Not just the intelligence agencies, all Law enforcement agencies have been given unprecedented powers over the last decade. They can track and listen like never before, they can confiscate and raid without even a warrant in many cases, and even tend to get away unscarred if they 'accidentally' kill someone. If they set their mind to take someone out of circulation, there are very few legal hurdles left to protect the suspect.
" he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions."
That's what he did, actually. He gave up his job, his family and his home to speak out, challenge the government and engage in a constructive act of protest.
Which is a lot more than can be said of Ms Monaco's boss, Nobel Laureate and former transparency advocate Barak Obama, who has so far failed to hold accountable any of the members of his administration when they turned out to be rather creative with their interpretation of the law.
The German Federal Public Prosecutor probably needs a small target to bully around and rebuild his self-esteem after he had to shutter his investigation of the NSA when Mr Range realized he was too small and insignificant to take on the big boys.
One question left for Sunday Times editor Martin Ivens: If the content was indeed provided by the UK government, and just printed by the Sunday Times - why do you place it behind your paywall and ask people to pay for it?
Democracy? Constitution? You are missing the point: The Senators are not giving up rights or control - they are freeing up their agendas to have more time to talk with 'sponsors' about 'donations'. And with many of those 'sponsors' being the very people keen on passing TPP and TTIP with as little debate as possible, they'll be in a good mood for those 'donation' dinners, too. Win-win!
Leaving aside the Hillhouse vs Hersh discussion, I'd disagree with Mike here that breaking a story is a nice thing only.
It seems so wrong that current copyright laws give extremely powerful protection to anybody who spends a few minutes hacking a short report about the bin Laden-story in a computer, and no protection at all to those who did all the work of researching the story, and risk having their career, reputation and possibly lives destroyed by former CIA spokespersons and others who think destroying the authors is the best way to destroy the story.
The problem is not new, Hillhouse and Hersh are not the only victims here. The same goes for Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and others, who have been forced into hiding and live on donations, while copyright made those rich who report on their work.
... for something they might do in the future? We don't know for sure would they would do if the police didn't stop them, but locking a couple of managers away in prison for a short time is small price to pay to keep our children safe. Right?
... that is has apparently been known for a while that any passenger equipped with a tablet and information available on the internet can play pilot on UNITED planes, and both UNITED and FBI have decided that it is ok to continue flying UNITED planes with this security hole.
... perhaps Mr Boies could confirm that certain documents - such as the ones talking about influencing the Scottish referendum, bribing officials to put pressure on Google or using other illegal tactics to Sony's benefit - are indeed genuine and written by Sony before you delete them?
If they are so concerned about upholding the law, they could now complete their withdrawal from the public life, lay down their jobs and start a new life breeding rabbits or tending gardens.
After all, their decision to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden was a disgrace for judical profession as such: a) it was based a law that was written to fight state-threatening terrorists, not people who publish inconvenient truth (and expose government crimes which said judges don't appear to lose sleep over) b) extradition was granted despite the Swedish Governments refusal to rule out an extradiction to the US (putting into question the entire motive of 'we need Mr Assange in Sweden to defend swedish citizen's rights) c) extradition was granted despite the refusal of the swedish authorities to simply interview Mr Assange in London (which turned out to be perfectly feasible when some judges worth their titles asked the right questions)