Fine. Unfortunately that doesn't change the court rulings that have found the NSA and FBI actions that many find so disagreeable as being legal. As far as I have read they are complying with the law.
As to "sheltering" Snowden, it seems he was in contact with the Russians before his arrival in Moscow, and that his arrival was no surprise. In the view of a number of former Soviet bloc intelligence officers, Snowden was collaborating with them for some time.
Seen the Snowden character assassination even here on Slashdot. "Look at that traitor with the dodgy face, not the highly unconstitutional government surveillance program which basically takes a huge dump over your privacy rights!"
What you've just stated is a "dodgy fact." Apparently you can invent pretty much any claim about the constitution, the actual law be damned.
I think that is a fine piece of fundamentally dishonest moderation. We can't even believe al-Awlaki's own mouth about his hostility to the US and exhortations to kill Americans?
Anwar al-Awlaki's case wasn't extrajudicial execution, it was killing in war. If he wanted to face the judicial system he could have surrendered, but he chose not to.
It is my understanding that his son swore allegiance to al Qaida and stated his desire to become a martyr like his father. He got his wish not long after that when he was riding with another key al Qaida figure that had been targeted and was killed by the same missile.
If you are shot dead by a 16 year old you are just as dead as if he had been 21. If a 17 year old straps on a bomb vest and detonates it, you will be just as dead as if he had bee 25.
On 16 August 2011, the government renamed Maritime Command the "Royal Canadian Navy", renamed Air Command the "Royal Canadian Air Force" and Land Force Command the "Canadian Army".
There has even been talk of Canada forming its own marine corps. It will be interesting to see which way they go with that if they do, something along the British model, the American model, or a hybrid. Perhaps the news will some day report, "Today, Canadian Royal Marine commandos took part in a daring mission to.... "
The US isn't particularly warlike. And some groups or nations don't want you to cooperate, they want you to capitulate. One of them is al Qaida.
It is by no means rare for experienced soldiers to be less enthusiastic for a particular military undertaking than the political leaders. Their bodies will bear the consequences.
He was in the same boat as these Americans that were shot dead en mass by the Federal government without arrest, charge, trial, conviction, or sentence, and rightfully so.
I thought it was common knowledge that since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the US Gov't has been waging an escalating war on Private Citizens...
The 1st and 2nd Marine Divisions, each more than 18,000 strong, and the U.S. Army 1st Brigade ("Tiger Brigade"), 2nd Armored Division, plunged into the attack. They were supported by the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing and thousands of combat service support staff from the 1st and 2nd Force Service Support Groups, and by Navy air forces.
Drones are great for delivering the equivalent of precision strikes, but they aren't yet to the point where they can win battles all by themselves, or occupy ground. There are a lot of things they can't do that infantry can. The infantry is going to be around for a while yet.
Do you recall who wrote this? -- "It would be far more efficient to take that same money and spend it on more direct social services."
If you're going to have a military, which I'm glad to hear we agree on, you're going to need to equip them suitably for the battlefields of the day if you don't want them to be slaughtered. You don't achieve that by substituting social services spending for military spending. I suspect we could probably agree that it would be preferable if Congress steered less of that spending to specific places instead of where it makes sense. On the other hand the involvement of Congress sometimes produces what ends up as an arguably better outcome compared to the sometimes parochial requests that emerge from just the Federal bureaucracy.
You didn't have to prefix your post with "totally irrational," I was able to identify that quality in your post myself.
Although there may be waste in the defense budget, the defense budget itself is not waste, at least not in the world we live in. There isn't even any real question that the US needs a military to defend itself and protect its citizens. That was clear even by Jefferson's time.
There is a difference between distributing defense spending among districts and "make-work programs." Spending the money on social services doesn't get you any M1 tanks, Apache helicopters, submarines, or destroyers. That is one of the ways you can tell the difference.
With the US amounting for 50% of army expenses worldwide, and NATO accounting for 80%, it is not obvious where the enemies are.
As part of your calculations you need to take into account the "cost of materials." The US doesn't have conscription anymore like most of the world has relied upon until quite recently. It pays its soldiers wages and benefits competitive with the civilian work force instead of forcing everyone to serve for two years at $100/month. The US also has an advanced economy. The net effect is that a US corporal is paid about the same as a Chinese general. The US also pays more for its weapons and materials. A lot of the cost is reflected in that, along with the size of the US military which has a substantial navy, air force, and marines. The army is only middling sized compared to other nations.
It is a significant mistake to calculate combat power based only on military budgets. A third world guerilla with an AK that is paid $1/day can kill a US soldier making $1200 / month just as dead as the reverse, and at a significant cost differential. If that third world guerilla is part of a band that is sabotaging the oil pipeline going to Europe to supply heating oil, there might be some people freezing to death in the winter. (Which is something an Iranian general threatened - cutting petroleum supplies to Europe so people freeze.)
The military is expensive, but the current cost is well below the historical average as a percentage of GDP. And bear in mind that the defense of the nation is a constitutional responsibility of the Federal government. And if you think it is expensive now, just try losing a war and see how that is.
"Nothing except a battle lost can be half as melancholy as a battle won." - Duke of Wellington
The problem is that the sequester is 50% defense, 50% everything else, but the defense budget is a minority of the Federal budget. That pushes the cuts disproportionately on the defense side. That could ultimately have some unpleasant consequences.
And the strategy of "taxing the rich" seldom really buys you much.
You seem to have missed this nugget: "Source: Office of Management and Budget. "
The bad news doesn't change if you pick another truthful source.
Also, from what I see, the "Koch brothers" are very minor donors to Heritage. Besides that, if you use the "Koch brothers" as your universal explanation for things you are engaged in epic fail.
No, it really isn't. Maybe you could read this and explain to me how you could hand out free bread and cheese in American cities and achieve the same affect (liberating enslaved Americans)?
However, the Democrats will want new taxes on the rich to offset any further increases in military spending, and I doubt the Republicans will budge on that front, so any further changes are likely to be minimal.
Likewise the Democrats will almost certainly balk at any reforms to social welfare spending, which is the major portion of Federal spending and which dwarfs the defense budget.
Slashdot Mirror
You appear to have several nasty habits.
Shills hate Cold Fjord.
Assassinate "Assange's character"? That hardly seems possible, the target is too small to hit.
Number 1162755, please report to Number 2.
Number 1162755, please report to Number 2.
Thank you ;)
Fine. Unfortunately that doesn't change the court rulings that have found the NSA and FBI actions that many find so disagreeable as being legal. As far as I have read they are complying with the law.
Hopefully you can make people think twice about what they are doing. I've seen it happen... I think.
Soviet / Russian agents were engaged in the most subtle intelligence operations long, long before that.
The Real James Bond
As to "sheltering" Snowden, it seems he was in contact with the Russians before his arrival in Moscow, and that his arrival was no surprise. In the view of a number of former Soviet bloc intelligence officers, Snowden was collaborating with them for some time.
Try to focus on arguments of fact, not arguments of person or source.
I find that facts often count for little and are often moderated down if they don't conform to the prevailing politics of the moment on Slashdot.
Seen the Snowden character assassination even here on Slashdot. "Look at that traitor with the dodgy face, not the highly unconstitutional government surveillance program which basically takes a huge dump over your privacy rights!"
What you've just stated is a "dodgy fact." Apparently you can invent pretty much any claim about the constitution, the actual law be damned.
I think that is a fine piece of fundamentally dishonest moderation. We can't even believe al-Awlaki's own mouth about his hostility to the US and exhortations to kill Americans?
Anwar al-Awlaki's case wasn't extrajudicial execution, it was killing in war. If he wanted to face the judicial system he could have surrendered, but he chose not to.
It is my understanding that his son swore allegiance to al Qaida and stated his desire to become a martyr like his father. He got his wish not long after that when he was riding with another key al Qaida figure that had been targeted and was killed by the same missile.
If you are shot dead by a 16 year old you are just as dead as if he had been 21. If a 17 year old straps on a bomb vest and detonates it, you will be just as dead as if he had bee 25.
The Army and Air Force need to be merged and the Navy, Coast Guard, and Marines need to be merged.
Canada did that decades ago, and it has been problematic in various ways. They have been "unmerging," assuming more of their old identifies.
Royal Canadian Navy
On 16 August 2011, the government renamed Maritime Command the "Royal Canadian Navy", renamed Air Command the "Royal Canadian Air Force" and Land Force Command the "Canadian Army".
There has even been talk of Canada forming its own marine corps. It will be interesting to see which way they go with that if they do, something along the British model, the American model, or a hybrid. Perhaps the news will some day report, "Today, Canadian Royal Marine commandos took part in a daring mission to .... "
The US isn't particularly warlike. And some groups or nations don't want you to cooperate, they want you to capitulate. One of them is al Qaida.
It is by no means rare for experienced soldiers to be less enthusiastic for a particular military undertaking than the political leaders. Their bodies will bear the consequences.
...while we have a drone blow up a car carrying a US Citizen because he's a suspected terrorist sympathizer ...
There isn't much real doubt about Anwar al-Awlaki .
He was in the same boat as these Americans that were shot dead en mass by the Federal government without arrest, charge, trial, conviction, or sentence, and rightfully so.
I thought it was common knowledge that since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the US Gov't has been waging an escalating war on Private Citizens ...
No.
Sorry, but your history is a bit off.
Only 5th Marine Expeditionary Brigade was afloat as part of the deception plan. As to the rest ...
V: "THUNDER AND LIGHTNING"- THE WAR WITH IRAQ
The 1st and 2nd Marine Divisions, each more than 18,000 strong, and the U.S. Army 1st Brigade ("Tiger Brigade"), 2nd Armored Division, plunged into the attack. They were supported by the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing and thousands of combat service support staff from the 1st and 2nd Force Service Support Groups, and by Navy air forces.
Drones are great for delivering the equivalent of precision strikes, but they aren't yet to the point where they can win battles all by themselves, or occupy ground. There are a lot of things they can't do that infantry can. The infantry is going to be around for a while yet.
Do you recall who wrote this? -- "It would be far more efficient to take that same money and spend it on more direct social services."
If you're going to have a military, which I'm glad to hear we agree on, you're going to need to equip them suitably for the battlefields of the day if you don't want them to be slaughtered. You don't achieve that by substituting social services spending for military spending. I suspect we could probably agree that it would be preferable if Congress steered less of that spending to specific places instead of where it makes sense. On the other hand the involvement of Congress sometimes produces what ends up as an arguably better outcome compared to the sometimes parochial requests that emerge from just the Federal bureaucracy.
You didn't have to prefix your post with "totally irrational," I was able to identify that quality in your post myself.
Although there may be waste in the defense budget, the defense budget itself is not waste, at least not in the world we live in. There isn't even any real question that the US needs a military to defend itself and protect its citizens. That was clear even by Jefferson's time.
There is a difference between distributing defense spending among districts and "make-work programs." Spending the money on social services doesn't get you any M1 tanks, Apache helicopters, submarines, or destroyers. That is one of the ways you can tell the difference.
With the US amounting for 50% of army expenses worldwide, and NATO accounting for 80%, it is not obvious where the enemies are.
As part of your calculations you need to take into account the "cost of materials." The US doesn't have conscription anymore like most of the world has relied upon until quite recently. It pays its soldiers wages and benefits competitive with the civilian work force instead of forcing everyone to serve for two years at $100/month. The US also has an advanced economy. The net effect is that a US corporal is paid about the same as a Chinese general. The US also pays more for its weapons and materials. A lot of the cost is reflected in that, along with the size of the US military which has a substantial navy, air force, and marines. The army is only middling sized compared to other nations.
It is a significant mistake to calculate combat power based only on military budgets. A third world guerilla with an AK that is paid $1/day can kill a US soldier making $1200 / month just as dead as the reverse, and at a significant cost differential. If that third world guerilla is part of a band that is sabotaging the oil pipeline going to Europe to supply heating oil, there might be some people freezing to death in the winter. (Which is something an Iranian general threatened - cutting petroleum supplies to Europe so people freeze.)
The military is expensive, but the current cost is well below the historical average as a percentage of GDP. And bear in mind that the defense of the nation is a constitutional responsibility of the Federal government. And if you think it is expensive now, just try losing a war and see how that is.
"Nothing except a battle lost can be half as melancholy as a battle won." - Duke of Wellington
The problem is that the sequester is 50% defense, 50% everything else, but the defense budget is a minority of the Federal budget. That pushes the cuts disproportionately on the defense side. That could ultimately have some unpleasant consequences.
And the strategy of "taxing the rich" seldom really buys you much.
Note this chart: Top tax rates and total receipts (and do note the source at the bottom: IRS)
While you're at it you many want to examine this chart: Combined corporate tax rates
You seem to have missed this nugget: "Source: Office of Management and Budget. "
The bad news doesn't change if you pick another truthful source.
Also, from what I see, the "Koch brothers" are very minor donors to Heritage. Besides that, if you use the "Koch brothers" as your universal explanation for things you are engaged in epic fail.
No, it really isn't. Maybe you could read this and explain to me how you could hand out free bread and cheese in American cities and achieve the same affect (liberating enslaved Americans)?
Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates
No, not even close.
Defense spending as a percentage of GDP
Where Does All the Money Go?
However, the Democrats will want new taxes on the rich to offset any further increases in military spending, and I doubt the Republicans will budge on that front, so any further changes are likely to be minimal.
Likewise the Democrats will almost certainly balk at any reforms to social welfare spending, which is the major portion of Federal spending and which dwarfs the defense budget.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) created the internet.