Slashdot Mirror

Your examples are comically ironic considering you are trying to justify FBI actions, given that the weight of evidence is in: "Time and again, the FBI concocts a Terrorist attack, infiltrates Muslim communities in order to find recruits, persuades them to perpetrate the attack, supplies them with the money, weapons and know-how they need to carry it out — only to heroically jump in at the last moment, arrest the would-be perpetrators whom the FBI converted, and save a grateful nation from the plot manufactured by the FBI."

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/29/fbi_terror/singleton/

Oh yea, sure they planned the For Hood shooting. Maybe they were also behind Little Rock recruiting office shooting, the Seattle Jewish Federation shooting, and the Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack too - all of which were carried out by Muslim American Citizens. You know, you appeasers make me nearly as sick as Muslims do themselves. Next I expect the equivocation of "but Christians draw nasty cartoons", or US soldiers shot a terrorist so we should be allowed to blow up your citizens.

Your examples are comically ironic considering you are trying to justify FBI actions, given that the weight of evidence is in: "Time and again, the FBI concocts a Terrorist attack, infiltrates Muslim communities in order to find recruits, persuades them to perpetrate the attack, supplies them with the money, weapons and know-how they need to carry it out — only to heroically jump in at the last moment, arrest the would-be perpetrators whom the FBI converted, and save a grateful nation from the plot manufactured by the FBI."

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/29/fbi_terror/singleton/

That's because what they do is knowingly support terrorism, which is completely different.

It would be even funnier... if it was not true. Better to laugh than cry I guess:

A bipartisan band of former Washington officials and politicians... have been paid large sums of money to speak at [terrorist group] MeK events and meet with its leaders

The MeK has engaged in an aggressive legal and lobbying campaign in Washington over the past two years to win its removal from the State Department’s [foreign Terrorist organization] list. . . .

Robots don't complain, require psychiatric counselling or go running to the press when you order them to kill whole wedding parties children and all, funerals, villages, or anything that moves really...

If you're talking about the US, I fail to see where the difference is. The current President of the US authorized the assassination of a US citizen overseas without due process: http://www.salon.com/2010/04/07/assassinations_2/ [salon.com] and now he's dead. [1]

Not without precedent. The American South seceded and the president ordered lots of Americans killed to stop it.

Oh, I forgot - this is where people somehow don't realize that there is an actual difference between the West and actual tyranny and oppression in the world.

If you're talking about the US, I fail to see where the difference is. The current President of the US authorized the assassination of a US citizen overseas without due process: http://www.salon.com/2010/04/07/assassinations_2/ and now he's dead. [1]

Worse, to this day even the head of the FBI doesn't know whether or not this applies to US citizens on US soil: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/07/mueller-have-to-check-with-holder-whether-targeted-killing-rule-is-outside-us/

How, exactly, is this not tyranny and oppression? It appears to me that all the President has to do is point a finger and say "daveschroeder is a terrorist and I have credible evidence proving it." You'll never know what, if anything, that evidence is, because it's protected by "National Security", you know.

Regards,

dj

Notes:

[1] And you know what? I don't care whether or not he was a "bad person", as many claim. What I care about is that our President ignored the Constitution, deprived a US citizen of their rights and had him killed without being arrested, without be charged and without a trial.

but at some point the people have gotta turn it around if they don't want to end up completely like North Korea.

Turn what around?

We're talking about seeing your face in a crowd in a public setting.

In the age of ubiquitous CCTV cameras and facial recognition software, massive government databases for domestic spying, laws criminalizing protesting under flimsy pretenses, and increasing police state laws and tactics, one year after the death of Bin Laddin and more than 10 years since the last terrorist attack. Don't ignore the forest for the trees. And besides, you are now on the record of wanting to know who people were, merely for showing their face in a public setting.

Whereas before, you could have 20 cops for every single protester (like in Toronto where a squad car was conveniently left parked unattended for hours as a target for vandals). 20 cops could look at your face....and unless you did something to stand out, you would be gone from their short term memory in about....3 seconds.

If you want to hide your face in public then we have a problem. And if you want to be unreasonable about that, then two can play at that game.

Too bad. If someone wearing a mask commits a crime, we already have laws to prosecute said crime. If someone is peaceably wearing a mask for the sake of anonymity or as a political statement, it's none of your damn business what's under the mask.

Bandits cover their faces. Robbers cover their faces. You can either take my word for that or you can find out the hard way.

So tell us about your annual Halloween rampage, you gung-ho condo commando, you.

First, they have you on camera? So? Only a problem if you do something illegal.

Eh? Did you really just make the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be worried about" argument?

Second, if people wear masks they're going to feel like they can get away with things. It encourages violence and mob behavior.

And if people are allowed to own handguns, it will just encourage violence and mob behavior. Sorry, but this seems to be a bit of a tautology.

Third, you see people wearing masks at protests in third world countries where they worry about a secret police tracking them. This is not a reasonable concern in the first world.

The first world that has FBI files on nonviolent actresses and civil rights activists?
The first world where undercover agents go so far as to impregnate the nonviolent activists they are spying on?
The first world that constantly uses entrapment to prosecute "terror" cases?
The first world which has recently passed both laws allowing military detentions of citizens and criminalizing "disrupting events" where someone is under Secret Service protection?

Lets say you decide to protest a Bank of America shareholder meeting at a convention center. You're peacefully protesting in the street and the parking lot, but totally unknown to you, Jill Biden was quietly on her way to meet some Democratic donors in another room at the convention center.

But she was a few minutes late getting past the crowd, so you and your fellow protesters "disrupted an event" where the Secret Service was protecting someone. That spiffy new spy center in Nevada runs CCTV footage through their facial recognition software, and not only picks you out of a crowd, but is able to cross-reverence your location with a warrantless wiretap on your cell phone. Presto, you receive a summons in the mail a few weeks later.

It'll be the new speed camera fine-by-mail.

No, that's up to a jury. I'm wondering if you're arguing this out of naivete or out of authoritarianism. As if cops don't already use ordinances like "disorderly conduct" as a catch-all reason to arrest whoever they want to arrest.

This story is for Canada, but legislation just made it's way through Congress making it an offense to "disrupt" an event where someone was under Secret Service protection. So, you could be protesting a BOA shareholder meeting in the parking lot of a convention center, and be charged because Jill Biden was at another event in a different room.

Stranger things have happened.

"Jane's Defence Forecasts in 2012 estimated that China's defense budget would increase from $119.80 billion to $238.20 billion between 2011 and 2015. This would make it larger than the defense budgets of all other major Asian nations combined."

That's about a third of current US military spending.

Wrong. You're off by 2x. At least. Cowboy. Even if China starts spending 200 billion a year, the U.S. is still spending 7 times that.

Did you even TRY to verify your facts before you posted that? Or are you seriously believing the official DOD figures of ~$600BN?

And was sized to support 2 wars, both of which are largely over.

Wrong again. One of those wars is largely over - Iraq - but we've merely redeployed those troops in the region in preparation for the next bogus war of choice - Iran. Or to re-invade Iraq if we decide it's "necessary". Then there's the bevy of undeclared drone wars from Africa to Asia.

The military industrial-congressional-contractor-surviellance complex has only ballooned since Bin Laddin's death, not started to recede.

How, exactly does big government help the Democrats?

I'll do you one better. Public sector (big government) growth from 2000 to 2004 (Bush's 1st term) = +900,000 jobs
Public sector shrinkage under Obama since the start of his term = -607,000

How exactly did we get the meme that Democrats = big government and Republicans = smaller government?

You forgot to capitalize "Serious".

One of Glen Greenwald's articles about Unserious people: The parade of “shrill, unserious extremists” on display at today’s impeachment hearings

His ideas are more "calm" than those of his father. I have yet to hear any Rand position that I would object to.

The guy is a bigot and a hyopcrite when it comes to religious freedom - suggesting that even though the population of a religious minority has increased substantially in a neighborhood over the years, that they should not build themselves a church but should instead commute to a church somewhere else because people who don't even live there would have their feelings hurt otherwise.

He also supports TSA profiling - and not some mythical irsaeli-style behavior profiling either.

After all it is in their interests too to defend against N. Korea and any Middle Eastern threats

So when do Middle Eastern countries get their missile defense against belligerent western imperialism?

For one, as both Mother Jones’ Mark Follman and my former Salon colleague Justin Elliott have extensively documented, there are — due to multiple conflicting White House claims — numerous unanswered questions about what really happened on the raid.

There’s also the question of why Obama aides like John Brennan spouted outright falsehoods to the world on key questions (such as whether bin Laden was armed or used his wife as a “human shield” and whether there was a “shootout” in the house). There are conflicting claims about whether a full video recording of the raid exists. There’s the contradictory administration behavior of resisting lawsuits seeking any disclosure about the raid on secrecy grounds while simultaneously boasting publicly about the details of the raid for political gain. And there’s the question of whether previous American statements — and the principles of Nuremberg — would have made it better (or even legally necessary) to apprehend bin Laden for trial; whether doing so was reasonably possible; and whether that was permitted by the mission plan.

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/03/nbc_news_top_hagiographer/singleton/

You seem to have selective ignorance.

Music lobby group, the BPI, welcomed the move, saying music creators 'deserve to be paid for their work just like everyone else'

Then maybe there should be some laws against the record labels which don't even pay the artists shit?

and calling for those who use The Pirate Bay to illegally download content to 'explore the many digital music services operating ethically and legally in the UK.'"

I invite those slimy pigs to make a legal and ethical living themselves.

You didn't even respond to any of my main points.

Then you haven't even been reading my posts, as I most certainly have been responding to your points - 10 blockquotes in the last post alone.

So which ones, exactly, do you think I've been sidestepping? Go ahead and rattle em off....and then I'll do the same. I don't think you really addressed the PM of Israel celebrating a bombing of a government building in the 40's. Or Israel starting Operation Cast Lead which killed hundreds and left Gaza in ruins, when even if the IDF admits that Hamas had stopped firing rockets that the IDF admits aren't a real military threat. Or why the native Arabs weren't perfectly justified in resisting a nation being carved out of their land for an immigrant population. Or Israel starting the 1967 war. And so on....

And I never even mentioned the speech you linked to. I was simply referring to their training, arming and funding of several groups that certainly have Israels death on their public agenda.

Oh, next time I'll try to read your mind more clearly as to which piece of anti-Iranian propaganda you're referring to. And what about Israel's multiple acts of war upon Iran, like assassinating their nuclear scientists or funding of the terrorist group MEK?

Modern American Politicans already endorse the use of force to suppress non-violent political demonstrations. They already use the power they have to harass political dissidents. What makes you think that indefinite detention for political reasons is so far fetched?

but how about a cite for your assertion that his admin insisted on those provisions?

sigh, undoing moderation since it looks like not enough people are aware of this.

I mean, of course it wasn't covered in the corporate news media, but all the independent media couldn't stop talking about it a few months ago (hence the GP probably assumed everybody here knew).

If you're going to track just one independent writer, make it Glen Greenwald. Then maybe add in the Democracy Now podcast, and at least see what Lew Rockwell, RT, Infowars (but skip any by Alex Jones!) and Al Jazeera are writing about, etc. None of them are The Truth, but neither is the NYT/WP/LAT syndicate.

Take a look at the top right map of countries with conscription based military [wikipedia.org]. These include my own country and many Islamic and Arab ones. I strongly refuse the notion that anyone that have or might some day serve in the army should be considered legitimate military targets.

And I strongly reject the idea that attacks in response to land theft and occupation are "terrorism". Palestinian attacks are no more terrorism than Sioux attacks on prospectors violating their home and sacred grounds were "terrorism". And again this is comparing mountains (settler violence) to molehills (Indian/Palestinian violence).

This is correct. I also suspect that traffic is a higher cause of death than murder in any country. Which is again second to heart disease diseases. However I fail to see how this is relevant.

Other than the obvious matter of proportion? Is the cost of America's "War on Terror" - trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives thrown away with a shredded Bill of Rights - worth the cost when you have a higher chance of dying in America after a slip in your own bathtub than from a terrorist attack? Are Israel's recent wars and police state tactics worth it when 22 people have died from Quassam rockets - ever?

Neighboring Arab countries simply attacked, demanding everything.

The problem with that framing is: of course the native population was entitled to resist the creation of a new state, by fiat, from their territory for a bunch of immigrants from a thousand or more miles away. What if the minority Cuban population up and declared an independent state covering the majority of Florida - would that not be resisted with force from native Floridians with help from Georgia and Alabama?

Regarding the Gaza blockade issue, what would you do in Israels shoes? Hamas doesn't even bother to hide his intentions of destroying Israel.

What would you do if you were in Gaza, with the IDF putting you on a "diet", massacring 9 passengers on a ship bearing you supplies, and slaughtered over a thousand people after the IDF broke it's own cease fire? Contrasted to the greater threat to Israeli life, of course: a passenger bus colliding with your car in traffic.

Hamas doesn't even bother to hide his intentions of destroying Israel.

See above on both motivations and sense of proportion.

In the wikipedia article you linked to, the Egyptian president announced before the 6 day war: Moving On

Moving right back: Israel started the 1967 war with a sneak attack on Egypt's air force in response to Egypt's blockade of the Straits of Tiran. On one hand you have words, and on the other you have the side actually firing the first shots in an actual war. Both the United States and the USSR talked tough during the cold war, but there was never a World War III. Because no one fired the first shots.

And with support of Iran or other countries, they pose similar danger as Cuba when the Soviets were transporting missile bases there.

And when did the Cuban Missile Crisis happen? After the Soviets actually tried to place actual nuclear missiles on the island. When the scary boogeyman of Iran arming "terrorists" turns into a point of fact instead of a point of propaganda point from countries threatening and committing their own terrorist attacks upon the Islamic Republic, then we can talk.

I've spoken to many Arabs that have the idea that the "zionist regime" is a machine that is evil, just for being evil, even at the cost of bad internatio

Take a look at the top right map of countries with conscription based military [wikipedia.org]. These include my own country and many Islamic and Arab ones. I strongly refuse the notion that anyone that have or might some day serve in the army should be considered legitimate military targets.

And I strongly reject the idea that attacks in response to land theft and occupation are "terrorism". Palestinian attacks are no more terrorism than Sioux attacks on prospectors violating their home and sacred grounds were "terrorism". And again this is comparing mountains (settler violence) to molehills (Indian/Palestinian violence).

This is correct. I also suspect that traffic is a higher cause of death than murder in any country. Which is again second to heart disease diseases. However I fail to see how this is relevant.

Other than the obvious matter of proportion? Is the cost of America's "War on Terror" - trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives thrown away with a shredded Bill of Rights - worth the cost when you have a higher chance of dying in America after a slip in your own bathtub than from a terrorist attack? Are Israel's recent wars and police state tactics worth it when 22 people have died from Quassam rockets - ever?

Neighboring Arab countries simply attacked, demanding everything.

The problem with that framing is: of course the native population was entitled to resist the creation of a new state, by fiat, from their territory for a bunch of immigrants from a thousand or more miles away. What if the minority Cuban population up and declared an independent state covering the majority of Florida - would that not be resisted with force from native Floridians with help from Georgia and Alabama?

Regarding the Gaza blockade issue, what would you do in Israels shoes? Hamas doesn't even bother to hide his intentions of destroying Israel.

What would you do if you were in Gaza, with the IDF putting you on a "diet", massacring 9 passengers on a ship bearing you supplies, and slaughtered over a thousand people after the IDF broke it's own cease fire? Contrasted to the greater threat to Israeli life, of course: a passenger bus colliding with your car in traffic.

Hamas doesn't even bother to hide his intentions of destroying Israel.

See above on both motivations and sense of proportion.

In the wikipedia article you linked to, the Egyptian president announced before the 6 day war: Moving On

Moving right back: Israel started the 1967 war with a sneak attack on Egypt's air force in response to Egypt's blockade of the Straits of Tiran. On one hand you have words, and on the other you have the side actually firing the first shots in an actual war. Both the United States and the USSR talked tough during the cold war, but there was never a World War III. Because no one fired the first shots.

And with support of Iran or other countries, they pose similar danger as Cuba when the Soviets were transporting missile bases there.

And when did the Cuban Missile Crisis happen? After the Soviets actually tried to place actual nuclear missiles on the island. When the scary boogeyman of Iran arming "terrorists" turns into a point of fact instead of a point of propaganda point from countries threatening and committing their own terrorist attacks upon the Islamic Republic, then we can talk.

I've spoken to many Arabs that have the idea that the "zionist regime" is a machine that is evil, just for being evil, even at the cost of bad internatio

This is ridiculous.

Indeed.

Each one of them is explicitly making a comparison to Syrian repression.

Except they're not. At all. Not one of your cited comments makes such a comparison. Not even close.

"Now if only they'd use that on the TSA"
How is the TSA engaged in repression like Syria, to warrant this comparison?

Except that commenter never mentioned Syria, which means you have no basis for complaint, and it's the same for the rest of your links. Look, this really isn't that hard. Greenwald:

Khader Adnan and now-normalized Western justice

Each year, the U.S. State Department, as required by law, issues a "Human Rights Report" which details abuses by other countries. To call it an exercise in hypocrisy is to understate the case: it is almost impossible to find any tyrannical power denounced by the State Department which the U.S. Government (and its closest allies) do not regularly exercise itself. Indeed, it's often impossible to imagine how the authors of these reports can refrain from cackling mischievously over the glaring ironies of what they are denouncing (my all-time favorite example is discussed in the update here).

In 2010, the State Department included a long section on the oppressive detention practices of China. The âoeprincipal human rights problemsâ of the tyrannical Chinese government include âoea lack of due process in judicial proceedingsâ and âoethe use of administrative detention.â Indeed, âoearbitrary arrest and detention remained serious problems. The law grants police broad administrative detention powers and the ability to detain individuals for extended periods without formal arrest or criminal charges.â Can one even find the words to condemn these Chinese monsters?

It's the hypocrisy, stupid. Pointing out that the United States and it's closest allies routinely engages in behavior that it denounces from "rouge" states is not even close to saying that the United States is engaging in exactly the same abuses across the board.

That's a straw man that has existed only inside your head. You say you're concerned with human rights abuses at both home and abroad, but you're acting more like a Concern Troll looking to deflect and distract.

I don't understand why the replies I'm getting seem to treat me like I think the US gov't is all sunshine and daisies.

Maybe because you're being overly literal. The point of making analogies other comparisons isn't to say two things are identical, but to, you know, compare them where they are comparable.

In other words, you are sounding the like sort of person who hears a comparison between the wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam and proceed to spend your time complaining that there is no draft, jungle, or communist army to deal with and little time talking about spending blood and treasure to prop up an unpopular, extremely corrupt government with no clear mission or way out of the occupation.

And yeah, having people kidnapped and tortured or assasinated by executive fiat are exactly the sort of activities that corrupt dictatorships like Syria engage in. We should know - the victim in the above "kidnapped and torture" link was flown to.....Syria to be tortured.

I don't understand why the replies I'm getting seem to treat me like I think the US gov't is all sunshine and daisies.

Maybe because you're being overly literal. The point of making analogies other comparisons isn't to say two things are identical, but to, you know, compare them where they are comparable.

In other words, you are sounding the like sort of person who hears a comparison between the wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam and proceed to spend your time complaining that there is no draft, jungle, or communist army to deal with and little time talking about spending blood and treasure to prop up an unpopular, extremely corrupt government with no clear mission or way out of the occupation.

And yeah, having people kidnapped and tortured or assasinated by executive fiat are exactly the sort of activities that corrupt dictatorships like Syria engage in. We should know - the victim in the above "kidnapped and torture" link was flown to.....Syria to be tortured.

Says the guy willfully ignorant of the fact that the U.S. has had innocent people kidnapped, tortured, or killed:

The prime minister of Canada apologized Friday to Maher Arar and agreed to give $9 million in compensation to the Canadian Arab, who was spirited by U.S. agents to Syria and tortured there after being falsely named as a terrorism suspect.

Arar, 36, a former computer engineer who was detained while changing planes at a New York airport in 2002 and imprisoned in a Syrian dungeon for 10 months, said after the announcement that he âoefeels proud as a Canadianâ

Or subjecting alleged whistleblowers to psychological torture while letting actual torturers skate.

Or singling out a documentary filmmaker for dozens of searches and seizures. A filmmaker accused of no crime, which means the harassment is purely political intimidation.

Says the guy willfully ignorant of the fact that the U.S. has had innocent people kidnapped, tortured, or killed:

The prime minister of Canada apologized Friday to Maher Arar and agreed to give $9 million in compensation to the Canadian Arab, who was spirited by U.S. agents to Syria and tortured there after being falsely named as a terrorism suspect.

Arar, 36, a former computer engineer who was detained while changing planes at a New York airport in 2002 and imprisoned in a Syrian dungeon for 10 months, said after the announcement that he âoefeels proud as a Canadianâ

Or subjecting alleged whistleblowers to psychological torture while letting actual torturers skate.

Or singling out a documentary filmmaker for dozens of searches and seizures. A filmmaker accused of no crime, which means the harassment is purely political intimidation.

Everything the parent AC listed has actually happened. So stop blabbering on about hyperbole and start catching up on your Greenwald:

Practices once denounced by the U.S. as the hallmark of tyranny are now so normalized they barely register notice

Each year, the U.S. State Department, as required by law, issues a "Human Rights Report" which details abuses by other countries. To call it an exercise in hypocrisy is to understate the case: it is almost impossible to find any tyrannical power denounced by the State Department which the U.S. Government (and its closest allies) do not regularly exercise itself. Indeed, it's often impossible to imagine how the authors of these reports can refrain from cackling mischievously over the glaring ironies of what they are denouncing (my all-time favorite example is discussed in the update here).

In 2010, the State Department included a long section on the oppressive detention practices of China. The "principal human rights problems" of the tyrannical Chinese government include "a lack of due process in judicial proceedings" and "the use of administrative detention." Indeed, "arbitrary arrest and detention remained serious problems. The law grants police broad administrative detention powers and the ability to detain individuals for extended periods without formal arrest or criminal charges." Can one even find the words to condemn these Chinese monsters?

*cough* Patriot Act *cough* NDAA *cough* assassinations w/o trials *cough* massive NSA spy center under construction right now

Bush went to war against Iraq, Obama got us out. Can you see the wee-bit of difference there? I can and I'm voting for Obama.

There are just three little problems with that argument:
1. The timeline for withdrawal was negotiated under Bush.
2. Obama tried to keep us in Iraq beyond the timeline, but was blocked by the Iraqi government.
3. We are still keeping a significant militarized state department security force in Iraq indefinitely.

Bush went to war against Iraq, Obama got us out. Can you see the wee-bit of difference there? I can and I'm voting for Obama.

This notion you have is so misinformed it's appalling.

Obama did not leave, Obama got booted. Dec. 2011 marked the end of the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated by GWB. SOFA prevented the Iraqi government from local prosecution of US troops for crimes committed in Iraq. Prior to the expiration of SOFA, Obama tried to get it extended so that the troops could stay longer and avoid any risk of prosecution. Obama failed in those negotiations, in large part because the war crimes confirmed in the WikiLeaks cache, made it politically impossible for Iraqi politicians to extend SOFA.

In other words, you are giving Obama credit for ending the war in Iraq when he tried to EXTEND it. To put this in Slashdot car analogy form, that's like giving a drunk driver accolades for not killing anyone while driving home, despite being blitzed and despite intentionally swerving at oncoming traffic. That's not laudable, it's despicable even if the drunk accidentally missed everyone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html

Finally, if Bradley Manning was the source behind the wikileaks cache, rather than the torture and persecution he is receiving under Obama, he should get a fucking Nobel because it is HE who got us out of Iraq.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/singleton/

If you're going to vote for Obama, and you really believe he's some sort of peace loving socialist, consider some of the issues here: http://nothingchanged.org/

"US-style"? I beg your pardon.

American governments can give false information to the public with total impunity. http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

I flew to the US several times a few years after 9/11, and as a potential terrorist (aka European citizen), I was fingerprinted on arrival (as I knew I would be).

I'm under no illusion: both my name and fingerprints are probably in several Department of Homeland Security databases by now.

Abroad and at home, the US state security complex treats non US citizen as cattle rather than foreign citizen with fundamental rights. Hell, the US government already assassinates/drones its *own citizens* abroad without due process. Do you think they give a shit about European public opinion?

Seeing the US plunge into paranoia the last ten years has been quite sad : see the vast wiretapping and surveillance programs with no judicial oversight, but it's not just about security agencies spying, it's also smaller actions that might directly affect anyone, things like arbitrary domain names seizure of non US sites by ICE or the fact that they were able to shut down megaupload (a foreign business) at whim... all these things really made me reconsider how I view America.

Not only will I now not travel to the US, I will also make every effort to assure my data stays out of US jurisdiction. This means avoiding using "American" domain names (.com, . net etc.), avoiding US hosts and several US online services.

Anything I do under my real name and/or for business, I will do outside the US. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who came to that conclusion. This is not anti Americanism, it's just resisting/avoiding oppressive policies where possible.

I hope the US and governments the world over will go back to as saner attitude towards surveillance and respect of fundamental rights, but for now we are heading in the exact opposite direction.

who says it would have needed the 3g mobile internet we take for granted today, way back then, you'd be looking at internal radio networks (mini LANs) and the devices would be used for email, simple text documents and some spreadsheet work.

Mind you, back in 2001 we had mobile internet phones, they weren't brilliant but they did what was needed via WAP.

Not to mention that the MEK is a designated terrorist organization, and if you were a nobody, the Feds would rape you if provided any material support. However, our politicians being above the law, can support and be paid by the MEK with impunity.

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/12/washingtons_high_powered_terrorist_supporters/singleton/

These "Stand Your Ground" Laws that we have thanks to ALEC and the NRA are meant only to protect white people who shoot blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, etc.

Have a look at how "Stand Your Ground" is applied when it's the other way around.

Funny, I didn't hear anything from the NRA and the right-wing media in that Georgia case. But I did hear a right-wing talker today talking about how the increasing American sense that race relations are deteriorating is Barack Obama's fault.

If race relations have any relation to Obama it is only from the perspective of false hope, which is what Obama is all about. When blacks thought one of their own was being elected, they forgot to actually find out how the world works. Obama is not in their social class. It has little to do with the color of their skin. It has everything to do with their pocketbooks. They didn't elect one of their own, they elected another millionaire, who's looking out for the members of his own class and the people who finance his election. Obama isn't racist or anti black or pro white or anything to do with race. He's rich and he's a corporatist. Period. So the false hope that an elected black man might make things better for them is just an ignorant thought and probably a huge disappointment.

"See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist -- it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn't built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist -- just because its anti-human. And race is in fact a human characterstic -- there's no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangable cogs who will purchase all the junk that's produced -- that's their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevent, and usually a nuisance."

The existing "Castle Doctrine" already provides for self-defense with lethal force, so the "make my day" laws are a false solution to the problem of prosecutorial misconduct.

That and they don't even work as advertized when somebody actually defends themselves. At least the NRA showed up with a bushel of $10,000 an hour lawyers to defend the guys right to defend himself.

Oh wait, they didn't. Funny how often that happens.

The DA's original assessment was that there wasn't even enough evidence to win a conviction, and that's consistent with the evidence that has come out since.

Well, this article makes think that there is enough evidence to at least try to get a convocation. Unless we don't actually live in a "post-racial" America?

These "Stand Your Ground" Laws that we have thanks to ALEC and the NRA are meant only to protect white people who shoot blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, etc.

Have a look at how "Stand Your Ground" is applied when it's the other way around.

Funny, I didn't hear anything from the NRA and the right-wing media in that Georgia case. But I did hear a right-wing talker today talking about how the increasing American sense that race relations are deteriorating is Barack Obama's fault.

LOLZ. The current administration is the most voracious at attacking whistle blowers in American history.

Glenn Greenwald's take is much better thought out, and there are many quotable bits in his article: http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/rules_of_american_justice_a_tale_of_three_cases/singleton/

but how about this one, slightly offtopic, but a good summary of how the law works right now, where members of congress can get paid by and lobby for a terrorist group (*), and the rest of America can get bent. It's our tiered justice system at work:

The Rules of American Justice are quite clear:

(1) If you are a high-ranking government official who commits war crimes, you will receive full-scale immunity, both civil and criminal, and will have the American President demand that all citizens Look Forward, Not Backward.

(2) If you are a low-ranking member of the military, you will receive relatively trivial punishments in order to protect higher-ranking officials and cast the appearance of accountability.

(3) If you are a victim of American war crimes, you are a non-person with no legal rights or even any entitlement to see the inside of a courtroom.

(4) If you talk publicly about any of these war crimes, you have committed the Gravest Crime -- you are guilty of espionage -- and will have the full weight of the American criminal justice system come crashing down upon you.

(*) http://www.salon.com/2012/03/12/washingtons_high_powered_terrorist_supporters/singleton/

Glenn Greenwald's take is much better thought out, and there are many quotable bits in his article: http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/rules_of_american_justice_a_tale_of_three_cases/singleton/

but how about this one, slightly offtopic, but a good summary of how the law works right now, where members of congress can get paid by and lobby for a terrorist group (*), and the rest of America can get bent. It's our tiered justice system at work:

The Rules of American Justice are quite clear:

(1) If you are a high-ranking government official who commits war crimes, you will receive full-scale immunity, both civil and criminal, and will have the American President demand that all citizens Look Forward, Not Backward.

(2) If you are a low-ranking member of the military, you will receive relatively trivial punishments in order to protect higher-ranking officials and cast the appearance of accountability.

(3) If you are a victim of American war crimes, you are a non-person with no legal rights or even any entitlement to see the inside of a courtroom.

(4) If you talk publicly about any of these war crimes, you have committed the Gravest Crime -- you are guilty of espionage -- and will have the full weight of the American criminal justice system come crashing down upon you.

(*) http://www.salon.com/2012/03/12/washingtons_high_powered_terrorist_supporters/singleton/

"We've decided to stop paying artists entirely, that is up to them."

As far as I understand things, they're largely there already..

  * Courtney Love does the math
  * The Problem With Music by Steve Albini

Yopu mean like how we now have a new ethnicity flying around the collective consciousness called "White Hispanic" - because "Hispanic shoots Black Youth" sells far fewer papers than "White (Hispanic) shoots Black Youth"?

See this article in to learn how backwards conservatives are for acting like they never heard of this before, as the writer notes "it even has a wikipedia page"...

What kind of moron takes something that "look[s] like a cell phone attached to a remote control car with some exposed wires protruding" onto an airplane?

What kind of moron LETS SOMEONE take something that look[s] like a cell phone attached to a remote control car with some exposed wires protruding" onto an airplane? I mean, if snow globes are verboten, how in the world could that contraption possibly get on board in the first place?

I was going to add that if you consider using other dialects or accents for villains, you're a racist.

We have a system of law that protects individuals to some degree from the state.

I used to think so too. Now I'm not so sure.

The apocalypse isn't "because of humans", it was a part of the plan from the beginning.

[Citation Required] and please not from Revelations, which as we now know is not a prophetic vision, but a contemporary political cartoon. ;)

One problem with your interpretation is that the next sentence --And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done --is phrased independently of humans. More importantly putting this quote in context, what was "because of humans," of course, was the flood. It would be overly legalistic to imagine that the author intended by this to qualify Yahweh's promise not (actively) to destroy the earth in future. We should also note that in the next chapter, by contrast, Elohim merely promises not to flood the earth again.

Now that I have seen the true OP (modded to zero), I will have to concede that in the context of a wide-eyed inerrantist congressman too close to power and too far from professional help, it is a little churlish of me to complain about an overly legalistic (and ahistorical) reading of the text. And moreover, he is hardly likely to defer to an historically grounded understanding of Revelations, is he?

Those who care about issues, such as Glenn Greenwald, and the American Civil Liberties Union, rather than partisan hackery do in fact give a shit, and have given Obama a hard time about this, and some have gone so far as to suggest supporting Ron Paul precisely because of his position on these issues.

Obama IS responsible for due process free execution of several American Citizens based on a secret legal memo (repeat of the GWB policies toward due process free detention).

Obama IS responsible for Yemen's continued imprisonment of a news reporter. His sin? Most likely:

As we now know, on December 17, 2009, President Obama ordered an air attack â" using Tomahawk cruise missiles and cluster bombs â" on the village of al Majala in Yemenâ(TM)s southern Abyan province; the strike ended the lives of 14 women and 21 children. At the time, the Yemeni government outright lied about the attack, falsely claiming that it was Yemenâ(TM)s air force which was responsible.

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/obamas_personal_role_in_a_journalists_imprisonment/singleton/

Seriously, you make light of Obama's failings with things that clearly aren't his fault, but that only serves to obfuscate the fact that he's taken everything that GWB did that was considered radical and dangerous, and made it the new normal. In a world of asshole murdering civil liberty destroying shits, Obama is president.

Here's a partial list, address some of that before you defend this guy:
http://nothingchanged.org/