ok... keep reminding me and I'll upload the edit to a dropbox and link you, there may be an issue with the torrent (I'm nowhere near it at the minute so can't check)
yeah, that'll be me...:) I've done some seriously deep research into the problem over the years and discovered information in plain sight that only took a few hundred FOI enquiries to pull together. One particular report revealed that the local authorities in England and Wales have trafficked over 3,000 children of foreign nationals between 2006-2011. That's a low conservative estimate, the number could be two or three times that.
same reason Roman roads were built and built straight - even over mountains (or in some cases, through them). It was zero to do with civilian infrastructure, everything to do with the rapid movement of soldiers and equipment.
it's like making some areas gun-free zones because we don't like those icky things and people get hurt around guns... shall we ask the Columbine survivors how that worked out for them?
spot on. Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the US Constitution don't *grant* rights, they *guarantee* them against State interference. As opposed the Human Rights Act in England and Wales, which ONLY guarantees that the State won't infringe on rights *granted you by the State at its own sufferance* unless it *feels the need to* - and you have NO RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE REMEDY under the Human Rights Act! Don't believe me, go read it for yourself: compare the ECHR which the HRA is based on, next to the HRA - you'll see that under the Articles in hte HRA, #13 is absent. This is because the UK Government is under the criminally erroneous impression that Art. 6 covers it. IT DOESN'T, which is WHY IT'S IN THE ECHR IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Just FYI: there is a clause in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (linked here) which immunises State actors from ANY civil or criminal prosecution WHATSOEVER on the single proviso that they turn evidence in ANY OTHER PROCEEDING. Cliffnote: you can't sue the State!
On Sept. 15 2001, Congress declared "war" on terrorism. Was the declaration a formal war declaration, and what powers does it give the president?
The Use of Force Resolution is not a formal declaration of war. The joint resolution, adopted unanimously in the Senate and 420-1 in the House, authorized President Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" as well as against anyone who "harbored" them.
The wording was substantially changed from the draft version sought by the White House, which would have granted the president authority "to deter and prevent any future acts of terrorism against the United States." That second clause, giving Bush open-ended authority to fight any future terrorism, was removed from the final resolution.
The legal effect of the joint resolution is unclear. For one thing, the White House takes the position that it doesn't need congressional permission to protect and defend the United States and that the War Powers Act, which allows Congress to check the president's war-making authority, is not constitutional. History supports his claim. While the United States has waged about 125 military actions, war has only been formally declared five times. This resolution gave the president a victory of appearances, offering him a broad grant of congressional authority, without forcing the issue of whether such a grant was constitutionally necessary.
What's in it for Congress? On its face, the Use of Force Resolution looks like a blank cheque (although it came with a signed cheque, in the amount of $40 billion). The resolution does not define "terrorism" or "harbored" or any other key terms. It passed with almost no debate. But while the resolution appears almost absurd in its vagueness, it's most notable for what it is not. It is not the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which really was the blank cheque that arguably allowed President Johnson to unilaterally escalate the war in Vietnam. Thus, while the wide-open wording of the joint resolution appears to give congressional approval to any act of war undertaken by President Bush, it contains several important checks on his powers: by omitting the language sought by the White House, the resolution does not authorize Bush to use force to deter and prevent future acts of terrorism. It also expressly invokes the War Powers Act to subtly remind Bush that - at least on paper - he must answer to them once any military action is undertaken.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-... (the Pacchieri baby snatching case) https://www.lifesitenews.com/n... (they even go so far as to prohibit the mentally ill from having sex) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... (or those deemed to have learning difficulties to marry... Mark and Kerry have been happily married now for seven years and are very good friends of mine) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... (background on the CoP and the evils that it can order: abortions, caesarians, experimental surgery and medication, euthanasia (AKA Liverpool Care Pathway which is just another term for "withhold all food, water and painkillers"), sterilisation, forcible restraint, incarceration "for the public good" even if no danger to the public has been evidenced)
the CoP has no public gallery. Its proceedings are not open to the public. Judgements are not published. The only time we get to see the results of its machinations is the increasingly common case of mentally ill mothers to be being told that their babies are to be forcibly removed for adoption and they go to the papers.
1. Snowden did his deed in time of war. Yes. The War On Terror. It's a declared state of war. 2. In time of war, any and all Constitutional guarantees are fair game for suspension. 3. This includes the right to a fair trial. 4. Snowden not only admitted to his deed, he bragged about it. He published the documents he stole for all to see. 5. Notwithstanding the deed, which in a civil court would be enough to attract a summary judgement against him, in time of war and due to the nature of the theft, he also gets the attention of the US Military, hence the UCMJ would apply? 6. The UCMJ doesn't have juries. It has a panel of judges drawn from legally trained military officers. 7. Snowden wouldn't be able to claim mitigation or justification in this circumstance, the UCMJ is NOT INTERESTED in intent - all he can do is to admit to what is clearly evidenced, bend over and accept the punishment.
The UK just made an order in its secret Court of Protection to force a woman to undergo an abortion. Last month, a woman was told that the CoP had ordered her baby cut out of her. An italian woman had similar treatment some months ago simply because she'd taken a leave of absence from work to deal with stress. Her baby was cut out of her and trafficked.
Compared with that, the US has an absolutely SPOTLESS judicial record.
I sat in the public gallery on an arson case last year where the "evidence" consisted of a half empty bucket of paint. Everything else was conjecture. The JUDGE totally illegally instructed the jury to find a guilty verdict notwithstanding the glaring fact that there was NO EVIDENCE TO CONVICT ON. Not only that, he also SPECIFICALLY and totally illegally DENIED appeal to his sentence.
Apple know this, which is why they designed the encryption to ONLY unlock on provision of a valid passcode on the same device the data was encrypted on in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
ooh, bazinga! :)
(addendum: Oh, it's ALT+0128...)
can't see that on my (possibly racist) UK keyboard.
ok... keep reminding me and I'll upload the edit to a dropbox and link you, there may be an issue with the torrent (I'm nowhere near it at the minute so can't check)
yeah, that'll be me... :) I've done some seriously deep research into the problem over the years and discovered information in plain sight that only took a few hundred FOI enquiries to pull together. One particular report revealed that the local authorities in England and Wales have trafficked over 3,000 children of foreign nationals between 2006-2011. That's a low conservative estimate, the number could be two or three times that.
width of UK highway lane: 3.65m
width of Challenger main battle tank: 3.5m
width of US highway lane: 3.7m
width of Abrams main battle tank: 3.66m
Coincidence? Methink not.
The Radically Invasive Projectile: exploding inside a breech near you! http://g2rammo.com/
same reason Roman roads were built and built straight - even over mountains (or in some cases, through them). It was zero to do with civilian infrastructure, everything to do with the rapid movement of soldiers and equipment.
it's like making some areas gun-free zones because we don't like those icky things and people get hurt around guns... shall we ask the Columbine survivors how that worked out for them?
spot on. Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the US Constitution don't *grant* rights, they *guarantee* them against State interference. As opposed the Human Rights Act in England and Wales, which ONLY guarantees that the State won't infringe on rights *granted you by the State at its own sufferance* unless it *feels the need to* - and you have NO RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE REMEDY under the Human Rights Act! Don't believe me, go read it for yourself: compare the ECHR which the HRA is based on, next to the HRA - you'll see that under the Articles in hte HRA, #13 is absent. This is because the UK Government is under the criminally erroneous impression that Art. 6 covers it. IT DOESN'T, which is WHY IT'S IN THE ECHR IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Just FYI: there is a clause in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (linked here) which immunises State actors from ANY civil or criminal prosecution WHATSOEVER on the single proviso that they turn evidence in ANY OTHER PROCEEDING. Cliffnote: you can't sue the State!
http://www.echr.coe.int/Docume... (ECHR)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... (Human Rights Act (HRA))
http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/a... (Magna Carta 1215, Modern English translation at the British Library)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... (Bill of Rights 1689 (the dates are different because this is the year the calendar changed))
http://www.senate.gov/civics/c... (The Constitution of the United States, including Amendments I-XXVII)
WHY is it wrong? Point by point rebuttal or shut the fuck up.
well that would be an act of war against a noncombatant civilian in the UK. Ready for the backlash, Roger Ramjet?
We're both right. Here's why:
On Sept. 15 2001, Congress declared "war" on terrorism. Was the declaration a formal war declaration, and what powers does it give the president?
The Use of Force Resolution is not a formal declaration of war. The joint resolution, adopted unanimously in the Senate and 420-1 in the House, authorized President Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" as well as against anyone who "harbored" them.
The wording was substantially changed from the draft version sought by the White House, which would have granted the president authority "to deter and prevent any future acts of terrorism against the United States." That second clause, giving Bush open-ended authority to fight any future terrorism, was removed from the final resolution.
The legal effect of the joint resolution is unclear. For one thing, the White House takes the position that it doesn't need congressional permission to protect and defend the United States and that the War Powers Act, which allows Congress to check the president's war-making authority, is not constitutional. History supports his claim. While the United States has waged about 125 military actions, war has only been formally declared five times. This resolution gave the president a victory of appearances, offering him a broad grant of congressional authority, without forcing the issue of whether such a grant was constitutionally necessary.
What's in it for Congress? On its face, the Use of Force Resolution looks like a blank cheque (although it came with a signed cheque, in the amount of $40 billion). The resolution does not define "terrorism" or "harbored" or any other key terms. It passed with almost no debate. But while the resolution appears almost absurd in its vagueness, it's most notable for what it is not. It is not the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which really was the blank cheque that arguably allowed President Johnson to unilaterally escalate the war in Vietnam. Thus, while the wide-open wording of the joint resolution appears to give congressional approval to any act of war undertaken by President Bush, it contains several important checks on his powers: by omitting the language sought by the White House, the resolution does not authorize Bush to use force to deter and prevent future acts of terrorism. It also expressly invokes the War Powers Act to subtly remind Bush that - at least on paper - he must answer to them once any military action is undertaken.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-... (the Pacchieri baby snatching case)
https://www.lifesitenews.com/n... (they even go so far as to prohibit the mentally ill from having sex)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... (or those deemed to have learning difficulties to marry... Mark and Kerry have been happily married now for seven years and are very good friends of mine)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... (background on the CoP and the evils that it can order: abortions, caesarians, experimental surgery and medication, euthanasia (AKA Liverpool Care Pathway which is just another term for "withhold all food, water and painkillers"), sterilisation, forcible restraint, incarceration "for the public good" even if no danger to the public has been evidenced)
the CoP has no public gallery. Its proceedings are not open to the public. Judgements are not published. The only time we get to see the results of its machinations is the increasingly common case of mentally ill mothers to be being told that their babies are to be forcibly removed for adoption and they go to the papers.
1. Snowden did his deed in time of war. Yes. The War On Terror. It's a declared state of war.
2. In time of war, any and all Constitutional guarantees are fair game for suspension.
3. This includes the right to a fair trial.
4. Snowden not only admitted to his deed, he bragged about it. He published the documents he stole for all to see.
5. Notwithstanding the deed, which in a civil court would be enough to attract a summary judgement against him, in time of war and due to the nature of the theft, he also gets the attention of the US Military, hence the UCMJ would apply?
6. The UCMJ doesn't have juries. It has a panel of judges drawn from legally trained military officers.
7. Snowden wouldn't be able to claim mitigation or justification in this circumstance, the UCMJ is NOT INTERESTED in intent - all he can do is to admit to what is clearly evidenced, bend over and accept the punishment.
wasn't he a contractor working for the CIA?
The UK just made an order in its secret Court of Protection to force a woman to undergo an abortion. Last month, a woman was told that the CoP had ordered her baby cut out of her. An italian woman had similar treatment some months ago simply because she'd taken a leave of absence from work to deal with stress. Her baby was cut out of her and trafficked.
Compared with that, the US has an absolutely SPOTLESS judicial record.
I sat in the public gallery on an arson case last year where the "evidence" consisted of a half empty bucket of paint. Everything else was conjecture. The JUDGE totally illegally instructed the jury to find a guilty verdict notwithstanding the glaring fact that there was NO EVIDENCE TO CONVICT ON. Not only that, he also SPECIFICALLY and totally illegally DENIED appeal to his sentence.
Look up Melanie Shaw.
you mean Bruce Jenner, right?
oh, you mean like Microchannel Array? RDRAM? Betamax? HDDVD (I actually have some of these - a 14-disc set put out by National Geographic)? :)
yet another phone that requires a fucking degree in computer science to be able to make a call on!
</Luddite>
Apple know this, which is why they designed the encryption to ONLY unlock on provision of a valid passcode on the same device the data was encrypted on in the first place.
at 1,000,000 attempts a second, that would take 3.6818303e+63 years to break it.
Good luck with that, FBI.
once you've got over that hurdle, installing it over the current installed image is as easy as repartitioning the drive and clicking "Go".
you know you can boot any Linux distribution off of an SD card, right?
http://www.howtogeek.com/19105...