Your post is essentially misdirection. Strasser wasn't the only member of the Nazi party that favored socialism. I seem recall that both Goebbels and Eichmann survived the Night of the Long Knives (A bit of an understatement.) for example. The National Socialists were not simply engaged in rhetoric but enacted a variety of policies consistent with socialism. I can understand the desperate attempt to claim that the National Socialists weren't really socialists in any way since some people conflate the concepts of socialism and goodness and the Nazis were certainly not good.
Adolf Eichmann viewed National Socialism and communism as “quasi-siblings,” explaining in his memoirs that he “inclined towards the left and emphasized socialist aspects every bit as much as nationalist ones.” As late as 1944, Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels publicly celebrated “our socialism,” reminding his war-weary subjects that Germany “alone [has] the best social welfare measures.” ....
.... To “achieve a truly socialist division of personal assets,” he [Aly] writes, Hitler implemented a variety of interventionist economic policies, including price and rent controls, exorbitant corporate taxes, frequent “polemics against landlords,” subsidies to German farmers as protection “against the vagaries of weather and the world market,” and harsh taxes on capital gains, which Hitler himself had denounced as “effortless income.”
Aly demonstrates convincingly that Nazi “domestic policies were remarkably friendly toward the German lower classes, soaking the wealthy and redistributing the burdens of wartime.” And with fresh memories of Weimer inflation, “transferring the tax burden to corporations earned the leadership in Berlin considerable political capital, as the government keenly registered.”
For instance, at the outset of war Nazi economists established a “wartime tax of 50 percent on all wages” that applied only to the wealthiest Germans. In the end, Aly writes, “only 4 percent of the population paid the full 50 percent surcharge.”
The idea that Nazism was an extreme form of "capitalism" and Hitler primarily a tool serving the interests of "big business" is a longstanding myth that even now retains a measure of popularity in some quarters. This, despite the fact that the full name of the Nazi Party was the National Socialist German Workers' Party, and that Nazi political strategy was explicitly based on combining the appeal of socialism with that of nationalism (thus the choice of name). Once in power, the Nazis even went so far as to institute a Four Year Plan for running the German economy, modeled in large part on the Soviet Union's Five Year Plans.
I. The Socialist Elements of Nazism.
Two recent books further explain the socialist elements of Nazi economic policy, and will hopefully put the final nails in the coffin of the myth that the Nazis were "capitalists" or free marketeers. In The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy, historian Adam Tooze describes the statist nature of Nazi economic policy in great detail, and concludes that the Nazis imposed greater government control over the economy than any other noncommunist regime in modern history. (pp. 658-60). Tooze notes that, even before the outbreak of World War II, government military spending accounted for some 20% of the GDP, while much of the rest of the economy came under government control as a result of the Four Year Plan and other similar measures.
Now comes the 10,000-word, eight-part story in The New York Times. The front-page story, called "The Secret Casualties Of Iraq's Abandoned Chemical Weapons," says WMD were in Iraq: "In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act."
Moreover, the soldiers were told to keep quiet about the WMD:
"Troops and officers were instructed to be silent or give deceptive accounts of what they had found. ?'Nothing of significance' is what I was ordered to say,' said Jarrod Lampier, a recently retired Army major who was present for the largest chemical weapons discovery of the war: more than 2,400 nerve-agent rockets unearthed in 2006 at a former Republican Guard compound.
"Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of 'wounds that never happened' from 'that stuff that didn't exist.' The public, he said, was misled for a decade. 'I love it when I hear, 'Oh there weren't any chemical weapons in Iraq,' he said. 'There were plenty.'"
Cheers, and on a wild guess I'll recommend that maybe you should cut down on your "recreational" use of controlled substances
Before I comment on WMDs in Iraq I will remind you that there were something like 20 causes of action against Iraq, many of which were clear cut and indisputable. Others were also confirmed after the invasion, such as finding Iraq's banned long range missiles, and unfilled chemical warheads for those missiles. There have been hundreds of mass graves found in Iraq which amply testify to the many crimes against humanity committed by the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, not to mention his wars and acts of aggression against many of his neighbors.
As to the WMDs, approximately 5,000 chemical and biological weapons were found, and the allowable number was zero (0).
Now comes the 10,000-word, eight-part story in The New York Times. The front-page story, called "The Secret Casualties Of Iraq's Abandoned Chemical Weapons," says WMD were in Iraq: "In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act."
Moreover, the soldiers were told to keep quiet about the WMD:
"Troops and officers were instructed to be silent or give deceptive accounts of what they had found. ?'Nothing of significance' is what I was ordered to say,' said Jarrod Lampier, a recently retired Army major who was present for the largest chemical weapons discovery of the war: more than 2,400 nerve-agent rockets unearthed in 2006 at a former Republican Guard compound.
Some of those weapons were still being held in a major Iraqi military base overrun by ISIS.
That's a sporting try you made, but it ultimately fails. There are too many inconvenient facts standing in your way, not to mention the National Socialist (Nazi) - International Socialists (Soviet Communists) cooperation in numerous area prior to the German invasion (which preempted a Soviet invasion), not to mention elements of the French Left going to Hitler early on.
Even though we have this distrubing news of a missed WMD program in Austria that lay hidden for 70 years under occupation and democratic governments, we still have the assurance of "top men" that we known all and found everything in Iraq. Yes indeed,... "top men".... some even post here.
Benito Mussolini was a socialist and earned the title “Il Duce” as the leader of the socialists in Italy. When he founded the fascist party, its program called for implementing a minimum wage, expropriating property from landowners, repealing titles of nobility, creating state-run secular schools and imposing a progressive tax rate. Mussolini took socialism and turned it in a more populist and militaristic direction, but remained a modernizing, secular man of the left.
The Nazis too were socialists, “enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s capitalist economic system,” in the words of the party’s ideologist Gregor Strasser. The party’s platform sounded a lot like that of the Italian fascists. The Nazis wanted to chase conventional Christianity from public life and overturn tradition, replacing them with an all-powerful state. Both Hitler and Mussolini were revolutionaries, bitterly opposed to “reactionary” forces in their societies.
On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver “der echte Sozialismus”: real socialism.
Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.
So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism:
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.
. . . . Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun,” he boasted, adding that “the whole of National Socialism” was “based on Marx”.
Marx’s error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity – to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to “convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists” – by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish,” he told Wagener, “we shall be in a position to achieve.”
FYI: Senator Obama voted for the FISA act before he became president. So, really, he was on record opposing citizens rights to due process way early on. It should not be a surprise to anyone that his administration has continued to work to bypass the constitution wherever it seemed necessary (to them, for whatever reasons).
Could you expand upon that nonsense? Obtaining surveillance warrants isn't generally an adversarial process. How does FISA harm due process rights?
Your post is bull shit. The Japanese general in command of Iwo Jima told his wife he wouldn't return alive before he left. They intended to defend this Japanese island to the death while inflicting as many American casualties as possible. They considred surrender a terrible act of shame. You should look into the "Banzi" and Kamakazee attacks that occured in many places to better understand the mentality. You might also want to look into the use of "surrender" attempts as a ruse to lure Americans into firing range, or to exploade a grenade or bomb.
... the navy had virtually no seagoing vessels available other than submarines, and that their air arm consisted largely of Kamikaze suicide units.
However, the military were still fiercely pursuing a policy of fighting to the death rather than surrendering and accepting disarmament. The professional army and naval officers could not envisage a defeated Japan in which they would be redundant and they were well aware that the Allied surrender terms would categorically state that Japanese militarism should be eliminated. . . .
It is not difficult to imagine the General's feelings about the appointment. He had followed the progress of the war with growing dismay and was well aware that a successful defence of Iwo Jima was impossible. 'Do not plan for my return' he wrote to his wife as he assumed his new command. . . . .
In the failing evening light, 50 Japanese kamikaze aircraft of the 2nd Milate Special Attack Unit from Katori Airbase, descended on the US Navy force surrounding the island. Two blazing aircraft slammed into the side of the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga causing serious damage which put her out of action for the rest of the war. Another ploughed squarely into the escort carrier USS Bismarck Sea causing huge explosions among the aircraft crowded on the flight deck and within a short space of time she rolled over and sank. . . . .
Kuribayashi radioed Chichi Jima, 'I have 400 men, the enemy besieged us by firing and flame from their tanks. The enemy's front line is 300 metres from us. They advise us to surrender by loudspeaker but we only laugh at this childish trick'.
--
You also got the numbers wrong.
"Only 1,038 of the 21,000 Japanese defenders were captured alive. " - Major Pacific Battles
Funny to think that Assange could easily be a free man if he simply goes to Sweden and his defense shows that the allegations against him either do not constitute crimes, or do not meet the standards for conviction. I think Mr. Assange will be in that embassy for a very long time.
So in summary you are OK with foreign anti-American activists collaborating to steal whatever defense or intelligence information they can get their hands on, for any purpose they want, and they shouldn't even be investigated. Right.
I can't believe any FISA request was ever turned down. Basically, I thought the purpose of the FISA act was to suspend the constitution. What went wrong?
What went wrong? Apart from the too obvious naure of your karma whoring? (I guess I'll take that over lying.)
The chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Reggie Walton, told members of Congress in a letter that the court’s internal records show that more than 24 percent of government requests for recent warrants had “substantive” modifications in the wake of court review.
You’ve probably read 20 or more times that the FISA Court approves more than 99 percent of the government’s applications for foreign surveillance orders. What few media have mentioned—and none has emphasized—is that the court often bounces applications and demands modifications before approval. It does so precisely because the application process is not adversarial and secret. As Judge Walton noted, the 99 percent figure does “not reflect the fact that many applications are altered prior to final submission or even withheld from final submission entirely, often after an indication that a judge would not approve them.” Those of us with inside knowledge have long known, and publicly said, that the FISA court scrutinizes the government’s applications with special care, but the data to prove it have been missing. Now we have them.
But the media have not reported an obvious comparison. How many federal and state applications for search-and-seizure warrants are modified before being granted? How many are denied? Knowing that would tell us a lot about how tough the FISA court is on the government.
In fact, the FISA Court looks tough when compared to the way federal district courts handle wiretap applications under Title III, as the federal law is known. Even if you stick with the misleading 99 percent figure, the approval rate for Title III wiretaps is higher. From 2008 to 2012, courts refused to grant only five wiretap applications among 13,593 applied for. That’s an approval rate of 99.96 percent. You can find that comparison in Judge Walton’s letter—it’s in footnote 6—and the information has always been available through the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for any journalist who isn’t afraid of numbers. But you won’t find it in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, or any other news outlet. Bashing the FISA court is too much fun to let numbers get in the way.
I chuckle when I see comments like yours, blindly ignorant of the history.
The US didn't set up a "puppet" government in either country. In Iran, for instance, the US helped reverse a coup by the Prime Minister after he faked an electiopn, disolved parliament, and refused control by the head of state.
i believe that the only reason they don't want them doing it on their own is that it robs the 3-letter agencies of political glory.
So you see no downside to unregulated corporate hacking? I would have thought that someone supposedly concerned about "plutocratic multi-nationals" might have a different view. Or does this come back to the question of who's a tool?
Slashdot Mirror
Your post is essentially misdirection. Strasser wasn't the only member of the Nazi party that favored socialism. I seem recall that both Goebbels and Eichmann survived the Night of the Long Knives (A bit of an understatement.) for example. The National Socialists were not simply engaged in rhetoric but enacted a variety of policies consistent with socialism. I can understand the desperate attempt to claim that the National Socialists weren't really socialists in any way since some people conflate the concepts of socialism and goodness and the Nazis were certainly not good.
Hitler's Handouts - Inside the Nazis' welfare state
Adolf Eichmann viewed National Socialism and communism as “quasi-siblings,” explaining in his memoirs that he “inclined towards the left and emphasized socialist aspects every bit as much as nationalist ones.” As late as 1944, Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels publicly celebrated “our socialism,” reminding his war-weary subjects that Germany “alone [has] the best social welfare measures.” ....
.... To “achieve a truly socialist division of personal assets,” he [Aly] writes, Hitler implemented a variety of interventionist economic policies, including price and rent controls, exorbitant corporate taxes, frequent “polemics against landlords,” subsidies to German farmers as protection “against the vagaries of weather and the world market,” and harsh taxes on capital gains, which Hitler himself had denounced as “effortless income.”
Aly demonstrates convincingly that Nazi “domestic policies were remarkably friendly toward the German lower classes, soaking the wealthy and redistributing the burdens of wartime.” And with fresh memories of Weimer inflation, “transferring the tax burden to corporations earned the leadership in Berlin considerable political capital, as the government keenly registered.”
For instance, at the outset of war Nazi economists established a “wartime tax of 50 percent on all wages” that applied only to the wealthiest Germans. In the end, Aly writes, “only 4 percent of the population paid the full 50 percent surcharge.”
Putting the Socialism Back Into National Socialism:
The idea that Nazism was an extreme form of "capitalism" and Hitler primarily a tool serving the interests of "big business" is a longstanding myth that even now retains a measure of popularity in some quarters. This, despite the fact that the full name of the Nazi Party was the National Socialist German Workers' Party, and that Nazi political strategy was explicitly based on combining the appeal of socialism with that of nationalism (thus the choice of name). Once in power, the Nazis even went so far as to institute a Four Year Plan for running the German economy, modeled in large part on the Soviet Union's Five Year Plans.
I. The Socialist Elements of Nazism.
Two recent books further explain the socialist elements of Nazi economic policy, and will hopefully put the final nails in the coffin of the myth that the Nazis were "capitalists" or free marketeers. In The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy, historian Adam Tooze describes the statist nature of Nazi economic policy in great detail, and concludes that the Nazis imposed greater government control over the economy than any other noncommunist regime in modern history. (pp. 658-60). Tooze notes that, even before the outbreak of World War II, government military spending accounted for some 20% of the GDP, while much of the rest of the economy came under government control as a result of the Four Year Plan and other similar measures.
In Hitler's Beneficiaries: : Plunder,
And sjames is in, batting for the trolls .... swing and a miss.
If you think that is so, then I would say you aren't very observant.
But where you respond with poetry, I'll respond with prose.
Iraq's WMD: The Shameless New York Times Moves the Goalposts
Now comes the 10,000-word, eight-part story in The New York Times. The front-page story, called "The Secret Casualties Of Iraq's Abandoned Chemical Weapons," says WMD were in Iraq: "In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act."
Moreover, the soldiers were told to keep quiet about the WMD:
"Troops and officers were instructed to be silent or give deceptive accounts of what they had found. ?'Nothing of significance' is what I was ordered to say,' said Jarrod Lampier, a recently retired Army major who was present for the largest chemical weapons discovery of the war: more than 2,400 nerve-agent rockets unearthed in 2006 at a former Republican Guard compound.
"Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of 'wounds that never happened' from 'that stuff that didn't exist.' The public, he said, was misled for a decade. 'I love it when I hear, 'Oh there weren't any chemical weapons in Iraq,' he said. 'There were plenty.'"
Cheers, and on a wild guess I'll recommend that maybe you should cut down on your "recreational" use of controlled substances
It's not clear that you have a reasonable claim to judge impartiality if you can't follow that.
Before I comment on WMDs in Iraq I will remind you that there were something like 20 causes of action against Iraq, many of which were clear cut and indisputable. Others were also confirmed after the invasion, such as finding Iraq's banned long range missiles, and unfilled chemical warheads for those missiles. There have been hundreds of mass graves found in Iraq which amply testify to the many crimes against humanity committed by the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, not to mention his wars and acts of aggression against many of his neighbors.
As to the WMDs, approximately 5,000 chemical and biological weapons were found, and the allowable number was zero (0).
Iraq's WMD: The Shameless New York Times Moves the Goalposts
Now comes the 10,000-word, eight-part story in The New York Times. The front-page story, called "The Secret Casualties Of Iraq's Abandoned Chemical Weapons," says WMD were in Iraq: "In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act."
Moreover, the soldiers were told to keep quiet about the WMD:
"Troops and officers were instructed to be silent or give deceptive accounts of what they had found. ?'Nothing of significance' is what I was ordered to say,' said Jarrod Lampier, a recently retired Army major who was present for the largest chemical weapons discovery of the war: more than 2,400 nerve-agent rockets unearthed in 2006 at a former Republican Guard compound.
Some of those weapons were still being held in a major Iraqi military base overrun by ISIS.
I hope that helps.
That is a lie.
No, the reply was to someone else. But I'll second your second point.
That's a sporting try you made, but it ultimately fails. There are too many inconvenient facts standing in your way, not to mention the National Socialist (Nazi) - International Socialists (Soviet Communists) cooperation in numerous area prior to the German invasion (which preempted a Soviet invasion), not to mention elements of the French Left going to Hitler early on.
Look, there's one one of those "top men" now! By the way, thanks for the laugh. You're kind of "funny," even if it isn't "ha ha" funny.
Even though we have this distrubing news of a missed WMD program in Austria that lay hidden for 70 years under occupation and democratic governments, we still have the assurance of "top men" that we known all and found everything in Iraq. Yes indeed, ... "top men" .... some even post here.
Perhaps you should try reading the entire post. Your figure is essentially meaningless.
Yes, the National-Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) was a socialist party.
I suggest watching the whole thing some time: The Soviet Story
Liberal Fascism
Benito Mussolini was a socialist and earned the title “Il Duce” as the leader of the socialists in Italy. When he founded the fascist party, its program called for implementing a minimum wage, expropriating property from landowners, repealing titles of nobility, creating state-run secular schools and imposing a progressive tax rate. Mussolini took socialism and turned it in a more populist and militaristic direction, but remained a modernizing, secular man of the left.
The Nazis too were socialists, “enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s capitalist economic system,” in the words of the party’s ideologist Gregor Strasser. The party’s platform sounded a lot like that of the Italian fascists. The Nazis wanted to chase conventional Christianity from public life and overturn tradition, replacing them with an all-powerful state. Both Hitler and Mussolini were revolutionaries, bitterly opposed to “reactionary” forces in their societies.
Leftists become incandescent when reminded of the socialist roots of Nazism
On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver “der echte Sozialismus”: real socialism.
Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.
So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism:
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.
. . . . Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun,” he boasted, adding that “the whole of National Socialism” was “based on Marx”.
Marx’s error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity – to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to “convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists” – by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish,” he told Wagener, “we shall be in a position to achieve.”
FYI: Senator Obama voted for the FISA act before he became president. So, really, he was on record opposing citizens rights to due process way early on. It should not be a surprise to anyone that his administration has continued to work to bypass the constitution wherever it seemed necessary (to them, for whatever reasons).
Could you expand upon that nonsense? Obtaining surveillance warrants isn't generally an adversarial process. How does FISA harm due process rights?
Your post is bull shit. The Japanese general in command of Iwo Jima told his wife he wouldn't return alive before he left. They intended to defend this Japanese island to the death while inflicting as many American casualties as possible. They considred surrender a terrible act of shame. You should look into the "Banzi" and Kamakazee attacks that occured in many places to better understand the mentality. You might also want to look into the use of "surrender" attempts as a ruse to lure Americans into firing range, or to exploade a grenade or bomb.
Iwo Jima - The Japanese perspective
... the navy had virtually no seagoing vessels available other than submarines, and that their air arm consisted largely of Kamikaze suicide units.
However, the military were still fiercely pursuing a policy of fighting to the death rather than surrendering and accepting disarmament. The professional army and naval officers could not envisage a defeated Japan in which they would be redundant and they were well aware that the Allied surrender terms would categorically state that Japanese militarism should be eliminated. . . .
It is not difficult to imagine the General's feelings about the appointment. He had followed the progress of the war with growing dismay and was well aware that a successful defence of Iwo Jima was impossible. 'Do not plan for my return' he wrote to his wife as he assumed his new command. . . . .
In the failing evening light, 50 Japanese kamikaze aircraft of the 2nd Milate Special Attack Unit from Katori Airbase, descended on the US Navy force surrounding the island. Two blazing aircraft slammed into the side of the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga causing serious damage which put her out of action for the rest of the war. Another ploughed squarely into the escort carrier USS Bismarck Sea causing huge explosions among the aircraft crowded on the flight deck and within a short space of time she rolled over and sank. . . . .
Kuribayashi radioed Chichi Jima, 'I have 400 men, the enemy besieged us by firing and flame from their tanks. The enemy's front line is 300 metres from us. They advise us to surrender by loudspeaker but we only laugh at this childish trick'.
--
You also got the numbers wrong.
"Only 1,038 of the 21,000 Japanese defenders were captured alive. " - Major Pacific Battles
Funny to think that Assange could easily be a free man if he simply goes to Sweden and his defense shows that the allegations against him either do not constitute crimes, or do not meet the standards for conviction. I think Mr. Assange will be in that embassy for a very long time.
So in summary you are OK with foreign anti-American activists collaborating to steal whatever defense or intelligence information they can get their hands on, for any purpose they want, and they shouldn't even be investigated. Right.
I can't believe any FISA request was ever turned down. Basically, I thought the purpose of the FISA act was to suspend the constitution. What went wrong?
What went wrong? Apart from the too obvious naure of your karma whoring? (I guess I'll take that over lying.)
Secret court says it is no rubber stamp; led to changes in U.S. spying requests
The chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Reggie Walton, told members of Congress in a letter that the court’s internal records show that more than 24 percent of government requests for recent warrants had “substantive” modifications in the wake of court review.
The FISA Court Is Tougher Than the Media Says - October 18, 2013
You’ve probably read 20 or more times that the FISA Court approves more than 99 percent of the government’s applications for foreign surveillance orders. What few media have mentioned—and none has emphasized—is that the court often bounces applications and demands modifications before approval. It does so precisely because the application process is not adversarial and secret. As Judge Walton noted, the 99 percent figure does “not reflect the fact that many applications are altered prior to final submission or even withheld from final submission entirely, often after an indication that a judge would not approve them.” Those of us with inside knowledge have long known, and publicly said, that the FISA court scrutinizes the government’s applications with special care, but the data to prove it have been missing. Now we have them.
But the media have not reported an obvious comparison. How many federal and state applications for search-and-seizure warrants are modified before being granted? How many are denied? Knowing that would tell us a lot about how tough the FISA court is on the government.
In fact, the FISA Court looks tough when compared to the way federal district courts handle wiretap applications under Title III, as the federal law is known. Even if you stick with the misleading 99 percent figure, the approval rate for Title III wiretaps is higher. From 2008 to 2012, courts refused to grant only five wiretap applications among 13,593 applied for. That’s an approval rate of 99.96 percent. You can find that comparison in Judge Walton’s letter—it’s in footnote 6—and the information has always been available through the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for any journalist who isn’t afraid of numbers. But you won’t find it in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, or any other news outlet. Bashing the FISA court is too much fun to let numbers get in the way.
I chuckle when I see comments like yours, blindly ignorant of the history.
The US didn't set up a "puppet" government in either country. In Iran, for instance, the US helped reverse a coup by the Prime Minister after he faked an electiopn, disolved parliament, and refused control by the head of state.
i believe that the only reason they don't want them doing it on their own is that it robs the 3-letter agencies of political glory.
So you see no downside to unregulated corporate hacking? I would have thought that someone supposedly concerned about "plutocratic multi-nationals" might have a different view. Or does this come back to the question of who's a tool?
They are concerned because some of these Attacks are perpetrated by the FBI/NSA/CIA.
DDOS against US/European banks? I highly doubt that.
Too bad the internet's down in North Korea, they'd be interested in this story for sure!
Your concern for the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is touching.
As opposed to eating somebody else's dog or cat food (or just plain BS) and washing it down with somebody else's kool-aide?
Most people here would benefit from partaking from a wider range of views.
Turtle? Stack?
Come Forth, Logo!
...properly participating in the two minutes of hate.
I'm guessing that the irony eludes you.
How do you think the pineal gland reacted due to inputs conveying this scheme?
Double shot of espresso?
On the other hand there have been various flights hijacked internationally that haven't had that response.