The UK thugs intend to continue inviting infiltrators to form sexual relationships with dissidents.

Snowden comments on Senator Feinstein's epiphany that snooping is bad when she and her staff are the targets.

British journalist Sarah Harrison says her lawyers have advised her not to return to the UK, lest she be interrogated under the pretext of suspicions of "terrorism".

I looked at the text of the UK law which defines "terrorism", which the article quotes, and I think the article gives the wrong impression of what the law says. You can compare the two. I don't see how Wikileaks, which publishes things on its own site, would qualify as "designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".

On the other hand, for the law to put her in danger, it is not necessary that her activities really be terrorism, only that the border thugs find an excuse to pretend they are terrorism.

The definition is blatantly unjust: it defines "terrorism" to include any armed rebellion against any state, and any riot that develops out of a political protest. By this definition, the protests in Kiev were "terrorism". So were the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution. Were the rebels "terrorists"?

What if NYT Factchecked Netanyahu's Claims?

It is plausible that Iran is smuggling weapons to Gaza (even if it denies doing so), but since they generally do far less damage than the weapons that the US openly provides to Israel, I don't see them as a matter of great concern. Anyway, this says nothing about Iran's nuclear program.

To criticize Putin, the US media are misrepresenting the war between Russia and Georgia, which in fact was started by Georgia.