Friends, Clap Your Hands for a Great Set of Legal Ambiguities for the United States

We all still remember that time when then-US President George Bush along with then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair had both agreed to put boots on the ground in Iraq to seize their atomic and chemical weapons and put a stop to the Taliban. Those campaigns failed to produce any form of chemical weapons. Today, we might be seeing the same thing, but according to the US, it is not the same.

Maybe we’re missing something. According to the Obama Administration, the government could only appoint combat personnel for 60 days in a foreign country if sending troops without the approval of congress. Apparently, since June 16, 2014, the US had been sending “military advisers” to Iraq to deal with the threat of ISIS.

Now that the extremist faction had grown from a “junior varsity” team to a major league, Obama now re-classifies them to a higher threat level. He is set to justify to the Americans why the ISIS becomes a threat, focusing on the idea that many western fighters have joined the ranks of the extremists, and these have possibly come from the US and the UK.

Meanwhile, boots on the ground will never be considered, according to Obama. But you’ll never know. Until those ‘military advisers’ see combat, US military personnel can stay inside another country’s soil for as long as they want. Combat is only when they engage hostilities personally. This is where you could clap your hands for accomplishing something by bending the rules.

Source

The US Administration Actually Abused the Espionage Act

The Edward Snowden case is one of the highest-profile cases there are in the world today and yet many see that the United States has a right to persecute the NSA intelligence leaker because of the damages the leak did to the country’s security. However, the 1817 Espionage Act had been abused by the country against its own whistleblowers over and over again.

The Espionage act, according to one source, actually makes a great impact on the life of a so-called traitor. The entire case could have the person viewed as a traitor, avoided by their close companions and leads the whistleblower to his or her own unmaking, which forces them to plead guilty to anything

.

The abuse of the Espionage Act had always been enforced against intelligence leakers. But in my opinion, the real trouble is this.

Whistleblowers will not do their activities if there was really nothing wrong with the government process. Edward Snowden’s leak was a confirmation that the US’ intelligence gathering capabilities have grown greatly and are going too far in collecting the information they need.

Past espionage-charged traitors have also exposed several US government misdemeanours including the CIA’s torture program.

It is highly clear that today, the US government preys on the fears of its country by means of terrorism and that exposing any information about US practices involving the violation of human rights and civil liberties is strictly a crime.