" I think I was pretty clear that I'm against this individual, or any individual, deciding for themselves how a case should go without the benefit of due process, and acting on it."
In the steubenville rape case, due process failed, period. This man took justice into his own hands, and is being punished for it by cowards.
"Rearview cameras are way better than rearview mirrors at avoiding accidents"
That's news to me--i have a backup camera in my car and have used it once in five years (when a dog was running around behind me). Oh no, blind spots? I'll quote you: "You have a fallback of looking over your shoulder", which the driver should be doung anyway. Having side-mirror cameras is simply needless.
I said nothing about solitary confinement â" only the sleep-deprivation, which you alleged has taken/ place.
So you wouldn't argue that the solitary is also punishment? Now you'll split hairs as to say, "the solitary confinement was punishment, but the sleep deprivation was not"? And if you'd concede that some of his treatment was punishment, how can you claim to know which aspects of his treatment were or were not?
On top of that, forcing someone to sleep facing a lightsource meets the ends of making them "survive to stand trial", how?
I'm sure, you can find an ex MP to tell you any of that....
Oh, wow, listening to the psychologist's protests must've been torturous indeed.
In other words, we should take those in the military's word at everything, except for when those in the military have any disagreement with prior decisions of others, at which point, hey, that's just their opinion, man. And also, we can't trust the word of anyone who has left the military--they'll just say anything! How convenient that you would take the word of the OIC (not his jailor, like you claimed) over the word of his psychologist OR the marines' chief of corrections. Neither of those people are mentioned to have left, but you don't won't even consider their inconvenient opinions over that of someone who you called an "asshole". How much of an asshole was he in your eyes if you agree with the absurdity that Manning was being disrespectful by asking why he was shouting?
Clearly, you exercise very selective reading or hearing when it comes to the treatment of those you hate.
Not in my dictionary [princeton.edu].
Actually, "extreme mental distress" is the first entry, which describes solitary confinement perfectly. If you think that depriving a person of all social contact beyond a single person who does not communicate with them is not mental distress, I have a bridge to sell you.
"In New York, California and Texas, it has been found that suicide rates are significantly higher among people held in solitary confinement than in general population. In 2013, forensic psychiatrist Dr. Raymond Patterson reported prisoners in Californiaâ(TM)s Security Housing Units and Administrative Segregation Units have a 33 times greater chance of suicide than someone in the prison systemâ(TM)s general population."
Now this is where you try to argue that treatment which demonstrably increases the suicide rate among its participants is not "extreme mental distress".
Now this is where you bring about the excuse that they were placed on solitary because they were suicidal to begin with... after conceding to me earlier that Manning was placed on solitary because he was a "security risk". Was he placed in solitary because he was a security risk, or on suicide watch? Which was it? Isn't military prison treatment meant to be chosen for a given reason, not a mishmash of halfassed sentiment?
Thousands of inmates are subjected to that regularly in prisons nation-wide.
That anything would be OK because it occurs regularly in the US prison system is one of the most pathetic arguments I've ever heard.
Conditions and treatment of prisoners in America's prisons bother me a great deal ...after saying that Manning's solitary confinement is NOT troubling because "thousands of inmates are subjected to that regularly in prisons nation-wide... it is justified". Solitary is arguably the worst legal treatment of US inmates next to botched executions, so I'm curious what other treatment "bothers you a great deal" compared to thos
I'd say a lot of his fans are probably inside the country, given that disinformation against him usually doesn't portray him in a negative light (like disinformation against snowden or greenwald). This reflects the fact that the media and government have failed to smear him.
Aside from that, my question is: what did he reveal about the US government spying on its own people that is so damaging? And does learning that your government spies on you and lies about it make you madder at the messenger than any other party?
These questions are pretty much rhetorical, since i know damn well why you are here (as well as many others who frequent these topics on slashdo)t, but i'm still curious how you would answer them.
http://www.rollingstone.com/po...
"There were several guards charged with what they called "Manning Watch" and whose instructions were to check on Manning every five minutes, 24 hours a day. Constant observation and frequent interruption were well-worn tactics widely used on detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as at Guantanamo. "It's sleep deprivation, basically," says Brandon Neely, a former Army MP who was posted at Guantanamo. It was also broadly acknowledged, and condemned, by human rights monitors, as a form of punishment."
https://www.vice.com/read/the-..."Sometimes, said Tankersley, POI status inmates were found snoozing. "And we catch them and wake them back up," he said. "There's basically nothing to do." Any time Pfc. Manning had to be moved from his cage, the entire facility was put in lockdown."
Yes. It's sleep deprivation. To be fair, there were times where he was given a sleeping period:
"He was forced to sleep from 1 PM to 11 PM, naked, and was allowed to do so only when facing his lamp."
Ah yes, forcing someone to sleep facing a lamp--clearing a measure undertaken by those who care deeply about his health.
not torture.... not punishment
He was also detained for several hundred days without trial--a clear violation of the sixth amendment, but again, slavish defenders of government iniquity such as yourself never seem to find any problem with that part.
Solitary confinement IS torture, and it is often used as such despite any excuses of suicide watch. In this case, it seems that the decision to put Manning on suicide watch three separate timnes was entirely arbitrary, and questioned by more than one party:
http://www.courthousenews.com/...
"Chief Warrant Officer-4 James Averhart, the brig OIC, or Officer in Charge, put Manning on suicide risk, or SR, three times, despite the protests of his prison psychologist, Capt. William Hocter."
"In one instance, Averhart called for suicide watch shortly after having a private conversation with Manning, who he said had been "disrespectful" to him... Averhart asserted to have no detailed memory of the encounter, but remembered that Manning asked why he was yelling at him."
"... On Wednesday, the chief of corrections for the Marines, CW5 Abel Galaviz, said placing Manning on this status broke regulations established by the Secretary of the Navy, known as the SecNav instructions."
This guy put Manning back in solitary because Manning was being "disrespectful" by asking why Averhart was shouting. On top of this already being an example of torture, that detail totally blows away your claim that none of this is punishment. Again, I'm sure none of this bothers you! You'll defend all treatment of manning no matter what, because you are scripted as such. Too bad that script is now gathering cobwebs.
Whoops, sorry for the misunderstanding. I assumed I was seeing talk of Manning because of many details including this:
Snowden's media buddies just dumped everything out there without any consideration whatsoever of the consequences...which is totally not true, and is much more often (wrongfully) attributed to Manning for the fact of Wikileaks' releasing a large volume. "Snowden's media buddies"--you mean, "journalists"? Media buddies would be an apt term if they were actually associated with any large media companies at the time. These "media buddies" as you call them, now at theintercept.org,have slowly and responsibly reviewed and released documents, and in many cases refrained from leaking things they believe would harm national security. This includes fact of Afghanistan's telephone system being surveilled 24/7, which Wikileaks wound up revealing only because the Intercept refused to. Also, most of what was revealed with Snowden's leaks was domestic--so what consequences are you so scared of, huh?
They did not "dump everything out", and there has been consideration of the consequences. The government has offered no evidence whatsoever--after much review--that Snowden's actions did any tangible harm.. just like Manning.
the leaks EVERYTHING, to foreign media
Again, I thought you were talking about Manning leaking to Snowden, because this is totally wrong--many of the Intercept, including Laura Poitress and Glenn Greenwald, are Americans. Intercept also didn't exist when Snowden first leaked these things, but came about because of it. At least Wikileaks is "foreign".
That's great that you share emotional sentiment about the character of Snowden with Robert Gates--is that supposed to compel me? And I guess that's all you share, unless you give me some examples as to what he leaked that pisses you off so much. Is it how the feds have modified exported router hardware? Or their various invasions of Google's subnets? Does learning that our government sees us at enemies make you mad at Snowden? Really?
What I mentioned about hubris (as you put it) still applies--when it comes to Assange or Snowden, the "egomaniac" / "narcissist" narrative is just too obvious.
" Then, as if that wasn't enough, he leaks EVERYTHING, to foreign media. At least Ellsberg leaked to a reputable American media"
First, wikileaks isn't a media company. Second, two of those "reputable" (LOL) news sources that you speak of, including the Washington Post, ignored Manning when he contacted them--which is why he went to Wikileaks. Funny how one little detail like this fells a house of cards, which is in this case your babble about Manning being motivated by "hubris". Hubris! Same old argument, be it Assange Greenwald or Manning. You need a new script.
Funny how you deliberately left out the fact of Manning being tortured with sleep deprivation for over a year straight. But cruel and unusual punishment of course has never deterred your unending defense of the government, no matter what it does wrong.
You're arguing that it's a conspiracy theory, and implying that there is no anti-competitive behaviour on the part of cable companies... which there absolutely is and has been, though maybe it's not evidented by this particular story. Thank you for being so (unintentiomally) transparent.
"Committees of government and opposition controlling the security services seems to me to be the only solution. And that, by and large, is what we have."
What country do you live in? Because the FISA kangaroo courts are very far from that which you just described.
the summary is absolutely right in that silly classifications muck with accountability. silly classifications have been the name of the game since the Bush administration, unless you consider keeping people in Guantanamo over classified newspaper clippings--literally--to be the height of accountability
The part you're missing that's unique to tye Obama admin is this: previous administrations have not resorted to entirely secret interpretations of the law like this one has, like their interpretation of the patriot act that has allowed for the modern surveillance state.
I don't understand why the passphrase even matters when they've had complete physical access to the phone all along. The lawsuit was certainly an attempt to coerce apple into providing a backdoor--the FBI knew damn well it didn't ultimately need one.
So, after a major revelation of worldwide conspiracy, you'd call conspiracy theorists about this "nut jobs".. even though the entire premise of this article would prove them correct? Are you even borderline sentient, or do you just not understand what a conspiracy is?
No, thank you--I waa hoping for more evidence of paid shilling, and you just gave me plenty. And if you were any sort of boss, you certainly wouldn't be shitposting filler like this on slashdot. Oh yeah, and nice try with the followup AC. Tell cold fjord i said hi.
Why don't you ask Aaron Barr, former CEO of now-defunct HBGary Federal, how the US Chamber of Commerce's Operation Themis is doing thanks to Anon? You know, the Chamber's attempt to fuck with the personal lives of journalists in order to silence them? of course, i doubt anything will meet your careful criteria of "lasting change".
Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald
And now anonymous, too? How convenient that the leaks or hackers that delivered infomation most damning for the government are those for which AC shows up like clockwork to condemn. Seriously, who organically questions the relevance of leaks as if they were TMZ headlines?
Slashdot Mirror
" I think I was pretty clear that I'm against this individual, or any individual, deciding for themselves how a case should go without the benefit of due process, and acting on it."
In the steubenville rape case, due process failed, period. This man took justice into his own hands, and is being punished for it by cowards.
"Rearview cameras are way better than rearview mirrors at avoiding accidents"
That's news to me--i have a backup camera in my car and have used it once in five years (when a dog was running around behind me). Oh no, blind spots? I'll quote you: "You have a fallback of looking over your shoulder", which the driver should be doung anyway. Having side-mirror cameras is simply needless.
Broken link.
...
Oh, wow, listening to the psychologist's protests must've been torturous indeed.
...after saying that Manning's solitary confinement is NOT troubling because "thousands of inmates are subjected to that regularly in prisons nation-wide... it is justified". Solitary is arguably the worst legal treatment of US inmates next to botched executions, so I'm curious what other treatment "bothers you a great deal" compared to thos
Loads for me.
http://imgur.com/a/wubpr
But I made a pastebin, just for you.
http://pastebin.com/cw9tbwXB
I said nothing about solitary confinement â" only the sleep-deprivation, which you alleged has taken/ place.
So you wouldn't argue that the solitary is also punishment? Now you'll split hairs as to say, "the solitary confinement was punishment, but the sleep deprivation was not"? And if you'd concede that some of his treatment was punishment, how can you claim to know which aspects of his treatment were or were not?
On top of that, forcing someone to sleep facing a lightsource meets the ends of making them "survive to stand trial", how?
I'm sure, you can find an ex MP to tell you any of that.
In other words, we should take those in the military's word at everything, except for when those in the military have any disagreement with prior decisions of others, at which point, hey, that's just their opinion, man. And also, we can't trust the word of anyone who has left the military--they'll just say anything! How convenient that you would take the word of the OIC (not his jailor, like you claimed) over the word of his psychologist OR the marines' chief of corrections. Neither of those people are mentioned to have left, but you don't won't even consider their inconvenient opinions over that of someone who you called an "asshole". How much of an asshole was he in your eyes if you agree with the absurdity that Manning was being disrespectful by asking why he was shouting?
Clearly, you exercise very selective reading or hearing when it comes to the treatment of those you hate.
Not in my dictionary [princeton.edu].
Actually, "extreme mental distress" is the first entry, which describes solitary confinement perfectly. If you think that depriving a person of all social contact beyond a single person who does not communicate with them is not mental distress, I have a bridge to sell you.
http://solitarywatch.com/facts...
"In New York, California and Texas, it has been found that suicide rates are significantly higher among people held in solitary confinement than in general population. In 2013, forensic psychiatrist Dr. Raymond Patterson reported prisoners in Californiaâ(TM)s Security Housing Units and Administrative Segregation Units have a 33 times greater chance of suicide than someone in the prison systemâ(TM)s general population."
Now this is where you try to argue that treatment which demonstrably increases the suicide rate among its participants is not "extreme mental distress".
Now this is where you bring about the excuse that they were placed on solitary because they were suicidal to begin with... after conceding to me earlier that Manning was placed on solitary because he was a "security risk". Was he placed in solitary because he was a security risk, or on suicide watch? Which was it? Isn't military prison treatment meant to be chosen for a given reason, not a mishmash of halfassed sentiment?
Thousands of inmates are subjected to that regularly in prisons nation-wide.
That anything would be OK because it occurs regularly in the US prison system is one of the most pathetic arguments I've ever heard.
Conditions and treatment of prisoners in America's prisons bother me a great deal
I'd say a lot of his fans are probably inside the country, given that disinformation against him usually doesn't portray him in a negative light (like disinformation against snowden or greenwald). This reflects the fact that the media and government have failed to smear him.
Aside from that, my question is: what did he reveal about the US government spying on its own people that is so damaging? And does learning that your government spies on you and lies about it make you madder at the messenger than any other party?
These questions are pretty much rhetorical, since i know damn well why you are here (as well as many others who frequent these topics on slashdo)t, but i'm still curious how you would answer them.
That's not sleep deprivation... not punishment
http://www.rollingstone.com/po... "There were several guards charged with what they called "Manning Watch" and whose instructions were to check on Manning every five minutes, 24 hours a day. Constant observation and frequent interruption were well-worn tactics widely used on detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as at Guantanamo. "It's sleep deprivation, basically," says Brandon Neely, a former Army MP who was posted at Guantanamo. It was also broadly acknowledged, and condemned, by human rights monitors, as a form of punishment."
https://www.vice.com/read/the-... "Sometimes, said Tankersley, POI status inmates were found snoozing. "And we catch them and wake them back up," he said. "There's basically nothing to do." Any time Pfc. Manning had to be moved from his cage, the entire facility was put in lockdown."
Yes. It's sleep deprivation. To be fair, there were times where he was given a sleeping period:
"He was forced to sleep from 1 PM to 11 PM, naked, and was allowed to do so only when facing his lamp."
Ah yes, forcing someone to sleep facing a lamp--clearing a measure undertaken by those who care deeply about his health.
not torture.... not punishment
He was also detained for several hundred days without trial--a clear violation of the sixth amendment, but again, slavish defenders of government iniquity such as yourself never seem to find any problem with that part.
Solitary confinement IS torture, and it is often used as such despite any excuses of suicide watch. In this case, it seems that the decision to put Manning on suicide watch three separate timnes was entirely arbitrary, and questioned by more than one party:
http://www.courthousenews.com/... "Chief Warrant Officer-4 James Averhart, the brig OIC, or Officer in Charge, put Manning on suicide risk, or SR, three times, despite the protests of his prison psychologist, Capt. William Hocter."
"In one instance, Averhart called for suicide watch shortly after having a private conversation with Manning, who he said had been "disrespectful" to him... Averhart asserted to have no detailed memory of the encounter, but remembered that Manning asked why he was yelling at him."
"... On Wednesday, the chief of corrections for the Marines, CW5 Abel Galaviz, said placing Manning on this status broke regulations established by the Secretary of the Navy, known as the SecNav instructions."
This guy put Manning back in solitary because Manning was being "disrespectful" by asking why Averhart was shouting. On top of this already being an example of torture, that detail totally blows away your claim that none of this is punishment. Again, I'm sure none of this bothers you! You'll defend all treatment of manning no matter what, because you are scripted as such. Too bad that script is now gathering cobwebs.
Whoops, sorry for the misunderstanding. I assumed I was seeing talk of Manning because of many details including this:
Snowden's media buddies just dumped everything out there without any consideration whatsoever of the consequences. ..which is totally not true, and is much more often (wrongfully) attributed to Manning for the fact of Wikileaks' releasing a large volume. "Snowden's media buddies"--you mean, "journalists"? Media buddies would be an apt term if they were actually associated with any large media companies at the time. These "media buddies" as you call them, now at theintercept.org ,have slowly and responsibly reviewed and released documents, and in many cases refrained from leaking things they believe would harm national security. This includes fact of Afghanistan's telephone system being surveilled 24/7, which Wikileaks wound up revealing only because the Intercept refused to. Also, most of what was revealed with Snowden's leaks was domestic--so what consequences are you so scared of, huh?
They did not "dump everything out", and there has been consideration of the consequences. The government has offered no evidence whatsoever--after much review--that Snowden's actions did any tangible harm.. just like Manning.
the leaks EVERYTHING, to foreign media
Again, I thought you were talking about Manning leaking to Snowden, because this is totally wrong--many of the Intercept, including Laura Poitress and Glenn Greenwald, are Americans. Intercept also didn't exist when Snowden first leaked these things, but came about because of it. At least Wikileaks is "foreign".
That's great that you share emotional sentiment about the character of Snowden with Robert Gates--is that supposed to compel me? And I guess that's all you share, unless you give me some examples as to what he leaked that pisses you off so much. Is it how the feds have modified exported router hardware? Or their various invasions of Google's subnets? Does learning that our government sees us at enemies make you mad at Snowden ? Really?
What I mentioned about hubris (as you put it) still applies--when it comes to Assange or Snowden, the "egomaniac" / "narcissist" narrative is just too obvious.
" Then, as if that wasn't enough, he leaks EVERYTHING, to foreign media. At least Ellsberg leaked to a reputable American media"
First, wikileaks isn't a media company. Second, two of those "reputable" (LOL) news sources that you speak of, including the Washington Post, ignored Manning when he contacted them--which is why he went to Wikileaks. Funny how one little detail like this fells a house of cards, which is in this case your babble about Manning being motivated by "hubris". Hubris! Same old argument, be it Assange Greenwald or Manning. You need a new script.
Funny how you deliberately left out the fact of Manning being tortured with sleep deprivation for over a year straight. But cruel and unusual punishment of course has never deterred your unending defense of the government, no matter what it does wrong.
Whenever i see planted opinions masquerading as legitimate, organic thought, I cam't help but ask.
You're arguing that it's a conspiracy theory, and implying that there is no anti-competitive behaviour on the part of cable companies... which there absolutely is and has been, though maybe it's not evidented by this particular story. Thank you for being so (unintentiomally) transparent.
There, fixed that fpr you with something much more relevant to slashdot. Hi, cold fjord!
Aside from qualms about wcd's management.. "Not much" good audio there? Wow, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about on that one.
Anytime a bill is bipartisan, you better believe everyone is getting screwed.
"Committees of government and opposition controlling the security services seems to me to be the only solution. And that, by and large, is what we have." What country do you live in? Because the FISA kangaroo courts are very far from that which you just described.
Taxpayer dollars thrown at the investigation and subduement of movements and protest.
the summary is absolutely right in that silly classifications muck with accountability. silly classifications have been the name of the game since the Bush administration, unless you consider keeping people in Guantanamo over classified newspaper clippings--literally--to be the height of accountability
The part you're missing that's unique to tye Obama admin is this: previous administrations have not resorted to entirely secret interpretations of the law like this one has, like their interpretation of the patriot act that has allowed for the modern surveillance state.
I don't understand why the passphrase even matters when they've had complete physical access to the phone all along. The lawsuit was certainly an attempt to coerce apple into providing a backdoor--the FBI knew damn well it didn't ultimately need one.
So, after a major revelation of worldwide conspiracy, you'd call conspiracy theorists about this "nut jobs".. even though the entire premise of this article would prove them correct? Are you even borderline sentient, or do you just not understand what a conspiracy is?
No, thank you--I waa hoping for more evidence of paid shilling, and you just gave me plenty. And if you were any sort of boss, you certainly wouldn't be shitposting filler like this on slashdot. Oh yeah, and nice try with the followup AC. Tell cold fjord i said hi.
Yesterday's flavor was indignance, so today's is defeatism? Does switching it up make your boss happy?
Proud of yourself much? Feels like I'm suffocating in a cloud of smug.
...would probably disagree with you, if his car didn't accelerate out of control and explode against a tree. CANBUS manipulation is also an option.
Why don't you ask Aaron Barr, former CEO of now-defunct HBGary Federal, how the US Chamber of Commerce's Operation Themis is doing thanks to Anon? You know, the Chamber's attempt to fuck with the personal lives of journalists in order to silence them? of course, i doubt anything will meet your careful criteria of "lasting change".
Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald And now anonymous, too? How convenient that the leaks or hackers that delivered infomation most damning for the government are those for which AC shows up like clockwork to condemn. Seriously, who organically questions the relevance of leaks as if they were TMZ headlines?