Lady Di, CIA, MI5 and 'plausible deniability'

Some suggest the intel services traded info on their objects of interest so as not to 'really break their own constitutional law'

Who knows how this brou-ha-ha works out?

However the side efect is that it will be shown that Clinton did indeed spy on private citizens, often without warrant... a fact conveniently ignored.

But it didnt raise a stink because generally it seems to have only been done if the target was rich and/or republican. Thus no potential terrorist's rights were abridged.


Comparing the Clinton and Bush takes on Warrantless Search

Unless some other administration uses it, of course...

* You know her...she's the one who created 'the wall', so that anything stumbled on by CIA couldnt be shared with the FBI and vice-versa.

And then, despite her involvement with the run-up to 9/11, was allowed to sit on the commission and justify her own actions from behind the panel.

 

RE: Lady Di, CIA, MI5 and

Some countries don't have a constitution and so don't need to worry about stuff like that!

 

RE: Lady Di, CIA, MI5 and

We are a monarchy and are therefore subjects, not citizens.

 

Ah, but.... since English Common Law was our source, and the Magna Carta was responsible for that... dont sell the UK short.
Wiki: Constitution of the United Kingdom

 

Well, forcrineoutloud, hope UK doesnt do one NOW.

Would be loaded down with so much PC crap it would be unusable.

 

Mo on the Today show this morning. Anyone else see?

 

Yes, in one of there file footage shots of him he was walking down the steps at the cottage. Closest Fulham will get to being on the Today Show for a while.

 

The Magna Carta was a useful way of forcing the monarchy to give power to the barrons. It did little to help the common folk. The most notable king in that regards was Edward Longshanks (the one that killed mel gibson in the awful Scots durge). He put into place appeals and made law and justice accessible. Although Sven Forkbear is my favourite king, but we don't talk about him because he rapped and pillaged his way to the throne, anyhow....

I don't think we really need a constitution in the UK anymore, Europe provides so many rules that we are bound by, that a constitution would not go far enough. The EU is going to force us to allow convicted criminals, currently serving a sentance, the right to vote.

I may be in the minority, but I always felt that part of being in prision was to forgo your normal human rights?

 

Well, I'm sure you're not in the minority.

If you were, various Human Rights commissions would be formed to make sure you werent offended by anything

 

One thing interesting about international law, or in your case European law, is that sometimes the country, or union, that gets ahead of the curve on issues and creates progressive, forward thinking laws, ends up making law for those who couldn't be bothered.

So I would say you are probably right. England doesn't need a constitution, as the European Union has probably made any attempts at it mostly redundant.