The new media journal is pushing the Mohamed is a paedophile meme:
Yes, Good for you Google! Truth can be so inconvenient when they don't run counter to the one and only correct political view. In the name of free speech, I say all such "hate speech" should be banned. The truthfulness of such statements is completely irrelevant.
"...[T]he Prophet (Muhammed) said to her (Aisha), 'You have been shown to me twice in my dream. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and someone said (to me). 'This is your wife.' When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said, 'If this is from Allah, it will be done.'" (Hadith, Sahih Bukhari 5:58:235)
"[T]he Prophet (Muhammed) married her (Aisha) when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)." (Hadith, Sahih Bukhari 7:62:64)
"Narrated 'Aisha: 'I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet (Muhammed) and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).'" (Hadith, Sahih Bukhari 1:4:229)
"Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet (Muhammed), and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me." (Hadith: Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151)
"Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: When I got married, Allah's Apostle (Muhammed) said to me, 'What type of lady have you married?' I replied, 'I have married a matron'. He said, 'Why, don't you have a liking for the young virgins and for fondling them?' Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, 'Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?'" (Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17)
Re:Buying PCs isn't as exciting as it used to be
on
Athlon Socket AM2 Review
·
· Score: 2, Informative
My 1.66GHz Athlon XP 2000+ does the job well and is still very often limited by memory (1GB) and harddisk bottlenecks. That's a 3 year old system, and CPU+Board cost only $140 back then. Am I really expected to pay that price several times over to replace a reliably working system and get less than a 2x performance increase?
Where do you get 2x performance? Are you just looking at the clock speed? I ask because my A643000+ is a good clip faster than my AXP3200, both at the same clock speed.
First these leaks are about policy and not individual cases. Who is "hurt by the leaked data"? Lets turn the table around; If there is nothing wrong with what the government is doing then why do they care if it becomes public knowledge? Our duty as citizens is to enforce that our government reflects our will. Without oversight who knows what insidious plans the government would come up with.
Well, let's make a hypothetical situation as to why the gov't may care if it becomes public: Let's say the government is listening to phone calls from a terrorist cell leader here in the US made to his Al Qaeda contacts in Syria discussing plans for some sort of attack. Suddenly, it becomes public that the Gov't is listening to those conversations. Now those conversations move to some sort of medium that the Gov't is NOT monitoring, carrier pigeon or something, and the plans move forward without Gov't monitoring and the only tool the Gov't had that could have stopped the attack is now lost.
There's a huge difference, you know, between doing something that immediately threatens someone's life and doing something that exposes government wrongdoing and/or abuse.
If the government is listening to phone calls from a terrorist cell leader here in the US made to his AlQaeda contacts in Syria discussing plans for some sort of attack, when it becomes public that the Gov't is listening to those conversations, those conversations move to some sort of medium that the Gov't is NOT monitoring and the plans move forward without knowledge that can stop the attack...
So, yeah, lives may be at stake here. While I can't say for certain that the Gov't is listening to an attack in the planning stages, can you say that they are not?
Why should the defendant have more rights in a case simply because we find the crime in that instance more heinous? Justice based on emotion is not justice at all.
I agree. I understand the gag order on the ID's of alleged victims, but I feel that the same gag order should be in place the for the accused as well. At least until a verdict is read. Take the Duke rape case for example. These guys may be innocent, but their names have been dragged through the mud. The damage has been done, regardless of guilt or innocence. Even more unfortunate, the same can be said for the accuser.
Frankly, I have no idea how to deal with those types of situations, but it needs to be pointed out that the system as it is is in violation of the sixth amendment.
You're probably right. However, that is for the judicial system to decide, not Wired.
The whole point of a trial is that one group says "X has wronged me", then both parties defend their claims in front of the world and a representative group decides the outcome.
You think that evidence should be kept from public view until after the jury's decision? That sounds an awful lot like a secret trail. What happened to due process and the right to "a speedy, public trial?"
So all the information in all cases before the courts be made public? I'm sure rape and molestation victims will not appreciate having their ID's and details of the crime made public.
The problem as I see it is that anyone who "disagrees" with the current administration and has access to classified material can go out and anonymously leak that information with absolutely no repercussions. They leak to the press, the press reports the story, refuses to give up their sources siting freedom of the press and everyone goes home happy, except for those hurt by the leaked data.
For example, let's say there is an in-processing and interrogation facility somewhere in Iraq. It is where suspected insurgents are taken to decide if they are a threat and if they are, which public facility they should be taken to. Well, some soldier that is upset about his request for leave to see his mum gets rejected and leaks this information to the press. The next day, front page, is a story with pictures about a secret prison in Iraq. Within 12 hrs, the in-processing facility (secret prison) is overrun by insurgents and all American and Iraqi's working there are killed or kidnapped and tortured, all incoming prisoners are freed. Is the soldier responsible? Is he a whistle-blower or a turn-coat? What about the reporter who got all these people killed? He won't give up his source, siting freedom of the press.
Regardless of you opinion the current administration, the gov't has to have some way of investigating and prosecuting those who leak classified information.
I believe my government has a duty to protect the information that is important or sensitive. If the government fails to do adequately protect this information then it should not be illegal for an instution of the press to point it out. If by doing so they print the classified information then so be it. The people have a right to know the shortcomings of their government whether they be scandal or lack of security.
I think that is what the Gov't is trying to do here. How can the gov't do so if they can not find out who is doing the leaking?
The US government has repeatedly used their memory to justify secrecy right across government. It is now trying to use their memory to to silence people who whistle-blow on their deepest darkest secrets. Well fuck them!
You're right. Fuck everybody. There is absolutely no reason why the gov't should keep secrets. Let's go ahead and release troop movements to whatever enemy may want them. Let's go ahead and release the President's travel schedule to every would-be terrorist out there. Let's throw in Congressional schedule's as well. Hell, why limit it the gov't? How about if your bank publishes your PIN number and all the data on your ATM card so we can all access your bank accounts. All in the name of free speech of course.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Watergate was supporters of Nixon trying to bug Democrats. It was done purely for political gain.
The NSA wire-tapping (of calls made to known terrorists overseas) was not done for political purposes. It was done to gather information about terrorist cells in the US. The only thing political about the NSA wiretaps are the people trying to compare it Watergate.
I've been absolutely disgusted with the blind allegiance of my so-called brethren citizens who are actually gullible enough to propagate this nonsense. And, you know exactly what you're trying to do. Open your eyes and stand up against these tyrants before it's too late for ALL of us!
You mean tyrants like Lincoln (Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to jail war protesters, shut down hundreds of newspapers that disagreed with his war), FDR (WWII Internment camps), and Clinton (FileGate).
don't be silly, impeachments are about sex, not abuses of power. Noone is giving the pres a blowjob in the oval office, ergo, no impeachment.
Wow! I guess the impeachment docs that contain the words "Blow Job" have not been released by the NSA yet. And here I thought it was perjury and obstruction of justice in a sexual harrassment case.
I wonder if we would be better off if someone like Lincoln, "The Great Emancipator" were in office. Now there is a guy who could protect civil rights! From http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/gregory1.html More violations of the Constitution probably occurred during Abraham Lincoln's four years as president than during any other cohesively defined era in American history. Many have pointed out that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to jail war protesters, shut down hundreds of newspapers that disagreed with his war, established a draft for the first time in American history (except in the seceded South, which had a draft a year earlier), instituted restrictions on firearms, and sent troops to violently suppress the New York draft riot. He also used the war to push through the "American System," a program of de facto nationalization of the transportation industry via massive subsidies to corporations that would agree to build "internal improvements" - railroads, waterways, and canals. The victory of the Union in 1865 not only established that, contrary to popular political theory in the antebellum era, the federal government was completely supreme over the states; it also established that a president could do literally anything he could get away with, no matter how many liberties were suspended, innocents jailed, and people killed in the process.
In other words, Bush is not Hitler. Hell, he hasn't even reached the level of Lincoln. The restriction of civil rights is nothing new in a time of war, and is completely legal as a precedent has been set. Take, for example, the right to bare arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. Can you bare arms on an airplane? Of course not. Can you bare arms in your local bar or city hall? Nope. How about free speech protection in a crowded theatre or in a case of perjury or libel? These rights are spelled out clearly in the Constitution with no wiggle room what-so-ever. "The right to free speech shall not be infringed" period. Yet I can not say anything I want anywhere I want.
Yet again NASA prove that they should no longer be in charge of the western worlds space exploration. This is another example of why the private sector should be allowed prosper with it's own plans and designs. As the X-prize has shown, NASA is a dinosaur and should either be put down or evolve by embrace privately funded initiatives.
So you trust private corporations with safety more than an elected government? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying either is any good, but I was under the impression that mega-corps were evil and the government is the answer all our problems. Just trying to stay on the same page as everyone else.
Enough of the splitting of hairs. Let's hear an honest opinion. Do you belive as I do that: Checks and Balances must me maintained. Yes That a law that goes against the moral beliefs of a majority of the people is invalid. In some instances, yes, others, no. Removing the 10 Commandments from a courthouse goes against the moral beliefs of the majority. Does that make it invalid? The right of the KKK to protest goes against the beliefs of the majority. The rights of spammers to breathe... you get my point. That the government is not above the law. Yes That the aims cannot ever justify the means if those means include wars of aggression, gross injustices, or mass infringing on citizens freedom, including in freedom the intrinsically joined concept of privacy. Yes, but I don't see the current means as you do. That the law is a tool to be shaped and used by free people guided by their sense of justice. Yes, but keep in mind that people's sense of justice tends to change. That any so called democratic society that forgets this has lost it's way. Sure
Or do you believe, that the government should be almost whatever it likes, using a war, that IT STARTED UNILATERALLY WITH LIES AS MOTIVATION, as the excuse? No. But again, I don't think your description of the status quo is accurate. How many mass graves does it take to validate a war? The Iraq war was authorized by the UN, 17 times over. As to "LIES AS A MOTIVATION", I don't buy into that either. In Iraq for example, WMD's were not the only reason we went to Iraq, just the one the press latched onto. And to call bad intel, lies, is dishonest in itself. I think you should be asking France, Germany or Russia why they didn't want to go to war when all of their leaders thought WMD's were in Iraq? Why did they not stand up for the down trodden in Iraq? Why does the UN not stand up for human rights in places like Syria, Lebanon or much of Africa? If we are the only ones that will stand up to a tyrant that fills mass graves with the bodies of women, still holding thier children, then so be it.
That the stated aims justifies the means? In this case, Yes. The stated aims (protecting Americans from terrorists) justifies the means (catching someone who has violated national security). That in fact the WORDS of KNOWN LIARS are more important than your own RIGHTS and those of all other Americans, not to mention Iraqis? Again, I disagree with the "known liars" bit. Tell that to the Iraqis who get to vote to more than one candidate for the first time in their lives. That the law is a tool to be used by the gowernment to control the people. No. To protect people. For that matter, I believe that laws that do not protect people should be abolished (See NORML)
This is what you appear to me to imply. Let's hear what you believe, and how you motivate it! Done! Believe it or not, you and I agree on more than we disagree. We just don't see the world from the same angle. I do see your point of view, however, as I will be quite nervous once the next administration takes over. I'll join your point of view when the first time these new security measures are used for anything other than security (see filegate and watergate).
The founding fathers could hardly predict the technological state of today, but the intent and spirit of the constitution is very clear. It hardly takes any great mind to realize how "papers and effects" translates into digital data. You are absolutely correct. The intent of the founders can not be denied. If in doubt, read Madison's own words: "The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property from all unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized." So even though privacy is not listed, I'll grant you an implied right to privacy in your own home. However, phone records are the property of the phone companies. If you want to right down everyone you call and calls you receive, that would be your personal affects and would be protected. But would a ferry receipt from the 1880's be protected? How about a guest log from the local inn or diner? Would these not be the 1800's equivelant of phone records?
These are examples of abuses of power. It most certainly is not legal, and the fact that he got away with it means nothing except just that. Crimes that someone got away with do not change the constitution. They do not mean we should ignore or accept new crimes. Abe Lincoln wasn't alone. You could chalk up "abuses" by Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Andrew Jackson as well. (I'm sure there are others, but it's late). These "abuses" are legal by precedent. It is the sworn duty of the Prez to do whatever it takes to defend this country. After reading what Lincoln did, I'd say GWB has been pretty reserved. If the liberty survived Lincoln's and Roosevelt's "abuses", it will survive GWB! http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html has a pretty good read-up on what GWB could do, but hasn't. Maybe he's not the drunk-with-power-red-neck-Nazi every keeps calling him. We are at war (What was that slogan? No *blank* for Oil!") In a time of war, the Prez is given authority to execute that war. Now if the Prez were to use this authority to spy on John Kerry to get election dirt (see Watergate), or use the FBI and IRS to dig up dirt on political opponents (see FileGate), then that would certainly be an illegal, impeachable offence. But that is not the case here. There are certain "high level government officials" who are leaking classified secrets like a drunken teenager. This can be very dangerous to national security and can get soldiers and civilians killed. In any other time in our history, this would be called treason. Men have been hung for less, so please don't tell me how liberty is being trampled more now than any time in our history, because, even though you don't like it, it's simply not true.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And where is the part about PRIVACY ? I missed that part.
Actually, I'd debate unreasonable and persons, houses, papers, and effects . we are talking about phone records here, which are could be debated are more the property of the phone companies as they are the people, and not talking about wire tapping and not kicking doors in. And sorry, but the gov't has leeway when it comes to national security. Take Abe Lincoln for example. From here:
More violations of the Constitution probably occurred during Abraham Lincoln's four years as president than during any other cohesively defined era in American history. Many have pointed out that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to jail war protesters, shut down hundreds of newspapers that disagreed with his war, established a draft for the first time in American history (except in the seceded South, which had a draft a year earlier), instituted restrictions on firearms, and sent troops to violently suppress the New York draft riot. He also used the war to push through the "American System," a program of de facto nationalization of the transportation industry via massive subsidies to corporations that would agree to build "internal improvements" - railroads, waterways, and canals. The victory of the Union in 1865 not only established that, contrary to popular political theory in the antebellum era, the federal government was completely supreme over the states; it also established that a president could do literally anything he could get away with, no matter how many liberties were suspended, innocents jailed, and people killed in the process.
So I ask again, is this illegal? Is this guy a whistle blower, traitor or scumbag (see grandparent post)?
Why doesn't that constitute torture? It's certainly the type of coercion used by the Nazi's to gain intelligence when they "interviewed" my great grandmother for 12 continuous hours.
With all due respect to your grandmother, no, 12 hrs of talk does not constitute torture. I'm sorry, but when compared to say, 12 hrs of bamboo splints up the fingernails, or 12 hrs of having some guy named Hanz beat you with a sock full of coins, even 12 hrs of seeing your wife, daughter or mother raped is toruture... but no, sorry, 12 hrs of questioning is not turture. Under your rules, is 6 hrs of questioning torture? How about 2 hrs. What if I ask a single question or look inquisitive? Is that torture? Where do you draw the line? From Gitmo, the torture that has been reported has been having the AC too cold, sleep deprivation, having to hear a female and male prisoner talk to each other, and having a fellow inmate flush a Koran.
You may also recall that Abu Ghraib was under our control at the time of the openly admitted action there. The supposedly rogue agents were trained by our military and intelligence agencies to perform such actions, supposedly that would be for them to *use* such tactics. Whether they did so under direction of our government or not makes little material difference when you consider the fact we trained them to do it under precisely the circumstances they were presented.
The comment I was referring to mentioned the torture at Gitmo. I have heard of nothing coming out of Gitmo that I would call torture. As to the torture at Abu Ghraib, I'd call that abuse, but still does not qualify as torture in my book. Those responsibe for that are now in a military stockade. I've been to a military stockade. Trust me, they would much rather be in Abu Ghraib.
You might also consider the US government's insistence that the Red Cross and various other humanitarian groups *not* be allowed to conduct any extensive audit of our facilities at Gitmo and perhaps draw the conclusion that the government is afraid of what might be found there.
Sorry, but your're wrong. According to the Red Crossit is our very own government that requested the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to visit with the detainees. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Maybe you are thinking of Amnesty International (or AmNasty Intl). They invited, but insisted they be left alone with prisoners. Of course, this was denied for their own security as well as the US's. The last thing the US needs is some anti-American Socialist from AI coaching prisoners or telling them information they are not supposed to have. Even worse, it would be a PR nightmare if a few AI reps were assaulted held hostage by a prisoner. Besides, AI has an agenda. From CNN: The chief of Amnesty International USA alleged Sunday that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp is part of a worldwide network of U.S. jails, some of them secret, where prisoners are mistreated and even killed. They also labeled the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay as "the gulag of our times." Of course, all this without actually going there. Yeah, they have no agenda. I had no idea that Gulag prisoners were fed three hot meals a day and given an opportunity to practice their faith.
We agreed to the Geneva Accords, can we not restrain ourselves from violating treaties we had a hand in drafting and forcing on other nations?
Geneva Accords refers to uniformed soldiers, not trained terrorists who dress as civilians and hide among and behind women and children.
Are these not the "crimes against humanity" which we are now prosecuting Saddam Hussein for having committed and now we prefer to opt out when
Because, as is pointed out again and again, it is NOT illegal to disobey illegal orders or to expose illegal activities. The government is NOT above the law no matter how much they like to believe they are.
What you are saying that is that the government may bypass any and all laws just by classifying the activity in question. That's utter nonsense. It is the moral duty of any citizen of any country to expose illegal acts by its government.
Are these activities illegal? That's for a judge or grand-jury to decide. I guess that's the risk you take when you leak. If the government's activities are illegal, then the leaker is a wistle-blower and a hero. If not, then the leaker is a traitor and a threat to national security. The only other possibility is if this leaker was politically motivated, then he's a complete and utter slime ball who sold out his country for political purposes.
People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.
I got it, and in your defense, you were quoting TFA. I just thought I'd be a smart-ass and jab more of the article than you. No offence meant.
I just find it funny when either the editors or authors have no idea what the difference is between a Hell Fire Missile and Predator Drone.
It might be proper, if a crime were alleged to have been committed, for a prosecutor or law enforcement agency to subpoena phone records to try to find evidence. Uh... leaking classified information to anyone, especially the press is illegal.
How many liberals wanted to see Rove "frog-marched" out of the White House when he was accused of leaking. How come no one is calling for a "frog-marching" of whoever this leaker may be?
Every time America angers the Middle East with its hypocrisy by torturing terror suspects or by denying them human rights at Gitmo, I wonder if the Bush administration will take responsibility for the next attack they provoked.
OK, last time I'm gonna tell you, so listen up.
AIR CONDITIONING AND SLEEP DEPREVATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE TORTURE... Especially to a society that stones women for leaving the house without being completely covered and escorted by a man, and institutes gang-rape of teen-aged daughters as punishment to a family. So, that is not what is pissing off the young mid-eastern male. However, you, and the press constantly saying that we are torturing prisoners at Gitmo, even though they are provided a Koran, told which direction to pray, and given the opportunity to five times a day, is what is pissing everyone off.
By the way, what did the Bush administration do in the nine months in office to warrant 9-11?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Good for you Google! Truth can be so inconvenient when they don't run counter to the one and only correct political view. In the name of free speech, I say all such "hate speech" should be banned. The truthfulness of such statements is completely irrelevant.
My 1.66GHz Athlon XP 2000+ does the job well and is still very often limited by memory (1GB) and harddisk bottlenecks. That's a 3 year old system, and CPU+Board cost only $140 back then. Am I really expected to pay that price several times over to replace a reliably working system and get less than a 2x performance increase?
Where do you get 2x performance? Are you just looking at the clock speed? I ask because my A643000+ is a good clip faster than my AXP3200, both at the same clock speed.
First these leaks are about policy and not individual cases. Who is "hurt by the leaked data"? Lets turn the table around; If there is nothing wrong with what the government is doing then why do they care if it becomes public knowledge? Our duty as citizens is to enforce that our government reflects our will. Without oversight who knows what insidious plans the government would come up with.
Well, let's make a hypothetical situation as to why the gov't may care if it becomes public:
Let's say the government is listening to phone calls from a terrorist cell leader here in the US made to his Al Qaeda contacts in Syria discussing plans for some sort of attack. Suddenly, it becomes public that the Gov't is listening to those conversations. Now those conversations move to some sort of medium that the Gov't is NOT monitoring, carrier pigeon or something, and the plans move forward without Gov't monitoring and the only tool the Gov't had that could have stopped the attack is now lost.
There's a huge difference, you know, between doing something that immediately threatens someone's life and doing something that exposes government wrongdoing and/or abuse.
If the government is listening to phone calls from a terrorist cell leader here in the US made to his AlQaeda contacts in Syria discussing plans for some sort of attack, when it becomes public that the Gov't is listening to those conversations, those conversations move to some sort of medium that the Gov't is NOT monitoring and the plans move forward without knowledge that can stop the attack...
So, yeah, lives may be at stake here. While I can't say for certain that the Gov't is listening to an attack in the planning stages, can you say that they are not?
Why should the defendant have more rights in a case simply because we find the crime in that instance more heinous? Justice based on emotion is not justice at all.
I agree. I understand the gag order on the ID's of alleged victims, but I feel that the same gag order should be in place the for the accused as well. At least until a verdict is read. Take the Duke rape case for example. These guys may be innocent, but their names have been dragged through the mud. The damage has been done, regardless of guilt or innocence. Even more unfortunate, the same can be said for the accuser.
Frankly, I have no idea how to deal with those types of situations, but it needs to be pointed out that the system as it is is in violation of the sixth amendment.
You're probably right. However, that is for the judicial system to decide, not Wired.
Given this story, I'd say that you can't trust Wired with your private data either!
The whole point of a trial is that one group says "X has wronged me", then both parties defend their claims in front of the world and a representative group decides the outcome.
You think that evidence should be kept from public view until after the jury's decision? That sounds an awful lot like a secret trail. What happened to due process and the right to "a speedy, public trial?"
So all the information in all cases before the courts be made public? I'm sure rape and molestation victims will not appreciate having their ID's and details of the crime made public.
The problem as I see it is that anyone who "disagrees" with the current administration and has access to classified material can go out and anonymously leak that information with absolutely no repercussions. They leak to the press, the press reports the story, refuses to give up their sources siting freedom of the press and everyone goes home happy, except for those hurt by the leaked data.
For example, let's say there is an in-processing and interrogation facility somewhere in Iraq. It is where suspected insurgents are taken to decide if they are a threat and if they are, which public facility they should be taken to. Well, some soldier that is upset about his request for leave to see his mum gets rejected and leaks this information to the press. The next day, front page, is a story with pictures about a secret prison in Iraq. Within 12 hrs, the in-processing facility (secret prison) is overrun by insurgents and all American and Iraqi's working there are killed or kidnapped and tortured, all incoming prisoners are freed. Is the soldier responsible? Is he a whistle-blower or a turn-coat? What about the reporter who got all these people killed? He won't give up his source, siting freedom of the press.
Regardless of you opinion the current administration, the gov't has to have some way of investigating and prosecuting those who leak classified information.
I believe my government has a duty to protect the information that is important or sensitive. If the government fails to do adequately protect this information then it should not be illegal for an instution of the press to point it out. If by doing so they print the classified information then so be it. The people have a right to know the shortcomings of their government whether they be scandal or lack of security.
I think that is what the Gov't is trying to do here. How can the gov't do so if they can not find out who is doing the leaking?
The US government has repeatedly used their memory to justify secrecy right across government. It is now trying to use their memory to to silence people who whistle-blow on their deepest darkest secrets. Well fuck them!
You're right. Fuck everybody. There is absolutely no reason why the gov't should keep secrets. Let's go ahead and release troop movements to whatever enemy may want them. Let's go ahead and release the President's travel schedule to every would-be terrorist out there. Let's throw in Congressional schedule's as well. Hell, why limit it the gov't? How about if your bank publishes your PIN number and all the data on your ATM card so we can all access your bank accounts. All in the name of free speech of course.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You can not compare this to deep-thoat.
Watergate was supporters of Nixon trying to bug Democrats. It was done purely for political gain.
The NSA wire-tapping (of calls made to known terrorists overseas) was not done for political purposes. It was done to gather information about terrorist cells in the US. The only thing political about the NSA wiretaps are the people trying to compare it Watergate.
I've been absolutely disgusted with the blind allegiance of my so-called brethren citizens who are actually gullible enough to propagate this nonsense. And, you know exactly what you're trying to do. Open your eyes and stand up against these tyrants before it's too late for ALL of us!
You mean tyrants like Lincoln (Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to jail war protesters, shut down hundreds of newspapers that disagreed with his war), FDR (WWII Internment camps), and Clinton (FileGate).
don't be silly, impeachments are about sex, not abuses of power. Noone is giving the pres a blowjob in the oval office, ergo, no impeachment.
Wow! I guess the impeachment docs that contain the words "Blow Job" have not been released by the NSA yet. And here I thought it was perjury and obstruction of justice in a sexual harrassment case.
I wonder if we would be better off if someone like Lincoln, "The Great Emancipator" were in office. Now there is a guy who could protect civil rights!
From http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/gregory1.html
More violations of the Constitution probably occurred during Abraham Lincoln's four years as president than during any other cohesively defined era in American history. Many have pointed out that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to jail war protesters, shut down hundreds of newspapers that disagreed with his war, established a draft for the first time in American history (except in the seceded South, which had a draft a year earlier), instituted restrictions on firearms, and sent troops to violently suppress the New York draft riot. He also used the war to push through the "American System," a program of de facto nationalization of the transportation industry via massive subsidies to corporations that would agree to build "internal improvements" - railroads, waterways, and canals. The victory of the Union in 1865 not only established that, contrary to popular political theory in the antebellum era, the federal government was completely supreme over the states; it also established that a president could do literally anything he could get away with, no matter how many liberties were suspended, innocents jailed, and people killed in the process.
In other words, Bush is not Hitler. Hell, he hasn't even reached the level of Lincoln. The restriction of civil rights is nothing new in a time of war, and is completely legal as a precedent has been set.
Take, for example, the right to bare arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. Can you bare arms on an airplane? Of course not. Can you bare arms in your local bar or city hall? Nope. How about free speech protection in a crowded theatre or in a case of perjury or libel? These rights are spelled out clearly in the Constitution with no wiggle room what-so-ever. "The right to free speech shall not be infringed" period. Yet I can not say anything I want anywhere I want.
So, if it's AT&T company property, and AT&T willingly gave it to the US Gov't... How is it a violation of my rights again?
Now if they were to kick in my door and steal my phone bill, that would be a different story.
Yet again NASA prove that they should no longer be in charge of the western worlds space exploration. This is another example of why the private sector should be allowed prosper with it's own plans and designs. As the X-prize has shown, NASA is a dinosaur and should either be put down or evolve by embrace privately funded initiatives.
So you trust private corporations with safety more than an elected government? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying either is any good, but I was under the impression that mega-corps were evil and the government is the answer all our problems. Just trying to stay on the same page as everyone else.
Enough of the splitting of hairs. Let's hear an honest opinion. Do you belive as I do that:
Checks and Balances must me maintained.
Yes
That a law that goes against the moral beliefs of a majority of the people is invalid.
In some instances, yes, others, no. Removing the 10 Commandments from a courthouse goes against the moral beliefs of the majority. Does that make it invalid? The right of the KKK to protest goes against the beliefs of the majority. The rights of spammers to breathe... you get my point.
That the government is not above the law.
Yes
That the aims cannot ever justify the means if those means include wars of aggression, gross injustices, or mass infringing on citizens freedom, including in freedom the intrinsically joined concept of privacy.
Yes, but I don't see the current means as you do.
That the law is a tool to be shaped and used by free people guided by their sense of justice.
Yes, but keep in mind that people's sense of justice tends to change.
That any so called democratic society that forgets this has lost it's way.
Sure
Or do you believe, that the government should be almost whatever it likes, using a war, that IT STARTED UNILATERALLY WITH LIES AS MOTIVATION, as the excuse?
No. But again, I don't think your description of the status quo is accurate. How many mass graves does it take to validate a war? The Iraq war was authorized by the UN, 17 times over. As to "LIES AS A MOTIVATION", I don't buy into that either. In Iraq for example, WMD's were not the only reason we went to Iraq, just the one the press latched onto. And to call bad intel, lies, is dishonest in itself. I think you should be asking France, Germany or Russia why they didn't want to go to war when all of their leaders thought WMD's were in Iraq? Why did they not stand up for the down trodden in Iraq? Why does the UN not stand up for human rights in places like Syria, Lebanon or much of Africa? If we are the only ones that will stand up to a tyrant that fills mass graves with the bodies of women, still holding thier children, then so be it.
That the stated aims justifies the means?
In this case, Yes. The stated aims (protecting Americans from terrorists) justifies the means (catching someone who has violated national security).
That in fact the WORDS of KNOWN LIARS are more important than your own RIGHTS and those of all other Americans, not to mention Iraqis?
Again, I disagree with the "known liars" bit. Tell that to the Iraqis who get to vote to more than one candidate for the first time in their lives.
That the law is a tool to be used by the gowernment to control the people.
No. To protect people. For that matter, I believe that laws that do not protect people should be abolished (See NORML)
This is what you appear to me to imply. Let's hear what you believe, and how you motivate it!
Done!
Believe it or not, you and I agree on more than we disagree. We just don't see the world from the same angle. I do see your point of view, however, as I will be quite nervous once the next administration takes over. I'll join your point of view when the first time these new security measures are used for anything other than security (see filegate and watergate).
The founding fathers could hardly predict the technological state of today, but the intent and spirit of the constitution is very clear. It hardly takes any great mind to realize how "papers and effects" translates into digital data.
You are absolutely correct. The intent of the founders can not be denied. If in doubt, read Madison's own words:
"The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property from all unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized."
So even though privacy is not listed, I'll grant you an implied right to privacy in your own home.
However, phone records are the property of the phone companies. If you want to right down everyone you call and calls you receive, that would be your personal affects and would be protected. But would a ferry receipt from the 1880's be protected? How about a guest log from the local inn or diner? Would these not be the 1800's equivelant of phone records?
These are examples of abuses of power. It most certainly is not legal, and the fact that he got away with it means nothing except just that. Crimes that someone got away with do not change the constitution. They do not mean we should ignore or accept new crimes.
Abe Lincoln wasn't alone. You could chalk up "abuses" by Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Andrew Jackson as well. (I'm sure there are others, but it's late). These "abuses" are legal by precedent. It is the sworn duty of the Prez to do whatever it takes to defend this country. After reading what Lincoln did, I'd say GWB has been pretty reserved. If the liberty survived Lincoln's and Roosevelt's "abuses", it will survive GWB!
http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html has a pretty good read-up on what GWB could do, but hasn't. Maybe he's not the drunk-with-power-red-neck-Nazi every keeps calling him.
We are at war (What was that slogan? No *blank* for Oil!") In a time of war, the Prez is given authority to execute that war. Now if the Prez were to use this authority to spy on John Kerry to get election dirt (see Watergate), or use the FBI and IRS to dig up dirt on political opponents (see FileGate), then that would certainly be an illegal, impeachable offence. But that is not the case here. There are certain "high level government officials" who are leaking classified secrets like a drunken teenager. This can be very dangerous to national security and can get soldiers and civilians killed. In any other time in our history, this would be called treason. Men have been hung for less, so please don't tell me how liberty is being trampled more now than any time in our history, because, even though you don't like it, it's simply not true.
And where is the part about PRIVACY ? I missed that part.
Actually, I'd debate unreasonable and persons, houses, papers, and effects . we are talking about phone records here, which are could be debated are more the property of the phone companies as they are the people, and not talking about wire tapping and not kicking doors in.
And sorry, but the gov't has leeway when it comes to national security. Take Abe Lincoln for example. From here:
So I ask again, is this illegal? Is this guy a whistle blower, traitor or scumbag (see grandparent post)?
With all due respect to your grandmother, no, 12 hrs of talk does not constitute torture. I'm sorry, but when compared to say, 12 hrs of bamboo splints up the fingernails, or 12 hrs of having some guy named Hanz beat you with a sock full of coins, even 12 hrs of seeing your wife, daughter or mother raped is toruture... but no, sorry, 12 hrs of questioning is not turture.
Under your rules, is 6 hrs of questioning torture? How about 2 hrs. What if I ask a single question or look inquisitive? Is that torture? Where do you draw the line?
From Gitmo, the torture that has been reported has been having the AC too cold, sleep deprivation, having to hear a female and male prisoner talk to each other, and having a fellow inmate flush a Koran.
The comment I was referring to mentioned the torture at Gitmo. I have heard of nothing coming out of Gitmo that I would call torture. As to the torture at Abu Ghraib, I'd call that abuse, but still does not qualify as torture in my book. Those responsibe for that are now in a military stockade. I've been to a military stockade. Trust me, they would much rather be in Abu Ghraib.
Sorry, but your're wrong. According to the Red Cross it is our very own government that requested the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to visit with the detainees. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
Maybe you are thinking of Amnesty International (or AmNasty Intl). They invited, but insisted they be left alone with prisoners. Of course, this was denied for their own security as well as the US's. The last thing the US needs is some anti-American Socialist from AI coaching prisoners or telling them information they are not supposed to have. Even worse, it would be a PR nightmare if a few AI reps were assaulted held hostage by a prisoner. Besides, AI has an agenda. From CNN: The chief of Amnesty International USA alleged Sunday that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp is part of a worldwide network of U.S. jails, some of them secret, where prisoners are mistreated and even killed. They also labeled the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay as "the gulag of our times." Of course, all this without actually going there. Yeah, they have no agenda. I had no idea that Gulag prisoners were fed three hot meals a day and given an opportunity to practice their faith.
Geneva Accords refers to uniformed soldiers, not trained terrorists who dress as civilians and hide among and behind women and children.
Because, as is pointed out again and again, it is NOT illegal to disobey illegal orders or to expose illegal activities. The government is NOT above the law no matter how much they like to believe they are.
What you are saying that is that the government may bypass any and all laws just by classifying the activity in question. That's utter nonsense. It is the moral duty of any citizen of any country to expose illegal acts by its government.
Are these activities illegal? That's for a judge or grand-jury to decide. I guess that's the risk you take when you leak. If the government's activities are illegal, then the leaker is a wistle-blower and a hero. If not, then the leaker is a traitor and a threat to national security. The only other possibility is if this leaker was politically motivated, then he's a complete and utter slime ball who sold out his country for political purposes.
People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.
I got it, and in your defense, you were quoting TFA. I just thought I'd be a smart-ass and jab more of the article than you. No offence meant.
I just find it funny when either the editors or authors have no idea what the difference is between a Hell Fire Missile and Predator Drone.
It might be proper, if a crime were alleged to have been committed, for a prosecutor or law enforcement agency to subpoena phone records to try to find evidence.
Uh... leaking classified information to anyone, especially the press is illegal.
How many liberals wanted to see Rove "frog-marched" out of the White House when he was accused of leaking. How come no one is calling for a "frog-marching" of whoever this leaker may be?
Every time America angers the Middle East with its hypocrisy by torturing terror suspects or by denying them human rights at Gitmo, I wonder if the Bush administration will take responsibility for the next attack they provoked.
... Especially to a society that stones women for leaving the house without being completely covered and escorted by a man, and institutes gang-rape of teen-aged daughters as punishment to a family.
OK, last time I'm gonna tell you, so listen up.
AIR CONDITIONING AND SLEEP DEPREVATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE TORTURE
So, that is not what is pissing off the young mid-eastern male. However, you, and the press constantly saying that we are torturing prisoners at Gitmo, even though they are provided a Koran, told which direction to pray, and given the opportunity to five times a day, is what is pissing everyone off.
By the way, what did the Bush administration do in the nine months in office to warrant 9-11?