Slashdot Mirror

Other one got modded down by some morons, so reposting to give you a chance to back up your blather:

war crimes revealed by Manning?

Lolwut. That's like going to a political convention and asking for evidence that Obama is black.

There's three war crimes in the Collateral Murder video alone: targeting civilians, targeting the press, and targeting first responders. There are cables on the US pressuring other countries to ignore our extraordinary kidnapping and torture program. The biggest doozy, though, has got to be using US taxpayer dollars to pay for Bacha Bazi boys for Afghan warlords. Because all of the transophobes clucking "you mean HIM???" in reference to Chelsea Manning don't seem to have a problem with their tax dollars being used to support boy-fucking. Boy-fucking taking place on US military bases.

KABUL, Afghanistan - In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.

"At night we can hear them screaming, but we're not allowed to do anything about it," the Marine's father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. "My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it's their culture."

Now, you were blathering something about blather?

Was there (at least) one instance where US people did not feel strongly enough to protest, but were egged on by outside influences?

Sure there were. They got the left out on the streets and they got the right out on the street. Well actually with that last event, they got both sides out on the street. Just for a start.

Obviously people already felt strongly, but those protests didn't arise spontaneously. Those feelings were deliberately amplified and those people were "egged on" by outside influences who went so far as to organize the events.

... chill. The purpose was to get people riled up and divisive, and by being outraged you are playing into their hand. Furthermore, if you are outraged don't propagate by posting about it - that just amplifies the effect.

This, OTOH, is wisdom talking. And actually, it's OK if your fellow citizen has different political opinions ... it's great in fact! Would you like to live in a country where that wasn't allowed?

Both sides were being played - it wasn't just pro trump but more a "sow discord". At least those are the allegations. For example:

http://www.houstonpress.com/ne...
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

It's not Trump voters are idiots for believing Russian trolls, it's there are enough idiots on both sides that it's easy to manufacture conflict - which then gets reported in the media creating more conflict and on we go.

It's called the home advantage. You can expect their lawyers to say the word "Israeli" very loudly in court.

That sort of strategy generally doesn't end well. A lot of judges will agree before the trial begins that the parties can't mention irrelevant and potentially prejudicial things like the nationality of the patent owner without first explaining to the judge why it's important to do so in a particular circumstance.

Ask people who have spent time in Afghanistan about young boy Thursdays.

Yes, especially about your tax dollars at work.

There's even a website

There's also a website that says the Earth is 6000 years old.

http://creation.com/

The buildings on the site you linked to are all quite beautiful. One is even a Corbusier

Here's what brutalism looks like:

http://www.houstonpress.com/ne...

The commenter was probably referred to this guy because it got a lot of press, but he took a plea deal that gave him seven years on probation. Texas has 116 people serving life sentences for possession, though, so there's probably another teenager in there somewhere.

Zimbabwean opposition members

Who you DGAF about, and are using as mere props in an argument. Protip: the next time you're throwing Assange under the bus with props, you might decry the lack of prosecution for the torture, killings and U.S. sponsored child rape at the same time, so it's harder to out you as a hack.

Manning was just a show-off

Which is why she did it anonymously......?

trying to data-dump anything she could get her hands on without a greater purpose in mind.

You mean she didn't have time nor the resources to sort the data. Either she'd still be doing that today, or would have leak bits and pieces, increasing the chances of the government finding out.

In any case, it's a sad commentary on the human condition that you are concerned with the propriety of the leaker but the crimes revealed by said leaker just aren't important enough to talk about. You know, stuff like torture, the Collateral Murder video, giving young boys to "allied" Afghans to be raped...

Or the boy-fucking in Afghanistan as revealed in the Wikileaks cables. For authoritarians, the fainting couches get brought out for whistleblowers, but they don't care about children getting their assholes reamed by warlords on their tax dollar.

Still waiting on SensitiveAuthortarian to see why Manning's release is more upsetting than the fact that government contractors were engaged in child trafficking in Afghanistan - as revealed by Wikileaks. It's only SA's tax dollars that were hard at work, supporting boy fucking abroad...

I don't give a fuck if I'm voted down as a troll or not.

Typical depraved authoritarian groupthink. If you gave two shits about the lawwww, you would in fact demand that Manning and Snowden spend time in prison - behind every politician and official who were revealed to have broken the law by their leaks.

Take FISA just for starters. Up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine for each offense. You guys demanding that Obama be sentenced to a few million years in prison and be fined a quadrillion dollars for tapping every phone call in the US without a warrant?

And then, "Sensitive" "Male", what about the boy fucking in Afghanistan? It was Wikileaks that revealed the contractors were engaged in child rape trafficking. You'll be happy to know that Hillary's State Department cleared itself of any wrong doing in the trafficking. But now it's just "old news", like Obama's drone strikes and repeal of habeas corpus, and soldiers are told to STFU and forget they saw anything.

But you DGAF about any of that, because you're a mindless authoritarian goon.

It's already happening. Some sports reporting has become automated! http://www.houstonpress.com/ne...

5 seasons?

Where do you live mate?

Houston, TX

Garlic, Lemon Pepper, Siracha, Soy Sauce, and Salt.

Irving schools look pretty mainstream to me:

They're still in Texas.

http://www.houstonpress.com/ne...

https://nonprofitquarterly.org...

http://www.theatlantic.com/edu...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

ASSANGE__IS__NOT__ABOVE__THE__LAW__AND__DESERVES__NO__EXTRAORDINARY__TREATMENT!

Then take the Extraordinary possibility of extradition to the United States off the table, and make it be about the goddamn rape, if it's actually about rape. Glad you stopped gargling James Clapper's balls long enough to see reason.

By the way, you guys wouldn't be so obviously full of shit if you weren't all a bunch of single-rape activists. Assange and Manning revealed Hillary's State Department covering up a contractor that bought boys to be raped for our Afghan "allies". Or that these same boy-fuckers are still allowed to rape kids on U.S. military bases.

But hey, it was never really about rape for you guys, was it?

No, I do not believe it. I believe that you just made it up. Do you have a citation? Because a Google search finds nothing except a law banning "aggressive begging" (blocking traffic, badgering or pursuing people, loitering next to ATMs, etc.).

I wouldn't go so far as to accuse him of just making it up. There are several places he might have picked up the idea. Some, the courts overrule the laws or parts of it. Some are just proposed. Some require a permit to 'gather' (eg more than 5 people). On Thanksgiving, the church should have 1 person with food in the park. 4 at a time, the homeless could come over. Then, walk away and 4 more could come up. I think the homeless should not be able to look at each other either ;) Get a permit right? I believe in the Orlando case, the problem was, you can only get a permit twice a year for each park so you have to move around. Are the activist intentionally getting in trouble making their point? Sure. Does feeding the poor in the same park, week after week, putting wear and tear on the park? Sure.



Orlando, FL
Raleigh, NC
Las Vegas, NV
Los Angeles, CA
Philadelphia, PA
Dallas, TX
Houston, TX
NYC, NY
USA Today
LA Times

An Alternative History of 11 American Female Doctors http://blogs.houstonpress.com/artattack/2013/05/doctor_who_american_female.php & The Other 11 Doctors http://www.scifind.com/features/the-other-11-doctors/

There was a female Doctor Who, I had seen part of an episode before. On a PBS channel of course, not sure who did it, or what, if it was just a 1 episode spoof, or what, but unless I was tripping on acid & mda at the time (and dreamed it), there was a female Doctor Who. Of course, not officially.

Anyone know what I'm talking about? It was in color, saw it probably in the early 90's. I'm sure it was probably just a spoofed show, but i've never been able to figure it out. Not hitting the right phrase to find any info about it with google.

An Alternative History of 11 American Female Doctors http://blogs.houstonpress.com/artattack/2013/05/doctor_who_american_female.php & The Other 11 Doctors http://www.scifind.com/features/the-other-11-doctors/

Let me preface this comment by stating that, as an animal advocate, I am not in ideological alignment with PETA and I do not generally support this organization. That said, Nathan Winograd's HuffPo article amounts to little more than malicious hearsay and it is incredibly biased, leaving out critical information in favor of whipping lazy readers into a furor. PETA does not euthanize adoptable animals. PETA has an open-door program in place to accept and euthanize sick and injured animals which cannot be accepted into other animal shelters, in order to prevent them from being abandoned otherwise. Limited resources necessarily force animal shelters to pick and choose which animals they will accept and when they will accept them -- leaving some unwanted animals with no other place to go but the roadside or the dumpster. People who don't want their pet, or can't afford to treat the pet's illness or injury, will abandon them. It's horrible, but it happens all the time. If there isn't a place, especially in a large and poorer urban area, that will accept any animal at any time regardless of condition, people abandon them. It's that simple. As someone who has lived in rural areas for more than fifteen years, I've seen the little-discussed end result of the failed "no-kill" mission and limited-admission shelters -- a constant stream of aggressive, injured, and sick pets dumped on country roads because the local shelter turned them away. As far as I can tell, PETA has not attempted to deceive the public about their program or its purpose -- in fact, PETA maintains a website about the program called "Why PETA Euthanizes." PETA appears to be quite public about this program and why they believe it is necessary. Furthermore, Winograd is believed to be responsible for posting anonymous comments on articles by or about him to make it seem as though he has reinforcements. Truth is an absolute defense to slander/libel claims, but PETA absolutely has the right to sue for defamation if the comments are untrue. Further reading: http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/ http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/rebuttal-huffington-posts-nathan-j-winograd http://www.houstonpress.com/2009-01-29/news/barc-sucks/6/

Summed up as

"A government by the people and for the people should not be allowed to keep secrets from the people!" -- Me for the last 8 years.

The problem is that if it is deemed of National Security, they get to redact it. There is no punishment in place that could be applied if they remove it for national security reasons and it is later found to have been for criminal reasons. Example: the fact that a us company paid in tax payer dollars provided young boys for sexual use by Afghan Cops.

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

Which was classified and thanks to WikiLeaks is now known.

'cause even a zombie won't fuck with a can of Spotted Dick sponge pudding.

Considering the Taliban manual specifically prohibits any Taliban from being alone in a room with an unbearded man (boy), I bet it is so that nobody can record that evidence as well. Which is incredibly ironic that they are trying to prevent obscenity when they are predominately pedophiles. Before anybody mods this troll..... if it was false why would it have to be in the manual for the Taliban specifically?

Because it's a popular entertainment in Afghanistan that the Taliban want to ban?

What makes you think it's not a problem with non-Taliban? Didn't American contractors with DynCorp pimp young boys for a party for Afghan cops (cite?

How about paying for child sex slaves?

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

You didn't find it shocking that private security firms hired by the US forces procured underage boys as male prostitutes for some Afghan police recruits?

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

The question is, what was the consequence to the private security firm for their poor judgment before the wikileaks release? What is the consequence now after the release? ditto for the ambassador and how he handled the situation.

When stuff like this gets routinely swept under the rug its like a slow rot that corrupts the whole nation.

People have to know that bad behavior can and will be exposed to full day light. Its the only way to reverse the rot.

"So far, Wikileaks has published approximately nothing that is shocking or surprising or that reveals unlawful activity."

You only think that because apparently you are relying on most of the mainstream media reporting of the diplomatic cables, who have downplayed the significance of the leaks. Consider the following:

Diplomat covering up the pimping of Afghan boys (aged 13ish) for anal sex by a US taxpayer funded company DynCorp.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101208/00221812176/so-wikileaks-is-evil-releasing-documents-dyncorp-gets-pass-pimping-young-boys-to-afghan-cops.shtml
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

As if I need to go on after that. Clinton ordered spying on other UN officials, including obtaining frequent flier number and biometric data. (And Wikileaks is responsible for spying?)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un

And then there is the very fact that much of the 'secrets' that were classified were done so illegally.

If you don't realize it by now, then you have made up your mind regardless of evidence. Do your own research if you are interested, but I doubt you are.

For the others who wonder how there are people like parent who apparently blindly defend wrongdoing (such as government abuses, racism etc), there is actually a growing body of research into this phenomenon. It's called system justification theory, and essentially it describes the conscious and unconscious tendencies to protect and bolster the status quo, even to one's own disadvantage (i.e. the black and/or gay Republican who can't see that his comrades implicitly or explicitly hate him). Basically, people like parent feel so comforted by the status quo, and they implicitly fear change even for the better, that they defend the status quo when it otherwise appears to make no sense.

Read for yourselves: [pdf]
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/Jost,%20Banaji,%20&%20Nosek%20(2004)%20A%20Decade%20of%20System%20Justificati.pdf

Taken as a whole, however, a leak of this elephantine magnitude, which appears to demonstrate no misconduct by the U.S., is difficult to defend on any basis other than WikiLeaks' general disdain for any secrecy at all.

I'm pretty sure that continuing to employ contractors that you know are hiring child prostitutes, as well as helping them hide that fact, could be considered 'misconduct' by some.

Open Source / no dark secrets doesn't mean no security / no secrets period. The logistics of the convoy's movement and the armament of the escorts is tactical information, just like an encryption key generated with open source software. It's no secret that the data is encrypted, just like it's no secret that a convoy is guarded. One difference between an encryption key and tactical information is the latter can and should be openly disclosed (AFTER the operation is completed).

Your criticism of open source government is essentially FUD, similar to arguing that an open-source OS is less secure than a closed-source OS because "bad guys can read your source code and will therein discover all your passwords".

And by the way, Mr. Ex Soldier, at the risk of sounding insensitive or trollish: did you ever think that maybe those "bad people" were shooting at you because the contents of your convoy may have been bad? When i say "bad", i mean used to victimize, harass and/or abuse innocents and non-combatants. Lets say, you, same ex-soldier, are escorting a convoy filled with child prostitutes for Afghani millionaires. In my opinion that makes you a "bad person", no matter your nationality or what kind of flag you like to wave, and thus anybody who shoots at you is simply protecting human decency. That said, i'm glad you survived your tour and i'm grateful for the opportunity to discuss this with you.

As someone posted above:

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

So you have rape stories in the leaks too. They're just a bit worse than the charges laid against Assange.

Have you heard about this one? I'm not normally a "think of the children" type, but that right there seems like it might be a pretty big deal to some people.

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

I haven't seen anything that I've said "Yes, the public needed to know this, it is important and shouldn't have been secret."

Here'ssomethingyou might be interested in then: US-based PMC pimps out underage Afghan boys to local law enforcement officials. Your tax dollars at work! I can provide other examples on request.

I actually agree with you when you say that if the sensitive documents have nothing of value to the public in terms of exposing illegal activity, then it's best for diplomacy if they remain classified. But that is most definitely not the case here.

Now it seems that everyone blasting Wikileaks must be for selling boys for sex parties (one of the cover ups documented in the leaks).

Not that I'm doubting you, but I hadn't seen this reported. Citation?

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

"We got the first reports about difficulties in August"

Which is a blatant lie. Read this article for some background on this issue going back to 2007. I'm sure that Toyote "got reports" before August 2009.

They are only in Monterrey as far as I've heard.

[citation].

Will organisms that eat BSE-infested beef eventually die off? The chances of getting sick from it are infinitestimally small. Somebody run the numbers, but my guess is more genertic information is transmitted by the increased reproductive success of not living near a volcano or subduction zone, or not getting hit by an asteroid, or not gorging on 3000-calorie breakfasts

Kinda sounds like something from my long-gone youth.

Believe it or not, this sort of thing (along with a really bad review in my local newspaper) is actually making this oldtimer consider buying a console. I haven't done that since I picked up a $50 Dreamcast solely for the purpose of playing Tetris.

I'm licensed as an armed guard in the state of Oregon; I've gone through a lot of training with various levels of law enforcement to understand the charge and the responsibility of the sort of work I do.

I guess that explains all the whitewash you're throwing around. Specifically:

I don't know of a single guard who would try to take down someone without really good cause. I sort of don't believe that these people actually exist - I think they're the fictional nemeses who lend bravado and excitement to our friends' exploits, a contemporary ghost or gang of bandits.

That's the core of your post, a bleating and transparent lie that there really aren't security guards who deserve to be shot. You're wrong and you either know it or you're an idiot with his head stuck so far up his ass you'll never see daylight again (which is, actually, a reasonably good description of most rent-a-cops.)

How about a few cites?

Security Guards Who Use Their Job To Abuse Children

Security Guards Who Use Their Job To Rape and Profile

Security Guards Who Use Their Job To Murder

Security Guards Who Use Their Job To Falsely Imprison (and generally just act like assholes)

and there are a whole bunch more, but I don't intend to spend the whole morning cutting and pasting links. Just go google for "security guard abuse" and limit your reading to newspapers and academic articles and you can't escape the conclusion that some security guards are so "badge heavy" (the "I've got a badge so I'm God" complex) that they truly need to be shot. When you make articulate postings defending security guards and deny that unfortunate reality, you lose all credibility.

I'm licensed as an armed guard in the state of Oregon; I've gone through a lot of training with various levels of law enforcement to understand the charge and the responsibility of the sort of work I do.

I guess that explains all the whitewash you're throwing around. Specifically:

I don't know of a single guard who would try to take down someone without really good cause. I sort of don't believe that these people actually exist - I think they're the fictional nemeses who lend bravado and excitement to our friends' exploits, a contemporary ghost or gang of bandits.

That's the core of your post, a bleating and transparent lie that there really aren't security guards who deserve to be shot. You're wrong and you either know it or you're an idiot with his head stuck so far up his ass you'll never see daylight again (which is, actually, a reasonably good description of most rent-a-cops.)

How about a few cites?

Security Guards Who Use Their Job To Abuse Children

Security Guards Who Use Their Job To Rape and Profile

Security Guards Who Use Their Job To Murder

Security Guards Who Use Their Job To Falsely Imprison (and generally just act like assholes)

and there are a whole bunch more, but I don't intend to spend the whole morning cutting and pasting links. Just go google for "security guard abuse" and limit your reading to newspapers and academic articles and you can't escape the conclusion that some security guards are so "badge heavy" (the "I've got a badge so I'm God" complex) that they truly need to be shot. When you make articulate postings defending security guards and deny that unfortunate reality, you lose all credibility.

I'm licensed as an armed guard in the state of Oregon; I've gone through a lot of training with various levels of law enforcement to understand the charge and the responsibility of the sort of work I do.

I guess that explains all the whitewash you're throwing around. Specifically:

I don't know of a single guard who would try to take down someone without really good cause. I sort of don't believe that these people actually exist - I think they're the fictional nemeses who lend bravado and excitement to our friends' exploits, a contemporary ghost or gang of bandits.

That's the core of your post, a bleating and transparent lie that there really aren't security guards who deserve to be shot. You're wrong and you either know it or you're an idiot with his head stuck so far up his ass you'll never see daylight again (which is, actually, a reasonably good description of most rent-a-cops.)

How about a few cites?

Security Guards Who Use Their Job To Abuse Children

Security Guards Who Use Their Job To Rape and Profile

Security Guards Who Use Their Job To Murder

Security Guards Who Use Their Job To Falsely Imprison (and generally just act like assholes)

and there are a whole bunch more, but I don't intend to spend the whole morning cutting and pasting links. Just go google for "security guard abuse" and limit your reading to newspapers and academic articles and you can't escape the conclusion that some security guards are so "badge heavy" (the "I've got a badge so I'm God" complex) that they truly need to be shot. When you make articulate postings defending security guards and deny that unfortunate reality, you lose all credibility.

#16 should definitely be immigrants. Not just the illegal ones, but all immigrants. Canadians too.

You forgot that the illegal ones are ok if they work for you. But then they're not ok if they complain when you try to steal their baby.

Shepard Smith is gay: http://www.houstonpress.com/Issues/2005-11-03/news /hairballs.html

When I was investigating a start-up, I began to read about all the different liquor laws across the country. Quite frankly, its insane. Here in Texas, certain beverage sizes are restricted to an uncommon size and wholesalers control the entire market. Alcohol producers cannot send product directly to stores it MUST BY LAW go through a distributor then sent on to your local store. Literally there are warehouses where all they do is unload the truck and reload another right there. Thank the Texas legislature and a whole lot of campaign contributions for that one.

If your really interested in learning more about the situation and how crazy it gets you can read this great article from the Houston Press (Houston's Counter Culture Weekly Magazine) here

http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/2005-04-07/news /news.html

TransHab was killed because of politics, pure and simple. Congress was so irate at the cost overruns of the ISS that they stupidly forbade NASA from doing any further research or development on inflatable structures. The Houston Press did a story on this a few years ago.

TransHab was killed because of politics, pure and simple. Congress was so irate at the cost overruns of the ISS that they stupidly forbade NASA from doing any further research or development on inflatable structures. The Houston Press did a story on this a few years ago.

For instance, look at the Houston Press, a weekly rag, for the Enron Overview.

The IOC you to it: drug testing for bridge players. What's next - chess drug testing?

Yeah right, in your fairy tale world.

Not only do lawyers, especially public-defenders, tell innocent people to take a plea bargain, innocent people even confess under police pressure. DNA evidence has shown many cases of wrongful conviction. Just search for "plea-bargain dna wrongful-convection" on google for plenty of examples. One example here.

On a related note, inflatable habitat prototypes have been developed and tested, but Congress has actually forbidden further work on them.

Here's a link to an article from a few months ago. It has some neat photo's of a giant vacuum chamber used for testing the prototype.

Eris

FBI director assures police shooting victim's family of a "vigorous" investigation

By TERRI LANGFORD Associated Press Writer

HOUSTON (AP) -- A civil rights investigation into a botched drug raid in which an unarmed man was killed by nine police bullets will leave "no stone unturned," FBI Director Louis Freeh vowed Friday.

Freeh met privately with relatives of Pedro Oregon Navarro, shot to death July 12 after six Houston police officers stormed his apartment in search of drugs. Oregon was shot a dozen times, including nine times in the back.

"I pledged to them our commitment to conduct a fair and full investigation and share those results with them and the community when we accomplish that," Freeh said.

The six officers went to Oregon's apartment on a tip from an informant who had just been pulled over for public intoxication.

Once there, and without a warrant, officers kicked in his bedroom door and shot 22-year-old Oregon, a father of two. No drugs were found in the apartment, and the officers later said they started firing because they thought Oregon had fired at them. A police investigation, however, showed a shot from one officer hit another's bulletproof vest.

Autopsy results showed at least nine shots entered Oregon's body at a downward angle, suggesting he was shot while face-down on the floor or while diving toward the floor.

All six officers were fired from the Houston Police Department shortly after a state grand jury declined to indict them on murder charges. One officer was charged with misdemeanor trespassing.

Freeh, who was in Houston Friday making a regular field visit, said his the civil rights investigation -- now three weeks old -- will be thorough.

"The investigation does not mirror or even review what was done by the previous investigation," Freeh said. "We'll do it as quickly as we can, but as carefully as we have to, to ensure that it's a full investigation and also that it's a fair one."

Houston Police Chief Clarence Bradford, when he announced the firings of the officers last week, called the case "super-egregious," saying the officers were fired for lying, violating several department policies, the constitutional protection against unlawful searches and state official oppression laws.

The Mexican government also has expressed its concern about the shooting because Oregon was from Michoacan, Mexico. He had been in the United States about eight years and had worked as a landscaper.