Doesn't that have the possibility of then putting the US in contravention of some treaties, like, e.g. the Berne Convention?
Tho, admittedly, what the rest of the world could do about that is pretty limited when any complaint could be met with "come over here and say that", with "over here" being right next to my Carrier Group task force (or two, or three - which would exceed the air forces of all except the largest half-dozen or so air forces)...
Snowden had no background in intelligence and is likely unaware of the significance of the documents he stole.
Then how the hell did he get a job at the NSA???
As an IT Administrator, you don't need to know anything more than "this data over here is unclassified, so doesn't need much security around it, and this data over here is of the "I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you" variety, therefore needs maximum security around it"
It's like expecting the building maintenance who supply or re-arrange the desks to know the significance of specific intelligence documents.
Like those bigoted sociological ideals did not exist until Obama created them ... right.
No, he didn't create them.
But in 8 years as the most powerful man on Earth, let alone just the US, he hasn't done much, if anything, to reduce them. Some may even argue it's worse now than when he became president. That's not much of a legacy, especially as the first black man, a member of one of those races must subjected to bigotry, to become President, and to have done little if nothing to reverse that.
However, not to be pedantic (which means I am about to be) , and IANAL, but it is not, and cannot be, a DMCA letter, for several reasons:
1) Redbubble is not the owner or legal representative of the copyright holder, therefore they cannot submit a DMCA notice;
2) Redbubble is an Australian Company, whereas the DMCA is a United States law. So, since Redbubble is the issuer of the 'notice' to itself basically, it can't be a DMCA notice because US law does not apply (that is not to say a US entity couldn't submit a DMCA notice to Redbubble - in which case Redbubble is under no legal obligation to comply, or that Redbubble couldn't submit a DMCA notice of it's own copyrighted content to a US-based hosting service, because in either if these cases one party is subject to US law, but in this case neither party is subject to US law, therefore it can't be a DMCA notice).
There may be others, but I'm pretty sure any claim by Redbubble that this is a DMCA notice would be some sort of fraud.
not all falsehoods are lies and not all illegal acts are crimes.
It could just be an issue of semantics, e.g. using casual 'pub talk' definitions of words and concepts vs strict dictionary definitions vs profession-specific (e.g. legal dictionary vs English dictionary), but could you expand on what you mean by that? AFAIK, a falsehood is a lie, and illegal acts are crimes.
No, the fast track just means that when passed to congress for vote it's a "all or nothing" situation. Congress can't selectively approve or reject parts of the bill, they have to accept it in it's entirety, or reject it in it's entirety.
However, prior to it being voted on in congress, there's nothing stopping the executive from pulling the deal and renegotiating it.
Also, even if it has been voted on, there's nothing stopping the executive from negotiating a new deal that supercedes the current one, and then submitting the new deal under fast track to replace the existing one.
While his history as treasurer that you've pointed out might indicate he's a numpty when it comes to actual trade, finances and business, his history in politics, that you also pointed out, means he's perfectly placed to have an understanding of the politics of getting a trade deal passed. Which is exactly what we have here, the politics of it.
freeze the competitor out of the market with lower prices and superior marketing
In itself is not an anti-trust violation. For it to be an anti-trust violation you'd have to be accomplishing those ends via illegal means, e.g. false advertising, illegal tie-in contracts/cartels (e.g. Apple and it's attempt to corner the e-book market), and so on.
If you can make the same product cheaper because you have better manufacturing, then it is not an anti-trust violation to sell it cheaper, still making a profit, even to the point of forcing your competitor out of business.
And that's what I take to be the point of the article, that using a patent you are not entitled to (patent infringement) is not an anti-trust violation, because the source of the information for your product isn't a component of anti-trust violations.