The US has fought repeatedly against nations populated primarily by white people when there was cause. That includes Britain (1776, 1812), Germany (1917, 1941), Italy (1941), Spain (1898), France (1798), and the whites and white government of the Confederate States of America (1861). The US was ready to go to war for 50 years (1947-1991) against the largely white Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact (East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania) in Eastern Europe, and intervened in the Russian civil war (1918). There appears to be a problem with your race based theory. Too many people here have "brown on the brain." (We'll pass in silence over the wars in Asia.) The issue is the behavior of the nation in question, not the color of its population.
The value of having a neutral territory far outweighs the value of pursuing a particular agenda.
The value of capturing a series of heavily defended localities adjacent to and in a mountain range tends to be outweighed by the cost of doing so. Rubble and ruin is a poor exchange for blood and treasure.
Strange. I would have written something like this about, say, Sacharov, before the Wall fell. It did not take all that long for the tables to be turned, did it?
Would you really have written such... on both sides of the Wall falling? Rhetorically it is an easy change to make. Factually it is a different question.
If you have any evidence of a systematic use of the US government powers to engage in that sort of behavior against its own citizens, I would love to see it. It's an easy charge to make without evidence. Its just as easy to charge you as an agent provocateur of the FSB. Oh look! A terrible charge without evidence! It must be true because it's bad!
Can you point to people going to jail for talking directly to Congress? Congress has responsibility for oversight. The people that are in danger of going to jail are the people that don't go to Congress but instead go directly to the media with classified information.
Plausible deniability by Congress? I don't think so. It has been pointed out that they knew about several of the programs that are part of the controversy even if some people skipped the briefings.
We know that members of the House and Senate Intelligence committees don't spend all of their time fundraising since they've been holding hearings on these matters, and have been writing legislation. We also know that some members of both houses of Congress are highly critical of the NSA. It seems pretty certain that he would have been well received and listened to by at least them, and that they could have used what he said as part of the democratic process to address problems in government by working with their colleagues to address the matter. Your suggest that they would have directed him towards an NSA agent are nonsense.
Even if you think what Snowden did was praiseworthy, if you are intellectually honest you must admit that there is at the least controversy and some "complexity" in accessing his actions. There are many who consider his leaks showing surveillance of the American people to be excusable, but not the leaks about American intelligence operations overseas. There is a precedent for acknowledging that sort complexity. If he is to have any memorials, they should be informed by the handling of another similarly "complex" figure.. Personally I think the other "complex" man was more of a genuine American hero than Snowden since he at least helped America to win some victories. Snowden, on the other hand, has brought naught but damage to America and its allies, and may have handed the keys to future victories to adversaries of America and the West. At least the Russians are getting something useful from him. Perhaps they'll give him a plaque as they gave another hero in Russia.
US prosecutors claim that three “Kashmir Centers” in Washington, London and Brussels, are run on behalf of “elements of the Pakistani government, including Pakistan’s military intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI).”
The Pakistani intelligence services seem to not come to the attention of the press too often in the UK. There is an allegation that they were involved with Sri Lanka's intelligence service in the UK to recruit and train operatives against the Tamils.
It could be very useful to have the code stabilize for a bit, put it through regression tests, do some auditing, maximize use of static code checkers, and fix the problems. I hope they seriously consider it.
It gets better. This also means the shoe phones too. Soon the rancorous debates will seem more like rancid debates.... unless the upgrade the ventilation.
Probably 1/2 to 1/3 of the data I was looking for during the shutdown was on sites that appeared to be still up, but either simply warned about the freshness of the data, or actually blocked it because of the "shutdown," or more accurately "shutdown theater."
Bull. National security be damned - have you ever known a politician not to take credit? That's why I don't believe these operations are even effective. The biggest fish they've bragged about is some cabbie in LA and his friends who sent a whopping $8500 to some terrorist group in Africa. Are we willing to sell the Bill of Rights for that?
Maybe you haven't paid any attention to the criticism leveled at the Obama administration from current or former members of the intelligence and special operations community for some of the details they have released over the last couple of years. When it comes to intelligence operations, the public tends to hear about the failures, but the successes are generally kept secret for a very long time, if they are ever acknowledged. Publicizing intelligence operations can destroy their value, and not just for that operation, but even for all current and future operations of the same type.
Intelligence operations aren't like building a new bridge in a congressional district. Chances are that most people want the bridge, welcome the jobs and spending in the district, will think highly of the congressman for getting it (if needed), many people will use the bridge when it's completed, and people might even vote for the congressman in the future. By definition the target of an intelligence operation isn't going to want it, will avoid its consequences if possible, might try to capture or kill the people involved with the operation, and might even completely avoid things associated with it in the future.
The US isn't selling out the Bill of Rights, and it seems to me that politicians aren't the only ones with an attitude of, "National security be damned."
Or will they maybe pay a little lip service, then get back to droning on about the NSA and idiot Americans?
Based on previous experience it will be this. There is a portion of Europe will be unhappy with the US no matter what it does, even if it is preserving European lives or liberty.
It seems to me we ALL need to let our own governments know this is intolerable.
You should also be prepared for little to change as long as it is both legal and a policy question with actual implications.
We citizens are considered the enemy by our own spy agencies and spy agencies around the world collaborate with each other to spy on normal citizens.
Ordinary citizens aren't the enemy, but the enemy typically hides among them. Terrorists don't tend to live in their own private "terrorist army" barracks, they hide among ordinary citizens until they strike, which may not be in the same country in which they live. That is a crucial distinction that for some reason a lot of people seem to have a hard time understanding.
The Hamburg cell is a perfect example. They lived in Hamburg, Germany, plotting and preparing for their attack. The actual attacks they participated in were in New York, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania, in the US on 9/11/2001.
If you think the struggle in the West is between spy agencies and citizens, you fail to understand this basic and easy to understand fact. I'm curious as to why?
There were already people in Congress that either opposed the NSA's actions, or at least had concerns about it. If you can't see how going to them with the concern would have been beneficial I would consider that a personal limitation on your part.
The Morris Worm was written by Cornell University student Robert T. Morris while in school. He is the son of former chief scientist of the NSA's National Computer Security Center, and inventor of the Unix password scheme, Robert Morris. The incident is discussed in part of this book:
I hear that Congress, the Constitutional body charged with writing and changing the laws, and having oversight over the intelligence agencies and the ability to demand reports, as well as controlling their budgets, has several agencies that work for it that do research and analysis. Somehow it seems preferable to go to them instead of giving hundreds of thousands of highly sensitive documents to a journalist with fringe politics living in a foreign country that works for a foreign newspaper that is ideologically opposed to the American system, and in former times would have been sympathetic to America's sworn enemies.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a pretty hard sell. They're white...
The US has fought repeatedly against nations populated primarily by white people when there was cause. That includes Britain (1776, 1812), Germany (1917, 1941), Italy (1941), Spain (1898), France (1798), and the whites and white government of the Confederate States of America (1861). The US was ready to go to war for 50 years (1947-1991) against the largely white Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact (East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania) in Eastern Europe, and intervened in the Russian civil war (1918). There appears to be a problem with your race based theory. Too many people here have "brown on the brain." (We'll pass in silence over the wars in Asia.) The issue is the behavior of the nation in question, not the color of its population.
How long? I want to know how long until Snowden is given a medal by congress.
Probably 50 years. If he hadn't leaking information about US intelligence operations overseas it might have been 20 years.
The value of having a neutral territory far outweighs the value of pursuing a particular agenda.
The value of capturing a series of heavily defended localities adjacent to and in a mountain range tends to be outweighed by the cost of doing so. Rubble and ruin is a poor exchange for blood and treasure.
Strange. I would have written something like this about, say, Sacharov, before the Wall fell. It did not take all that long for the tables to be turned, did it?
Would you really have written such... on both sides of the Wall falling? Rhetorically it is an easy change to make. Factually it is a different question.
If you have any evidence of a systematic use of the US government powers to engage in that sort of behavior against its own citizens, I would love to see it. It's an easy charge to make without evidence. Its just as easy to charge you as an agent provocateur of the FSB. Oh look! A terrible charge without evidence! It must be true because it's bad!
1-800-JAIL4ME
Can you point to people going to jail for talking directly to Congress? Congress has responsibility for oversight. The people that are in danger of going to jail are the people that don't go to Congress but instead go directly to the media with classified information.
Plausible deniability by Congress? I don't think so. It has been pointed out that they knew about several of the programs that are part of the controversy even if some people skipped the briefings.
We know that members of the House and Senate Intelligence committees don't spend all of their time fundraising since they've been holding hearings on these matters, and have been writing legislation. We also know that some members of both houses of Congress are highly critical of the NSA. It seems pretty certain that he would have been well received and listened to by at least them, and that they could have used what he said as part of the democratic process to address problems in government by working with their colleagues to address the matter. Your suggest that they would have directed him towards an NSA agent are nonsense.
Even if you think what Snowden did was praiseworthy, if you are intellectually honest you must admit that there is at the least controversy and some "complexity" in accessing his actions. There are many who consider his leaks showing surveillance of the American people to be excusable, but not the leaks about American intelligence operations overseas. There is a precedent for acknowledging that sort complexity. If he is to have any memorials, they should be informed by the handling of another similarly "complex" figure.. Personally I think the other "complex" man was more of a genuine American hero than Snowden since he at least helped America to win some victories. Snowden, on the other hand, has brought naught but damage to America and its allies, and may have handed the keys to future victories to adversaries of America and the West. At least the Russians are getting something useful from him. Perhaps they'll give him a plaque as they gave another hero in Russia.
My mistake. This is the one I should have linked to:
'Pakistani spies' in the Houses of Parliament
US prosecutors claim that three “Kashmir Centers” in Washington, London and Brussels, are run on behalf of “elements of the Pakistani government, including Pakistan’s military intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI).”
The Pakistani intelligence services seem to not come to the attention of the press too often in the UK. There is an allegation that they were involved with Sri Lanka's intelligence service in the UK to recruit and train operatives against the Tamils.
Are you for real? Who do you think the kernel devs are, JavaScripters? Ruby-on-Railers?
No, I think they are human. Humans developing and maintaining a very large code base, and all that implies.
Maybe it indicates a promotion to general.
Just as long as it isn't General System Failure.
If Linus reaches a decision soon it could be something that propagates through the Open Source / Free Software community.
It could be very useful to have the code stabilize for a bit, put it through regression tests, do some auditing, maximize use of static code checkers, and fix the problems. I hope they seriously consider it.
Do we really have to Max?
It gets better. This also means the shoe phones too. Soon the rancorous debates will seem more like rancid debates.... unless the upgrade the ventilation.
There is ample reason for concern about Russia, China, and even Pakistan.
Number of Russian spies in the UK back to Cold War levels, say security services
Chinese Espionage: Britain's MI5 reports epidemic in spying
China's spies come out from the cold
Pakistani spies 'operating in Britain'
I very much doubt that the US has ever aimed nuclear weapons at the United Kingdom. The Soviets / Russians certainly have. They still come for visits.
RAF catches Russian bombers in UK airspace
Yes, yes, I know, but still. Scramble! Scramble! Russian nuclear bandits at 12 o'clock!': The Kremlin's taunting Britain with Blackjack bombers
Except most did it via DNS redirects.
Which I cleverly mentioned in the second line.
Probably 1/2 to 1/3 of the data I was looking for during the shutdown was on sites that appeared to be still up, but either simply warned about the freshness of the data, or actually blocked it because of the "shutdown," or more accurately "shutdown theater."
mv index.html old_index.html ; mv no_longer_block_access_to_static_data.html index.html
The sites that blocked by DNS wouldn't have much more to do.
Just the fact that they call it "orgo" tells me it's weird. Where does the second O come from?
Frustration. You can't scream a "g" in frustration. Try orggggggggggggggggggggggggggg as opposed to orgooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
It's similar to Khannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn versus Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.
Bull. National security be damned - have you ever known a politician not to take credit? That's why I don't believe these operations are even effective. The biggest fish they've bragged about is some cabbie in LA and his friends who sent a whopping $8500 to some terrorist group in Africa. Are we willing to sell the Bill of Rights for that?
Maybe you haven't paid any attention to the criticism leveled at the Obama administration from current or former members of the intelligence and special operations community for some of the details they have released over the last couple of years. When it comes to intelligence operations, the public tends to hear about the failures, but the successes are generally kept secret for a very long time, if they are ever acknowledged. Publicizing intelligence operations can destroy their value, and not just for that operation, but even for all current and future operations of the same type.
Intelligence operations aren't like building a new bridge in a congressional district. Chances are that most people want the bridge, welcome the jobs and spending in the district, will think highly of the congressman for getting it (if needed), many people will use the bridge when it's completed, and people might even vote for the congressman in the future. By definition the target of an intelligence operation isn't going to want it, will avoid its consequences if possible, might try to capture or kill the people involved with the operation, and might even completely avoid things associated with it in the future.
You can see that going on now, with the Snowden / Guardian leaks: Virtually every terrorist group in the world shifting tactics in wake of NSA leaks
Snowden's leaks are far worse than some politician bragging, and it is having the anticipated affect.
The US isn't selling out the Bill of Rights, and it seems to me that politicians aren't the only ones with an attitude of, "National security be damned."
Or will they maybe pay a little lip service, then get back to droning on about the NSA and idiot Americans?
Based on previous experience it will be this. There is a portion of Europe will be unhappy with the US no matter what it does, even if it is preserving European lives or liberty.
It seems to me we ALL need to let our own governments know this is intolerable.
You should also be prepared for little to change as long as it is both legal and a policy question with actual implications.
We citizens are considered the enemy by our own spy agencies and spy agencies around the world collaborate with each other to spy on normal citizens.
Ordinary citizens aren't the enemy, but the enemy typically hides among them. Terrorists don't tend to live in their own private "terrorist army" barracks, they hide among ordinary citizens until they strike, which may not be in the same country in which they live. That is a crucial distinction that for some reason a lot of people seem to have a hard time understanding.
The Hamburg cell is a perfect example. They lived in Hamburg, Germany, plotting and preparing for their attack. The actual attacks they participated in were in New York, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania, in the US on 9/11/2001.
If you think the struggle in the West is between spy agencies and citizens, you fail to understand this basic and easy to understand fact. I'm curious as to why?
There were already people in Congress that either opposed the NSA's actions, or at least had concerns about it. If you can't see how going to them with the concern would have been beneficial I would consider that a personal limitation on your part.
The Morris Worm was written by Cornell University student Robert T. Morris while in school. He is the son of former chief scientist of the NSA's National Computer Security Center, and inventor of the Unix password scheme, Robert Morris. The incident is discussed in part of this book:
The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer Espionage
I've enjoyed reading it more than once.
I hear that Congress, the Constitutional body charged with writing and changing the laws, and having oversight over the intelligence agencies and the ability to demand reports, as well as controlling their budgets, has several agencies that work for it that do research and analysis. Somehow it seems preferable to go to them instead of giving hundreds of thousands of highly sensitive documents to a journalist with fringe politics living in a foreign country that works for a foreign newspaper that is ideologically opposed to the American system, and in former times would have been sympathetic to America's sworn enemies.
GAO
LOC
It's also clarifying to see who cheers for Snowden, the Kim Philby for our age. Enjoy Russia Mr. Snowden, and the new surveillance they are implementing based on your leaks that you will now be living under!