Freedom of speech is 'universal' right, Michelle Obama tells China

[gambit]

as I told you before- to expend your new found legal eagle traits to free someone --- there is a doctor from your country unlawfully jailed in Pakistan. he did not break any laws by having a private entity ask him to do a vaccination drive. even so if it was about catching the world's no1 terrorist you guys were harbouring. A doctor who you are oddly okay with being jailed

That is interesting.

So he is fine with punishing anyone who goes against Pakistan in spite of the greater good, which in this case is Islamic terrorism, but then when it comes to US, the greater good prevails.

This guy is nothing more than a US-hating coward, like the many here. He wants nothing but to do harm to the US, but as much as his cowardice will allow, of course. He is too much of a chickenshit to become a jihadist so the only way he know how to inflict any sort of harm to the US is thru rhetoric and mental gymnastics. Supporting Snowden is inevitable despite the mountain of legal evidences and moral arguments against what Snowden did.

This behavior is quite common among naturalized US citizen. The poor souls always try to prove themselves as more loyal than the king. This is not their fault, it is the fault of the place from where they have come, their socio-economic background (which is usually not impressive) back in home, and the circumstances that made them to leave their countries in the first place. For instance gambit is a Vietnamese, who murdered his countrymen alongside invading western forces. What else do you expect from such people.

How about we turn the argument towards Muslim converts ? Often they are more pious and even more prone to violence than Muslims who were borned into the faith, as if they have the need to prove to the 'natives' that they are no less being Muslims than the 'real' Muslims. If you find that offensive, then stay away from race.

Pathetic. Proves there are racists in Pakistan no different than the KKK.

 

[JSCh]

Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In April 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama placed al-Awlaki on a list of people whom the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency was authorized to kill because of terrorist activities.[33][34][35] The "targeted killing" of an American citizen was unprecedented. Al-Awlaki's father and civil rights groups challenged the order in court.[33][35][36][37] Al-Awlaki was believed to be in hiding in Southeast Yemen in the last years of his life.[27] The U.S. deployed unmanned aircraft (drones) in Yemen to search for and kill him,[38] firing at and failing to kill him at least once,[39] before succeeding in a fatal American drone attack in Yemen on September 30, 2011.[40] Two weeks later, al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver, was killed by a CIA-led drone strike in Yemen.[41][42][43] Nasser al-Awlaki, Anwar's father, released an audio recording condemning the killings of his son and grandson as senseless murders.[44]

 

[Developereo]

This guy is nothing more than a US-hating coward,

Neutral readers will note that I have tremendous respect for the US and I have stated so on numerous occasions here.

What defines the US, for me, is its Constitution and the founding principles, which I hold in the highest esteem. Respecting those principles does NOT equate to respecting the men and women running the government, or the policies they implement.

Patriotic Americans, who understand these founding principles, will understand what I am talking about.

Clueless clowns like you and @JayAtl never will.

 

[JayAtl]

That is interesting.

So he is fine with punishing anyone who goes against Pakistan in spite of the greater good, which in this case is Islamic terrorism, but then when it comes to US, the greater good prevails.

This guy is nothing more than a US-hating coward, like the many here. He wants nothing but to do harm to the US, but as much as his cowardice will allow, of course. He is too much of a chickenshit to become a jihadist so the only way he know how to inflict any sort of harm to the US is thru rhetoric and mental gymnastics. Supporting Snowden is inevitable despite the mountain of legal evidences and moral arguments against what Snowden did..

you do have to wonder about @Developereo - I don't know why he insists on linking to article IV and embarrassing himself by showing he does not comprehend what the article says, why no one has brought a challenge based on that... nor does he have a real clue about the NSA/ Snowden case. he gets fixated on being stuck on ignorant and then doubles down.

 

[gambit]

you do have to wonder about @Developereo - I don't know why he insists on linking to article IV and embarrassing himself by showing he does not comprehend what the article says, why no one has brought fought a challenge based on that nor has a real clue about the NSA/ Snowden case. he gets fixated on being stuck on ignorant and then doubles down.

He calls Americans 'sheep' but does not realize he is exactly that to the Chinese members here.

A Chinese member brought on Snowden and our Mr. D dutifully entered the discussion, tail and tongue wagging like a pup eager to please, and he proceed to weep and praise Snowden, never mind that in China, a poem about Tiananmen Square Massacre can land the author in prison and have landed several in prison. No secrets were revealed. But since China have no equivalent of the US Constitution Bill Of Rights, there is nothing, no higher principles, for him to hold the Chinese government against. From this perspective, all dictatorships in various degrees of brutality can legitimately criticize the US, base upon our principles and laws, and he will be their ally.

 

[Developereo]

He calls Americans 'sheep' but does not realize he is exactly that to the Chinese members here.

Notwithstanding your guys' predictable attempt to wrap yourself in the American flag -- a desperation tactic which is becoming all too farcical -- readers will note that all my comments are addressed to you guys specifically who accept the government's explanations at face value.

You do NOT represent all Americans, nor do you speak for them. You represent only that segment of Americans who are happy -- or clueless -- to be sheep.

There are patriotic, knowledgeable Americans who agree with my assessment on Snowden more than they do with yours. No doubt you would call them traitors, but they would have just as much contempt for you guys in reverse.

Finally, my comments here have nothing to do with China. They are relevant because of Michelle Obama in the OP.

 

[JayAtl]

Notwithstanding your guys' predictable attempt to wrap yourself in the American flag -- a desperation tactic which is becoming all too farcical -- readers will note that all my comments are addressed to you guys specifically who accept the government's explanations at face value.

You do NOT represent all Americans, nor do you speak for them. You represent only that segment of Americans who are happy -- or clueless -- to be sheep.

There are patriotic, knowledgeable Americans who agree with my assessment on Snowden more than they do with yours. No doubt you would call them traitors, but they would have just as much contempt for you guys in reverse.

Finally, my comments here have nothing to do with China. They are relevant because of Michelle Obama in the OP.

ROFL dude, we are knowledgeable about what we are talking about. That does not mean we are wrapping any flag around us.

You cited a legalese as an argument and we showed you that the legalese you cited has no bearing in our courts. even qualified it by telling you that not a single legal attorney has ever filed the objections based on your article IV!

and what do you do- you switch saying there are other americans who agree with you... well americans agreeing is not the basis of the LEGAL arguments you have cited. Sure there are " local" folks who agree but we are discussing if the you have proved any legal standing and you have not!

How did you get to be a think tank when you don't know the difference between a ' standing' of a legal argument and ordinary folks agreeing with you? This is not a popularity argument ( of who in the general public agrees) , it is a legal argument.

quit digging the hole.

 

[Globenim]

Freedom of speech wont gaurantee you can speak freely to condemn US or advocate death to US, Obama can take you out with drone strike when the US government put you on a black list because your speech mention in some form of Jihad against US interest worldwide. The limitation wtih freedom of speech in the US that you will pay for your life when the government deem your speech with terrorist connotation, you fate will meet with a hellfire missiles even your speech without any substance related to any terrorist organization. Are you really free to speak your mind?

But when China or any other sovereign country is doing the same even with lesser lethality its an evil oppressive murderous dictatorship.

American parroting of "rights" and "freedom" is just as always the same old PR bullshit hypocrisy they kick in the butts if it comes to their and their rulers own interests.

When Americans do it everything is justified and for the greater good. When enemy does it saint America must step in to liberate and support the terrorists and troublemaker endangering the countries security, they then call freedom fighter and peaceful protester.

 

[Developereo]

You cited a legalese as an argument and we showed you that the legalese you cited has no bearing in our courts. even qualified it by telling you that not a single legal attorney has ever filed the objections based on your article IV!

The ONLY thing you showed is what an utter and complete ignoramus you are when it comes to the US Constitution.

The irony is all the more delicious since you always beat your chest about being an "American".

By the way, there is a difference between Articles of the Constitution and Amendments, but I am deliberately giving your rope, and enjoying you make a fool of yourself by confusing the two for several pages now. This, of course, is the nth idiotic comment you have made about the Constitution, just in this thread alone!

The fact that you still don't see the relevance of the Fourth Amendment to the whole Snowden/NSA saga is a source of continuing entertainment...

Rather than do your work for you, I would urge readers to google 'snowden fourth amendment' so they can join along in the fun as you continue making a fool of yourself.

Amendment IV -- and its possible violations -- is THE central issue in Snowden's claims about the NSA's conduct.

 

[Hasbara Buster]

There is absolutely no freedom of speech in the West. Case closed.

 

[gambit]

But when China or any other sovereign country is doing the same even with lesser lethality its an evil oppressive murderous dictatorship.

Lesser lethality ? How is a poem a threat to the Chinese government ?

American parroting of "rights" and "freedom" is just as always the same old PR bullshit hypocrisy they kick in the butts if it comes to their and their rulers own interests.

When Americans do it everything is justified and for the greater good. When enemy does it saint America must step in to liberate and support the terrorists and troublemaker endangering the countries security, they then call freedom fighter and peaceful protester.

Tell that to the ANNUAL thousands of eager Chinese immigrants to the US.

The ONLY thing you showed is what an utter and complete ignoramus you are when it comes to the US Constitution.

The irony is all the more delicious since you always beat your chest about being an "American".

By the way, there is a difference between Articles of the Constitution and Amendments, but I am deliberately giving your rope, and enjoying you make a fool of yourself by confusing the two for several pages now. This, of course, is the nth idiotic comment you have made about the Constitution, just in this thread alone!

The fact that you still don't see the relevance of the Fourth Amendment to the whole Snowden/NSA saga is a source of continuing entertainment...

Rather than do your work for you, I would urge readers to google 'snowden fourth amendment' so they can join along in the fun as you continue making a fool of yourself.

Amendment IV -- and its possible violations -- is THE central issue in Snowden's claims about the NSA's conduct.

The best that you -- a Pakistani -- can come up with is 'whether', 'possible', and 'could be' that what the NSA did was illegal. Legal experts and Constitutional scholars are STILL debating the definition of 'seizure', from before Snowden, but I guess 'whether', 'possible', and 'could be' at least both lends you the patina of knowledge and a cover just in case you are wrong. So yes, people should do a keyword search on 'snowden fourth amendment' and see for themselves.

There is absolutely no freedom of speech in the West. Case closed.

And the case is definitely closed on your intelligence. Closed on an empty container.

 

[Developereo]

The best that you -- a Pakistani -- can come up with is 'whether', 'possible', and 'could be' that what the NSA did was illegal. Legal experts and Constitutional scholars are STILL debating the definition of 'seizure', from before Snowden, but I guess 'whether', 'possible', and 'could be' at least both lends you the patina of knowledge and a cover just in case you are wrong. So yes, people should do a keyword search on 'snowden fourth amendment' and see for themselves.

I never said that Snowden has proved his claims in court. I said he has provided evidence to support his claims and such evidence will be examined by legal scholars.

The debate we have been having is whether he should face the music in US courts, and I showed in post #85 why his apprehensions of persecution are well-founded based on what happened to others.

 

[JayAtl]

The ONLY thing you showed is what an utter and complete ignoramus you are when it comes to the US Constitution.

The irony is all the more delicious since you always beat your chest about being an "American".

By the way, there is a difference between Articles of the Constitution and Amendments, but I am deliberately giving your rope, and enjoying you make a fool of yourself by confusing the two for several pages now. This, of course, is the nth idiotic comment you have made about the Constitution, just in this thread alone!

The fact that you still don't see the relevance of the Fourth Amendment to the whole Snowden/NSA saga is a source of continuing entertainment...

Rather than do your work for you, I would urge readers to google 'snowden fourth amendment' so they can join along in the fun as you continue making a fool of yourself.

Amendment IV -- and its possible violations -- is THE central issue in Snowden's claims about the NSA's conduct.

congrats , you got me on my continuous reference to it as article IV. because the word article is stuck in my head. But on the real issue of 'amendment' IV, that you have cited as a legal basis, you have yet to show that it is a valid legal argument used ever in court against the NSA tapping. Keep in mind we have had NSA taps for over a decade now and the NYTimes leaked the NSA taps a long time ago( over 6-8 yrs ago- can't remember when they first reported it).

Let me give you an analogy and perhaps it will finally dawn on you. A woman is seen as killing her husband in self defense. You upon reading it call it as a charge of murder and we keep on saying , no there will be no such charge of murder because what she did was in defense of her life. Similarly you keep citing the amendment here when we keep telling you the legal scholars have determined that there is no such basis, because the NSA wiretaps were legal and did not fringe upon the IV amendment. Now just because you have snowden and some folks opining about it does not make it otherwise

what part of this are you failing to see? what part of IV as being rejected by legal scholars and no one, not a single person ever has filed a case against the govt on the veracity of your claim, is not clicking with you?

 

[Hyperion]

Two words. NSA. Snowden. Hypocrite pigs.

Freedom of information, expression and belief should be considered "universal rights", Michelle Obama, the US first lady, told students in China on Saturday.

Speaking at Peking University on the second full day of a weeklong, bridge-building family tour of the country, Mrs Obama said:
"It is so important for information and ideas to flow freely over the internet and through the media."

"When it comes to expressing yourself freely, and worshipping as you choose, and having open access to information - we believe those are universal rights that are the birthright of every person on this planet," Mrs Obama told an audience of around 200 students.

"My husband and I are on the receiving end of plenty of questioning and criticism from our media and our fellow citizens, and it's not always easy

"But I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world."

Freedom of speech is 'universal' right, Michelle Obama tells China - Telegraph

 

[BDforever]

HEY USA !