Nigel Farage says we must lose freedom if we want security. What?!

I’ve been a staunch UKIP supporter for nearly a decade, but unless there’s a damned good and detailed explanation for what Farage said in the USA last week, he has lost my support.

He said, with regard to recent ISIS activities:

“… and I’m sad to say this, but it probably means giving up some of the liberties that previously we have enjoyed …”

I would like him to explain what exactly he meant by this.  Is he saying that we should have more state control, or more intrusion into our lives?  Is he saying that the country should become more of a police state?

I think we should be told.

Has he sold us out?

And while he’s about it, perhaps he’d like to explain what his stance is on the TTIP treaty.  If he’s for it, then I will fight UKIP just as hard as I’ve fought LibLabCon, because TTIP is another Trojan horse, just like the EU treaties which have preceded it, which were also sold to us as being “trade agreements”.  I think many of us have learned from history and are determined not to repeat it.  You’d think Nigel would know better, wouldn’t you?

I’m not going to vote for another sell-out politician.

Advertisements

The difference between Edward Snowden and government

“It’s ironic that officials are giving classified information to journalists in an effort to discredit me for giving classified information to journalists.

The difference is that I did so to inform the public about the government’s actions, and they’re doing so to misinform the public about mine.”

                          — Edward Snowden

Hat tip: Michael Nystrom, Daily Paul, via: How Edward Snowden Used Low Cost Software to Download All That Data

Glenn Greenwald demolishes Kirsty Wark

She didn’t stand a chance. The look on her face as he tears through her BS (and I’m sure I detected a moistening brow) suggests that she knows her argument was torpedoed below the water line.

Sheer poetic justice.

___

The NSA debate is as much about journalism as surveillance – Glenn Greenwald, Guardian

NSA whistleblower threatened with 35 years’ jail, speaks out

A poster on Janet Daley’s excellent column today led me to this terrific interview on Coast to Coast AM of Thomas Drake, NSA whistleblower.

From Coast to Coast:

“…Thomas Drake […] discussed his decision to blow the whistle on the agency’s Trailblazer Project and illegal spying operations, which led to his being charged under the Espionage Act. He explained that the Trailblazer Project was designed by the NSA to respond to the massive amount of new data being generated by the advent of the digital age. According to Drake, Trailblazer was launched in the Spring of 2000 and, following 9/11, generated billions of dollars for NSA contractors because it was seen as the “flagship program” for harnessing intelligence information, despite having numerous faults. Chillingly, he observed that corporate interests, which worked with the NSA, viewed 9/11 as a “gift,” since they could reap massive profits from the War on Terror.

Drake revealed that his concerns with the NSA’s conduct began when the agency rejected his proposal for an alternative spying program, known as “ThinThread,” which was designed to safeguard the privacy of US citizens. Following that, his colleagues began to question why they were being tasked with spying on Americans using a “super top secret” program called “Stellar Wind.” Drake’s attempts to determine the legality of the program were thwarted by the NSA and he was subsequently told that the spying had been approved “by the White House” and to stop asking questions about it. In light of these unconstitutional actions, Drake served as a witness to Congressional and DoD investigations into NSA malfeasance, which led to his responsibilities with the agency being dramatically curtailed.

Following a revelatory New York Times article on NSA spying, the agency launched a massive investigation into finding the sources behind the story. Since Drake was privy to the secrets revealed in the article, he became a suspect and the target of intense surveillance “on a scale that I would never want any American to experience.” Faced with no other outlet to hold the government accountable, Drake decided to contact the media with his story. This decision resulted in the government indicting him for ten crimes, including the felonious mishandling of classified documents. “I had become an enemy of the state,” he declared, noting that the government planned to make an example of him to stop future whistleblowers. Ultimately, the case against Drake “collapsed under the weight of truth,” when the government dropped all 10 counts and he accepted a plea deal for a “very minor misdemeanor.””