South Korea has some significant things that NK doesn't, like food and electricity,
And a conspicuous lack of prison labor camps with mass graves. And a lack of sinking other people's ships. And a lack of executing people who say anything even a wee bit critical of the government (and their families, too, for good measure). The South also has completely irrelevant things like uncensored communications with the outside world. Little pleasantries like that.
Speaking as a millennial, this is total bullshit. Only a tiny subset of us actually have a pathological need to be in constant communication with others.
And I'll bet you couldn't wait, on a dare, for 60 more minutes before lodging that agry protest online.
Multiple statements from career inspectors within the intel community have asserted (and done so more vigorously when asked, and in writing) that there was classified material present on her unapproved, non-secure private mail server. Mishandling of such material is one of the rare places where intent has no bearing - merely being sloppy with it is a crime, period.
As far as we can tell, Clinton did not give classified information to any unauthorized persons, knowingly or otherwise.
What? You don't think that the Secretary of State would understand that satellite imagery of North Korea is born classified? That compartmented SAP-level information about human intelligence programs is born classified? You don't think she knows that allowing her un-cleared staff to wade through 60,000 of her emails to help her delete stuff before allowing investigators to see it means that her un-cleared private staff would be seeing... the very stuff she puts in front of them? You don't think that AFTER multiple agencies made it very clear that her email contained classified information, that her burning copies of it to thumb drives to give to her no-clearance-having lawyer to store in his non-secured office means exposing (again!) classified information to parties not allowed to see it?
How are you defining "did not give" when it the actions you're describing involve her giving it to unauthorized persons?
So when you see someone demanding a full penalty for a non-espionage incident involving a politician
Mostly what we're hearing is calls for the person who was the top security official at State and fourth in line to the presidency to not get off completely unharmed for passing around SAP-level material on a computer she set up in her house in order to avoid FOIA compliance. And if there's some urge to go easy on her because we don't yet have evidence of the Russians or the Chinese plowing around in her mailbox, keep in mind that instead of doing her job and turning over all of her material as she left office, she dragged her feet for YEARS, and had to be subpoenaed. And she destroyed tens of thousands of records without anyone at State being allowed to weigh in on whether or to what degree that included more of the SAP-type stuff that's already been found there.
If Patreus was guilty enough to be criminally convicted, Clinton is far more so. Doesn't have to mean life in prison. But it has to be commensurate with having handled SAP-level stuff on a non-secure home computer, making it available to non-cleared staff, making copies of it on thumb drives for her lawyer to keep in HIS non-secure office, and then serially lying and playing dumb about the whole thing for years to try to make it all go away.
its pretty clear what's going on here, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with normal security procedures
Exactly. Her entire stay as SoS involved her deliberately - for future political reasons - avoiding normal security procedures, even as she trafficked in some of the most compartmented information that exists.
It's not about the gender of the author, it's about the agenda of the author. Regardless, most flamebait/troll posts are aimed at other comments anyway - at least that's apparent in watching this play out in other papers' comment areas. Also, the straight reporting or analysis vs. op-ed will make a huge difference.
So everyone's all upset about rough handling during questioning, dished out to a small handful of known mass murderers and their associates, but we're all just fine with the long-standing, routine use of those same exact experiences as learning experiences for thousands and thousands of people? The administration says it no longer authorizes what it called torture, but is still doing it anyway - that's what you're saying?
The whole purpose of military personnel undergoing it is so that they are better mentally prepared to face and resist torture at the hands of the enemy.
So you're saying that we are systematically subjecting thousands of military personnel to torture? Yes or no.
If it were actual torture, it wouldn't be part of routine training for thousands of military and contractor types going into harm's way. And I'm not talking about be trained how to do it, I'm talking about volunteering to undergo it, to understand that it's unpleasant but not actual torture. Ask the many journalists who deliberately had it done to them while writing (or broadcasting) about this very subject.
Give some examples of other agencies waterboarding, please.
And by examples I don't mean from your imagination, and I don't mean something that happened in the 20th century.
How about "the Defense Department." Because tens of thousands of your fellow citizen soldiers and contractors volunteer regularly to experience enhanced interrogation techniques (including being waterboarded) as part of their training. Why? Because it's not actual torture, and it helps toughen them up for certain contingencies down the road. Not to take the fun out of your empty rhetorical question or anything.
Yeah, that's the problem. With torture there is nothing to discuss. A humane person and a civil society would never consider it.
Then it's a good thing we're only talking about waterboarding. Thousands and thousands of military personnel go through it as part of routine training (as have many journalists!). Notice that the CIA director didn't say they'd forgo it because it was torture, he said they'd forgo it because that institution doesn't need the wear and tear of needing to continually talk about it. Because people like you can't tell the difference between something that people volunteer to experience on a regular basis and actual torture, and it's way too much trouble to put up with those who, out of ignorance (feigned, willful or otherwise), can't muster the presence of mind to understand the difference.
The only morally bankrupt position is the one you've taken.
I see. Because you applaud Japan's attempt to violently take over east Asia. You're a big fan of their rape camps, their mass murder, and the racist, militaristic expansion they were conducting into neighboring countries, enslaving and putting hundreds of thousands to the sword. It's interesting that you're feeling defensive about being called out on your moral position-taking when that's what you're defending. Essentially, you're a big fan of totalitarian violence, and all pissed off that other nations put a stop to it. What the hell is wrong with you?
That's a really simplistic view. You don't back someone into a corner and get to act surprised when they get aggressive.
So who's selling simplistic views now? Complaining that the Japanese were "backed into a corner" without mentioning that they themselves created the corner AND the reason they were trapped in it shows just how morally bankrupt your position is. I suppose you feel sorry for Hitler too, backed into a corner as he was in his bunker, when he finally killed himself.
OK, so in order to remain a loyal Clinton follower and still look yourself in the mirror, you're deliberately staying uninformed. That's your choice. But please don't do anything important like voting, OK?
"Bends" the truth? She completely fabricates all sorts of things about minor personal anecdotes and major policy and security-related matters. Her entire ability to be in political power is based on her willingness to have trashed the reputations of the women her husband abused. She's thrown subordinates and peers under the legal bus for decades. Her handling of her time as SoS was a debacle, in terms of judgement, but specifically showcased her willingness to lie about how she handled her official affairs. She didn't "bend" the truth about it, she outright lied, repeatedly, and is still doing so.
If the Republicans can't accept a black man in the White House
Really? Are you one of those people who still plays the race card in order to avoid dealing with the fact that half the country doesn't agree with the other half about some pretty serious philosophical matters, mostly when it comes to the nature of the relationship between the people and the government that works for them? Obama said he would, and has set out to change that relationship, and a lot of people don't like the way that was going to (and did) manifest itself (see the "Affordable" Care Act, etc). But no, you'd rather call them all racists. I don't give a damn what color he or anyone else is. Only what they say and do (or don't say, and don't do).
Yes, Trump does present the risk of the house and/or senate changing hands - not a good thing at all.
ANY truth out of that campaign would be a breath of fresh air, so it might as well be about the lack of aliens. Which of course nobody who thinks there's hidden information will believe, so they might as well lie about that, too.
Wait, you took RINO as an insult? I'd thought there'd be at least a little pride...
Hey, look! He still can't articulate any actual points surrounding his name-calling urges! At least you're consistent. Still haven't managed to muster up even one substantial remark explaining WHY you think my pointing out the structure of political parties and primary elections is "delusional." What's the matter? Shy? Embarrassed? Realizing you're being a fool and trying the very Trump-like maneuver of doubling down on the no-substance insult in hopes nobody will notice your lack of depth on what is really a very simple subject? Yeah, thought so. There's no shame in ignorance, just in being a coward about it. Which are you? Ignorant and willing to learn, or ignorant and lashing out in order to avoid addressing the problem? Don't answer: your behavior already did.
There are lots of electronic keypad door locks available which connect to mains power, have a backup battery and a key which bypasses the numeric pad if all else fails but why go that way when there is a much simpler solution?
Because just like you're using a remotely hosted forum for your recreational communication and socializing (instead of driving someplace to a room full of people that meet in person every Thursday to joke about Natalie Portman and Hot Grits), some people DO want to remotely unlock their front door for the neighbor to feed their dog (or whatever). You're not looking for a simpler solution, you're looking to stick with simpler problems.
So in other words, you can't even attempt to back up your earlier mindless insults. If the things you assert are so unsupportable that you can't even bring yourself to stumble through a half-hearted explanation for them, why should anybody even begin to listen to you? Be specific.
What's hilarious is that you can't actually point out which part is delusional. Is it that individual party primaries aren't part of the governing process? Are you confused about that? Are you thinking that I'm delusional because it's possible Trump won't get the numbers necessary to win the nomination without debate? No? Or are you just another person who has to resort to lame, juvenile ad hominem in order to distract from the fact that someone is calling you on your nonsense? Be specific, address the topics mentioned and point out where and why they're "delusional," or just admit you're blathering and saying nothing.
NOW what are you talking about? Which specific facts (about the structure of the government, and about the nature of political parties as private groups) am I in any way spinning? Be specific. People who don't understand how that all works really shouldn't vote, because they probably also misunderstand a lot of other very important things.
That's exactly why straightforward democracy is almost always a bad idea
Yeah, sucks to have Trump as your figurehead, eh?
What are you talking about? We're not even through the primary process yet, and he doesn't have (and quite possibly will not get) enough of his party's votes to assure him that he will be the party's nominee. How a private organization like a political party runs its own affairs - with regard to putting forward a candidate in an actual general election - has nothing whatsoever to do with the charter of the country or one's position on pure democracy vs. constitutional republicanism etc. It's a private association! It's no different than the local Chevy Vega Fan Club deciding how they'll name and elect someone to be at the head of their own club. That's why the process that Hillary Clinton is banking on looks so different... because the private association she's associated herself with (the Democrat party) has a different set of internal rules when it comes to putting their collective weight behind a candidate. Just like the Greens have their own way of doing it.
How is it you're so poorly informed about this? Please don't do anything dangerous to the rest of us, like voting in the general election.
He's the one that got rid of the assets in question as he entered office. His wife took over those accounts. I'm not the one pointing out that the dangling legal connection between him and those assets are a joint checking account, it's the article you didn't bother to read that explains that.
Slashdot Mirror
South Korea has some significant things that NK doesn't, like food and electricity,
And a conspicuous lack of prison labor camps with mass graves. And a lack of sinking other people's ships. And a lack of executing people who say anything even a wee bit critical of the government (and their families, too, for good measure). The South also has completely irrelevant things like uncensored communications with the outside world. Little pleasantries like that.
Speaking as a millennial, this is total bullshit. Only a tiny subset of us actually have a pathological need to be in constant communication with others.
And I'll bet you couldn't wait, on a dare, for 60 more minutes before lodging that agry protest online.
Multiple statements from career inspectors within the intel community have asserted (and done so more vigorously when asked, and in writing) that there was classified material present on her unapproved, non-secure private mail server. Mishandling of such material is one of the rare places where intent has no bearing - merely being sloppy with it is a crime, period.
As far as we can tell, Clinton did not give classified information to any unauthorized persons, knowingly or otherwise.
What? You don't think that the Secretary of State would understand that satellite imagery of North Korea is born classified? That compartmented SAP-level information about human intelligence programs is born classified? You don't think she knows that allowing her un-cleared staff to wade through 60,000 of her emails to help her delete stuff before allowing investigators to see it means that her un-cleared private staff would be seeing ... the very stuff she puts in front of them? You don't think that AFTER multiple agencies made it very clear that her email contained classified information, that her burning copies of it to thumb drives to give to her no-clearance-having lawyer to store in his non-secured office means exposing (again!) classified information to parties not allowed to see it?
How are you defining "did not give" when it the actions you're describing involve her giving it to unauthorized persons?
So when you see someone demanding a full penalty for a non-espionage incident involving a politician
Mostly what we're hearing is calls for the person who was the top security official at State and fourth in line to the presidency to not get off completely unharmed for passing around SAP-level material on a computer she set up in her house in order to avoid FOIA compliance. And if there's some urge to go easy on her because we don't yet have evidence of the Russians or the Chinese plowing around in her mailbox, keep in mind that instead of doing her job and turning over all of her material as she left office, she dragged her feet for YEARS, and had to be subpoenaed. And she destroyed tens of thousands of records without anyone at State being allowed to weigh in on whether or to what degree that included more of the SAP-type stuff that's already been found there.
If Patreus was guilty enough to be criminally convicted, Clinton is far more so. Doesn't have to mean life in prison. But it has to be commensurate with having handled SAP-level stuff on a non-secure home computer, making it available to non-cleared staff, making copies of it on thumb drives for her lawyer to keep in HIS non-secure office, and then serially lying and playing dumb about the whole thing for years to try to make it all go away.
its pretty clear what's going on here, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with normal security procedures
Exactly. Her entire stay as SoS involved her deliberately - for future political reasons - avoiding normal security procedures, even as she trafficked in some of the most compartmented information that exists.
It's not about the gender of the author, it's about the agenda of the author. Regardless, most flamebait/troll posts are aimed at other comments anyway - at least that's apparent in watching this play out in other papers' comment areas. Also, the straight reporting or analysis vs. op-ed will make a huge difference.
Yes, we do.
So everyone's all upset about rough handling during questioning, dished out to a small handful of known mass murderers and their associates, but we're all just fine with the long-standing, routine use of those same exact experiences as learning experiences for thousands and thousands of people? The administration says it no longer authorizes what it called torture, but is still doing it anyway - that's what you're saying?
The whole purpose of military personnel undergoing it is so that they are better mentally prepared to face and resist torture at the hands of the enemy.
So you're saying that we are systematically subjecting thousands of military personnel to torture? Yes or no.
Waterboarding is by an overwhelming concensus a formal example of torture.
Then so is eating MREs. Military personnel undergo both, regularly, as part of their training.
If it were actual torture, it wouldn't be part of routine training for thousands of military and contractor types going into harm's way. And I'm not talking about be trained how to do it, I'm talking about volunteering to undergo it, to understand that it's unpleasant but not actual torture. Ask the many journalists who deliberately had it done to them while writing (or broadcasting) about this very subject.
Give some examples of other agencies waterboarding, please. And by examples I don't mean from your imagination, and I don't mean something that happened in the 20th century.
How about "the Defense Department." Because tens of thousands of your fellow citizen soldiers and contractors volunteer regularly to experience enhanced interrogation techniques (including being waterboarded) as part of their training. Why? Because it's not actual torture, and it helps toughen them up for certain contingencies down the road. Not to take the fun out of your empty rhetorical question or anything.
Yeah, that's the problem. With torture there is nothing to discuss. A humane person and a civil society would never consider it.
Then it's a good thing we're only talking about waterboarding. Thousands and thousands of military personnel go through it as part of routine training (as have many journalists!). Notice that the CIA director didn't say they'd forgo it because it was torture, he said they'd forgo it because that institution doesn't need the wear and tear of needing to continually talk about it. Because people like you can't tell the difference between something that people volunteer to experience on a regular basis and actual torture, and it's way too much trouble to put up with those who, out of ignorance (feigned, willful or otherwise), can't muster the presence of mind to understand the difference.
The only morally bankrupt position is the one you've taken.
I see. Because you applaud Japan's attempt to violently take over east Asia. You're a big fan of their rape camps, their mass murder, and the racist, militaristic expansion they were conducting into neighboring countries, enslaving and putting hundreds of thousands to the sword. It's interesting that you're feeling defensive about being called out on your moral position-taking when that's what you're defending. Essentially, you're a big fan of totalitarian violence, and all pissed off that other nations put a stop to it. What the hell is wrong with you?
That's a really simplistic view. You don't back someone into a corner and get to act surprised when they get aggressive.
So who's selling simplistic views now? Complaining that the Japanese were "backed into a corner" without mentioning that they themselves created the corner AND the reason they were trapped in it shows just how morally bankrupt your position is. I suppose you feel sorry for Hitler too, backed into a corner as he was in his bunker, when he finally killed himself.
No examples here.
OK, so in order to remain a loyal Clinton follower and still look yourself in the mirror, you're deliberately staying uninformed. That's your choice. But please don't do anything important like voting, OK?
"Bends" the truth? She completely fabricates all sorts of things about minor personal anecdotes and major policy and security-related matters. Her entire ability to be in political power is based on her willingness to have trashed the reputations of the women her husband abused. She's thrown subordinates and peers under the legal bus for decades. Her handling of her time as SoS was a debacle, in terms of judgement, but specifically showcased her willingness to lie about how she handled her official affairs. She didn't "bend" the truth about it, she outright lied, repeatedly, and is still doing so.
If the Republicans can't accept a black man in the White House
Really? Are you one of those people who still plays the race card in order to avoid dealing with the fact that half the country doesn't agree with the other half about some pretty serious philosophical matters, mostly when it comes to the nature of the relationship between the people and the government that works for them? Obama said he would, and has set out to change that relationship, and a lot of people don't like the way that was going to (and did) manifest itself (see the "Affordable" Care Act, etc). But no, you'd rather call them all racists. I don't give a damn what color he or anyone else is. Only what they say and do (or don't say, and don't do).
Yes, Trump does present the risk of the house and/or senate changing hands - not a good thing at all.
ANY truth out of that campaign would be a breath of fresh air, so it might as well be about the lack of aliens. Which of course nobody who thinks there's hidden information will believe, so they might as well lie about that, too.
Wait, you took RINO as an insult? I'd thought there'd be at least a little pride...
Hey, look! He still can't articulate any actual points surrounding his name-calling urges! At least you're consistent. Still haven't managed to muster up even one substantial remark explaining WHY you think my pointing out the structure of political parties and primary elections is "delusional." What's the matter? Shy? Embarrassed? Realizing you're being a fool and trying the very Trump-like maneuver of doubling down on the no-substance insult in hopes nobody will notice your lack of depth on what is really a very simple subject? Yeah, thought so. There's no shame in ignorance, just in being a coward about it. Which are you? Ignorant and willing to learn, or ignorant and lashing out in order to avoid addressing the problem? Don't answer: your behavior already did.
There are lots of electronic keypad door locks available which connect to mains power, have a backup battery and a key which bypasses the numeric pad if all else fails but why go that way when there is a much simpler solution?
Because just like you're using a remotely hosted forum for your recreational communication and socializing (instead of driving someplace to a room full of people that meet in person every Thursday to joke about Natalie Portman and Hot Grits), some people DO want to remotely unlock their front door for the neighbor to feed their dog (or whatever). You're not looking for a simpler solution, you're looking to stick with simpler problems.
So in other words, you can't even attempt to back up your earlier mindless insults. If the things you assert are so unsupportable that you can't even bring yourself to stumble through a half-hearted explanation for them, why should anybody even begin to listen to you? Be specific.
What's hilarious is that you can't actually point out which part is delusional. Is it that individual party primaries aren't part of the governing process? Are you confused about that? Are you thinking that I'm delusional because it's possible Trump won't get the numbers necessary to win the nomination without debate? No? Or are you just another person who has to resort to lame, juvenile ad hominem in order to distract from the fact that someone is calling you on your nonsense? Be specific, address the topics mentioned and point out where and why they're "delusional," or just admit you're blathering and saying nothing.
NOW what are you talking about? Which specific facts (about the structure of the government, and about the nature of political parties as private groups) am I in any way spinning? Be specific. People who don't understand how that all works really shouldn't vote, because they probably also misunderstand a lot of other very important things.
That's exactly why straightforward democracy is almost always a bad idea
Yeah, sucks to have Trump as your figurehead, eh?
What are you talking about? We're not even through the primary process yet, and he doesn't have (and quite possibly will not get) enough of his party's votes to assure him that he will be the party's nominee. How a private organization like a political party runs its own affairs - with regard to putting forward a candidate in an actual general election - has nothing whatsoever to do with the charter of the country or one's position on pure democracy vs. constitutional republicanism etc. It's a private association! It's no different than the local Chevy Vega Fan Club deciding how they'll name and elect someone to be at the head of their own club. That's why the process that Hillary Clinton is banking on looks so different ... because the private association she's associated herself with (the Democrat party) has a different set of internal rules when it comes to putting their collective weight behind a candidate. Just like the Greens have their own way of doing it.
How is it you're so poorly informed about this? Please don't do anything dangerous to the rest of us, like voting in the general election.
He's the one that got rid of the assets in question as he entered office. His wife took over those accounts. I'm not the one pointing out that the dangling legal connection between him and those assets are a joint checking account, it's the article you didn't bother to read that explains that.