Chuck Robbins Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 A group of left-wing activists, including several investigative journalists, have joined a lawsuit seeking a ban on a domestic spy program authorized by President George Bush. It is claimed that the CIA is listening to their telephone calls and reading their emails. I think it is possible that those people who criticize the CIA on this Forum are having their emails intercepted. Over the last few weeks I have received information from hotmail that some of my emails to fellow investigators have been “delayed” and have not reached their destination. Yesterday, I received a PM on this Forum that they have been receiving the same message when they have tried to email me via their hotmail account. Is it possible that some people’s emails are being redirected so that they can be read by the intelligence services before they are delivered to the intended person? For some time I have been aware that my emails to Philip Agee have not been arriving. However, he lives in Cuba so I assumed that the CIA was blocking these emails. Is it now happening in America? I reason that, if someone was intercepting emails, they would not want it to be detected. To hijack and delay the email would invite detection. An undetectable method would be to simply fire off a copy. Even in today's big brother environment people are notified when they are or have been under investigation. For instance, if you have had a wire-tap or other form of intrusion used against you, and that intrusion produces no indictments, you are sent a form letter notifying you of the investigational means used to invade your privacy, and, further, the possibility that the information obtained, although not presently used for prosecution, if further investigation is being conducted, may be used in a future indictment or prosecution. So, for 6 months or so, your every conversation is overheard. If nothing is developed which warrants your prosecution, you are sent a courtesy letter telling you that it is now perfectly reasonable to be paranoid. Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Geraghty Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I reason that, if someone was intercepting emails, they would not want it to be detected. To hijack and delay the email would invite detection. An undetectable method would be to simply fire off a copy. Of course. But it is important for us to know that our emails are being read. The idea is to intimidate those who seek to expose the CIA. During the 1980s a story was leaked that MI5 had constructed a list of people who were members of dangerous political groups (CND, Anti-Apartheid Movement, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, etc.). This blacklist would then be used to stop these people from making progress in their chosen careers. I am not sure this story is true but a lot of people believed it. Especially with Margaret Thatcher as prime minister. With high unemployment in the 1980s, people began to leave these organizations. At the same time students refused to join these left-wing political groups. They did not want to ruin their careers before they started. The left was virtually destroyed during the 1980s. Although I am not sure this blacklist actually existed, a belief in it played its part in reducing the opposition to this right-wing government. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course. But it is important for us to know that our emails are being read. The idea is to intimidate those who seek to expose the CIA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not likely! It would appear that you really do have it in for the American Intelligence System. Personally, the CIA can moniter whatever of my transmissions they like, so long as I, as a "free" american, can walk around in a "free" nation, and have the luxeries and "Freedoms" which we as American Citizens enjoy. It happens to be one of those small prices one must pay for "FREEDOM" and the rights to enjoy it. Now, in the case of the "Disneyland/Fantasyland" theater of operations in which some persons brain seems to operate, there is of course little necessity for such activities and it is in their opinions an "invasion" of their privacy. However, since Snow White and the seven dwarfs is make believe, and I for one live in the reality of the surrounding world. Have at it CIA! Thomas, You may wish to read your constitution, free speech and all that. For another individual to read your personal material is unconstitutional and illegal. If this is taken away your 'freedom' isn't worth a damn. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 Thomas,You may wish to read your constitution, free speech and all that. For another individual to read your personal material is unconstitutional and illegal. If this is taken away your 'freedom' isn't worth a damn. John Thomas does not mind because he thinks the CIA are the "good guys" protecting him from the "bad guys". It seems that some people still live in the world of cowboy movies. After all, that is probably the reason why they elected Ronald Reagan as he always wore the white hat in his movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 The United Kingdom has much to thank that many of you were not around during the "ultra secret" days. No doubt, you would have filed suit against your own intelligence system's monitering of German & Japanese transmissions. And in that regards, please attempt to fight some war,at some point in time, with only the most basic and limited intelligence available. See what language you get to finally speak (provided you are still living) at the end of the war. In the event that monitoring my personal email; telephone conversations; private mail; personal conversations; etc; etc; etc, and/or any other form of correspondence prevents: 1. Another "home grown" idiot such as Mr. McVey from the murder of innocent persons. 2. Prevents another 9/11. 3. Decreases the Iraqi casualties by ONE SINGLE person Then the U.S. Government is free to entirely monitor anything I do and/or say. As an American citizen who enjoys the rights and priviledges which this system has afforded, that is the least that I can do to assure the same system for my children and my grandchildren. Why don't you ask a few of the survivors as well as the surviving dependents of some of the above, there response's to your claims. Each and every item makes an attempt to blame a "breakdown" in the intelligence community. This "breakdown" is directly related to the same type of legal system which provides the criminal element the necessary cover in which to operate behind. Lastly, might I recommend that those of you in these various foreign lands, get your own houses in order before you make an attempt to tell the American public how to manage their own household. That you fully appear to have a high degree of dissatisfaction with your own house (government), and would, it appears, like nothing better than to blame your problems on the mean ole US/CIA; etc;, then might I recommend that you straighten your own linen prior to attempting to straighten ours. Your "systems" have failed! And in so doing, it has taken the American System, as well as many american lives to bail you and your countries out and provided you with the luxeries and time to sit around and complain about the system which gave you these freedoms. In event you wish to change the system, then do so. However, you will not change it by sitting around and crying and whining on the internet about the injustices in the world. Be a soldier; a statesman; an attorney with a consience; whatever. However, might I recommend that you cease being a hypocrite, who has taken full advantage of the opportunities which these systems have provided to you, your forefathers; and ultimately your children and grandchildren, yet you do little other than to cry and complain about the injusticies and inequities of the system off which you sponge your existence. It is referred to as a Parasite over here in this part of the ocean. There is and can never be any form of "perfect" government. So long as we continue as a world of completely separate ideals; religious concepts; and humans with completely different variations of movitational goals, then the government which controls must do so for the general betterment of ALL. No where does it say the betterment of "EACH AND EVERY SINGLE PERSON", which it could not achieve. So, as soon as some undiscovered terrorist activity (home grown or otherwise) murders a few of your own children; direct relatives; friends; etc;., then come back and visit and discuss the real world situation as it currecntly exists, and what is required to counter these "REAL WORLD" threats. Otherwise, go down to Orlando, FL and take up residence in the "Magic Tunnel" and/or be like the ostrich and stick your head in the sand and continue to remain obviously ignorant as to what the REAL WORLD situation currently is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 While Mr. Purvis has a right to his opinions of "the price of freedom," I tend to believe in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution as allowing me the right to be secure in my conversations, as an extension of being secure in my property, from unreasonable [i.e., warrantless] search and seizure, the right to refuse self-incrimination, and thereby an extension of my right of free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment. I should, under the US Consititution, have the right ot express my opinions to whomever I choose without feat of the conversation being intercepted by the US government or its agencies, unless I am expressing said opinions to those whose mail/communications are legally subject to interception and/or censorship, such as inmates in a detention facility. And I should also have a right to expect freedom from reprisals by the government as a result of said expressions of opinion...UNLESS there is a threat to kill the President, or advocacy of any other position which shall be considered a violation of existing law. In other words...unless the governmental agency has PROBABLE CAUSE to suspect that I intend to overthrow the government, or to kill the President, AND unless they use this information to obtain a COURT ORDER, my Fourth Amendment rights to be secure in my person and papers should extend to electronic communications as well. Otherwise, the US Constitution is meaningless, if it allows its GUARANTEES to be suspended at the will or whim of one or more government officials...and we are no longer a nation of laws, but of men...some more "equal" than others. God forbid that we should come to that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 There is quite a bit of interesting reading one can do in regards to the concept of 'authority.' Legitimate authority requires set boundaries and limitations. Additionally, there are requirements in the form of accountability, representation and term length. FBI's J. Edgar Hoover is a perfect example of illegitimate authority. No accountability to any form of democratic process, a lifetime term, and the necessity of turning to alternate, unscrupulous and illegal means by which this illegitimate authority could be deposed. The original process for the selection of Supreme Court Justices is another antique which should be not only re-examined, but redefined - it is neither open to the Democratic process in terms of selection/election - being too removed from the general populace, but also provides a [pseudo] lifetime term - which from one perspective, may have provided a mechanism for a safeguard against bribery with it's concept of tenure - however it again does not provide for an appropriate rotation in office, or accountability. In this case, we could theoretically have a President looking to appoint his own personal secretary to this elevated position of power, for example, or a Supreme Court Justice involved in a scandal in which he or she may have played a role. Also, the idea that a Supreme Court Justice can uphold the Constitution of the United States, yet bar reporters, cameras and other recording devices from public lectures in which he or she appears, considering that fundamental to the Constitution and one of the primary functions of that office is to uphold same, eg the right to the freedom of Press and the Freedom of speech - the logical response by the American People, one would assume, to such abject and contradictory behavior would be one of shock - with a movement towards rectifying the situation. But what can be done? The Supreme Court is not accountable to the people. In the case of the CIA - the same concept applies. If the system was created here by the original framers of the constitution and other like documents, it was with the motive to create a system of balance, accountability and representation - the idea of a secret Government, or a Government within a Government, or National Security issues superceding the original tenets - well, I can't see Jefferson and Adams being cool with it. They appeared to be okay with Elitism - since they created a Republic, but after all, it was Facism and Dictatorship that they were seeking to avoid, which was one of the reasons that they were so careful in the construction of the premises and foundations upon which this great nation would be ruled. "You can't fire me, you don't even know who I work for!" Attributed allegedly to Dulles, upon receiving his pink slip from Kennedy "Achh...one Fuhrer is enough!" Schultz - from Stallag 17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Thomas, You may wish to read your constitution, free speech and all that. For another individual to read your personal material is unconstitutional and illegal. If this is taken away your 'freedom' isn't worth a damn. John Thomas does not mind because he thinks the CIA are the "good guys" protecting him from the "bad guys". It seems that some people still live in the world of cowboy movies. After all, that is probably the reason why they elected Ronald Reagan as he always wore the white hat in his movies. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It seems that some people still live in the world ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You got that right! At the time of the OKC bombing, my home was approximately 30 miles North of there in Guthrie, OK, and although I was not there, my family heard the resulting explosion. That! is the real world in which we live, and this was merely one of our own "home grown" dissidents. Why not contact the survivors of this, as well as those left behind and ask them if it would have been OK with them if the US Government had "taken out" McVey prior to his having blown the building. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You may wish to read your constitution, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Suprisingly, I have read it. And last that I found, nowhere does it state that the US Government can not moniter my telephone calls; email; etc. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- free speech and all that. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Certainly appears, that there has been little loss of "free speach" in this country. The system currently even allows "foreigners" to come across the web site and criticize. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For another individual to read your personal material is unconstitutional and illegal. If this is taken away your 'freedom' isn't worth a damn ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, I have pretty "damn" good freedom and rights. Virtually all of which is the direct result of those who have actually fought the battles (in one manner or another) of any true infrigements on these freedoms, while yet maintaining the integrity of the system. In that regard, might I recommend a thorough study of Dr. Martin Luther King. One can completely tear their house down in order to rebuild it if they so desire. However, they should make certain that they at least have another place to live in during the rebuilding process. Personally, I prefer to continue to live in the house, stay relatively warm and comfortable, and correct the problems of the house as time, money, conditions and necessity dictate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 At the time of the OKC bombing, my home was approximately 30 miles North of there in Guthrie, OK, and although I was not there, my family heard the resulting explosion.That! is the real world in which we live, and this was merely one of our own "home grown" dissidents. Why not contact the survivors of this, as well as those left behind and ask them if it would have been OK with them if the US Government had "taken out" McVey prior to his having blown the building. I am not satisfied myself that we have the whole story there. Many questions. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html http://www.serendipity.li/more/ok_bomb.html http://www.apfn.org/apfn/okc_coverup.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 The United Kingdom has much to thank that many of you were not around during the "ultra secret" days.No doubt, you would have filed suit against your own intelligence system's monitering of German & Japanese transmissions. My family have a long tradition of fighting for freedom. My grandfather was killed in France in 1916. My father was badly wounded in the Second World War fighting for freedom. My mother enduring several years of constant bombardment from the skies while working in an armaments factory during the war. What were they fighting for? The freedom to vote. The freedom to organize. The freedom to express their opinions. What was the point of fighting against other countries for these freedoms if you allow them to be taken away by your own government. The CIA may or may not be reading my emails sent to friends in America. What I do know is that they have no right to do so? It will not stop me saying what I think about the world. However, my fear is that it might frighten some individuals to do as they think our masters want us to think. The worse form of censorship is always self-censorship. That is what this issue is really about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I'm going to throw a few non-political facts into the fray here, for whatever they are worth.1 -- Hotmail, the system about which you are speaking, is based on Microsoft Exchange. The message you are receiving is a normal and expected part of using a Microsoft e-mail server. It merely means that the message has entered the "to be sent" queue, but has not successfully been delivered to the recipient within a certain period of time (configured by an admin). The system will continue to retry sending until a second threshold is met (a timeout), at which a time the message will be flagged as undeliverable and you will be notified. This message, although poorly (even ominously) worded, is common and harmless in any Microsoft system. (Note: it is common in computers to use the term 'warning' and 'error'. An error is a problem - a showstopper. A warning is an alert to a possible problem, but not necessarily a showstopper). 2 -- Any number of things can cause this message to crop up. The most common are: a) The remote server is unreachable (the e-mail server that houses your recipient's mailbox) The recipient's mailbox is full c) DNS is messed up and your e-mail server cannot resolve the name of the recipient's e-mail server d) A network connection could be down or full (preventing no or little throughput) e) There may be a problem with one of hotmail's servers f) one or more of the target servers could be very busy and unable to service requests g) Routing problems somewhere on the internet h) DOS attack, etc, etc, affecting the target, or any midpoint system. 3 -- There is a great likelihood that the problems you are experiencing are *not* sinister in nature. ------------- That said, some technical notes on e-mail: 1 -- E-mail is one of the most NON-SECURE systems out there. It is getting better, slowly, but the legacy protocols are still in abundance and are not secure by any sense of the word. 2 -- Traditional e-mail crosses the wire "in the clear." This means that the headers (information used by intermediary systems to deliver the mail) are not encrypted and easily read. Furthermore, the body of the message is also in the clear (again, not encrypted). So, if you are using a traditional POP3/SMTP e-mail system (POP3 = "post office protocol v. 3" SMTP = Simple Mail Transport Protocol"), your messages are about as insecure as can be. EVEN YOUR E-MAIL PASSWORD is in the clear with these older protocols. 3 -- Intercepting and reading non-encrypted e-mail is not the least bit difficult (first or second year networking students learn various ways that this can be accomplished). If an intelligence agency wanted to read your e-mail, they could. 4 -- Detecting interception of non-encrypted e-mails is a tricky business, and often nearly impossible unless alternate techniques to provoke action (and exposure) from the interceptor is done. 5 -- It is possible to encrypt the body of the e-mail while maintaining compatibility with older protocols using something like PGP. The only effect this truly has is to delay someone who might wish to read your mail, as key handling by such protocols can be problematic. 6 -- You can connect to a service (like Hotmail, incidentally) that uses SSL (https) to encrypt the session. This will defeat simple packet sniffing at the outgoing ISP level, but is not secure if the message is delivered to a legacy-based e-mail recipient (in other words, the link to hotmail is secure, but the link from hotmail to the recipient probably isn't). -------------- At the end of the day, so to speak, the fact is that if an intel agency wanted to read your e-mail, they could and you'd probably never know it. I find it highly unlikely that this standard Microsoft warning message -- one that I have received numerous times from servers that I own and operate -- is being used by an intel agency or a 'government authority' to send someone a veiled warning message. ______________________________________ Frank, Thanks for explaining what probably happened to my e-mail. Thomas ______________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 At the time of the OKC bombing, my home was approximately 30 miles North of there in Guthrie, OK, and although I was not there, my family heard the resulting explosion.That! is the real world in which we live, and this was merely one of our own "home grown" dissidents. Why not contact the survivors of this, as well as those left behind and ask them if it would have been OK with them if the US Government had "taken out" McVey prior to his having blown the building. I am not satisfied myself that we have the whole story there. Many questions. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html http://www.serendipity.li/more/ok_bomb.html http://www.apfn.org/apfn/okc_coverup.htm You can rest assured that you do not have the "whole story", and it is also quite unlikely that in our lifetime that you and/or I will get or ever see all the facts related to this. In event you want to discuss some of the "givaway's" we will proceed. Tom P.S. We could also discuss the love of metal-detecting! The United Kingdom has much to thank that many of you were not around during the "ultra secret" days. No doubt, you would have filed suit against your own intelligence system's monitering of German & Japanese transmissions. My family have a long tradition of fighting for freedom. My grandfather was killed in France in 1916. My father was badly wounded in the Second World War fighting for freedom. My mother enduring several years of constant bombardment from the skies while working in an armaments factory during the war. What were they fighting for? The freedom to vote. The freedom to organize. The freedom to express their opinions. What was the point of fighting against other countries for these freedoms if you allow them to be taken away by your own government. The CIA may or may not be reading my emails sent to friends in America. What I do know is that they have no right to do so? It will not stop me saying what I think about the world. However, my fear is that it might frighten some individuals to do as they think our masters want us to think. The worse form of censorship is always self-censorship. That is what this issue is really about. My apology! Since I have never been to England, I was not aware that it's citizens had lost the right to vote in free elections; openly express their opinions; and that these rights and liberties had been taken away. I must have slept through that era in which your government became a dictatorship! As for us here in the good ole US of CIA, we still had these rights as of close of business today. But, who knows what tomorrow will bring. Tom PS. Last time I also checked, it was neither Tony Blair's or George Bush's "Government". It was in fact the duely elected representatives of the governments of these two countries. Texas is quite large, and we would certainly be better off if Mr. Bush would take a large grouping of the DC politicians back home with him when he goes back home, however, even Texas can not hold the entire US Government even if George does decide that it is "his" and makes an attempt to steal it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Not to throw a wrench in here... but isn't it the NSA (not the CIA) that would be monitoring our email? try this link for an IT perspective: http://www.informationweek.com/story/showA...cleID=166403004 Thank god we're not a non-US corporation competing with Haliburton for a foriegn contract. What would be the chances our internal email is spoofed and fed to the domestic competition? Alls fair in love, war and international business. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted January 21, 2006 Author Share Posted January 21, 2006 Since I have never been to England, I was not aware that it's citizens had lost the right to vote in free elections; openly express their opinions; and that these rights and liberties had been taken away.I must have slept through that era in which your government became a dictatorship! I suppose this is meant as some kind of humour. The point I am trying to make is that we need to be constantly vigilant in order to protect our freedoms. Bush and Blair both provide a threat to the freedoms that the people enjoy in the UK. Bush because he is head of a superpower. As a result, decisions he makes, for example, spying on American citizens, has an impact of my freedoms (the possibility that his intelligence service is reading my emails or listening to my telephone conversations). Blair is trying to restrict my freedom by keeping people in prison without being charged of an offence and by putting people on trial without a jury (freedoms we have enjoyed since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215). The Blair government has also passed legislation that restricts our rights of freedom of expression and to demonstrate against the policies of the government. The measures taken by Bush and Blair have been justified by the so-called “war on terror”. These same politicians tell us that we must fight this war in order to protect our way of life. Yet the passing of these legislation in the UK and the illegal action being taken in the US, are removing the freedoms that make up our “way of life”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Geraghty Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 The United Kingdom has much to thank that many of you were not around during the "ultra secret" days.No doubt, you would have filed suit against your own intelligence system's monitering of German & Japanese transmissions. And in that regards, please attempt to fight some war,at some point in time, with only the most basic and limited intelligence available. See what language you get to finally speak (provided you are still living) at the end of the war. In the event that monitoring my personal email; telephone conversations; private mail; personal conversations; etc; etc; etc, and/or any other form of correspondence prevents: 1. Another "home grown" idiot such as Mr. McVey from the murder of innocent persons. 2. Prevents another 9/11. 3. Decreases the Iraqi casualties by ONE SINGLE person Then the U.S. Government is free to entirely monitor anything I do and/or say. As an American citizen who enjoys the rights and priviledges which this system has afforded, that is the least that I can do to assure the same system for my children and my grandchildren. Why don't you ask a few of the survivors as well as the surviving dependents of some of the above, there response's to your claims. Each and every item makes an attempt to blame a "breakdown" in the intelligence community. This "breakdown" is directly related to the same type of legal system which provides the criminal element the necessary cover in which to operate behind. Lastly, might I recommend that those of you in these various foreign lands, get your own houses in order before you make an attempt to tell the American public how to manage their own household. That you fully appear to have a high degree of dissatisfaction with your own house (government), and would, it appears, like nothing better than to blame your problems on the mean ole US/CIA; etc;, then might I recommend that you straighten your own linen prior to attempting to straighten ours. Your "systems" have failed! And in so doing, it has taken the American System, as well as many american lives to bail you and your countries out and provided you with the luxeries and time to sit around and complain about the system which gave you these freedoms. In event you wish to change the system, then do so. However, you will not change it by sitting around and crying and whining on the internet about the injustices in the world. Be a soldier; a statesman; an attorney with a consience; whatever. However, might I recommend that you cease being a hypocrite, who has taken full advantage of the opportunities which these systems have provided to you, your forefathers; and ultimately your children and grandchildren, yet you do little other than to cry and complain about the injusticies and inequities of the system off which you sponge your existence. It is referred to as a Parasite over here in this part of the ocean. There is and can never be any form of "perfect" government. So long as we continue as a world of completely separate ideals; religious concepts; and humans with completely different variations of movitational goals, then the government which controls must do so for the general betterment of ALL. No where does it say the betterment of "EACH AND EVERY SINGLE PERSON", which it could not achieve. So, as soon as some undiscovered terrorist activity (home grown or otherwise) murders a few of your own children; direct relatives; friends; etc;., then come back and visit and discuss the real world situation as it currecntly exists, and what is required to counter these "REAL WORLD" threats. Otherwise, go down to Orlando, FL and take up residence in the "Magic Tunnel" and/or be like the ostrich and stick your head in the sand and continue to remain obviously ignorant as to what the REAL WORLD situation currently is. I am Irish and my country has never been 'bailed out' by the united States. My point is that it is all well and good to monitor the correspondence of a suspected terror target (as long as there is sufficient evidence to make one suspicious), but that it is not in the interest of the general populace to have their rights eroded. I can quite confidently assume Thomas that you are definitely not a security threat to the United States government so they should have no reason to read your emails or any other communications you might make. John suspected that it was possible that some of his emails wer intercepted, he is not a united States citizen, nor is he a threat to that government or its people, that is a major violation of his rights to freedom of speech. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 (edited) John G., I have a question: What part of the US Constitution guarantees ANY rights to NON-US citizens? To the best of MY knowledge, the freedoms expressed by the US Constitution are guaranteed to US citizens, but not to citizens of any other nation...because the US has no authority over the citizens of any other nation. Thus, the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the right to freely assemble don't apply to persons who remain in Germany, England, Australia, or elsewhere, as they are subject to the laws of their own land of domicile. Or do I misunderstand the law? Electronic communications constitute a world that didn't exist in 1789; I understand that. However, [as I understand the law] as a resident of England, John Simkin would have no standing to sue the US government for the violation of his freedom of speech, based upon intercepted communications that originated in England; but if said intercepted communications were directed to a citizen of the US, that US citizen would have grounds upon which to base a constitutional challenge, should he/she so choose. In other words, I don't know of the existence of ANY international law guaranteeing freedom of speech...and, in an international transaction, the laws of one country don't always apply to residents of the other. [Example: international phone calls to the former Soviet Union in the 1960's were undoubtedly monitored by the Soviets; yet the fact that one party to the call may have been an American did not necessarily mean that American privacy rights applied.] Therefore, unless John becomes an American citizen, or is based on American soil, US constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech do not necessarily apply...as US law has no jurisdiction over British citizens on British soil. Laws governing international communications, to the best of my knowledge, would only apply to terms of treaties and memoranda of understanding between and among consenting individual nations; as far as I know, there is no universal, international guarantee of freedom of speech. If I am wrong, someone please correct me. Edited January 21, 2006 by Mark Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now