If Yoo were working as a legal advisor for a different country - and promulgating the same actions against the United States as he advocated the US had the right to employ against others - there would already be a CIA drone circling around with his picture loaded in it's memory banks.
His statement is just another attempt at damage control when you consider that EVERY senator and congressman currently in office is either directly implicated in this fiasco - or asleep at the wheel when it happened - and utterly derelict in their sworn duty afterwards.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda...
That's a child's response to an adult's question.
Too bad none of this was a concern for these so-called representatives until it became glaringly obvious the people they were representing weren't about to let it continue any longer.
Save your hand-wringing gentlemen and ladies of the House and Senate. Just sit quietly until next election when we can finally vote your fucking asses right out of office.
Assuming, of course, you (and our ripe for impeachment President) allow the upcoming elections to take place.
Once again we see a young politician, obviously in way over his head, being managed by people with an agenda.
In such an environment, who can you believe any more?
It's no less ridiculous to argue all this concern is "about nothing" as it is to speculate exactly how much these agencies have on the president - or what threats might have been made regarding his personal safety if he didn't back down. Because either speculation could easily 'explain' the president's sudden and absolute flip-flop on all his previous positions on these issues.
In the wake of all the continuing revelations, and refusal to provide any substantive responses to legitimate concerns and questions, I see no reason to extend this rogue administration any courtesy or benefit of doubt.
To re-purpose former CIA anti-terrorism director Cofer Black's now infamous words about 9/11:
All you need to know is that there was a before PRISM and there was an after PRISM. After PRISM, the gloves come off.
Seems the young lady knows as much about trademark and copyright as she does about computer hacking - i.e. as much as you'd get from a Google search and reading a few FAQs.
As others here have already speculated, I too suspect that whoever put the comic book together added boilerplate like so many people do without understanding the ramifications of doing so.
It's also one thing to claim a trademark or copyright and quite another thing to actually get one registered. The trademark and copyright examiners at the USPTO are a lot harder to satisfy than their counterparts over in the software patent section apparently are.
All well and good to cut the NSA's budget. But here's a thought question: Exactly how much is that budget currently?
Don't know? Well that's perfectly understandable. Because the NSA budget is buried inside a classified programs allocation... which then gets buried inside a larger DoD budget bill...and then this bill gets voted on without our legislature ever being allowed to examine how some extremely large amounts of money will actually get allocated because...(wait for it)...IT'S SECRET!
Yes, they vote on the NSA budget without ever knowing what that budget is or for what it will be used for. Small wonder the PRISM facility in Utah got built with so little fanfare or concern.
You just have tp love that circular national security "logic." Protecting our nations freedom by the simple expedient of taking our nations freedoms away.
Oh well. At least we can take comfort knowing it wasn't some "damn ferriners" that stole it from us.
Criticize the government for anything, you break the law in North Korea...Hide someone so they won't be sent to a death camp, you just broke the law in Nazi Germany...Propose setting off the American colonies as an independent nation, you broke the law in Philadelphia back in 1776...
Some people break the rules. And that makes them criminals. Because "the law" says so. QED. What could be more simple.
However, I think "simplistic" might be a more accurate way to characterize that argument..
The move towards unprecedented levels of communication monitoring isn't a technical problem - it's a people problem.
Trying to engage in a never ending cycle of attempting to get around unacceptable and dubiously legal levels of surveillance by technology alone is destined for failure in the long run. We don't need better cryptography. We need better people in government. People who understand what's at stake and will give a clear and resounding "NO!" to our Executive Branch next time it asks them for a blank check to override the Constitution.
Suggestion: vote out the of office ALL the people responsible for this debacle while you still have a vote and some marginal say in the matter. Because in another 20 years, we likely won't have a vote if this trend is allowed to continue.