if you look at the history of the CIA and NSA, uhm, this is not far-fetched.
Obama now has 6 non-spy espionage act charges under his belt.
3 of those (Manning, Drake, Wikileaks) also involve the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Why?
Because 1030(a)(1) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is called 'Computer Espionage', and (a)(2) is 'exceeding authorized access' and 'obtaining information'. These are basically the same thing as the Espionage Act, but with broader language to cover more information, and more people.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is like a 'backdoor way' to expand the Espionage Act.
lulzsec, if it led to modifications of CFAA, well, i mean... think about it. it would be a great way to clamp down on free speech and criticism of government policy. Think about Thomas Drake's case - imagine an expanded CFAA and then imagine they had charged him with it, instead of charging him with the plain old Espionage Act. They might have been able to convict him ---- for whistleblowing on massive waste, and then giving UNCLASSIFIED information to a reporter. talk about chilling.
The CIA is directly participating in two of these non-spy Espionage Act prosecutions - the one against Kim and the one against Sterling.
now, i dont like conspiracy theories. they lack evidence and they lack proper respect for skepticism.
however. i think your train of thought cannot be ruled 'ridiculous' flat out.
if they charge LulzSec with 50 counts of violating various laws, then those will become precedent.
it often happens in legal history that when an unpopular defendant (like a terrorist) is put on trial, some of their rights are 'bent' or 'violated', but that precedent is then used subsequently against ordinary people.
we can see this in the Thomas Drake NSA Whistleblower case. Some of the precedents used against him by the government were set in terrorism cases like the Moussaoui case... especially precedents regarding secret evidence.
she could have told Tony who did it to her.... but the writer of the show wanted to display that there was a single character in there that had some semblance of principle, so she did not tell him.
there was no evidence he passed any classified information to a reporter.
the charges against him were not for passing information to a reporter.
they were for 'retention'.
having it in his basement.
which, by the way, is what the government IG office had told him to do - keep the IG documents for your records. they neglected to mention that some of the documents would be retoractively classified later on
My main problem was implying that NPR + other news sources used the word 'innocent'. Well, they didnt use that exact word. Sorry for implying that. I wrote it out of anger, because nobody else was pointing out that blatant fact. The point of their stories is that all charges are dropped, which makes him innocent. . . ergo they are writing that he is innocent. If i had written "NPR reports Drake Case collapsed", when NPR had really said 'all charges dropped', would that have also been SLIMEBAG DISHONESTY? or would it simply be accidentally implying a word was used when it wasnt?
If you would like to present your case please feel free to provide more details.
as for wikipedia....
will you revisit each one of my dozens of past edits to the article, and scream at me about each one, that i am a DISHONEST SLIMEBALL for each edit? because each of my previous dozens of edits on his article also contained mistakes, and i corrected them over time. It happens all the time on wikipedia, that is just the nature of the beast. That's why i like editing wikipedia actually, because people correct my mistakes, or they suggest corrections for me, or i can fix my mistakes later on. I have re-done entire articles because of people's criticisms of my writing. That, to me, is what wikipedia is about, not about 'refrain from editing for fear you might get two words wrong'. Is that your position? that nobody should write anything on wikipedia because out of thousands of words, two words might be 'too positive' towards a person in a biography of living person article? What is your position on wikipedia? do you ever write there? why or why not?
now the day he got freed, i read dozens of headlines about the case. were those reporters all all DISHONEST SLIMEBALLS when they put false and misleading statements in their headlines about him 'leaking classified information'? thats borderline defamatory, and false.
As for slashdot...
Why just scream at me? why not scream at the slashdot editors? they have changed my headlines before... in one of my previous stories, i wrote "Bush" in the headline, they replaced it with 'Government'. Good for them. But in this case, they chose to leave 'innocent' in there. Slashdot editors have posted and tweaked tens of thousands of stories in their time - why is their journalistic judgement invalid while, say, the New York Times is valid? Do you know what the New York Times did in the Wen Ho Lee case? That he won a massive lawsuit against them later on for harming him and writing lies about him?
After Drake's reputation has been run through the mud, is it not someones job to stand up and state the fact that he is innocent? How is it accurate or responsible to hide this fact from the public? I will admit that i got a little carried away in the moment, it would have been 'more neutral' to write 'all 10 charges dropped'. But slashdot is not wikipedia. It is slashdot.
I will need a lot more evidence before i can accept that i am a DISHONEST SLIMEBALL.
the prosecutor claimed that but the claim is very questionable, since two of the documents Drake is accused with were UNCLASSIFIED.
many other documents were 'retroactively classified'.
the judge in a previous writing described how there was 'no evidence' the hushmail emails contained classified info, nor that the newspaper articles contained classified info from Drake's house as the government claimed.
assuming that the government is accurate is not a good way to be 'neutral'.
you can read a bunch of the case files, motions, petitions, etc, by googling 'thomas drake selected case files fas.org'
"relatively low cost" "take a state sponsor of terrorism out of the picture"
come to think of it, 1964 called too.
man are you like some kind of Highlander, who pops up throughout history making the same arguments at the beginning of every 10-year war?
im sorry that us dum dums in the 'citizenry' have the 'audacity' to discuss the law of war. we should just bow our heads, grab our guns, cheer for the king, and make one last run over the top.
what are your feet made of? springs! steel springs!
you can see horse barns, oil heads, etc. they have had to buy patches of land from prior landowners to create the preserve, its still in the middle of a bunch of cattle ranches and oil leases. the whole thing about 'pristine view' is kind of silly.
there is no way to interpret your statements other than racism.
Osage history is not any more or less 'brutal' than the rest of oklahoma history. including the incident in 1921 in which a white mob burned down 'black wall street' in a single day. so....
Oklahoma was originally called 'indian territory', it was a place 'in between states' where dozens of tribes were sent, including the Osage whose homelands were further east.
if you were really goin to 'give back' land you would give back parts of ohio & kentucky
the Tallgrass prarie preserve is very special. if you havent been there, you wont understand it, but if you go there, you will.
just watch out for the bison.
although i suspect there is more to the story, becaus you can see little pumping stations and stuff mixed into the preserve, and there are cattle ranches all around it.
i heard that Bush's people were harassing journalists, specifically Greg Jackson, a research assistant for Ron Suskind, who was writing Way of the World, a bit if an expose about the pre-Iraq war intelligence.
they, according to suskind, detained Jackson, took his notes, and confiscated some of his stuff.
i voted for Obama so that kind of thing would stop.
and so the war would stop. and so that the assault on civil liberties would stop.
im a 100% fucking idiot. i am voting for uhm... oh wait, we don't have write-in ballots here, and we barely have 3rd parties allowed on the ballot.
Slashdot Mirror
anchorman, will ferrell and danny trejo
is actually on the CFAA (a)(2), so basically the clampdown has already started.
if you look at the history of the CIA and NSA, uhm, this is not far-fetched.
Obama now has 6 non-spy espionage act charges under his belt.
3 of those (Manning, Drake, Wikileaks) also involve the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Why?
Because 1030(a)(1) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is called 'Computer Espionage', and (a)(2) is 'exceeding authorized access' and 'obtaining information'. These are basically the same thing as the Espionage Act, but with broader language to cover more information, and more people.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is like a 'backdoor way' to expand the Espionage Act.
lulzsec, if it led to modifications of CFAA, well, i mean... think about it. it would be a great way to clamp down on free speech and criticism of government policy. Think about Thomas Drake's case - imagine an expanded CFAA and then imagine they had charged him with it, instead of charging him with the plain old Espionage Act. They might have been able to convict him ---- for whistleblowing on massive waste, and then giving UNCLASSIFIED information to a reporter. talk about chilling.
The CIA is directly participating in two of these non-spy Espionage Act prosecutions - the one against Kim and the one against Sterling.
now, i dont like conspiracy theories. they lack evidence and they lack proper respect for skepticism.
however. i think your train of thought cannot be ruled 'ridiculous' flat out.
im uhh. . shit i think i just dug myself a 5 foot hole
if they charge LulzSec with 50 counts of violating various laws, then those will become precedent.
it often happens in legal history that when an unpopular defendant (like a terrorist) is put on trial, some of their rights are 'bent' or 'violated', but that precedent is then used subsequently against ordinary people.
we can see this in the Thomas Drake NSA Whistleblower case. Some of the precedents used against him by the government were set in terrorism cases like the Moussaoui case... especially precedents regarding secret evidence.
"Times are changing. Women can do stuff now. And youre gonna have to get used to that"
she could have told Tony who did it to her.... but the writer of the show wanted to display that there was a single character in there that had some semblance of principle, so she did not tell him.
there was no evidence he passed any classified information to a reporter.
the charges against him were not for passing information to a reporter.
they were for 'retention'.
having it in his basement.
which, by the way, is what the government IG office had told him to do - keep the IG documents for your records. they neglected to mention that some of the documents would be retoractively classified later on
My main problem was implying that NPR + other news sources used the word 'innocent'. Well, they didnt use that exact word. Sorry for implying that. I wrote it out of anger, because nobody else was pointing out that blatant fact. The point of their stories is that all charges are dropped, which makes him innocent. . . ergo they are writing that he is innocent. If i had written "NPR reports Drake Case collapsed", when NPR had really said 'all charges dropped', would that have also been SLIMEBAG DISHONESTY? or would it simply be accidentally implying a word was used when it wasnt?
If you would like to present your case please feel free to provide more details.
as for wikipedia....
will you revisit each one of my dozens of past edits to the article, and scream at me about each one, that i am a DISHONEST SLIMEBALL for each edit? because each of my previous dozens of edits on his article also contained mistakes, and i corrected them over time. It happens all the time on wikipedia, that is just the nature of the beast. That's why i like editing wikipedia actually, because people correct my mistakes, or they suggest corrections for me, or i can fix my mistakes later on. I have re-done entire articles because of people's criticisms of my writing. That, to me, is what wikipedia is about, not about 'refrain from editing for fear you might get two words wrong'. Is that your position? that nobody should write anything on wikipedia because out of thousands of words, two words might be 'too positive' towards a person in a biography of living person article? What is your position on wikipedia? do you ever write there? why or why not?
now the day he got freed, i read dozens of headlines about the case. were those reporters all all DISHONEST SLIMEBALLS when they put false and misleading statements in their headlines about him 'leaking classified information'? thats borderline defamatory, and false.
As for slashdot...
Why just scream at me? why not scream at the slashdot editors? they have changed my headlines before... in one of my previous stories, i wrote "Bush" in the headline, they replaced it with 'Government'. Good for them. But in this case, they chose to leave 'innocent' in there. Slashdot editors have posted and tweaked tens of thousands of stories in their time - why is their journalistic judgement invalid while, say, the New York Times is valid? Do you know what the New York Times did in the Wen Ho Lee case? That he won a massive lawsuit against them later on for harming him and writing lies about him?
After Drake's reputation has been run through the mud, is it not someones job to stand up and state the fact that he is innocent? How is it accurate or responsible to hide this fact from the public? I will admit that i got a little carried away in the moment, it would have been 'more neutral' to write 'all 10 charges dropped'. But slashdot is not wikipedia. It is slashdot.
I will need a lot more evidence before i can accept that i am a DISHONEST SLIMEBALL.
the prosecutor claimed that but the claim is very questionable, since two of the documents Drake is accused with were UNCLASSIFIED.
many other documents were 'retroactively classified'.
the judge in a previous writing described how there was 'no evidence' the hushmail emails contained classified info, nor that the newspaper articles contained classified info from Drake's house as the government claimed.
assuming that the government is accurate is not a good way to be 'neutral'.
you can read a bunch of the case files, motions, petitions, etc, by googling 'thomas drake selected case files fas.org'
thanks
if this going to be low cost, then how about we set a cap?
it wants it's arguments back
"relatively low cost"
"take a state sponsor of terrorism out of the picture"
come to think of it, 1964 called too.
man are you like some kind of Highlander, who pops up throughout history making the same arguments at the beginning of every 10-year war?
im sorry that us dum dums in the 'citizenry' have the 'audacity' to discuss the law of war. we should just bow our heads, grab our guns, cheer for the king, and make one last run over the top.
what are your feet made of? springs! steel springs!
fast as a leopard!
but a large number just get tired of all the accidental deaths
or if you did it on purpose. all they care about is that you killed their kid.
then they go strap a suicide jacket on and have a run at the nearest barracks
uhm when you drive into the preserve there are oil heads and stuff.
you can see horse barns, oil heads, etc. they have had to buy patches of land from prior landowners to create the preserve, its still in the middle of a bunch of cattle ranches and oil leases. the whole thing about 'pristine view' is kind of silly.
and a lot of other stuff for the poor people in the tribe.
just because you are native doesn't make you automatically rich.
please just stop talking about stuff you don't understand.
there is no way to interpret your statements other than racism.
Osage history is not any more or less 'brutal' than the rest of oklahoma history. including the incident in 1921 in which a white mob burned down 'black wall street' in a single day. so ....
Oklahoma was originally called 'indian territory', it was a place 'in between states' where dozens of tribes were sent, including the Osage whose homelands were further east.
if you were really goin to 'give back' land you would give back parts of ohio & kentucky
the Tallgrass prarie preserve is very special. if you havent been there, you wont understand it, but if you go there, you will.
just watch out for the bison.
although i suspect there is more to the story, becaus you can see little pumping stations and stuff mixed into the preserve, and there are cattle ranches all around it.
'kinetic military action'. .. it sounds so, you know, dirty! like someone might get hurt!
i heard that Bush's people were harassing journalists, specifically Greg Jackson, a research assistant for Ron Suskind, who was writing Way of the World, a bit if an expose about the pre-Iraq war intelligence.
they, according to suskind, detained Jackson, took his notes, and confiscated some of his stuff.
i voted for Obama so that kind of thing would stop.
and so the war would stop. and so that the assault on civil liberties would stop.
im a 100% fucking idiot. i am voting for uhm... oh wait, we don't have write-in ballots here, and we barely have 3rd parties allowed on the ballot.
and immoral.
do they have to give the money back?
not only does he have some awesome lawyers, he is an awesome lawyer.
jim - "dude i just blew up starbucks"
laywer obama -"its OK! not hostile!"
jim - "but like, eleven people died"
lawyer obama -"chill. did i ever tell you about that time i was bombing libya? well, starbucks is a little bit like libya."