I suggest you do more reading, and read more carefully. That "300" is cases, not 300 people, in similar cases mentioned there 12 people went to jail. There are hundreds to low thousands of Hezbollah in the US. There are more than 3,000 Chinese front companies alone used for espionage.
When you start adding in Hamas, al Shahab, and plenty of other extremist organizations, spies from Russia, China, Cuba, Brazil, Venezuela, Iran, and plenty of other nations, it starts to add up.
The problem isn't the lack of evidence, but the disregarding of it.
If you aren't getting it yet, I'm just about going to have to assume you're trolling.
I suggest you root your compliance or noncompliance with the law in reality. I also suggest you speak to an attorney before not complying with a court order or warrant.
The members of the FISA court are public record, they are judges from other courts that rotate through the FISA court. The function of the FISA court is documented. You seem disinterested in the facts of the matter.
Its not a question of paranoia, but ignorance. I'll let you guess who that applies to.
Here is a hint: China, just by itself, has more than 3,000 front companies devoted to espionage. Russian spies are back a Cold War levels. There are plenty of other countries with an interest in the US.
China also has more than 3,000 front companies in the U.S. “for the sole purpose of acquiring our technology,” former CIA officer S. Eugene Poteat, president of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers in McLean, Virginia, wrote in the fall/winter 2006-2007 edition of “Intelligencer: Journal of U.S. Intelligence Studies.”
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) warned Wednesday that there are hundreds — maybe even thousands — of Hezbollah agents inside the United States capable of launching a terror attack if U.S.-Iran tensions continue to escalate.
“The American intelligence community believes we are very much at risk for an attack by Iranian operatives, which would be Hezbollah, that is a terrorist-trained force in this country. It really is the ‘A’ team of international terrorism — far more sophisticated than Al Qaeda,” the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee said on CNN’s “Starting Point.”
Note that is just Hezbollah, not including Hamas, al Qaida, al-Shabaab, or many other terrorists or narco-terrorist organizations with a presence in the US.
And then there are the spies from Russia, Iran, Cuba, etc., etc., etc.
That is before you consider the Americans that go overseas to participate in Jihad who will return as trained, experienced terrorists.
I'm assuming you're referring to the US. If I understand you correctly, you either question or don't think there are (or could be?) any foreign spies, or associates or members of terrorist groups running lose in the US?
Smugglers with ties to terrorist groups are acquiring millions of dollars from illegal cigarette sales and funneling the cash to organizations such as al Qaeda and Hezbollah, federal law enforcement officials say, prompting a nationwide crackdown on black market tobacco.
The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has more than 300 open cases of illicit cigarette trafficking -- including several with terrorist links -- up from only a handful five years ago, ATF sources said.
"This is a major priority for us," said Michael Bouchard, assistant director of the ATF. "The deeper we dig into these cases, the more ties to terrorism we're discovering."
Those links above are only a drop in the bucket, especially where China is concerned.
There is a process for properly releasing classified information. Broadcasting it on CSPAN without prior coordination and clearance generally doesn't conform to that.
i dont think you understand the underlying problem. American companies CANT say no to the government, because they get shutdown. dont you remember lavabit? he did say no to the NSA, and then they started prosecuting him for not giving them the information they wanted.
You've kind of scrambled the history there.
Companies do say no to the government all the time unless the government has the actual right or power to make a demand. In Lavabit's case, Lavabit was defying a court order that only became necessary when they didn't meet a much more limited request from the FBI, which the FBI has the power to make. And it was Lavabit's choice to do that - both the defiance, and the shutdown. Lavabit's owner had a bad business model predicated on making promises he couldn't legally keep and stay out of jail or in business. That was a failure waiting to happen.
In a way I find it ironic that so many people here defend Lavabit given the large number of complaints you see on Slashdot about corporations breaking the law, owning the government, etc. At the end of the day, Lavabit was just another corporation that wasn't willing to obey the law.
You can make a reasonable argument that the government has too much power in this regard, but that is a different discussion.
as long as there is no oversight on things like the NSA, there will always be abuse. as long as there is no oversight on the NSA, companies cant really ever deny them access.
You must have missed some discussions. The NSA has oversight, and lacks the power to issue warrants or court orders itself. Even when it obtains a warrant or court order those warrants and court orders can be challenged in court.
I expect that if lawsuits become a problem in this regard that a previous solution for a similar problem will be reused. Actually, that very solution may apply in this case in some regards.
People keep trying to pull this rhetorical nonsense of describing the American people as "the enemy," and it is utter nonsense - just plain stupid. If you want to do that, then please describe how you could inform 300,000,000 Americans about the most secret inner working of the intelligence agencies without the information also leaking to the thousands or tens of thousands of spies and terrorist group members or associates in the US, and ultimately to foreign countries that are enemies? I think you need to demonstrate how you could do that if you want to suggest that the information shouldn't be protected by the legislators doing their job as representatives in a democratic republic. If you want a practical demonstration as to why your idea is really bad, just try sharing your account name and PINs with 100 of your closest friends and see how things turn out in a year or two.
As to your first question, if Congress had already been informed, I think it is hard to argue that he was lying. See my other reply in the thread.
If they had already told the truth to Congress behind closed doors or in reports, then I think it is hard to argue that they lied to Congress since Congress had been informed of the truth, and Wyden knew that. It would be more proper to describe this as providing a cover story when asked an inappropriate question at an inappropriate time. Wyden comes off as kind of a jerk.
If the programs were legal, which they apparently are, there would be nothing for Congress to do as long as they were consistent with policy and the law. The fact that there were occasional compliance problems would be something to address, but that doesn't change the overall legal picture. If there was a valid concern they could certainly enhance their oversight.
Bottom line is that your opinion as expressed appears to be wrong, although you are certainly free to prefer a different policy.
Is that the actual problem? Or is it something else? Keep in mind that the Congress operates in both open session for matters for the general public, and closed session to deal with confidential matters such as classified information.
... though I have little sympathy for Clapper, whose policy positions on the Islamist threat are highly questionable, lumping him together with Holder would not be fair. Far from being an honest probe into what the government was doing, it’s actually yet another example of how congressional grandstanding does the country little good. Wyden, who was already well briefed on PRISM and other intelligence operations, already knew the answer to the question when he asked it. But he also knew that it would have been inappropriate, if not illegal, for Clapper to answer the question honestly since doing so would have required him to publicly reveal highly classified information that ought not to be made available to America’s enemies. Wyden’s purpose wasn’t to shed light but to merely embarrass Clapper and the administration.
Edward Snowden’s leak about the existence and purpose of PRISM made sure that Wyden’s questioning of Clapper would become a major story, thus giving the Oregon senator the prize he sought. As the clip of Clapper’s lie is shown in a seemingly endless loop on the cable news stations, Wyden is back in the spotlight posturing about the need for “straight talk” from the administration. But the senator, who has carefully built up a reputation as a sober advocate of civil liberties, is the one who is being disingenuous, not Clapper.
You, like many people, have been played as part of political showmanship.
There is a difference between the business records containing the metadata and the actual verbal contents of the call. If all they have is the metadata, and they had permission to actually look at it from the court as opposed to simply storing it, they would know that you called Pizza Hut for 5 minutes at 9:30 PM on 01 December 2013. They wouldn't know anything about the content of the call which could be just about anything, such as:
1. Cancel my standing order for tonight. 2. Change my standing order from peperoni to sausage. 3. Tell my daughter to catch a ride home with her friends when she finishes her shift, her mother had to take the car to see grandma. 4. Is my son there? It would be a party of 10 that arrived around 8:00 PM. 5. Hold music...... Oh, this isn't the pharmacy? I guess I misdialed. Sorry. 6. Is the manager there?..... Is your refrigerator running? You better catch it. 7. I want to order a nightly special with an extra Coke. 8. The delivery person you sent yesterday was great! Very polite. 9.... 99999. Other
As we saw yesterday, interest in committing attacks in the US in the name of Jihad continues as noted in the story below.
Mr. Loewen, who was employed at the airport, apparently worked alone and had planned to kill himself in the explosion, Mr. Grissom said. “He made statements that he was resolved to commit an act of violent jihad against the government of the United States,” Mr. Grissom said.....
In a note left for a family member and included in the complaint, Mr. Loewen said the operation was orchestrated to cause “maximum carnage and death.”
“By the time you read this, I will — if everything went as planned — have been martyred in the path of Allah,” the note said.
He was charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction, attempting to damage property by means of an explosive and attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.
See? Your citation shows that it's the states, not the federal government, which are actually causing this problem. You included the antidote to your bullshit in your own citation! Slashdotfail.
Because they are acting lawfully, the federal government isn't. President Obama is just making it up as he goes along. This is rule by decree. That is the wrong answer. They passed a really bad law, fought tooth and nail to prevent changes or delays, and now that the train wreck is arriving they aren't even pretending to follow the law any more. This is a very dangerous thing to be doing.
That said, the fact remains that these assholes, from a safe distance in their Apache, shot a bunch of kids to shreds and attacked people who came to the scene to help. That much is not controversial. And the remarks they made to one another afterward are nothing short of disgusting.
Perhaps you didn't watch much of the video. The helicopter crews weren't assholes. The "safe distance" as a tactic is desirable, and irrelevant to the discussion. It's war, not a boxing match. The kids were in a van where they weren't visible, and why was that van there? Wasn't it violating a curfew? And why would you take your kids into a firefight? The van was trying to help insurgents escape. It was entirely proper to engage it. From what I recall the remarks were hardly disgusting, but if you lack the constitution you may want to avoid watching real combat action videos as they can be disturbing and possibly personally distressing. Not everyone is cut out for real combat, or even watching people actually being killed.
Diplomacy is a political activity like law making, and all manner of human foibles are involved. I could agree that various diplomats could be more professional.
Apparently you have no idea about the sorts of things that have been going on due to the fits and starts with Obamacare.
Maybe you missed that President Obama recently decreed that insurance policies didn't have to be cancelled, that enforcement would be pushed out? And that various states are or aren't buying into this? And that there is a controversy about the president doing this since there isn't any authority in the ACA to do that?
Eleven days after President Barack Obama urged insurers to renew policies that don’t meet all the requirements of the health law, it’s still not clear how many people might be affected by the proposed fix.
That’s because regulators in at least a half dozen states, including Indiana, say they won’t allow insurers to do it and many more have yet to decide, Kaiser Health News reports.
Even if states give insurers a green light to reinstate the policies for a year – and both Ohio and Indiana have done so – many insurers say they’re not sure if they can pull it off in time. Finally, no one knows how many customers who received the cancellations will want to renew.
“The president’s plan is certainly not a guarantee” that people who received discontinuation notices earlier this fall will now be able to renew, Chris Jacobs, senior policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, told Kaiser’s Julie Appleby.
I've got news for you, very little of the clusterf*ck that is Obamacare's rollout is owned by the "right wing." Nancy Pelosi said they would have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.... well, we're finding out now. You better hope your health insurance isn't going to be cancelled due to it. And guess what? There are probably about another 93,000,000 cancellations coming down the road.
Look, I am pretty much convinced that Assange is a douche hors categorie
You must not have typed that with conviction since you have a +4 as I write this. Normally Assange's fans will punish any aspersions cast on him rather quickly despite the validity.
... the epic douchebaggery on the part of, say, the US diplomatic corps and military. It's not like they cancel out or something.
That isn't necessarily true. You only have to look at the instances of either misinformation or manipulation to see that. The so called "collateral murder" video was nonsense. The same thing for the claims that Dyncorp was engaged in child prostitution. That was investigated by a State Department Inspector General, IIRC, and found to be baseless.
As far as diplomacy goes, it is in essence politics, which tends to be messy and usually takes place behind closed doors. Perhaps you are familiar with the old saying about making laws and sausages?
For most of the stories about Assange and Wikileaks on Slashdot you can generally count on two things: massive praise for both, and heavy down mods for any criticism of them. It doesn't matter if they are verifiably true or personal opinions, down they go, -1. Assange effectively has his own cult of personality that will defend him no matter what. I have little doubt that will be true even if he is eventually convicted of rape.
I don't claim that what I post is, to use your phrase, "everything that person is." But there are serious issues, and serious criticisms regarding Wikileaks from serious people. They are worth considering to balance out the praise and defense that is all but guaranteed to come from others. And how many of the Assange / Wikileaks fans are going to offer any criticism at all? Precious few.
As far as I go, it seems to me you are at best the pot calling the kettle black. I don't see you really adopting a balanced criticism of me. Shall I say that is your usual modus operandi? That you are a troll?
Rest easy though, the moderators will almost certainly be gentle with you. You come to defend Julian, not to criticize him. But frankly, your criticism in this case has little credibility with me. I've seen the pattern these discussions take all too often. It is already occurring - the head of this thread is -1. No surprise, the pattern is well established. Criticize Assange at your peril.
Let us close with this piece of wisdom for Julian: " A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.""
You better hope you never come between him and his goal, or he'll take pleasure in crushing you.
You seem to be confused. The editorial page is a separate function from new reporting. But they did pick prominent conservative writers for the editorial page as you list there.
But let me guess, you don't think the Washington Post leans liberal, do you? No ideological bias there? Nothing to see, just move along?
Quick question: Do you think that the fact that they select conservative writers for the editorial pages changed the number of people that signed up in Oregon, or changed the $300,000,000 that they spent in some way? If not, why does it matter? Nothing to see, move along?
I didn't write the story, I merely submitted it. I'll feel free to both submit and comment, especially when I see nonsense posted. You can feel free to do what you want when you submit a story. Fair enough?
You seem to be insinuating that Julian Assange is either an asset of, or associates with, one or more intelligence agencies. But a TLA is a bit restrictive, don't you think? It seems unlikely that it would be CIA or NSA since he has directed a great deal of his attention on the US. Maybe FSB or some other foreign agency? Or maybe he's gone SPECTRE. Or were you thinking something else?
Manning said he had nothing to do with the logs for the parliament in the chat logs. It was allegedly Assange making the statement. Apparently Assange was multitasking and mentioned it.
Slashdot Mirror
I suggest you do more reading, and read more carefully. That "300" is cases, not 300 people, in similar cases mentioned there 12 people went to jail. There are hundreds to low thousands of Hezbollah in the US. There are more than 3,000 Chinese front companies alone used for espionage.
Peter King warns: Hezbollah agents in U.S.
American Universities Infected by Foreign Spies Detected by FBI
When you start adding in Hamas, al Shahab, and plenty of other extremist organizations, spies from Russia, China, Cuba, Brazil, Venezuela, Iran, and plenty of other nations, it starts to add up.
The problem isn't the lack of evidence, but the disregarding of it.
If you aren't getting it yet, I'm just about going to have to assume you're trolling.
I suggest you root your compliance or noncompliance with the law in reality. I also suggest you speak to an attorney before not complying with a court order or warrant.
The members of the FISA court are public record, they are judges from other courts that rotate through the FISA court. The function of the FISA court is documented. You seem disinterested in the facts of the matter.
THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT - 2012 Membership
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Its not a question of paranoia, but ignorance. I'll let you guess who that applies to.
Here is a hint: China, just by itself, has more than 3,000 front companies devoted to espionage. Russian spies are back a Cold War levels. There are plenty of other countries with an interest in the US.
American Universities Infected by Foreign Spies Detected by FBI
China also has more than 3,000 front companies in the U.S. “for the sole purpose of acquiring our technology,” former CIA officer S. Eugene Poteat, president of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers in McLean, Virginia, wrote in the fall/winter 2006-2007 edition of “Intelligencer: Journal of U.S. Intelligence Studies.”
Peter King warns: Hezbollah agents in U.S.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) warned Wednesday that there are hundreds — maybe even thousands — of Hezbollah agents inside the United States capable of launching a terror attack if U.S.-Iran tensions continue to escalate.
“The American intelligence community believes we are very much at risk for an attack by Iranian operatives, which would be Hezbollah, that is a terrorist-trained force in this country. It really is the ‘A’ team of international terrorism — far more sophisticated than Al Qaeda,” the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee said on CNN’s “Starting Point.”
Note that is just Hezbollah, not including Hamas, al Qaida, al-Shabaab, or many other terrorists or narco-terrorist organizations with a presence in the US.
And then there are the spies from Russia, Iran, Cuba, etc., etc., etc.
That is before you consider the Americans that go overseas to participate in Jihad who will return as trained, experienced terrorists.
Congressional Report: 40 Americans Training in Somalia Are 'Direct Threat' to U.S
I'm assuming you're referring to the US. If I understand you correctly, you either question or don't think there are (or could be?) any foreign spies, or associates or members of terrorist groups running lose in the US?
One recent famous case: How the FBI Busted Anna Chapman and the Russian Spy Ring
FBI Investigating Possible Russian Spy Recruiting In U.S.
After the Cold War, Russian Espionage in the U.S.
Russian spying at cold war levels, say experts
China's Growing Spy Threat
Spy case patterns the Chinese style of espionage
Senator’s memo shows Iran links in Homeland Security’s troubled immigration program
Cigarette Smuggling Linked to Terrorism - (From 2004, but the problem remains.)
Smugglers with ties to terrorist groups are acquiring millions of dollars from illegal cigarette sales and funneling the cash to organizations such as al Qaeda and Hezbollah, federal law enforcement officials say, prompting a nationwide crackdown on black market tobacco.
The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has more than 300 open cases of illicit cigarette trafficking -- including several with terrorist links -- up from only a handful five years ago, ATF sources said.
"This is a major priority for us," said Michael Bouchard, assistant director of the ATF. "The deeper we dig into these cases, the more ties to terrorism we're discovering."
Those links above are only a drop in the bucket, especially where China is concerned.
There is a process for properly releasing classified information. Broadcasting it on CSPAN without prior coordination and clearance generally doesn't conform to that.
i dont think you understand the underlying problem. American companies CANT say no to the government, because they get shutdown. dont you remember lavabit? he did say no to the NSA, and then they started prosecuting him for not giving them the information they wanted.
You've kind of scrambled the history there.
Companies do say no to the government all the time unless the government has the actual right or power to make a demand. In Lavabit's case, Lavabit was defying a court order that only became necessary when they didn't meet a much more limited request from the FBI, which the FBI has the power to make. And it was Lavabit's choice to do that - both the defiance, and the shutdown. Lavabit's owner had a bad business model predicated on making promises he couldn't legally keep and stay out of jail or in business. That was a failure waiting to happen.
In a way I find it ironic that so many people here defend Lavabit given the large number of complaints you see on Slashdot about corporations breaking the law, owning the government, etc. At the end of the day, Lavabit was just another corporation that wasn't willing to obey the law.
You can make a reasonable argument that the government has too much power in this regard, but that is a different discussion.
as long as there is no oversight on things like the NSA, there will always be abuse. as long as there is no oversight on the NSA, companies cant really ever deny them access.
You must have missed some discussions. The NSA has oversight, and lacks the power to issue warrants or court orders itself. Even when it obtains a warrant or court order those warrants and court orders can be challenged in court.
I expect that if lawsuits become a problem in this regard that a previous solution for a similar problem will be reused. Actually, that very solution may apply in this case in some regards.
Obama administration backs telecom immunity
They are likely to have sovereign immunity for their actions unless it has been waived, legislated away, or there is an existing precedent.
People keep trying to pull this rhetorical nonsense of describing the American people as "the enemy," and it is utter nonsense - just plain stupid. If you want to do that, then please describe how you could inform 300,000,000 Americans about the most secret inner working of the intelligence agencies without the information also leaking to the thousands or tens of thousands of spies and terrorist group members or associates in the US, and ultimately to foreign countries that are enemies? I think you need to demonstrate how you could do that if you want to suggest that the information shouldn't be protected by the legislators doing their job as representatives in a democratic republic. If you want a practical demonstration as to why your idea is really bad, just try sharing your account name and PINs with 100 of your closest friends and see how things turn out in a year or two.
As to your first question, if Congress had already been informed, I think it is hard to argue that he was lying. See my other reply in the thread.
If they had already told the truth to Congress behind closed doors or in reports, then I think it is hard to argue that they lied to Congress since Congress had been informed of the truth, and Wyden knew that. It would be more proper to describe this as providing a cover story when asked an inappropriate question at an inappropriate time. Wyden comes off as kind of a jerk.
If the programs were legal, which they apparently are, there would be nothing for Congress to do as long as they were consistent with policy and the law. The fact that there were occasional compliance problems would be something to address, but that doesn't change the overall legal picture. If there was a valid concern they could certainly enhance their oversight.
Bottom line is that your opinion as expressed appears to be wrong, although you are certainly free to prefer a different policy.
Is that the actual problem? Or is it something else? Keep in mind that the Congress operates in both open session for matters for the general public, and closed session to deal with confidential matters such as classified information.
Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst
... though I have little sympathy for Clapper, whose policy positions on the Islamist threat are highly questionable, lumping him together with Holder would not be fair. Far from being an honest probe into what the government was doing, it’s actually yet another example of how congressional grandstanding does the country little good. Wyden, who was already well briefed on PRISM and other intelligence operations, already knew the answer to the question when he asked it. But he also knew that it would have been inappropriate, if not illegal, for Clapper to answer the question honestly since doing so would have required him to publicly reveal highly classified information that ought not to be made available to America’s enemies. Wyden’s purpose wasn’t to shed light but to merely embarrass Clapper and the administration.
Edward Snowden’s leak about the existence and purpose of PRISM made sure that Wyden’s questioning of Clapper would become a major story, thus giving the Oregon senator the prize he sought. As the clip of Clapper’s lie is shown in a seemingly endless loop on the cable news stations, Wyden is back in the spotlight posturing about the need for “straight talk” from the administration. But the senator, who has carefully built up a reputation as a sober advocate of civil liberties, is the one who is being disingenuous, not Clapper.
You, like many people, have been played as part of political showmanship.
There is a difference between the business records containing the metadata and the actual verbal contents of the call. If all they have is the metadata, and they had permission to actually look at it from the court as opposed to simply storing it, they would know that you called Pizza Hut for 5 minutes at 9:30 PM on 01 December 2013. They wouldn't know anything about the content of the call which could be just about anything, such as:
1. Cancel my standing order for tonight. ...... Oh, this isn't the pharmacy? I guess I misdialed. Sorry. ..... Is your refrigerator running? You better catch it. .... 99999. Other
2. Change my standing order from peperoni to sausage.
3. Tell my daughter to catch a ride home with her friends when she finishes her shift, her mother had to take the car to see grandma.
4. Is my son there? It would be a party of 10 that arrived around 8:00 PM.
5. Hold music
6. Is the manager there?
7. I want to order a nightly special with an extra Coke.
8. The delivery person you sent yesterday was great! Very polite.
9
As we saw yesterday, interest in committing attacks in the US in the name of Jihad continues as noted in the story below.
Wichita Airport Technician Charged With Terrorist Plot
Mr. Loewen, who was employed at the airport, apparently worked alone and had planned to kill himself in the explosion, Mr. Grissom said. “He made statements that he was resolved to commit an act of violent jihad against the government of the United States,” Mr. Grissom said. ....
In a note left for a family member and included in the complaint, Mr. Loewen said the operation was orchestrated to cause “maximum carnage and death.”
“By the time you read this, I will — if everything went as planned — have been martyred in the path of Allah,” the note said.
He was charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction, attempting to damage property by means of an explosive and attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.
... it was objectively the case that the Apache pilots broke various norms of war.
And where did you get your information about "various norms of war"? Reading through the rest of your reply you don't seem to get much of that right.
The federal policies allow for that.
The law doesn't.
See? Your citation shows that it's the states, not the federal government, which are actually causing this problem. You included the antidote to your bullshit in your own citation! Slashdotfail.
Because they are acting lawfully, the federal government isn't. President Obama is just making it up as he goes along. This is rule by decree. That is the wrong answer. They passed a really bad law, fought tooth and nail to prevent changes or delays, and now that the train wreck is arriving they aren't even pretending to follow the law any more. This is a very dangerous thing to be doing.
That said, the fact remains that these assholes, from a safe distance in their Apache, shot a bunch of kids to shreds and attacked people who came to the scene to help. That much is not controversial. And the remarks they made to one another afterward are nothing short of disgusting.
Perhaps you didn't watch much of the video. The helicopter crews weren't assholes. The "safe distance" as a tactic is desirable, and irrelevant to the discussion. It's war, not a boxing match. The kids were in a van where they weren't visible, and why was that van there? Wasn't it violating a curfew? And why would you take your kids into a firefight? The van was trying to help insurgents escape. It was entirely proper to engage it. From what I recall the remarks were hardly disgusting, but if you lack the constitution you may want to avoid watching real combat action videos as they can be disturbing and possibly personally distressing. Not everyone is cut out for real combat, or even watching people actually being killed.
Diplomacy is a political activity like law making, and all manner of human foibles are involved. I could agree that various diplomats could be more professional.
Apparently you have no idea about the sorts of things that have been going on due to the fits and starts with Obamacare.
Maybe you missed that President Obama recently decreed that insurance policies didn't have to be cancelled, that enforcement would be pushed out? And that various states are or aren't buying into this? And that there is a controversy about the president doing this since there isn't any authority in the ACA to do that?
Obamacare cancellation fix likely to have limited effect
Eleven days after President Barack Obama urged insurers to renew policies that don’t meet all the requirements of the health law, it’s still not clear how many people might be affected by the proposed fix.
That’s because regulators in at least a half dozen states, including Indiana, say they won’t allow insurers to do it and many more have yet to decide, Kaiser Health News reports.
Even if states give insurers a green light to reinstate the policies for a year – and both Ohio and Indiana have done so – many insurers say they’re not sure if they can pull it off in time. Finally, no one knows how many customers who received the cancellations will want to renew.
“The president’s plan is certainly not a guarantee” that people who received discontinuation notices earlier this fall will now be able to renew, Chris Jacobs, senior policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, told Kaiser’s Julie Appleby.
I've got news for you, very little of the clusterf*ck that is Obamacare's rollout is owned by the "right wing." Nancy Pelosi said they would have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.... well, we're finding out now. You better hope your health insurance isn't going to be cancelled due to it. And guess what? There are probably about another 93,000,000 cancellations coming down the road.
Well, that didn't take long. 20 minutes for the first -1. Predictable.
Look, I am pretty much convinced that Assange is a douche hors categorie
You must not have typed that with conviction since you have a +4 as I write this. Normally Assange's fans will punish any aspersions cast on him rather quickly despite the validity.
... the epic douchebaggery on the part of, say, the US diplomatic corps and military. It's not like they cancel out or something.
That isn't necessarily true. You only have to look at the instances of either misinformation or manipulation to see that. The so called "collateral murder" video was nonsense. The same thing for the claims that Dyncorp was engaged in child prostitution. That was investigated by a State Department Inspector General, IIRC, and found to be baseless.
As far as diplomacy goes, it is in essence politics, which tends to be messy and usually takes place behind closed doors. Perhaps you are familiar with the old saying about making laws and sausages?
For most of the stories about Assange and Wikileaks on Slashdot you can generally count on two things: massive praise for both, and heavy down mods for any criticism of them. It doesn't matter if they are verifiably true or personal opinions, down they go, -1. Assange effectively has his own cult of personality that will defend him no matter what. I have little doubt that will be true even if he is eventually convicted of rape.
I don't claim that what I post is, to use your phrase, "everything that person is." But there are serious issues, and serious criticisms regarding Wikileaks from serious people. They are worth considering to balance out the praise and defense that is all but guaranteed to come from others. And how many of the Assange / Wikileaks fans are going to offer any criticism at all? Precious few.
As far as I go, it seems to me you are at best the pot calling the kettle black. I don't see you really adopting a balanced criticism of me. Shall I say that is your usual modus operandi? That you are a troll?
Rest easy though, the moderators will almost certainly be gentle with you. You come to defend Julian, not to criticize him. But frankly, your criticism in this case has little credibility with me. I've seen the pattern these discussions take all too often. It is already occurring - the head of this thread is -1. No surprise, the pattern is well established. Criticize Assange at your peril.
Let us close with this piece of wisdom for Julian: " A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.""
You better hope you never come between him and his goal, or he'll take pleasure in crushing you.
You seem to be confused. The editorial page is a separate function from new reporting. But they did pick prominent conservative writers for the editorial page as you list there.
But let me guess, you don't think the Washington Post leans liberal, do you? No ideological bias there? Nothing to see, just move along?
Quick question: Do you think that the fact that they select conservative writers for the editorial pages changed the number of people that signed up in Oregon, or changed the $300,000,000 that they spent in some way? If not, why does it matter? Nothing to see, move along?
I didn't write the story, I merely submitted it. I'll feel free to both submit and comment, especially when I see nonsense posted. You can feel free to do what you want when you submit a story. Fair enough?
Actually we're well into month 3, not month 1, and it is an expensive IT disaster of the sort that is fodder for discussion.
You seem to be insinuating that Julian Assange is either an asset of, or associates with, one or more intelligence agencies. But a TLA is a bit restrictive, don't you think? It seems unlikely that it would be CIA or NSA since he has directed a great deal of his attention on the US. Maybe FSB or some other foreign agency? Or maybe he's gone SPECTRE. Or were you thinking something else?
So you're saying the people that know Julian don't know Julian? Sounds like more FUD to me.
Manning said he had nothing to do with the logs for the parliament in the chat logs. It was allegedly Assange making the statement. Apparently Assange was multitasking and mentioned it.