What can you expect from a country that still has a functioning monarchy. There's a reason America revolted against England, you can see many of the reasons listed in our Bill of Rights.
"Mr Hutchinson believes that the majority of Americans were deluded into war with Britain by a few crazies. A common experience in history. Read it, it's short. Pay attention to Mr Hutchinson pointing out logical inconsistencies between the revolutionaries' calls for freedom and their owning slaves." (https://foseti.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/review-of-strictures...)
Honestly, the GCHQ does seem a lot more brazenly nefarious than the NSA. A lot of the shit that comes out of the mouths of GCHQ spokespersons, shows open contempt and disdain for civil liberties and due process. At the NSA, it's more like they just don't respect those things, or think fighting terrorism/drug cartels/flavor of the month, is more important.
If I could choose to dismantle one or the other, I'd go with the NSA, but only because it has more capability. I definitely wouldn't want the sons-of-bitches in charge of the GCHQ, running the NSA.
They show contempt for civil liberties but claim to operate within the law. Since GCHQ is specifically mentioned (and pretty much exempted) in most surveilance related laws this seems plausible.
There is weakness in the oversight that GCHQ is supposed to have.
Comments
What can you expect from a country that still has a functioning monarchy. There's a reason America revolted against England, you can see many of the reasons listed in our Bill of Rights.
Compare "Strictures upon the Declaration of Independence" by Thomas Hutchinson" (http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1776-hutchinson-strictures-...)
"Mr Hutchinson believes that the majority of Americans were deluded into war with Britain by a few crazies. A common experience in history. Read it, it's short. Pay attention to Mr Hutchinson pointing out logical inconsistencies between the revolutionaries' calls for freedom and their owning slaves." (https://foseti.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/review-of-strictures...)
What's your point? Sorry, I am but a humble unAmerican and might be hard of understanding.
It is a level of groveling that no free man should willingly endure, nor require.
It's a traditional form of address.
The proto-US people kept slaves at the time. That's worse.
My inference is the reference to deference
So the NSA isn't doing this also? They're totally above board?
Honestly, the GCHQ does seem a lot more brazenly nefarious than the NSA. A lot of the shit that comes out of the mouths of GCHQ spokespersons, shows open contempt and disdain for civil liberties and due process. At the NSA, it's more like they just don't respect those things, or think fighting terrorism/drug cartels/flavor of the month, is more important.
If I could choose to dismantle one or the other, I'd go with the NSA, but only because it has more capability. I definitely wouldn't want the sons-of-bitches in charge of the GCHQ, running the NSA.
A number of the Snowden docs feature GCHQ gloating to the NSA about how they are able to operate under much less restrictions than the NSA.
They show contempt for civil liberties but claim to operate within the law. Since GCHQ is specifically mentioned (and pretty much exempted) in most surveilance related laws this seems plausible.
There is weakness in the oversight that GCHQ is supposed to have.
"We operate according to the law, because we are not governed by laws."
No, they are governed by laws and they appear to be obeying those laws.
If they're doing it at least they have to hide it from congress since it would be illegal unlike in the UK.