I have to correct you in regards to "Seriously, the guy's a murderer plain and simple and deserves to be locked up for the rest of his life.". The person has not yet had a trial, and it will be extremely difficult for him to get a fair trial. Are we not supposed to presume innocence until a trial and jury of the persons peers finds them guilty?
Oh, I know. The media told you he was guilty so you assume them to be honest and correct right? It's because of this twisting of justice that we rarely see justice until long after the fact, if at all. Think COINTELPRO, Iran/Contra, and all of the other shitty things our politicians have done while making claims that people are guilty of crimes, yet they never committed a crime. We find out years later when documents get leaked or finally have enough information declassified to show that it was our people in power that were criminal. Few, if any, of those criminals ever go to jail either. Instead, our current politicians pass rubber laws that get ignored trying to prevent future acts of a similar nature.
Socrates gives us a firm definition of Justice in Plato's "The Republic" as well as extremely good logical arguments as to why it must be firmly held and enforced equally by society. History has shown Socrates to be right on nearly every description of the Republic. Go read the book, compare that to history. See why we are failing...
To help be a bit more clear, since I don't believe I have been clear enough.. by the same definition the Police use WMDs against citizens every time they use tear gas or stun grenades. We can't have it both ways, and should refuse to allow a floating definition based on the whims of those currently in power.
I don't agree, I believe this sets a precedent which becomes extremely dangerous for citizens. The reason they are claiming WMD is not military vs. criminal, it's so they can exact a massive amount of punishment. It will also serve to excuse the actions of creating a police state in Boston for a short time, the abuse and murder of a friend of the plaintiff, etc.. etc...
When all of the properties on the monopoly board are owned by a single player, nobody else can win. No matter how often you land on "Free Parking" or cheer for the person getting a huge rent check on someone else' bank account, you will end up being the payee at some time.
If you are not presenting a truth, your argument is irrational and illogical. That was, and is still, the case. Instead of attempting to look intelligent by using a term along side of both a formal and informal fallacy, go actually do the work.
The person I responded to was using faulty logic. I was polite to them, showing how the logic was faulty in addition to pointing out the broken logic. You have no such excuse. Since you are trying to re-create the dialogue in a faulty fashion, I'll assume you are the same person trying to defend broken logic.
I'll waste no more time on a person with such such as you, unless you apologize for being wrong which I would accept. Any other defense of your position is the same irrational and illogical gibberish you have thus far presented.
It's not just the middleman in this case, though I agree with your comments regarding mercantilism. The beginning points to numerous aspects acting as Cartels. Unions became cartels, franchises became cartels, and executives became cartels. When everyone is a criminal, things never end up well.
Please don't claim strawman when presenting an absolutely false statement. Here is what they stated, but wholly fuck please learn to read and comprehend before making false claims. I hate to break it to you, but it isn't equal.. If you have doubts, go back and read their post again. Then read my comment again.
I'm actually pretty good about not throwing stones inside a glass house, but perhaps you should be reminded of the whole pot and kettle thing.
No you can't, your logic is broken. First, you don't have the time required to do this. Second, you are not getting paid with other people's money to do this. Lastly, you are not using this data in an official capacity even if you had the time to gather it.
The UK's shit stinks just as much as the US's. I think the difference is really that in the US we are pretty vocal about it on US sites like/.. For all we know in the US, the UK may have the same movements that we just don't see in the US.
I scoff at anyone in the UK thinking they are so much better off than the US in terms of corruption and tyranny. I saw how the military treated people and declared martial law without much dissent during the Olympics. Yeah yeah, I know.. "it's for the children" and "war on terror" and all that nonsense. Most of you don't stand up for yourselves just like most Americans won't stand up for themselves. It's easier to point fingers and wave to the other side trying to convince yourself that it's all sunshine and rainbows where you are standing.
Apologies if the bluntness causes offense, but it's the shortest distance to the point.
If I stated a fact that "those two shirts are red", you claiming "that one is more red" does not change my statement of fact. Arguing that one is more red so the other can't be red is foolishness at it's finest. The people running propaganda count on you being foolish enough to make such arguments and never see reality.
You should make an effort to be more intelligent than them, learn to spot rhetorical fallacy, and learn to discuss topics without easy to read fallacies.
I hate to break the news to you (intentional pun?) but it's not just Fox twisting facts. Every major news agency, referred to as MSM (Main Stream Media) does the exact same thing. This includes ABC, CNN, NBC and FOX in all forms (I.E. MSNBC). The supreme court ruling that news is entertainment impacted all MSM stations, and entrenched their purpose as propaganda instead of public service journalists.
Thankfully, there are still real journalists at work. You need to seek them out and read their articles, but they are there. The difference between MSM's now is really that some may give you just enough information to make them look unbiased. The brainwashing tactics don't change though, nor does the propaganda messages they pound the public with.
While I agree with your point that we all must consider behaving that way, I still hold my claim that this is not justice. Also, that we as a society need to speak out against injustice when we see it.
No. Not talking with the police in the first place would be the right choice so I'm not claiming either way is wrong.
As mentioned, if he immediately plead the 5th he would have been labelled as suspicious and guilty by public view. Let's assume he is innocent, and of course it is you being questioned by the police. (which is the foundation for our justice system)
Cop says "Hey, can we chat?". You being innocent have nothing to hide. "Sure, what's up? Selling fundraiser stuff?" Cop says "Nah, just making the rounds. Chief says we need to interact with the community more. I think he's right, even though he can be a prick at times. You know how bosses are." and nudges you with his elbow to let you know he's joking. You return "Yeah, my boss and every other boss I ever had gets on my nerves sometimes. So what kind of community outreach do you have planned?". Cop returns "Well, we were wondering who had interest in guns and maybe putting on some gun safety classes and shooting range classes for the public.". You "Really? I have a couple shotguns handed down to me when my gramps passed away. Never used them, but it may be fun to try.". Cop "Really, we just had a murder with a shotgun. What kind of shells do you own?" You.. "um, can I get a lawyer?"
Given the above scenario, would it be fair for the cops to haul you in front of a jury and begin telling them how as soon as he asked about ammo you asked for an attorney and refused to answer his question? Absolutely not.
I'm not saying that other evidence did not end up making the difference in conviction. What I'm saying is that the tactic described above should not happen. You became uncomfortable with the officers questions, and decided it best to stop talking. That fact should not be admissible to a jury, as it requires speculation on "why" you plead the 5th and started having concerns with your rights. Also, don't compare this to other shitty things done to get convictions. As they say, two wrongs don't make a right. But we as a people must start standing up when we see obvious wrongs.
To your last paragraph, I agree with what you summarized. That is now how we are supposed to work though. People tend to see no issues with a double set of laws (one for them and one for us) until it's them on the receiving end of the unfavorable rules. That double standard is what we have to start trying to change. Complacency and apathy have never fixed anything.
Only pointing out two items since you keep circling back to the same exact item that I showed was wrong.
No, but I think it is one way of doing so. You're claiming unfair, so you have the onus of producing some numbers to show that. Any number to show that. You have failed to provide any citation to support your claims. Why can't you do that?
There are numerous public records showing this exact data. There is not a master registry released showing it all in one place. This is why I pointed out Warren Buffet who released all of his data showing you that he really only paid 9% tax, compared to his secretary that pays over 30%.
Income tax was never intended to solve an alleged "wealth disparity" problem. Those who hate the rich want it to be used that way, but that's not what it is supposed to be used for.
Absolutely false. Income tax was used as a major leveling factor for the majority of our legal income tax world. The reasoning is based on Socrates's allegory of the artisan.
I know, it makes no sense to look at facts that debunk your delusion so be happy living in it.
So either way in your opinion, the person was wrong. Not talking to the police to begin with, he would have been presumed suspicious. Talking to the police, but not answering a question that is obviously a possible incrimination he is guilty.
That is absolutely not how justice is supposed to work. Justice is best defined by Socrates in "The Republic" by Plato. It's easy for us to look at justice through biased eyes, because it's not us under scrutiny. The Government however shows no bias if you become a target of the same treatment your biases allow happen to others. Something to think about, but I'm not confident that you will.
Oh, and you are wrong again about what got them in trouble. It was failing to answer questions related to ammo casings found at the scene. So you either ignored the fact, or just argued against yourself with "He got into trouble when he started answering questions, not when he failed to answer this one.".
I believe we said the same thing, however I try to leave references to "God" out of/. discussions lest I immediately be marked a troll. The definition of "right" is very clear in our Constitution. Obviously you read it, but the person I responded to did not, or simply does not care (perhaps hoping the masters give him a 2nd helping of rice).
You can not compare a person making an agreement to a Government refusing basic human rights. In one case, the person voluntarily gives up something in order to benefit. In the other, it is a criminal act (defined by the Constitution).
Your logic is broken a 2nd time when you claim that it's someone's view that the 4th and 5th amendments are inalienable. It's not simply someone's opinion, it is the Law that the USA is founded upon. Just in case you are a little slow, here is a simple logic lesson. Law = Rule and Law != Whim
The purpose of Miranda rights is to ensure that both parties are aware of their basic human rights as given them by law.
Wrong. Of the criminal used Remmington shells, and you have the same shells: you are now a liar and defending yourself. If you gave shells to a neighbor, had hunting stolen, etc.. You could be labelled a liar or guilty by weak circumstances. There are countless scenarios in which you would not want to answer a question on these lines. Do not forget that a fundamental component of our justice system is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Eric.. I guess you already forgot that,
Still bullshit to me. The fact that not explicitly stating that one is exercising one's rights implicitly means forgoing them? Does this mean that if I don't affirm my right to free speech or a fair trial that I cannot speak freely or will not get a fair trial?
You didn't ask for your Fourth Amendment rights so you've also relinquished your rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, not to mention the requirement of a warrant or probable cause. Huzzah!
WHAT? You do realize that the Bill of Rights are those rights granted to all Peoples as defined by the Constitution. Please go read the dictionary and make note of what "right" means when applied as a "noun" dealing with morals. Maybe you were just trying to play the role of devil's advocate.
I agree with most of your points. To do this with _everything_, as I replied too, becomes a daunting task. Logistically, this is why we see so much Malware/Virus work being done.
Actually I have a very good idea what I'm talking about. You seem to think that the only way to prove income tax is fair is by looking at a published list showing tax percentages paid by each income group. If you know that the income is manipulated (legally) then how is this a fair comparison? It is not fair to make a comparison this way, and people on both sides of the spectrum tell you that it's unfair.
In reality, real pre-tax income vs. taxes paid would show you how fair the system is. Currently there is no good list published to show the discrepancies or real numbers. Flat tax, the real solution to the problem is lobbied against and most politicians won't even discuss it.
You continue to show that one tax chart because it's the only way you can claim to be correct (even though it is obvious that the statistic does not show the issue). Stop reverting to the same bad statistic used as propaganda to maintain an unfair system. If it was a fair system, don't you think we would be staying steady on the wealth disparity area? We have been rather rapidly declining in that area. Taxes are not the only factor in that mind you, but it does show plain and clear that the system is rigged in favor of those with a lot of money. And no, I'm not talking about the 300K/yr money, but multiples of millions per year.
Interesting sci/fi, but how much is true? Personally I can only speak of common things I have used like RHEL and GNU compilers provided by Redhat. If what you said was true, I should be able to see things in a stack. The compiler would have to embed network objects into code it detects as network code. That would take some massive work, and be easily visible in the gcc/g++ source code.
Potentially an issue, but I think it's pretty far away from the "likely" category. In closed source, of course this could be built in much easier. I still find it unlikely that compilers are tampered with in this manner. Dumping system calls and stack traces you would be able to see the hidden functions and variables. Colluding with every vendor and sabotaging OpenSource in a way to make this feasible (kernel hiding system calls and variables) would be nearly impossible.
SELinux goes well beyond the NSA. Security compliance in Linux goes back well over a decade and ended up being a mix of various technologies. If do not understand SELinux, then the cure for your ignorance is to go learn it. I'm not backing what the NSA has been doing with "The People" mind you, just correcting your ignorant statements here.
SELinux and the NSA involvement was really to ensure that Linux could be compliant with a very long and stringent set of requirements including protection for auditd and other modules and programs. Protecting the auditing processes was difficult and buggy under LAUS, which was improved by the NSA code and others.
For SELinux, remember that it was Defense as the primary driver. There are, and have been, thousands of eyes on the source code because this is how we ensure top secret labs running Linux remain secure and/or we can see breaches in security. Nicely, Linux allows that security level to be scalable and flexible. This is why there are lots of requirements that must be followed in DOD, more as you go up in security.
Slashdot Mirror
Thick and slow? I stated very clearly that your statement contained both a formal and informal fallacy. Hence, it can not be correct. Douche.
I have to correct you in regards to "Seriously, the guy's a murderer plain and simple and deserves to be locked up for the rest of his life.". The person has not yet had a trial, and it will be extremely difficult for him to get a fair trial. Are we not supposed to presume innocence until a trial and jury of the persons peers finds them guilty?
Oh, I know. The media told you he was guilty so you assume them to be honest and correct right? It's because of this twisting of justice that we rarely see justice until long after the fact, if at all. Think COINTELPRO, Iran/Contra, and all of the other shitty things our politicians have done while making claims that people are guilty of crimes, yet they never committed a crime. We find out years later when documents get leaked or finally have enough information declassified to show that it was our people in power that were criminal. Few, if any, of those criminals ever go to jail either. Instead, our current politicians pass rubber laws that get ignored trying to prevent future acts of a similar nature.
Socrates gives us a firm definition of Justice in Plato's "The Republic" as well as extremely good logical arguments as to why it must be firmly held and enforced equally by society. History has shown Socrates to be right on nearly every description of the Republic. Go read the book, compare that to history. See why we are failing...
To help be a bit more clear, since I don't believe I have been clear enough.. by the same definition the Police use WMDs against citizens every time they use tear gas or stun grenades. We can't have it both ways, and should refuse to allow a floating definition based on the whims of those currently in power.
I don't agree, I believe this sets a precedent which becomes extremely dangerous for citizens. The reason they are claiming WMD is not military vs. criminal, it's so they can exact a massive amount of punishment. It will also serve to excuse the actions of creating a police state in Boston for a short time, the abuse and murder of a friend of the plaintiff, etc.. etc...
When all of the properties on the monopoly board are owned by a single player, nobody else can win. No matter how often you land on "Free Parking" or cheer for the person getting a huge rent check on someone else' bank account, you will end up being the payee at some time.
If you are not presenting a truth, your argument is irrational and illogical. That was, and is still, the case. Instead of attempting to look intelligent by using a term along side of both a formal and informal fallacy, go actually do the work.
The person I responded to was using faulty logic. I was polite to them, showing how the logic was faulty in addition to pointing out the broken logic. You have no such excuse. Since you are trying to re-create the dialogue in a faulty fashion, I'll assume you are the same person trying to defend broken logic.
I'll waste no more time on a person with such such as you, unless you apologize for being wrong which I would accept. Any other defense of your position is the same irrational and illogical gibberish you have thus far presented.
It's not just the middleman in this case, though I agree with your comments regarding mercantilism. The beginning points to numerous aspects acting as Cartels. Unions became cartels, franchises became cartels, and executives became cartels. When everyone is a criminal, things never end up well.
Please don't claim strawman when presenting an absolutely false statement. Here is what they stated, but wholly fuck please learn to read and comprehend before making false claims. I hate to break it to you, but it isn't equal. . If you have doubts, go back and read their post again. Then read my comment again.
I'm actually pretty good about not throwing stones inside a glass house, but perhaps you should be reminded of the whole pot and kettle thing.
No you can't, your logic is broken. First, you don't have the time required to do this. Second, you are not getting paid with other people's money to do this. Lastly, you are not using this data in an official capacity even if you had the time to gather it.
The UK's shit stinks just as much as the US's. I think the difference is really that in the US we are pretty vocal about it on US sites like /.. For all we know in the US, the UK may have the same movements that we just don't see in the US.
I scoff at anyone in the UK thinking they are so much better off than the US in terms of corruption and tyranny. I saw how the military treated people and declared martial law without much dissent during the Olympics. Yeah yeah, I know.. "it's for the children" and "war on terror" and all that nonsense. Most of you don't stand up for yourselves just like most Americans won't stand up for themselves. It's easier to point fingers and wave to the other side trying to convince yourself that it's all sunshine and rainbows where you are standing.
Apologies if the bluntness causes offense, but it's the shortest distance to the point.
If I stated a fact that "those two shirts are red", you claiming "that one is more red" does not change my statement of fact. Arguing that one is more red so the other can't be red is foolishness at it's finest. The people running propaganda count on you being foolish enough to make such arguments and never see reality.
You should make an effort to be more intelligent than them, learn to spot rhetorical fallacy, and learn to discuss topics without easy to read fallacies.
I hate to break the news to you (intentional pun?) but it's not just Fox twisting facts. Every major news agency, referred to as MSM (Main Stream Media) does the exact same thing. This includes ABC, CNN, NBC and FOX in all forms (I.E. MSNBC). The supreme court ruling that news is entertainment impacted all MSM stations, and entrenched their purpose as propaganda instead of public service journalists.
Thankfully, there are still real journalists at work. You need to seek them out and read their articles, but they are there. The difference between MSM's now is really that some may give you just enough information to make them look unbiased. The brainwashing tactics don't change though, nor does the propaganda messages they pound the public with.
While I agree with your point that we all must consider behaving that way, I still hold my claim that this is not justice. Also, that we as a society need to speak out against injustice when we see it.
No. Not talking with the police in the first place would be the right choice so I'm not claiming either way is wrong.
As mentioned, if he immediately plead the 5th he would have been labelled as suspicious and guilty by public view. Let's assume he is innocent, and of course it is you being questioned by the police. (which is the foundation for our justice system)
Cop says "Hey, can we chat?". You being innocent have nothing to hide. "Sure, what's up? Selling fundraiser stuff?" Cop says "Nah, just making the rounds. Chief says we need to interact with the community more. I think he's right, even though he can be a prick at times. You know how bosses are." and nudges you with his elbow to let you know he's joking. You return "Yeah, my boss and every other boss I ever had gets on my nerves sometimes. So what kind of community outreach do you have planned?". Cop returns "Well, we were wondering who had interest in guns and maybe putting on some gun safety classes and shooting range classes for the public.". You "Really? I have a couple shotguns handed down to me when my gramps passed away. Never used them, but it may be fun to try.". Cop "Really, we just had a murder with a shotgun. What kind of shells do you own?" You.. "um, can I get a lawyer?"
Given the above scenario, would it be fair for the cops to haul you in front of a jury and begin telling them how as soon as he asked about ammo you asked for an attorney and refused to answer his question? Absolutely not.
I'm not saying that other evidence did not end up making the difference in conviction. What I'm saying is that the tactic described above should not happen. You became uncomfortable with the officers questions, and decided it best to stop talking. That fact should not be admissible to a jury, as it requires speculation on "why" you plead the 5th and started having concerns with your rights. Also, don't compare this to other shitty things done to get convictions. As they say, two wrongs don't make a right. But we as a people must start standing up when we see obvious wrongs.
To your last paragraph, I agree with what you summarized. That is now how we are supposed to work though. People tend to see no issues with a double set of laws (one for them and one for us) until it's them on the receiving end of the unfavorable rules. That double standard is what we have to start trying to change. Complacency and apathy have never fixed anything.
Only pointing out two items since you keep circling back to the same exact item that I showed was wrong.
No, but I think it is one way of doing so. You're claiming unfair, so you have the onus of producing some numbers to show that. Any number to show that. You have failed to provide any citation to support your claims. Why can't you do that?
There are numerous public records showing this exact data. There is not a master registry released showing it all in one place. This is why I pointed out Warren Buffet who released all of his data showing you that he really only paid 9% tax, compared to his secretary that pays over 30%.
Income tax was never intended to solve an alleged "wealth disparity" problem. Those who hate the rich want it to be used that way, but that's not what it is supposed to be used for.
Absolutely false. Income tax was used as a major leveling factor for the majority of our legal income tax world. The reasoning is based on Socrates's allegory of the artisan.
I know, it makes no sense to look at facts that debunk your delusion so be happy living in it.
So either way in your opinion, the person was wrong. Not talking to the police to begin with, he would have been presumed suspicious. Talking to the police, but not answering a question that is obviously a possible incrimination he is guilty.
That is absolutely not how justice is supposed to work. Justice is best defined by Socrates in "The Republic" by Plato. It's easy for us to look at justice through biased eyes, because it's not us under scrutiny. The Government however shows no bias if you become a target of the same treatment your biases allow happen to others. Something to think about, but I'm not confident that you will.
Oh, and you are wrong again about what got them in trouble. It was failing to answer questions related to ammo casings found at the scene. So you either ignored the fact, or just argued against yourself with "He got into trouble when he started answering questions, not when he failed to answer this one.".
1 word rebuttal? Wholly fuck go back and read the paragraph I gave to show why jackass. Or don't, and look like a bigger jackass.,/p>
I believe we said the same thing, however I try to leave references to "God" out of /. discussions lest I immediately be marked a troll. The definition of "right" is very clear in our Constitution. Obviously you read it, but the person I responded to did not, or simply does not care (perhaps hoping the masters give him a 2nd helping of rice).
You can not compare a person making an agreement to a Government refusing basic human rights. In one case, the person voluntarily gives up something in order to benefit. In the other, it is a criminal act (defined by the Constitution).
Your logic is broken a 2nd time when you claim that it's someone's view that the 4th and 5th amendments are inalienable. It's not simply someone's opinion, it is the Law that the USA is founded upon. Just in case you are a little slow, here is a simple logic lesson. Law = Rule and Law != Whim
The purpose of Miranda rights is to ensure that both parties are aware of their basic human rights as given them by law.
Wrong. Of the criminal used Remmington shells, and you have the same shells: you are now a liar and defending yourself. If you gave shells to a neighbor, had hunting stolen, etc.. You could be labelled a liar or guilty by weak circumstances. There are countless scenarios in which you would not want to answer a question on these lines. Do not forget that a fundamental component of our justice system is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Eric.. I guess you already forgot that,
Still bullshit to me. The fact that not explicitly stating that one is exercising one's rights implicitly means forgoing them? Does this mean that if I don't affirm my right to free speech or a fair trial that I cannot speak freely or will not get a fair trial?
You didn't ask for your Fourth Amendment rights so you've also relinquished your rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, not to mention the requirement of a warrant or probable cause. Huzzah!
WHAT? You do realize that the Bill of Rights are those rights granted to all Peoples as defined by the Constitution. Please go read the dictionary and make note of what "right" means when applied as a "noun" dealing with morals. Maybe you were just trying to play the role of devil's advocate.
I did not say I could not imagine it, I said that it is not feasible on scale. Posible != Plausible
I agree with most of your points. To do this with _everything_, as I replied too, becomes a daunting task. Logistically, this is why we see so much Malware/Virus work being done.
Actually I have a very good idea what I'm talking about. You seem to think that the only way to prove income tax is fair is by looking at a published list showing tax percentages paid by each income group. If you know that the income is manipulated (legally) then how is this a fair comparison? It is not fair to make a comparison this way, and people on both sides of the spectrum tell you that it's unfair.
In reality, real pre-tax income vs. taxes paid would show you how fair the system is. Currently there is no good list published to show the discrepancies or real numbers. Flat tax, the real solution to the problem is lobbied against and most politicians won't even discuss it.
You continue to show that one tax chart because it's the only way you can claim to be correct (even though it is obvious that the statistic does not show the issue). Stop reverting to the same bad statistic used as propaganda to maintain an unfair system. If it was a fair system, don't you think we would be staying steady on the wealth disparity area? We have been rather rapidly declining in that area. Taxes are not the only factor in that mind you, but it does show plain and clear that the system is rigged in favor of those with a lot of money. And no, I'm not talking about the 300K/yr money, but multiples of millions per year.
Interesting sci/fi, but how much is true? Personally I can only speak of common things I have used like RHEL and GNU compilers provided by Redhat. If what you said was true, I should be able to see things in a stack. The compiler would have to embed network objects into code it detects as network code. That would take some massive work, and be easily visible in the gcc/g++ source code.
Potentially an issue, but I think it's pretty far away from the "likely" category. In closed source, of course this could be built in much easier. I still find it unlikely that compilers are tampered with in this manner. Dumping system calls and stack traces you would be able to see the hidden functions and variables. Colluding with every vendor and sabotaging OpenSource in a way to make this feasible (kernel hiding system calls and variables) would be nearly impossible.
SELinux goes well beyond the NSA. Security compliance in Linux goes back well over a decade and ended up being a mix of various technologies. If do not understand SELinux, then the cure for your ignorance is to go learn it. I'm not backing what the NSA has been doing with "The People" mind you, just correcting your ignorant statements here.
SELinux and the NSA involvement was really to ensure that Linux could be compliant with a very long and stringent set of requirements including protection for auditd and other modules and programs. Protecting the auditing processes was difficult and buggy under LAUS, which was improved by the NSA code and others.
For SELinux, remember that it was Defense as the primary driver. There are, and have been, thousands of eyes on the source code because this is how we ensure top secret labs running Linux remain secure and/or we can see breaches in security. Nicely, Linux allows that security level to be scalable and flexible. This is why there are lots of requirements that must be followed in DOD, more as you go up in security.