Poland had a trained, supplied army (with tanks and shit) and that didn't stop the Germans
What's worse is that the trained Polish military didn't stop the unarmed Solidary movement in Poland.
If a government wants to fuck over a people, whether the people are armed or not just determines how many innocents are killed before the government gets its way.
Just like in Poland, I'd bet most in the US military wouldn't shoot on US citizens. In fact some would join protesters protesting against the admin if they were ordered to shoot civilians.
Look at Iraq - everyone has an AK47, and Saddam was in power for decades.
And look at Iraq now, the US with it's cast power can't prevent or stop the insurgency now. As for whether Iraqis had firearms while Saddam was in power, I've never heard of this. Can you provide a link with the stats showing every Iraqi had any firearms? Ooh don't forget the US supported Saddam during one of those decades, the 1980s. Both Reagan and Bush Sr supported Saddam. That support only ended when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Yet it was scientifically verified he was using WMDs against March Arabs, Kurds, and others in Iraq years before the Kuwaiti invasion.
The US citizenry has a boatload of guns, and a fair number of those gun owners really like Bush.
Though I no longer own a firearm, gun or rifle, I strongly support the right of the people to bear arms. I also oppose Bush.
Now if Gonzales successfully removed the right to eat McDonalds and watch "wrassling" then you might be more likely to see a few hundred thousand nutjobs with a rifle go out for some blood. That sort of shit would be too much:P
Unfortunately as you say I fear, more people would get more upset if McDonalds and wrestling were made illegal that if they lost habeas corpus.
Was it worth it, to make sure that everyone says "the theory of evolution," but simply refers to the opposing viewpoint as "creationism" (shouldn't it be "the theory of creationism")?
Simple, evolution IS a scientific theory whereas creationism IS NOT a scientific theory. Neither is the so called Intelligent Design (ID), ID IS NOT a scientific theory. All it is is an attempt to replace evolution with creationism in science classes.
More like the "gun-loving rednecks" are behind the current administration 100%.
Not all of them voted for Bush. I knew a few who were against him. So am I though I'm not a redneck, instead I'm a gun loving longhaired hippy libertarian.
Where's all these constitution loving guns nuts I'm always hearing about? How come no-one puts a bullet in people like this? Is it just the shoot terms in the US that cause such apathy in the redneck population? Or is it just that gun nuts are too poor these days to afford bus fare?
The reason why they shoudn't be shot, not right away is there are four boxes to be used, in order and the last one is the ammo box. The first box is the soap box, next is ballot box, third is jury box. Only after these three have failed should the fourth box, ammo box, be used.
It's very difficult to make yourself completely energy independent.
It's not difficult to make a home you build energy independent. Using passive solar designs an architect can design a home that requires little energy to heat and cool. More negawatts of power can be "generated" by using energy efficient appliances and lighting. Fact is is that more and more people are building off the grid. And lenders, morgage companies, are helping. Because an energy efficient home that produces the energy it uses has one bill less to pay, the electric bill, lenders offer larger loans whch can be used to pay for the equipment used or for other things.
I would certainly not support a bill which block anyone's right to say whatever they wished.
Fortunately some USSC Justices have felt and ruled that anomynity is an important part of free political speech. If a person could not remain anonymous, ther ability to speak freely has been abridged or otherwise negatively impacted. By requiring registration anonymous free speech is being tossed out the window.
Ford shouldn't be allowed to run ads for Chevy cars that make them look bad, for example. Why not?
Because society is better served by requiring companies to be truthful in their advertising
And what if the ad is true? Wouldn't it serve the public for Ford to let people know that GM refuses to do the right thing - recall its dangerous C/K pickup trucks?
From the bill:
"IN GENERAL.--The term 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such 1 officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders."
Saying that somehow simply having more than 500 readers constitutes "payment" is pure FUD.
From the same pdf:
The term 'paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof 'does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.
Simply if a blog had 500 or more "members" they could of been made to register, which is exactly waht I had said which you said is wrong.
This is all about finances, not speech. If you are being paid millions of dollars to do lobbying work, you shouldn't be shielded from the law just because you pretend that you are an independent, unpaid blow-hard, and not a professional blow-hard.
If you had read the original bill you would have seen how a blogger with less than 500 members did not have to register, but it also said nothing about one who had 500 or more. So if a person had 500 people who read the blog it could of been considered as being paid.
Where's the censorship? Registering as a lobbyist sure as HELL doesn't restrict access or speech. All it does is label you as what you are. That's like saying states that ask for party identification when you register to vote are keeping you from voting.
Actually requiring registration for political speech is a violation of free speech. The UCCS Justices have ruled as far back as the early 1800s anonymousity is an importnat part of political speech, that if a person couldn't speak while remaining anonymous then they couldn't enjoy free speech. As one court ruled: ''Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all . .. Here's a search of Findlaw on "anonymous speech" "first amendment". Most of them are comments or editorials, but some have USSC rulings.
It was only unregulated because nobody knew you could make money off it.
And now that people are making money off it, some want to regulate it while others don't. As should be evident in the post you replied to, I tend to lean away from regulations, including the internet. However because the corporations received taxpayer money to build out the networks, I'm thinking more and more net neutrality should be enforced though not neccessarily by a new law. The FCC has the ability to enforce neutrality already. Maybe not for all circumstances but then regulations could be updated.
The Internet exists because of the regulation (aka standards) that has been enforced with a reasonable amount of evenhandedness on all communicating parties. Without that, we'd still have the cacophony of incompatible, proprietary standards that you see in LANs, with every company implementing their own "standard" that's intentionally incompatible with competitors' "standards".
Regulations and standards are totally different beasts. People have to obey regulations which are government created laws or they can be fined or jailed. Standards, on the other hand though, people are encouraged to follow so there is interoperability between different networks. People are not required to follow standards, but if they don't all that happens is that they won't be interoperable which discourages clients or customers, they are not fined. As an example, the vast majority of websites don't follow W3C Web Standards yet they aren't fined.
Uh, yeah paid for by Tax Payer dollars! How about the billions of dollars that were given to the Telecoms so they could build out their fiber optic networks, i.e. run fiber to the house. This, they never did! But they did pocket the money. Now they claim the need more money to do the very thing we gave them money for in the first place!
Yea, this is about the only reason I'd support net neutrality, because the telecom companies receieved taxpayer money to build out the network. It's actually partially because of this that I'd prefer the infrastructure to be publically owned, the public has already paid for it so the public should own it. As for competition for landlines, WiMAX could help here. If the FCC loosens regulations for radio spectrums, more competitors would be encouraged to offer WiMAX. Actually between having two different ISPs depending on whether I'm at home or out and about, say on the road, or having one I'd prefer one.
the laissez-faire approach you advocate will help the monopolists and would-be monopolists and harm everyone else.
Not quite, if the markets were governed by laissez-faire economics there wouldn't be the telco or cableco monopolies. Laissez-faire would allow anyone able to offer phone or cable service to offer them, but instead we have government granted monopolies.
And it's amazing all this happened while the internet was unregulated. Imagne what would of happened if it had been regulated.
Pretty easy... just look at cable TV.
Amazing how all the cable people required monopolies to run cable but no one needed a monopoly to run high speed internet.
Actually companies did need, er used a, monopoly to offer broadband. Except for Wifi, WiMAX, ie all landline providers do have monopolies by which they are able to offer broadband. This is true whether the ISP is cable or telco. The only way these companies would be willing to spend all the money to build the infrastructer was if they were granted exclusive rights. They have however outlived their purpose. To tell the truth, though I am a Libertarian, I believe local infrastructure should be locally owned. Either government, coop, or some local organization. The IEEE's Spectrum has a good article on how some communites in northeastern Utah are creating "A Broadband Utopia". I'd like to see more things like this.
Falcon
if Google pays gets priority for Time Warner's lines, most non-Google traffic will be routed around Time Warner, congesting AT&T's lines until AT&T starts giving priority to Yahoo, congesting everyone else s's lines further, which means that my slashdot post will get bogged down.
I signed a contract when I got my cable access, and nowhere in the contract did it say my ISP could slow down some website's download if they didn't pay. If my ISP were to slow traffic down because they weren't being paid, even though they are, then it's a breach of contract.
We have lived during a rare time, when such a powerful medium has somehow managed to keep from being completely commercialized past any recognition of the fragile and open universe it was for its first decade. There may be no way to stop the dictates of the almighty "marketplace" from having its way with the Internet like a brute with a virgin child, but I give credit to those who are trying to think of ways to keep it free for a few more years.
And it's amazing all this happened while the internet was unregulated. Imagne what would of happened if it had been regulated.
Not really. You can still get a shotgun, right? Bang, your right is still being upheld. Nowhere does it say full access to every single type of potential arm ever devised.
Isn't that what I said when I said "It's one thing to regulate tanks and cruise missiles it's totally different to ban hand guns or semiautomatic rifles that look like 'assault rifles'"?
The job of the courts are to adjudicate, er decide, if a law is constitutional as well. If it is not then the court has the constitutional ability to declare the law unconstitutional.
And in all honosty I do feel sorry for this particular employee.
It's one thing for an employer to be concerned about how an employee uses a laptop the employer gave them to use for work, but it's totally different for the government to demand they see what is on the laptop without either the company's permission or a warrant. And that's what this article is about, the government wanting access.
It was bought for her use, NOT for her as a personal item. So now she gets her panties in a bunch when she realizes her employer has the right to do whatever they want with that computer.
I'm confused, I didn't see anywhere in the article where it said her employer wanted to see what was on it. What I read was that the government wanted to access the laptop.
"Go ahead."...because you make backups before you leave the house with your laptop and you know that it is better to recreate the last few hours' work rather than being caught lying to a border guard.
Show me your warrant if you want to look at my data.
Then when the palistines sided with germany in WW2, the tensions never rested with germanies defeat and hostilities continued forcing the jews to incorperate to protect themselve.
It wasn't Palestinians siding with the NAZIs that caused problems in Palestine. The British barred Jews from immigrating into Palestine into and through the 1930s. Actually what most people don't know is that the NAZIs helped European Jews emmigrate to Palestine. The Gestapo and SS even trained Jews in military tactics to fight the British. The Stern Gang, or Lehi, was one such group. Now if you were to ask the British there for the British Mandate of Palestine, it was the Jews who were terrorists, such as the Stern Gang.
When the government say we are going to give Iraq back to it's people and we will be out of there once they can operate and maintina thier own security, I belive them.
Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq for one reason, because Saddam was stockpiling Weapons Of Mass Destruction, WMDs. Bush even evoked mushrooms clouds overhead, saying the US had to invade to prevent those mushroom clouds. Colin Powell, whom I had great respect for until then, even stood in the UN Security Council chambers dragging one photo out after another saying how many WMDs there were in Iraq. Well I have not seen one such thing. Now, since like Scot Ritter kept saying there weren't any WMDs, Bush has changed the reason for invading to spreading democracy. He doesn't give a fuck for democracy, if he did instead of congratulating the Venezuelan coup he would of supported the democratically elected president of Zenezuela, Chavez.
Why, because the United states has done it before after four or more seperate wars and we have given everything back to the people.
And the US admin has also supported rightwing dictators who have massacred thousands. Nixon and Ford after him along with Henry Kissinger supported Gen Pinochet overthrow of another democratically elected president, Salvador_Allende. After the coup thousands were murdered and tens of thousands simply "disappeared">. According to the Valech Report tens opf thousands were tortured.
And that's just the start of it. Ford and Kissinger also supported General Suharto, who seized power from his predecessor to become president of Inonesia, in his invasion of East Timor in 1975. This after East Timorese voted for independence from Portugal, Portugal gave them independence then they elected thier government. However neither Ford nor Kissinger liked it so they supported the invasion of East Timor by Suharto afer which some 200,000 East Timorese were killed. That was 1/3 the population of East Timor.
Don't try to tell me the US admin has never done anything wrong or has not supported murderous dictators. Hell the Reagan and Bush Sr admin both supported Saddam while he was massacring his own people.
The UN passed a definition out claiming any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".
That sounds like the French Resistance during WWII was a terrorist organization.
Slashdot Mirror
Poland had a trained, supplied army (with tanks and shit) and that didn't stop the Germans
What's worse is that the trained Polish military didn't stop the unarmed Solidary movement in Poland.
If a government wants to fuck over a people, whether the people are armed or not just determines how many innocents are killed before the government gets its way.
Just like in Poland, I'd bet most in the US military wouldn't shoot on US citizens. In fact some would join protesters protesting against the admin if they were ordered to shoot civilians.
Look at Iraq - everyone has an AK47, and Saddam was in power for decades.
And look at Iraq now, the US with it's cast power can't prevent or stop the insurgency now. As for whether Iraqis had firearms while Saddam was in power, I've never heard of this. Can you provide a link with the stats showing every Iraqi had any firearms? Ooh don't forget the US supported Saddam during one of those decades, the 1980s. Both Reagan and Bush Sr supported Saddam. That support only ended when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Yet it was scientifically verified he was using WMDs against March Arabs, Kurds, and others in Iraq years before the Kuwaiti invasion.
FalconThe US citizenry has a boatload of guns, and a fair number of those gun owners really like Bush.
Though I no longer own a firearm, gun or rifle, I strongly support the right of the people to bear arms. I also oppose Bush.
Now if Gonzales successfully removed the right to eat McDonalds and watch "wrassling" then you might be more likely to see a few hundred thousand nutjobs with a rifle go out for some blood. That sort of shit would be too much :P
Unfortunately as you say I fear, more people would get more upset if McDonalds and wrestling were made illegal that if they lost habeas corpus.
FalconWas it worth it, to make sure that everyone says "the theory of evolution," but simply refers to the opposing viewpoint as "creationism" (shouldn't it be "the theory of creationism")?
Simple, evolution IS a scientific theory whereas creationism IS NOT a scientific theory. Neither is the so called Intelligent Design (ID), ID IS NOT a scientific theory. All it is is an attempt to replace evolution with creationism in science classes.
FalconMore like the "gun-loving rednecks" are behind the current administration 100%.
Not all of them voted for Bush. I knew a few who were against him. So am I though I'm not a redneck, instead I'm a gun loving longhaired hippy libertarian.
FalconWhere's all these constitution loving guns nuts I'm always hearing about? How come no-one puts a bullet in people like this? Is it just the shoot terms in the US that cause such apathy in the redneck population? Or is it just that gun nuts are too poor these days to afford bus fare?
The reason why they shoudn't be shot, not right away is there are four boxes to be used, in order and the last one is the ammo box. The first box is the soap box, next is ballot box, third is jury box. Only after these three have failed should the fourth box, ammo box, be used.
FalconIt's very difficult to make yourself completely energy independent.
It's not difficult to make a home you build energy independent. Using passive solar designs an architect can design a home that requires little energy to heat and cool. More negawatts of power can be "generated" by using energy efficient appliances and lighting. Fact is is that more and more people are building off the grid. And lenders, morgage companies, are helping. Because an energy efficient home that produces the energy it uses has one bill less to pay, the electric bill, lenders offer larger loans whch can be used to pay for the equipment used or for other things.
FalconI would certainly not support a bill which block anyone's right to say whatever they wished.
Fortunately some USSC Justices have felt and ruled that anomynity is an important part of free political speech. If a person could not remain anonymous, ther ability to speak freely has been abridged or otherwise negatively impacted. By requiring registration anonymous free speech is being tossed out the window.
FalconFord shouldn't be allowed to run ads for Chevy cars that make them look bad, for example. Why not?
Because society is better served by requiring companies to be truthful in their advertising
And what if the ad is true? Wouldn't it serve the public for Ford to let people know that GM refuses to do the right thing - recall its dangerous C/K pickup trucks?
FalconFrom the bill:
"IN GENERAL.--The term 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such 1 officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders."
Saying that somehow simply having more than 500 readers constitutes "payment" is pure FUD.
From the same pdf:
The term 'paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof 'does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.
Simply if a blog had 500 or more "members" they could of been made to register, which is exactly waht I had said which you said is wrong.
FalconThis is all about finances, not speech. If you are being paid millions of dollars to do lobbying work, you shouldn't be shielded from the law just because you pretend that you are an independent, unpaid blow-hard, and not a professional blow-hard.
If you had read the original bill you would have seen how a blogger with less than 500 members did not have to register, but it also said nothing about one who had 500 or more. So if a person had 500 people who read the blog it could of been considered as being paid.
FalconWhere's the censorship? Registering as a lobbyist sure as HELL doesn't restrict access or speech. All it does is label you as what you are. That's like saying states that ask for party identification when you register to vote are keeping you from voting.
Actually requiring registration for political speech is a violation of free speech. The UCCS Justices have ruled as far back as the early 1800s anonymousity is an importnat part of political speech, that if a person couldn't speak while remaining anonymous then they couldn't enjoy free speech. As one court ruled: ''Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all . . . Here's a search of Findlaw on "anonymous speech" "first amendment". Most of them are comments or editorials, but some have USSC rulings.
FalconIt was only unregulated because nobody knew you could make money off it.
And now that people are making money off it, some want to regulate it while others don't. As should be evident in the post you replied to, I tend to lean away from regulations, including the internet. However because the corporations received taxpayer money to build out the networks, I'm thinking more and more net neutrality should be enforced though not neccessarily by a new law. The FCC has the ability to enforce neutrality already. Maybe not for all circumstances but then regulations could be updated.
The Internet exists because of the regulation (aka standards) that has been enforced with a reasonable amount of evenhandedness on all communicating parties. Without that, we'd still have the cacophony of incompatible, proprietary standards that you see in LANs, with every company implementing their own "standard" that's intentionally incompatible with competitors' "standards".
Regulations and standards are totally different beasts. People have to obey regulations which are government created laws or they can be fined or jailed. Standards, on the other hand though, people are encouraged to follow so there is interoperability between different networks. People are not required to follow standards, but if they don't all that happens is that they won't be interoperable which discourages clients or customers, they are not fined. As an example, the vast majority of websites don't follow W3C Web Standards yet they aren't fined.
FalconUh, yeah paid for by Tax Payer dollars! How about the billions of dollars that were given to the Telecoms so they could build out their fiber optic networks, i.e. run fiber to the house. This, they never did! But they did pocket the money. Now they claim the need more money to do the very thing we gave them money for in the first place!
Yea, this is about the only reason I'd support net neutrality, because the telecom companies receieved taxpayer money to build out the network. It's actually partially because of this that I'd prefer the infrastructure to be publically owned, the public has already paid for it so the public should own it. As for competition for landlines, WiMAX could help here. If the FCC loosens regulations for radio spectrums, more competitors would be encouraged to offer WiMAX. Actually between having two different ISPs depending on whether I'm at home or out and about, say on the road, or having one I'd prefer one.
Falconthe laissez-faire approach you advocate will help the monopolists and would-be monopolists and harm everyone else.
Not quite, if the markets were governed by laissez-faire economics there wouldn't be the telco or cableco monopolies. Laissez-faire would allow anyone able to offer phone or cable service to offer them, but instead we have government granted monopolies.
FalconAnd it's amazing all this happened while the internet was unregulated. Imagne what would of happened if it had been regulated.
Pretty easy... just look at cable TV.
Amazing how all the cable people required monopolies to run cable but no one needed a monopoly to run high speed internet.
Actually companies did need, er used a, monopoly to offer broadband. Except for Wifi, WiMAX, ie all landline providers do have monopolies by which they are able to offer broadband. This is true whether the ISP is cable or telco. The only way these companies would be willing to spend all the money to build the infrastructer was if they were granted exclusive rights. They have however outlived their purpose. To tell the truth, though I am a Libertarian, I believe local infrastructure should be locally owned. Either government, coop, or some local organization. The IEEE's Spectrum has a good article on how some communites in northeastern Utah are creating "A Broadband Utopia". I'd like to see more things like this. Falcon
if Google pays gets priority for Time Warner's lines, most non-Google traffic will be routed around Time Warner, congesting AT&T's lines until AT&T starts giving priority to Yahoo, congesting everyone else s's lines further, which means that my slashdot post will get bogged down.
I signed a contract when I got my cable access, and nowhere in the contract did it say my ISP could slow down some website's download if they didn't pay. If my ISP were to slow traffic down because they weren't being paid, even though they are, then it's a breach of contract.
FalconWe have lived during a rare time, when such a powerful medium has somehow managed to keep from being completely commercialized past any recognition of the fragile and open universe it was for its first decade. There may be no way to stop the dictates of the almighty "marketplace" from having its way with the Internet like a brute with a virgin child, but I give credit to those who are trying to think of ways to keep it free for a few more years.
And it's amazing all this happened while the internet was unregulated. Imagne what would of happened if it had been regulated.
FalconNot really. You can still get a shotgun, right? Bang, your right is still being upheld. Nowhere does it say full access to every single type of potential arm ever devised.
Isn't that what I said when I said "It's one thing to regulate tanks and cruise missiles it's totally different to ban hand guns or semiautomatic rifles that look like 'assault rifles'"?
FalconThe job of the courts are to adjudicate, er decide, if a law is constitutional as well. If it is not then the court has the constitutional ability to declare the law unconstitutional.
FalconAnd in all honosty I do feel sorry for this particular employee.
It's one thing for an employer to be concerned about how an employee uses a laptop the employer gave them to use for work, but it's totally different for the government to demand they see what is on the laptop without either the company's permission or a warrant. And that's what this article is about, the government wanting access.
FalconIt was bought for her use, NOT for her as a personal item. So now she gets her panties in a bunch when she realizes her employer has the right to do whatever they want with that computer.
I'm confused, I didn't see anywhere in the article where it said her employer wanted to see what was on it. What I read was that the government wanted to access the laptop.
Falcon"Go ahead." ...because you make backups before you leave the house with your laptop and you know that it is better to recreate the last few hours' work rather than being caught lying to a border guard.
Show me your warrant if you want to look at my data.
FalconThen when the palistines sided with germany in WW2, the tensions never rested with germanies defeat and hostilities continued forcing the jews to incorperate to protect themselve.
It wasn't Palestinians siding with the NAZIs that caused problems in Palestine. The British barred Jews from immigrating into Palestine into and through the 1930s. Actually what most people don't know is that the NAZIs helped European Jews emmigrate to Palestine. The Gestapo and SS even trained Jews in military tactics to fight the British. The Stern Gang, or Lehi, was one such group. Now if you were to ask the British there for the British Mandate of Palestine, it was the Jews who were terrorists, such as the Stern Gang.
When the government say we are going to give Iraq back to it's people and we will be out of there once they can operate and maintina thier own security, I belive them.
Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq for one reason, because Saddam was stockpiling Weapons Of Mass Destruction, WMDs. Bush even evoked mushrooms clouds overhead, saying the US had to invade to prevent those mushroom clouds. Colin Powell, whom I had great respect for until then, even stood in the UN Security Council chambers dragging one photo out after another saying how many WMDs there were in Iraq. Well I have not seen one such thing. Now, since like Scot Ritter kept saying there weren't any WMDs, Bush has changed the reason for invading to spreading democracy. He doesn't give a fuck for democracy, if he did instead of congratulating the Venezuelan coup he would of supported the democratically elected president of Zenezuela, Chavez.
Why, because the United states has done it before after four or more seperate wars and we have given everything back to the people.
And the US admin has also supported rightwing dictators who have massacred thousands. Nixon and Ford after him along with Henry Kissinger supported Gen Pinochet overthrow of another democratically elected president, Salvador_Allende. After the coup thousands were murdered and tens of thousands simply "disappeared">. According to the Valech Report tens opf thousands were tortured.
And that's just the start of it. Ford and Kissinger also supported General Suharto, who seized power from his predecessor to become president of Inonesia, in his invasion of East Timor in 1975. This after East Timorese voted for independence from Portugal, Portugal gave them independence then they elected thier government. However neither Ford nor Kissinger liked it so they supported the invasion of East Timor by Suharto afer which some 200,000 East Timorese were killed. That was 1/3 the population of East Timor.
Don't try to tell me the US admin has never done anything wrong or has not supported murderous dictators. Hell the Reagan and Bush Sr admin both supported Saddam while he was massacring his own people.
FalconThe UN passed a definition out claiming any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".
That sounds like the French Resistance during WWII was a terrorist organization.
Falcon