dagblog - Comments for "More Docks and More Vids"

Election Time in Venezula

A Guy Called LULU — Mon, 07 Dec 2020 02:09:30 +0000

Election Time in Venezuela

The Grayzone's Aaron Maté

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 29 Sep 2020 21:14:39 +0000

The Grayzone's Aaron Maté testifies at UN on OPCW Syria cover-up. Previous reporting on same subject going back to May,2019 is here.

Most journalists didn't

ocean-kat — Sun, 20 Sep 2020 02:07:06 +0000

In reply to The comments so far all

Most journalists didn't report on it because it wasn't news. What's the story?

I expected Assange to be spied on and recorded while in the Ecuador embassy. I knew that if he was spied on as was likely I too would be recorded when I interviewed him. It turned out my guesses at the time were correct. He was spied on and I was recorded when I interviewed him. Nothing unconstitutional happened.

The comments so far all

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 20 Sep 2020 01:43:16 +0000

In reply to I disagree. US law

The comments so far all center on Assange and the legalities and justifications to spy on him and his contacts and his associates. That and opinions on how guilty he is. I think that is missing the point. The main story of the article, as indicated in the title, is about the U. S. media. Blumenthal makes a case that the reporting and non-reporting begs many questions. Any thoughts?

I'm saying there are

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 19 Sep 2020 22:21:26 +0000

In reply to US law enforcement has

I'm saying there are protections, but once you're ratfucking the Intel services,those protections rapidly disappear

US law enforcement has

ocean-kat — Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:08:01 +0000

In reply to I disagree. US law

US law enforcement has limitations on surveillance of any American abroad.

I'm sure there are limitations and honestly I'm not entirely sure specifically what those limitations are. But the governments right to spy on foreign nationals directly and Americans abroad who interact with them incidentally has been codified in federal law. There is no need to pretend they don't know. It's not an area of expertise and I won't be upset to be proved wrong. But I've read enough to hold this opinion with a high degree of confidence.

I'm not sure exactly how what you're saying is different than what I said in my post

I disagree. US law

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 19 Sep 2020 19:22:08 +0000

In reply to Excellent argument.

I disagree. US law enforcement has limitations on surveillance of any American abroad. They will pretend to not know an American is on a call to get around this, but they have legal obligations once they know. For journalists, add traditional leeway given to the press. Even some discretion given for foreign press.

However, once an entity makes itself an intelligence target by stealing the CIA's tools, all bets are off. Whether surveillance is only for intelligence or for potential prosecution, they're obliged to examine every anal polyp. The danger with Assange is prosecuting for more journalistic activity revealing atrocities in Iraq, et al - embarrassing, but what hard-hitting journalists should do. Trying to interfere with an intelligence service, then revealing their tools and tactics to the enemy? Well, fuck Assange very much. He both screwed the USA and made journalist's jobs much harder. Sadly Reality Winner got caught in the backlash - even if she had spent a year in the pen for divulging needed info, it was worth it. But now it's hugely punitive and unfair, considering people like Stone, Erik Prince, and Manafort are all out.

The US position has always

ocean-kat — Sat, 19 Sep 2020 19:13:55 +0000

In reply to What US constitutional rights

The US position has always been that we can spy on any foreign citizen in a foreign country.

I should have added that this isn't unique to the US This is the position of every government. During the German investigation of American spying on German officials Merkel practically admitted that Germany was doing similar spying on allies too.

Excellent argument.

artappraiser — Sat, 19 Sep 2020 18:37:24 +0000

In reply to What US constitutional rights

Excellent argument.

What US constitutional rights

ocean-kat — Sat, 19 Sep 2020 17:53:10 +0000

In reply to MAINSTREAM US REPORTERS

What US constitutional rights do foreign citizens have on foreign soil? The answer for the whole of American history is none. The US position has always been that we can spy on any foreign citizen in a foreign country.

If a foreign national is being spied on in a foreign nation what US constitutional rights do American journalists who interview him have? I think the answer is probably almost none.

As an Australian citizen what Australian constitutional rights did Assange have against being spied on by the Ecuador officials? None.

Any journalist that didn't realize that at least three governments, Ecuador, GB, the US, and likely also Australia, had access to recordings of Assange constantly is a fool. Every journalist knew the moment they stepped into the room they were being recorded. Even in America a journalist doesn't have the right to interview a prisoner in an American jail without being recorded.

To find out if Assange or journalists constitutional rights were violated I'd have to study the Ecuadorian constitution. Without that study I'd still guess with a fair degree of confidence that Ecuador didn't.

Assange and wikileaks is a “a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia” and should have been spied on. Just because a Trump official said it and I hate Trump and every high ranking official in his government doesn't mean every thing they say is incorrect.