crime. case in point: Lynne Stewart. Who perhaps should have been sentenced to death for her treasonous actions.
Attorney-client privilege protects information pertaining to their case and legal advise. It doesn't protect against prosecution for conspiring with the lawyer, or using the lawyer as a channel to commit further crimes.
Re:Attorney client privilege (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.alaskapublic.org/20... [alaskapublic.org]
Over time US lawyer and political leaders will have to work out what "appropriate [US] authorities" can subject working US lawyers to within the US or outside the USA.
In other parts of the world do US lawyers (as citizens) lose all protections working as US lawyers? If they are just tourist the full US protections return?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How else can we expect to win the case? It's not like we would win on the merits...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reasonable suspicion? Rather a low bar, considering that "probable cause" is the constitutional requirement for any search. In any case, the use of "parallel construction" means that a bar to using the material in court but not to collecting it in the first place is ineffective.
Re: (Score:2)
Reasonable suspicion? Rather a low bar, considering that "probable cause" is the constitutional requirement for any search.
Since the patriot act was passed, probable cause was not required for wiretaps. In fact, even reasonable suspicion is not required.
The intelligence agencies also never needed reasonable suspicion to make efforts to tap into a conversation crossing US borders or taking place outside the US.
Also, intelligence agencies' partner organizations such as GCHQ could do the tapping and coo
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm aware that the Patriot Act violates the US Constitution, thank you.
Which might not have been unconstitutional back before they started sharing information with law enforcement agencies, who then made false trails
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, Edward Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time you read one of these stories, and are (hopefully) a little bit outraged at how the NSA has dropped every pretense of complying with our Constitution, and has embraced the most despicable aspects of tyrannical rule without any notion of "national defense", you should remember that without the heroic acts of a single young man, and the tireless efforts of a shamefully small handful of journalists and publishers, we would either be ignorant of these monstrous acts or vulnerable to charges of paranoia.
We now have proof, and government doesn't even deign to make false denials. We have government officials calling for the assassination of Edward Snowden and some of the journalists with whom he entrusted these documents. We have everything we need to make a decision about whether we really consent to be governed in this way.
There has never been a perfect hero outside of myth. But there are necessary heroes, and Snowden is one of those.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to ask. As pertains to this particular instance, where is the violation of Constitutional law?
Re: (Score:2)
You're asking the wrong question.
Where in the Constitution does it allow government to do what the NSA is doing?
And to answer your question directly, it's the Fourth Amendment, which says,
Re: (Score:2)
And of course this is open to interpretation. Spying on overseas communications is generally not interpreted to be a violation of the 4th amendment. You can disagree but SCOTUS is the ultimate decider here. Besides, they can spy to their hearts content and the worst that would happen if they were found to be in violation is that they would not be allowed to use any information gathered in this manner in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the same thing as "everyone knows..."?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the lawyer was located in the US?
I'm pretty sure that if you have to get that lawyerly to justify a policy, it violates the intent of the framers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I won't think less of you if you happen to recant should a successful 9/11 scale attack strike your hometown after the growing number of leaked NSA document articles teaches al Qaida how to successfully avoid US surveillance. If you tell the American people there really isn't any way to keep al Qaida from finding out, let alone China or ......
Your attempts to scare us with the same old bullshit about "a successful 9/11 scale attack" are far from
convincing. Why ? Because it's been over 12 years since 9/11 and anyone who was motivated
has had more than sufficient time to cook up a plan, yet nothing even remotely close to a threat which could
kill thousands of US citizens has happened.
It's been obvious for some time now that the so-called terrorists are a bunch of amateurs.
Their obvious failure to do anything serious in the US during the last 12 year
Re: (Score:2)
Enemies everywhere, I see.
You must either take a lot of sleeping pills or watch a lot of late-night TV.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not a fan of the news I take it. You should try it some time.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm willing to take my chances with the terrorists.
I'm not willing to take my chances with ubiquitous and secret surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
Which secret surveillance are you referring to? The Dodd-Frank credit card data mining, Obamacare's many flavors (including from the IRS), the Chicagoland police, or NSA? And that is just warming up.... You have an embarrassment of riches there.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. All of that.
Re: (Score:1)
I'd think the same thing I thought on 9/11: "Great, this is going to be used as an excuse for the government to take away our freedoms in the name of safety, even though people in the US should believe that freedom is more important than safety to begin with."
Re: (Score:1)
How about we take yours? You don't seem to be using either your brain or your "balls." They are kind of wasted on ewe.
Re: (Score:1)
cold fjord certainly isn't, as all he does is make claims about how terrorists might get us and try to scare people into surrendering their freedom and privacy for safety.
Actually, he'd fit right in with most debate teams.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm glad that we're keeping Belgium safe. I was worried about the poor Belgese.
You're so full of shit it's not funny. We're more likely to die from toenail fungus than at the hand of a terrorist. Terrorism is just a convenient and scary boogie man to use to keep the superstitious compliant. Maybe next we should have a government agency in charge of prayers to ask God to keep us safe.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really so. The Judicial branch has taken it for itself.
Where in the Constitution does it say that judges can decide that rights protected under the Constitution can be removed? In fact, it says the opposite.
Re: (Score:1)
So you are suggesting that the actual text of the Constitution should be the basis for decisions? I'm intrigued. Just think of the possibilities.... Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas, gone.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Government has no right to limit either a person's private behavior or their medical decisions.
Neither Roe v Wade or Lawrence v Texas should have been necessary. The right of an adult to have the kind of relationship they want with another adult, and the right of a woman to control her body both supersede any aut
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Government has no right to limit either a person's private behavior or their medical decisions.
You miss the point. If the Supreme Court had stuck with the text of the Constitution in deciding those cases, then they would not have been decided as they were. There are questions that the Constitution is silent upon, and powers not given to the Federal government are reserved for the states and the people. You may think it unwise, but sodomy laws would still be on the books, as would the various contraception laws.
Various scholars see Roe v Wade as one of the court's biggest blunders. The country was
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly. What's the matter, couldn't you find an article at The Blaze or Breitbart.com? Did you read that article? Do you know what Carol Iannone used as evidence of the normalization of pedophilia in our society? A novel from a decade ago that nobody ever heard of. It's so ridiculous that Katherine Jean Lopez wouldn't even make such a case. So they turn to Carol Iannone, a "conservative anti-feminist and literary critic" who opposes the teaching of evolution in US schools.
Re: (Score:1)
Fortunately, the Constitution doesn't give you or other commenters the authority to make that decision. The consitution has given the Judicial branch the authority to make that decision.
When something is unconstitutional, that just means it doesn't comply with the constitution. Anyone with an opinion can decide if they think so. The difference between normal people and judges is, of course, that normal people don't have that bit of power necessary to make change with their opinions.
Being in the judicial branch does not automatically mean that one's interpretation of the constitution is correct. Judges can and have been wrong. The Supreme Court has overruled itself in the past, and if the j
Master keys (Score:2)
From TFA:
The Australians have obtained nearly 1.8 million encrypted master keys, which are used to protect private communications, from the Telkomsel mobile telephone network in Indonesia
Anyone know what this is about? What are that master keys, and what protocol is using them?
Re: (Score:3)
Think of it as Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act access to your countries telco/isp/billing, credit cards, banking, educational, medical, criminal courts, local gov via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org] been open to Australia and a few other nations
Its the special crypto keys handed over to a countries top law enforcement on buying a national/domestic telco networks for full transparen
these guys spy on you and your attorney in court (Score:1)
NSA and Signals Intelligence has the ability to spy on clients and attorneys in jail, in their cells, in court, and in the attorneys office. Signals Intel has the ability to do a variety of imaing techniques, inluding extracting and monitoring thought via Remote Neural Monitoring and TAMI, which is built into satellites and radar. It has many many miles range, and they can also see and hear you through the walls. Juries can also be spied on, along with the judges, and the DA and judges and court officers ar
Reality is just as scary as fantasy (Score:2)
In a country where it's officially believed that the polygraph is Wonder Woman's lasso of truth it shouldn't amaze me so much that people are taking this shit seriously.
I suggest strstr that you consider reality instead because it's scary enough without going past the wall of voodoo. Real stuff on the public record is able to listen in at range in a variety of situations - for example Theremin's passive bug found in a US Embassy in the 1950's (something about i
Re: (Score:1)
I am considering reality. Mind reading radar has been around for ages, since 1976.. and it is backed up by a 1974 patent by a radar systems defense contractor, Robert Malech, who invented it. This is confirmed by Department of Defense / CIA / US DOJ whistleblower Dr. Robert Duncan who also invented many of the systems in use (space / radar weapons).
On top of that, the page I linked to had a video at the top of NSA whistleblower Russell Tice, who also claims he targeted law firms, journalists, generals, sen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ask s.petry.
Re: (Score:1)
Dr. Robert Duncan already covered it in his book. A brain imaging radar system called Electron Spin Resonance, which is being kept out of hospitals because they'd realize how easy it was to read brainwaves using radar. It's a literal issue of the government keeping the technology classified and out of the hands of the public, so they do not discover the ability. It's for "spy games" and illegal surveillance only, not medical or criminal justice purposes. If we had it for medical and criminal justice purpose
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You are delusional man. Easily contradicted. There are thousands of victims of these surveillances and abuses around the country. Dipshit.
I myself was targeted, mind control, directed energy, illegal surveillance, and I can confirm all the capabilities are real.
Who the fuck mods you up, unless you got a friend to waste his points on you (or you're doing it yourself)?
Re: (Score:2)
Also I didn't mean to be condescending and offensive but it probably is coming off that way because I was too brief. The podcasts I listed are from groups independant of lobby or advertising money from the sort of people that worry you. I'll add the "Dr Karl" science talkback podcast to the list as well (http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/podcast.htm). All of those I've listed are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nepotism stops it from being a reign of terror (Score:2)
After the Snowden leak has shown that instead of professionals it's full of politically well connected toy soldier horse judges that couldn't find their arse with an atlas you still believe that?
Far too much secrecy there's been, just for the lo (Score:1)
Ok that makes sense.. (Score:1)
Hate to be the Australian Ambassador to Indonesia at the moment..
Rumour has it that the Indonesians regularly send encrypted birthday greetings for Australian operatives so we will probably just end up with another round of mock outrage and contrition from both sides and then it will be back to the cricket..
I think that its a shame Shirley Temple Black is dead because now there is no one to lead
A critical question (Score:2)
Did the NSA rearrange bits on the law firm's cable-connected computers?
That would be a key constitutional trip line.
Partner (Score:3)
The correct word is partner. The reason they have the five eyes )Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States) is so that they can work their ways around laws in one country by having another country do the spying then sharing the information back to the country that wanted the data to begin with. It's all about getting around the laws and as the article said "The bulletin notes only that the counsel’s office “provided clear guidance” and that the Australian agency “has been able to continue to cover the talks, providing highly useful intelligence for interested US customers.”"
That means that the information was provided to American intelligence agencies and that they are violating the clear prohibition against spying on Americans.
Tag is bullshit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Australia just seems to the post colonial geogrpahic tap point for the US gov fishing for US attorney-client conversations.
Skilled US staff are sheltered from directly transcribing the US voices and won't raise any legal issues.
Re: Why is this news? (Score:2, Informative)
No, Australia spied on Indonesia, and intercepted communications from US based lawyers representing them in trade negotiations with the US. Australia shared this with the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Material from US based lawyers ended up with the US gov - no matter the help needed or sharing with/via/for/from Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"US lawyers know what legal protections they have when working in the USA or outside the USA"
Just like anyone else. Not much :D
Re: (Score:2)
Of course with regard to Pine Gap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org] being a token joint facility, it's very likely everything was being done by Americans, it's just that the paperwork creates a trail for obfuscation when those Americans paid by the US government and working for the Australian government on behalf of the US government. Any actual Australian government employees were just token players, clearly in all matters beyond the shores of Australia the Australian government simply obeys the 'er' sugg
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Informative)
This is about Australia or didn't you catch that? Slashdot is an AMERICAN site. What about Snowden and the NSA?
"Five Eyes" [wikipedia.org], AC: We have a longstanding agreement with some of our select Freedom Buddies, to engage in 'intelligence sharing' and, when convenient, have one of us do what it would be illegal for another of us to do, then pass the results along, nice and squeaky clean.
I certainly couldn't tell you about the degree to which this is or isn't a wildly unequal partnership, or whether that varies by issue and location; but in this case (Australia volunteering to be oh-so-helpful to the US on a matter between the US and Indonesia), I suspect that team Australia wasn't exactly reigning the NSA in...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, look, everybody! It's our old friend Fjord Fairlane!
If you're going to try to move the goalposts like that, Thin White Duke, you'll have to do better than a link to the Daily Ruse.
Re: (Score:2)
"cold fjord is a communist trying to subvert the principles the US was founded on."
So is the US government. Does that make them commies, too?
Re: Why is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem here is not exactly that the US or some other country spied on Indonesia but that in whatever course of events, US citizens who also generally receive special treatment (lawyers) were spied on and this information was passed to the US government where it could have benefited. What effectively happened here is the US government gained information that it is constitutionally and as a matter of US law, barred from gathering and either did use it to their advantage or had the opportunity to do so.
You gain an enormous advantage in knowing what the opposition is doing in any matters of law. Good lawyers study scenarios in order to understand and anticipate the moves of their opposing counsel and recognize when their tactics are working. But knowing first hand could make the difference between winning and losing. That in and of itself does make spying on foreign nations worth while, it just doesn't excuse violating the US constitution and principles of law in the process of doing it. If a normal ordinary person or lawyer were to gain access to this kind of information through a third party (directly or unsolicited), it could cause them to lose their license, case or claim they are representing, or even worse- land them in jail if they used it.
Re: (Score:1)
Call me crazy but I thought Slashdot is, or was, a technology site, and if I'm not even more insane, not just America possesses technology.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also true that not even all American Slashdotters live in the US. People move around and stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
Many of us never were (and are proud not to be) Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck is wrong with you? It's a system. This system has been in place for decades. J. Edgar Hoover did shit that makes these guys look like liberal pussies when he was running the FBI. Killing one person or even hundreds wouldn't change the system. Hell, they think they're doing the right thing and I'd say most of the public probably thinks so too.
Re: (Score:2)
The system is not broken Chicken Little. It has problems but they are solvable. And I would argue that the system has kept us safer than not.
Re: War on American Citizens (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you have a figure for the harm to our society by spying on overseas communications? I'm not talking about the spying on journalists in the US which is illegal but about this particular incident here and others like it. This is what spy agencies do. If they aren't doing this then there is no point to having them at all. You may as well close up shop.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking about the spying on journalists in the US which is illegal but about this particular incident here and others like it.
Quote from TFH: "NSA Ally Spied on US Law Firm".
Quote from the fine OP of this thread: "NSA to violate the 4th Amendment rights of 300 million Americans"
Quote from the fine title of this thread: "War on American Citizens"
Way to move the goalposts! Like, overseas! We're discussing spying on AMERICANS here. This "particular incident" involves AMERICANS. How do you not get that? We WEREN'T talking about spying on the communications of foreigners.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I thought it was something about an American Law Firm and communications between it and their Indonesian clients. Did I get it wrong? This has what exactly to do with a war on Americans?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to suggest that spying on Americans is okay? And that we should violate the attorney-client privilege of those Americans, which exists both here and in Indonesia?
Re: (Score:2)
What Americans? Oh! You mean the lawyers working for the Indonesians! I don't think they're actually after the lawyers, they want info on the Indonesians. You know the privilege is for the client don't you. You do know they'll never use this info in court. I ask again, what do you think is the reason we have spy agencies? Why do they call them spies? What do spies do? ????
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, really? He's screaming that there is a war on American citizens and the system is broken which is a ridiculous assumption. Just the fact that he's allowed to scream that crazy shit without his door being busted down says he's a fool. In fact, if he really believed it he'd never open his mouth out of fear of repercussions.
Re: (Score:3)
He's hiding in the corner afraid of making Joe Biden the 45th president.
Seriously, do you think killing a man is really called for? All it would do is make the government demand more constitutional violations in the name of BHO. Remember Obama would become the rallying cry of every American when they carted you non-conformists off to the gulags.. errr I mean gitmo.
What is needed is for congress to grow a pair and pass a law restricting th
Re: (Score:2)
On Socialist Slashdot beta fucks you!