While you are free to lament about my 'personal politics' into it... I'm sorry that you don't like being confronted with facts... or would you prefer I jump up and down and scream "We told you so, we tried to stop you, you didn't listen... now reap what you've sown!" ?
Na, your dismissiveness of the facts at hand is the truly juvenile part of this.
More so, you realize under Federalism... states do still have some rights... right?
And most of all, the Republicans DID NOT ALLOW US TO HAVE SINGLE PAYER, which put us in this situation in the first place.
Remind me... how many Republican's voted for this monstrosity of a law which is forcing people to lose their health insurance plans and pay even more out of pocket for the replacements? Right... ZERO.
Don't blame the Republicans when the liberals couldn't come up with enough votes to implement single payer.
That would have required a competent and well thought out design from the outset... then having it be implemented correctly... or verifying the implementation works prior to launch.
Instead we have a system that fails when you look at it normally, doesn't scale well, and turns out to be woefully incomplete (such as missing the payment system) for just a start... and all the supporters can do is blame 'high demand'... which is odd, when you pass a law promising to offer affordable health insurance to 48 million uninsured Americans... wouldn't you plan for that kind of scale on day one?
Or... you could go beyond your close-mindedness, trust that your web browser will simply open the PDF up for you (as mine does)... and maybe take with a grain of salt what the evil RedState has to say... doubly so when you do not know how I arrived at choosing that link (hint, it was a quick search and was the top relevant result).
Just for you, here is another link, but about the PDF above & a quote from the CEO of TrustedSEC who was testifying in Washington today:
“Hackers are definitely after it,” said David Kennedy, CEO of information security firm TrustedSEC before a House Science, Space, and Technology committee hearing on security concerns surrounding the problematic Healthcare.gov website.
“And if I had to guess, based on what I can see I would say the website is either hacked already or will be soon.”
Somehow I doubt Huffington Post, Daily KOS or MSNBC are going to cover these issues... in fact at cursory glance, I see not hints of such reports there today.
Personally, I would have just called a war a war, but hey.
They did though... the war on terror... just like the war on crime, war on drugs, war on poverty... where the public term was different than the title of the supporting legislation.
It's important to point out that under the War Powers Act, the President requires congressional authorization for military actions that last beyond 60 days... which means the bar for legislatively passed/declared ''war' is much lower than in past.
One side note to this, is that while every president since the enactment of the War Powers Act has viewed it as an unconstitutional restraint on their authority as commander in chief... all but one have adhered to it's requirements. The one outlier... Obama and his bombing of Libya in support of rooting Gaddafi.
Yes, the power to declare war is left to Congress... and what does Congress pass? Bills & resolutions.
Know how the 'declaration of war' against Japan started out? A resolution.
Know how the 'declaration of war' against Germany started out? A resolution.
Know how the authorizations for force in Afghanistan & Iraq started out? Resolutions.
With the exception of the latter two not having the containing the phrase 'a state of war exists'... what exactly is the difference in your mind?
Remember, all 4 contain stated justifications, targets, and authorizes the president to use the military against said targets.
Not that it matters what you say, because at the end of the day the Constitution is not clear as to what form a 'declaration of war' is to take. Who says it even has to be a written & passed resolution? In our modern age of TV & internet... surely a joint session of Congress could unanimously take 10 minutes of primetime tv, stand and declare their desire to whoop the collective asses of the nation of ____... would not that effectively be a declaration of war... just as virtually every resolution authorizing force has been... just without using the term 'declaration of war'?
The correct answer... is yes. While a written 'declaration of war' has long been common, verbal statements & actions are just as definitive, provided they are clear & visible enough. Do not forget that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor prior to their declaration being delivered... is that to say that they had not actually declared war on us until handing over said document?
Did you miss the sentence where it said: "However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term."?
If one looks at the link to CVE-2013-0634, there is a link to a MS Security Bulletin first posted in March 2013 & last updated in April... even saying:
Recommendation. Most customers have automatic updating enabled and will not need to take any action because this security update will be downloaded and installed automatically. Customers who have not enabled automatic updating need to check for updates and install this update manually. For information about specific configuration options in automatic updating, see Microsoft Knowledge Base Article 294871.
Way to go editors... this bug was reported & fixed 7 months ago and only now are we to get paranoid over what it could do if Windows Update isn't enabled? sheesh
The funny thing is, YOU provided links that showed that the U.S. civilian courts have jurisdiction over them.
Citation? Nope... didn't think so.
And if Gitmo isn't under the United States, why does our flag fly there?
The Castro's would be heartbroken to hear you say that.
More so... did a US flag fly over a U.S.-administered prison in Germany? Yup. Did the Supreme Court rule that US courts had no jurisdiction over those prisoners? Yup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager
Yes, Eisentrager has been weakened, especially by Rasul v. Bush, however at no time were full constitutional protections granted to the detainees... only specific & limited rights such as habeas corpus, further expanded by Hamdi v. Rumsfeld & Boumediene v. Bush... and largely by virtue of the degree of control exercised over the geographic area.
You continently ignore things like the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006... steps to
You REALLY need to read your own links completely before you cite them. They don't actually support your decision at all.
You keep saying that but still cannot quite a single part that contradicts what I have said.
The shame is that you are so happy to see the Constitution dropped in the shredder as soon as it becomes inconvenient.
And you are happy drowning kittens in order to get off.
See how much fun it is to make up accusations?
The only thing settled is that the U.S. courts claimed jurisdiction and Bush defied them.
Um, the US courts claimed certain jurisdictions, not others... and Bush went along when he lost in court... as has Obama followed these precedents. Besides... how's that whole 'closing gitmo' thing going anyway? Lemme guess... it's all the Republican's fault.
You keep telling me to read my own links... yet STILL fail to cite any specific part of them that I am missing.
The laughable thing here... is that you are arguing over things that is the basis of settled law... argued lawyers (which I assume you are not) who are far more informed than you... and they lost, repeatedly, over decades... yet you still wage this silly little battle.
In Pastorius, they were treated as POWs and so were given their trial as required by the Geneva Convention.
Um... no they weren't.
Yes, they had a trial... but it wasn't for being POWs... it was for (amongst other things) unlawful enemy combatants.
When they came ashore... they were wearing their German uniforms just in case they were captured... so that then they would be treated as POWs... however the moment they took them off and proceeded with the plot, they became unlawful combatants.
The U.S. government's treatment of a civilian is dictated by the Constitution. It offers no special exceptions of any kind.
So the US Constitution applies to civilians anywhere in the world? Boy, that must be news to Obama who keeps using drones to kill targets overseas.
No, you are citing your limited interpretation of it.
It covers any and every action of the U.S. government.
Really? Maybe you could point out where that abortion clause is... it seems to be hiding under emanations of penumbras.
It is understood that an exception is made during actual warfare where military law and the Geneva Convention apply.
It is 'understood'? Not 'written'? So much for your attempt at citation.
More so... you realize that the Geneva Convention's are not the only international agreements governing how states & state actors are to behave during hostilities.
What you keep failing to grasp... is that there are not just two categories of 'civilian' or 'POW', and the concept for an 'unlawful combatant' is nothing new, most often in past it was used to address certain types of spies... yet you ignore the Hague Convention of 1907 which set some ground rules for characterizing captured persons as legal or illegal combatants
Again, you keep claiming these things but provide no citations, nor even links to what you claim.
What's worse... is you keep getting rebuffed with actual facts and you still repeat this nonsense.
While initially captured it is customary to regard the detained as a POW... until they are held by a competent tribunal to determine if Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention applies... at which point they lose that status... something that has already happened.
Under law, 'illegal combatant' is another term for a civilian who was shooting at us.
Which law? 'Unlawful discharge of a firearm' according to the laws of New Jersey... or maybe attempted murder by the laws of Nebraska? Yeah... that will go over well.
As such, you'll need to give them their speedy trial before an impartial jury in a civilian court.
Really? Says who? Prosecutions under the laws of war tend to be rather different than civilian criminal trials (ie officers of the other side vs jury of peers).
Be they lawful or unlawful combatants, it is conventional to hold captured persons until the end of hostilities... yes, in this case that may be a little bit longer than expected, them be the risks that the combatants signed up for.
By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.
What you are arguing against has been settled case law for many years in this country... it's a shame you still can't be bothered to do any research on the subject.
Hell, you should also read about Operation Pastorius where a group of (attempted) German saboteurs were executed after being caught on US soil for violating the laws of war.
You really need to look at the authorizations for force in Afghanistan & Iraq... then look up what generally constitutes an 'declaration of war', as last I checked... neither US law or the Constitution explicitly defines in what form a 'declaration of war' must take... or even if those words must be used.
No... they are being held as unlawful enemy combatants... there is a difference. Being a POW comes with certain rights under the Geneva Conventions, not so for those down in Gitmo.
Worse, if we go down this road... just imagine the explosion we'd expect to see in the prison industry.
Beyond the max & super-max prisons for the 'dangerous'... hackers would end up at 'summer camp' prisons where they rehabilitate by learning new languages, white collar criminals go away to 'resort prisons' where they are scolded more about not getting caught, while drunk drivers locked up in local bars to help put them off the drink.
"It's just a misunderstanding that makes you think she is dead, sure you have a body that lacks a pulse..."
"Why yes, I did burn down that orphanage... but you misunderstand why."
"No officer, I did have a lot to drink tonight, but you don't understand that my driving abilities get better when I'm wasted!"
We are not talking about an accidently committed crime here... my understanding is he deliberately did what he did... so should be punished hard as a reminder.
Slashdot Mirror
Many states? You offer 2 but fail to offer any citations?
At last check, Nevada's site has only signed up 531 people: http://www.foxreno.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/nevada-health-exchange-signups-790.shtml
Zero for Oregon: http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2013/11/11/oregon-health-care-exchange-has-yet-to-enroll-a-single-person/
We've got the Washington (state) exchange crashing during it's promotional tour: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Health-exchange-website-goes-down-during-road-tour-229571661.html
Never mind the issues of Washington's site with costing people their projected tax credit: http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/rude-awakening-for-federal-way-woman-who-got-shout-out-from-president-cant-afford-obamacare-policy-after-all/#.Uoq1uZH1JMg.twitter
Zero plans sold during the first two weeks in Hawaii (due to issues): http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/10/hawaii-relaunching-obamacare-exchange-after-not-selling-any-health-insurance-due-to-software-problems/
Ditto in New York: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/white-house-deems-health-glitches-unacceptable-gop-calls-obamacare-doa-article-1.1491281
And Vermont: http://rutlandherald.com/article/20131031/OPINION04/710319973/0/OPINION
And that a month in, state exchanges had only reached 3% of their target: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/11/usa-healthcare-enrollment-idUSL2N0IW0XX20131111?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssHealthcareNews&rpc=22
Yes, such a great success.
While you are free to lament about my 'personal politics' into it... I'm sorry that you don't like being confronted with facts... or would you prefer I jump up and down and scream "We told you so, we tried to stop you, you didn't listen... now reap what you've sown!" ?
Na, your dismissiveness of the facts at hand is the truly juvenile part of this.
Citation to specific bill which caused this please.
If it was a traffic load issue, why does the issue still persist nearly 2 months since launch when the traffic to the site dropped by 88% after the first couple of weeks? http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/visits-to-federal-health-care-web-site-off-88percent/2013/10/15/7a73f45c-35e2-11e3-be86-6aeaa439845b_story.html
More so, you realize under Federalism... states do still have some rights... right?
Remind me... how many Republican's voted for this monstrosity of a law which is forcing people to lose their health insurance plans and pay even more out of pocket for the replacements? Right... ZERO.
Don't blame the Republicans when the liberals couldn't come up with enough votes to implement single payer.
That would have required a competent and well thought out design from the outset... then having it be implemented correctly... or verifying the implementation works prior to launch.
Instead we have a system that fails when you look at it normally, doesn't scale well, and turns out to be woefully incomplete (such as missing the payment system) for just a start... and all the supporters can do is blame 'high demand'... which is odd, when you pass a law promising to offer affordable health insurance to 48 million uninsured Americans... wouldn't you plan for that kind of scale on day one?
Yes, because begging your congressman for treatment is a far better system.
No... poor management and a poorly thought out law is what caused this mess.
*shaking head*
I am familiar with the fear, the difference though is any sane PC user doesn't use Adobe Acrobat anymore to open PDFs.
Forgive me for assuming that you are smart enough to open the Twinkie bag before eating it's contents.
Who says they need to be sold? As of late they've been doing some strategic (and illegal) leaking:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/13/the-irs-admits-to-targeting-conservative-groups-but-were-they-also-leaking/
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/04/National-Organization-of-Marriage-Chairman-IRS-Leaked-Info-About-Group-s-Donors-to-Liberal-Groups
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/06/04/report-irs-leaked-conservative-groups-confidential-info-to-opponents/
And yes... I did pick the partisan sites deliberately in this case.
Or... you could go beyond your close-mindedness, trust that your web browser will simply open the PDF up for you (as mine does)... and maybe take with a grain of salt what the evil RedState has to say... doubly so when you do not know how I arrived at choosing that link (hint, it was a quick search and was the top relevant result).
Just for you, here is another link, but about the PDF above & a quote from the CEO of TrustedSEC who was testifying in Washington today:
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/11/19/healthcaregov-already-compromised-security-expert-says/
Somehow I doubt Huffington Post, Daily KOS or MSNBC are going to cover these issues... in fact at cursory glance, I see not hints of such reports there today.
Yes, healthcare.gov.
Read in horror: https://www.trustedsec.com/files/CONGRESS_Hearing_HealthCareSEC_FINAL_v1.1.pdf
Or, if you aren't keen on long reading, note that the website actually advertises the fact that it is the target of SQL injection attacks via it's search function: http://www.redstate.com/2013/11/18/healthcare-gov-site-advertising-sql-injection-attacks/
They did though... the war on terror... just like the war on crime, war on drugs, war on poverty... where the public term was different than the title of the supporting legislation.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States for more "explicitly declared wars using the term 'declaration of war'" wars, 'authorization to use force' wars, and other actions.
It's important to point out that under the War Powers Act, the President requires congressional authorization for military actions that last beyond 60 days... which means the bar for legislatively passed/declared ''war' is much lower than in past.
One side note to this, is that while every president since the enactment of the War Powers Act has viewed it as an unconstitutional restraint on their authority as commander in chief... all but one have adhered to it's requirements. The one outlier... Obama and his bombing of Libya in support of rooting Gaddafi.
*faceplam*
Yes, the power to declare war is left to Congress... and what does Congress pass? Bills & resolutions.
Know how the 'declaration of war' against Japan started out? A resolution.
Know how the 'declaration of war' against Germany started out? A resolution.
Know how the authorizations for force in Afghanistan & Iraq started out? Resolutions.
With the exception of the latter two not having the containing the phrase 'a state of war exists'... what exactly is the difference in your mind?
Remember, all 4 contain stated justifications, targets, and authorizes the president to use the military against said targets.
Not that it matters what you say, because at the end of the day the Constitution is not clear as to what form a 'declaration of war' is to take. Who says it even has to be a written & passed resolution? In our modern age of TV & internet... surely a joint session of Congress could unanimously take 10 minutes of primetime tv, stand and declare their desire to whoop the collective asses of the nation of ____... would not that effectively be a declaration of war... just as virtually every resolution authorizing force has been... just without using the term 'declaration of war'?
The correct answer... is yes. While a written 'declaration of war' has long been common, verbal statements & actions are just as definitive, provided they are clear & visible enough. Do not forget that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor prior to their declaration being delivered... is that to say that they had not actually declared war on us until handing over said document?
Did you miss the sentence where it said: "However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term."?
If one looks at the link to CVE-2013-0634, there is a link to a MS Security Bulletin first posted in March 2013 & last updated in April... even saying:
Way to go editors... this bug was reported & fixed 7 months ago and only now are we to get paranoid over what it could do if Windows Update isn't enabled? sheesh
Citation? Nope... didn't think so.
The Castro's would be heartbroken to hear you say that.
More so... did a US flag fly over a U.S.-administered prison in Germany? Yup. Did the Supreme Court rule that US courts had no jurisdiction over those prisoners? Yup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager
Yes, Eisentrager has been weakened, especially by Rasul v. Bush, however at no time were full constitutional protections granted to the detainees... only specific & limited rights such as habeas corpus, further expanded by Hamdi v. Rumsfeld & Boumediene v. Bush... and largely by virtue of the degree of control exercised over the geographic area.
You continently ignore things like the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006... steps to
You keep saying that but still cannot quite a single part that contradicts what I have said.
And you are happy drowning kittens in order to get off.
See how much fun it is to make up accusations?
Um, the US courts claimed certain jurisdictions, not others... and Bush went along when he lost in court... as has Obama followed these precedents. Besides... how's that whole 'closing gitmo' thing going anyway? Lemme guess... it's all the Republican's fault.
You keep telling me to read my own links... yet STILL fail to cite any specific part of them that I am missing.
The laughable thing here... is that you are arguing over things that is the basis of settled law... argued lawyers (which I assume you are not) who are far more informed than you... and they lost, repeatedly, over decades... yet you still wage this silly little battle.
Um... no they weren't.
Yes, they had a trial... but it wasn't for being POWs... it was for (amongst other things) unlawful enemy combatants.
When they came ashore... they were wearing their German uniforms just in case they were captured... so that then they would be treated as POWs... however the moment they took them off and proceeded with the plot, they became unlawful combatants.
So the US Constitution applies to civilians anywhere in the world? Boy, that must be news to Obama who keeps using drones to kill targets overseas.
Again, Johnson v Eisentrager disagrees.
No, you are citing your limited interpretation of it.
Really? Maybe you could point out where that abortion clause is... it seems to be hiding under emanations of penumbras.
It is 'understood'? Not 'written'? So much for your attempt at citation.
More so... you realize that the Geneva Convention's are not the only international agreements governing how states & state actors are to behave during hostilities.
There is quite a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war#International_treaties_on_the_laws_of_war
And those are just the modern ones, as it's not exactly a new concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war#Early_sources_and_history
What you keep failing to grasp... is that there are not just two categories of 'civilian' or 'POW', and the concept for an 'unlawful combatant' is nothing new, most often in past it was used to address certain types of spies... yet you ignore the Hague Convention of 1907 which set some ground rules for characterizing captured persons as legal or illegal combatants
Again, you keep claiming these things but provide no citations, nor even links to what you claim.
What's worse... is you keep getting rebuffed with actual facts and you still repeat this nonsense.
While initially captured it is customary to regard the detained as a POW... until they are held by a competent tribunal to determine if Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention applies... at which point they lose that status... something that has already happened.
Which law? 'Unlawful discharge of a firearm' according to the laws of New Jersey... or maybe attempted murder by the laws of Nebraska? Yeah... that will go over well.
Really? Says who? Prosecutions under the laws of war tend to be rather different than civilian criminal trials (ie officers of the other side vs jury of peers).
Be they lawful or unlawful combatants, it is conventional to hold captured persons until the end of hostilities... yes, in this case that may be a little bit longer than expected, them be the risks that the combatants signed up for.
To quote the ruling in Ex parte Quirin (emphasis mine>
What you are arguing against has been settled case law for many years in this country... it's a shame you still can't be bothered to do any research on the subject.
Care to cite the relevant law which states this?
No? How about a court precedent?
No? Allow me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager
Um, you realize that this 'special made up category' has been ruled on by the courts before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager
Hell, you should also read about Operation Pastorius where a group of (attempted) German saboteurs were executed after being caught on US soil for violating the laws of war.
Of course, if you'd actually read Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention... you might begin to understand some of this.
Where then is the authoritative description of what a declaration of war is, in what form it must take, and the exact language required?
I'll save you some time... there is no such thing.
You really need to look at the authorizations for force in Afghanistan & Iraq... then look up what generally constitutes an 'declaration of war', as last I checked... neither US law or the Constitution explicitly defines in what form a 'declaration of war' must take... or even if those words must be used.
No... they are being held as unlawful enemy combatants... there is a difference. Being a POW comes with certain rights under the Geneva Conventions, not so for those down in Gitmo.
Bingo!
Worse, if we go down this road... just imagine the explosion we'd expect to see in the prison industry.
Beyond the max & super-max prisons for the 'dangerous'... hackers would end up at 'summer camp' prisons where they rehabilitate by learning new languages, white collar criminals go away to 'resort prisons' where they are scolded more about not getting caught, while drunk drivers locked up in local bars to help put them off the drink.
Why just limit that label to hackers?
"It's just a misunderstanding that makes you think she is dead, sure you have a body that lacks a pulse..."
"Why yes, I did burn down that orphanage... but you misunderstand why."
"No officer, I did have a lot to drink tonight, but you don't understand that my driving abilities get better when I'm wasted!"
We are not talking about an accidently committed crime here... my understanding is he deliberately did what he did... so should be punished hard as a reminder.