Is it like when the buttons are messed up, I vote for a Hershey bar and end up with Dick Cheney stuck between the vending door? I've had that happen twice now in 8 years...
I had a related question about DUIs. My buddy got arrested for it, but got Not Guilty at trial and beat it. Now, when a cop runs his plate, does an arrest for DUI show up, or is it a less specific classification that wouldn't raise that red flag every single time he drives?
I agree with you about your advice to the guilty ones - my friend who did not beat her DUI conviction gets pulled over every single time that a cop is behind her. It got so bad on the holidays that she would call her boss and tell her she would be about a half hour late every day.
However, if you strip away that income, they would simply make it up in the more traditional forms of bribery. At least their worthless pay raises are public record... They are attracted to money and power, not civil service.
The trick is turning their greed in a positive direction - grassroots lobbying for actual citizen / consumer interests. They won't ever change on their own, but they are also very mercenary - this can be a good thing; show them the cash and they drop the current issue like a red-hot poker.
If you enforce term limits, they simply will go the way of a current lame duck president and serve out the last portion of the limit doing whatever the hell they want.
Our system of legislator accountability enforceable only on one day every four-six years is pretty flawed with our updated systems of media and communication.
I agree. I think maybe a viable option would be to recoup a percentage of ad sales on the sites, vs the whole thing. That might work once they get enough user up and running. It might be an initial free push where the page creator gets 100%, then once enough are up to recoup the VC, the site might step in and take a small cut, Amway-style. I think taking a good long look at thier EULA or terms of service might deliver a useful answer.
The balance here is having a ballot where you can't be identified. Think of a dictator or rebel group seizing the voting records to off the opposition supporters. That's one of the reason we have the anonymous voting in the first place. On the flip side, you can never be certain of how your vote was counted, unless you got a unique id to the paper slip and could check online, similar to a UPS tracking number. That could still be done and keep your name off the vote.
Sir, your response that "continue to do the same until the threat is eliminated" is exactly the problem here. If you have a virus that changes its face and tactics and resistance to medication constantly, then you must change tactics to suit.
Terrorism is a virus in that it lives within groups of innocent cells or civilians masquerading as "normal." If you have Tuberculosis, and take penicillin to fight it, often we see that the virus is entrenched enough to slip between the cracks and build resistance to that tactic if the medicine is not applied properly or in the incorrect dosage.
You can take a heavy-handed approach, and punish all the innocent cells AND get a few terrorists. This is like the chemotherapy that makes your hair fall out and forces you to puke several times a day - you are alive but miserable. People who get their civil rights removed due to the "threat" of terror are more miserable and fearful of their goverment in this regard.
The terrorists used planes for terror. We focused our treatments on air terror issues instead of targeting recruitment and financing. Then different terrorists used bombs on trains in Spain and England instead. So now we beef up security and shoot some ignorant Brazillian man in the Underground because everyone's nerves are frayed.
Making a stand in this situation is simply what the terrorists are banking on. Bin Laden's goal with the terror attacks was not to overturn the entire government.
He wanted people drawn to his cause on his own, without having to spend more money on recruitment and to expose himself. He got just what he wanted with our muddled response.
Our dual wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were akin to cutting off your foot to remove the "wart" of Bin Laden's Taliban in Afghanistan. Sure, he's hiding now. Sure, we almost got him in Tora Bora. Sure, we got rid of the Taliban for a few months.
But now he has something far better than some cheesy Army recruitment ad; he has real live Americans over in his time zone ripe for the shooting. They become the classic target for the disposessed and those who use the success of America as the reason for their own disapsora.
We needed to respond to the threat of terror in an appropriate manner. Instead we squandered our opportunity and he escaped.
We needed to respond to the intelligence that our normally capable agencies had collected, but we instead created a Biodome of homeland security and added complexity to a red tape nightmare that created the problem in the first place.
The jack booted thugs are called such when we feel that the only answer to our problem lies in regressing back 50 years and treating criminals like animals, then demanding more wiretapping without oversight because those you tortured ended up lying or not being useful anyways.
The warnings being issued are done because they want to avoid being called ignorant again when something happens; it serves no preventative or useful function to avoid an attack.
They warn because they cannot stop it if they wanted to - their red tape situation has created such a dismal fog over intelligence that all those who figured out the 9-11 guys were up to something never had the chance to communicate effectively to those who could decide and make the cruical difference.
Making up a war to overcompensate for that ineffective fog has only deepened the mistrust of people in their government - to the point where we vote out the republicans for the equally ineffective democrats. The same democrats who don't bother to offer new ideas, only "at least we aren't republican" as a campaign platform.
Stop painting people as simple liberals or conservatives, and less people will view your explanation as inflammatory. Those terms are too broad to describe a thinking person who has a nuanced view or two.
Hold up - there are TWO functions to the taser. There is the function which will put you on your ass, shaking and freaking out. And the second function is very unpleasant, but won't incapacitate you; more of a "move-along" or cattle prod function.
It looks like on the video that they are using the first function exclusively. If I recall training on these, they are supposed to use the second function once he is on the ground, to make him stand up to be cuffed.
Again, without being there, I cannot tell if they ever switched. They might have kept it on the first function when he was being increasinly belligerent, but I am not sure. It doesn't look like fun, at any rate...
Well, if the space elevator works well, it will be able to bootstrap itself and create added elevators, further reducing the cost to escape gravity's grasp. I imagine it would be simpler to lift finished materials and construction than smelting ore and fabricating materials in space. But who knows? Isn't that half the fun of a mission like this?
But I've been in that spot before, and calling your bank will get you an agent who will fax stuff around to whomever needs it. There are laws on the books that require the bank to document everything, so it is all available there. No worries. Otherwise, I agree with everything else you stated - the deck is stacked high against us.
You have some good points here, but you need to use the line break html coding to make some paragraphs or something...
The UN was never given any teeth for enforcements or mandates. Look at it more like a giant recordkeeping organization for world nations. We can reference the resolutions to see when hostilities begin. They rarely are able to do anything remotely looking like policework or soldierwork, b/c none of the involved countries want to cede state power to global power - it is much like America when we were working out the confederacy vs federal powers (not the Civil War)arguments.
Look at the blue helmets in Lebanon; none of them were given instructions or rules of engagement, so that means as long as nobody shot them directly, they were not allowed to act in any sort of capacity.
It's an ugly world we live in where selfish nations (none are excluded) would rather hang onto a scrap of power vs consolidate it and make some true gains for human civilization (sorry Darfur, good luck out there). It might be the one single recommendation for having a global government - reducing regional conflict.
Here is a question for the knowledgeable - which of the AV products (free and otherwise) are the BEST for resources and still competent at catching problems?
Is Trend the smallest footprint? I would love some answers from the people here.
THe point here is that the Act takes pains to define the combatants, where before we did not have our own definition. It may seem like a small thing, but remember that we were signatories to the treaties and Conventions - so that means we don't make changes to those without bringing the other member groups in to discuss. Unless we wanted to create our own definitions.
And back to the "terrorists were never covered by Geneva" defense I always hear - Here is the Convention, Second Section, Article 43-45 where we see exactly what is supposed to happen to someone captured on a battlefield (like most of the Guantanamo prisoners captured in Afghanistan).
1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.
2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
a) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).
4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.
5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities .
6. This Article is without prejudice to the right of any person to be a prisoner of war pursuant to Article 4 of the Third Convention.
7. This Article is not intended to change the generally accepted practice of States with respect to the wearing of the uniform by combatants assigned to the regular, uniformed armed units of a Party to the conflict.
WHat is the point to all this wrangling? Even back then, they realized that insurgents / terrorists / rebels / partisans would be sucidial to simply wear uniforms and fight their occupiers, so they said it was okay to not wear a uniform. THey wanted soldiers to wear uniforms, but put the goddamn caveat in there that says if you don't have a uniform it will not deprive you of your combatant status.
Yes, but it has been ruled several times that non-citizens are not held to the strictures of the Constituion or Bill of Rights by our Supreme Court - the Geneva Conventions used to be useful as they did cover world wide definitions of combatants / soldiers / POWs.
But the new law that Bush and Co. passed circumvented that and took the right to name who and what a combatant was away from the conventions and into the loving arms of the Executive & Congress.
So, the foreign terrorists were never under Haebeus Corpus, but were under the conventions. Now, they enjoy neither protection.
Also, for you budding home-grown US terrorists, you would be protected under Haebeus Corpus - but if the Executive declares you a combatant, there is NO RELIEF allowed for you to petition the court under the new law. Which means you can be denied Corpus / Due Process.
This is correct - the designation of combatant is defined by the Executive via this new law. It used to be defined by the quaint Geneva Conventions, but that was the ENTIRE point of this law - getting to change who can be called a combatant (which is lower than a soldier).
Also, even in the Geneva Conventions, a combatant was supposed to have all the same rights, except in very specific instances (like if you surrender then shoot at the soldiers arresting you).
Even if you didn't wear a uniform or have an organized army or commingled with civilians (those are the common defenses against treating terrorists like POWs), the conventions were extremely clear in that they had the same rights as a POW.
There is one article, commmonly quoted by Limbaugh / Hannity / Coulter dittoheads that defines the difference btw a combatant and POW (uniforms, organized army, separated from civilians) But they never ever ever quote further down where we can see that the combatant gets the same rights as a POW (unless the very narrow standards are met where they directly lie / pretend to surrender to the arresting soldiers). If you get a chance, read them sometime. They were very carefully crafted to protect those who fight our wars, no matter who is nice and who is nasty. Whether you agree or not is another matter, but the recent law takes the important job of naming a POW vs combatant vs a terrorist away from the Geneva Conventions and gives it to our Executive.
Security through obscurity (through not posting it) is not an answer at all. You are passing the buck along to someone with less scruples who will simply just use it and NEVER tell anyone. Expose these evil methods to the light of liberty and freedom, and see what still stands up when the fires have abated.
Or maybe noone will care and just continue watching cable. But the ethical step IS publication, not standing aside and waiting for another method of fraud to take place. If someone says something AFTER it happens (like Iran Contra or any other unpleasant Congress-hearing-level issue) then it is already far too late for everyone but the historians.
TO append this comment - this is the danger posed by Aristotlean philosophy that we are taught in school and has filtered almost all aspects of Western classical & modern culture. There is no room for gray areas and uncertainties. You have to wonder where we posit those defective ideas of Intelligent Design or Erich Von Daniken "explaining" how the civilization was a result of alien intervention. They both push the idea of "if you can't disprove it, it MUST be the answer".
I say to hell with politics and religion today. Let us give thanks to the Flying Spaghetti Monster once again. Ramen.
Why don't more big buisinesses simply use a VPN instead of keeping everything on your laptop? Almost everywhere you can get an internet connection, and if some fuckstick takes your stuff, the credit reports of thousands can remain in gentle slumber... I also work at a finance buisness where a laptop was stolen, and the mess that ensued was ridiculous! And there is still no VPN-only rule...
It was more for the preemptive strike capability and in case the silos were shut down. If you've seen Dr. Strangelove, that is the mission of the plane - to strike a Soviet silo when the crazy general orders the planes out. Our nuke subs and bombers were supposed to give us the edge over MAD.
Word to that - I read those books myself. It is the allegory to the current Intelligent Design - "If we can't prove it 100%, then it was God/Aliens that did it deliberately."
No, we were in negotations with them and the British for several years - we explained to the Colonel that if he brings policy change to the table and acts on good faith, we would completely abandon the regime change - remember that we dropped bombs on him personally and killed some family members, so it wasn't the toothless gibbering that we perform w/ Jong Il and the Ayatollah. The negotations were not big and public, and so most people never heard anything about them until he switched sides and gave up the expensive WMD pogrom.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it like when the buttons are messed up, I vote for a Hershey bar and end up with Dick Cheney stuck between the vending door? I've had that happen twice now in 8 years...
What about the Mexican War? That was before the Civil War.
I had a related question about DUIs. My buddy got arrested for it, but got Not Guilty at trial and beat it. Now, when a cop runs his plate, does an arrest for DUI show up, or is it a less specific classification that wouldn't raise that red flag every single time he drives?
I agree with you about your advice to the guilty ones - my friend who did not beat her DUI conviction gets pulled over every single time that a cop is behind her. It got so bad on the holidays that she would call her boss and tell her she would be about a half hour late every day.
However, if you strip away that income, they would simply make it up in the more traditional forms of bribery. At least their worthless pay raises are public record... They are attracted to money and power, not civil service.
The trick is turning their greed in a positive direction - grassroots lobbying for actual citizen / consumer interests. They won't ever change on their own, but they are also very mercenary - this can be a good thing; show them the cash and they drop the current issue like a red-hot poker.
If you enforce term limits, they simply will go the way of a current lame duck president and serve out the last portion of the limit doing whatever the hell they want.
Our system of legislator accountability enforceable only on one day every four-six years is pretty flawed with our updated systems of media and communication.
I agree. I think maybe a viable option would be to recoup a percentage of ad sales on the sites, vs the whole thing. That might work once they get enough user up and running. It might be an initial free push where the page creator gets 100%, then once enough are up to recoup the VC, the site might step in and take a small cut, Amway-style. I think taking a good long look at thier EULA or terms of service might deliver a useful answer.
The balance here is having a ballot where you can't be identified. Think of a dictator or rebel group seizing the voting records to off the opposition supporters. That's one of the reason we have the anonymous voting in the first place. On the flip side, you can never be certain of how your vote was counted, unless you got a unique id to the paper slip and could check online, similar to a UPS tracking number. That could still be done and keep your name off the vote.
Sir, your response that "continue to do the same until the threat is eliminated" is exactly the problem here. If you have a virus that changes its face and tactics and resistance to medication constantly, then you must change tactics to suit.
Terrorism is a virus in that it lives within groups of innocent cells or civilians masquerading as "normal." If you have Tuberculosis, and take penicillin to fight it, often we see that the virus is entrenched enough to slip between the cracks and build resistance to that tactic if the medicine is not applied properly or in the incorrect dosage.
You can take a heavy-handed approach, and punish all the innocent cells AND get a few terrorists. This is like the chemotherapy that makes your hair fall out and forces you to puke several times a day - you are alive but miserable. People who get their civil rights removed due to the "threat" of terror are more miserable and fearful of their goverment in this regard.
The terrorists used planes for terror. We focused our treatments on air terror issues instead of targeting recruitment and financing. Then different terrorists used bombs on trains in Spain and England instead. So now we beef up security and shoot some ignorant Brazillian man in the Underground because everyone's nerves are frayed.
Making a stand in this situation is simply what the terrorists are banking on. Bin Laden's goal with the terror attacks was not to overturn the entire government.
He wanted people drawn to his cause on his own, without having to spend more money on recruitment and to expose himself. He got just what he wanted with our muddled response.
Our dual wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were akin to cutting off your foot to remove the "wart" of Bin Laden's Taliban in Afghanistan. Sure, he's hiding now. Sure, we almost got him in Tora Bora. Sure, we got rid of the Taliban for a few months.
But now he has something far better than some cheesy Army recruitment ad; he has real live Americans over in his time zone ripe for the shooting. They become the classic target for the disposessed and those who use the success of America as the reason for their own disapsora.
We needed to respond to the threat of terror in an appropriate manner. Instead we squandered our opportunity and he escaped.
We needed to respond to the intelligence that our normally capable agencies had collected, but we instead created a Biodome of homeland security and added complexity to a red tape nightmare that created the problem in the first place.
The jack booted thugs are called such when we feel that the only answer to our problem lies in regressing back 50 years and treating criminals like animals, then demanding more wiretapping without oversight because those you tortured ended up lying or not being useful anyways.
The warnings being issued are done because they want to avoid being called ignorant again when something happens; it serves no preventative or useful function to avoid an attack.
They warn because they cannot stop it if they wanted to - their red tape situation has created such a dismal fog over intelligence that all those who figured out the 9-11 guys were up to something never had the chance to communicate effectively to those who could decide and make the cruical difference.
Making up a war to overcompensate for that ineffective fog has only deepened the mistrust of people in their government - to the point where we vote out the republicans for the equally ineffective democrats. The same democrats who don't bother to offer new ideas, only "at least we aren't republican" as a campaign platform.
Stop painting people as simple liberals or conservatives, and less people will view your explanation as inflammatory. Those terms are too broad to describe a thinking person who has a nuanced view or two.
Screws shear. Nails flex and bend and are pliable.
Hold up - there are TWO functions to the taser. There is the function which will put you on your ass, shaking and freaking out. And the second function is very unpleasant, but won't incapacitate you; more of a "move-along" or cattle prod function.
It looks like on the video that they are using the first function exclusively. If I recall training on these, they are supposed to use the second function once he is on the ground, to make him stand up to be cuffed.
Again, without being there, I cannot tell if they ever switched. They might have kept it on the first function when he was being increasinly belligerent, but I am not sure. It doesn't look like fun, at any rate...
Isn't the Silmarillon (sp) also considered a prequel? It covers all the backstory and setup of Middle Earth.
Well, if the space elevator works well, it will be able to bootstrap itself and create added elevators, further reducing the cost to escape gravity's grasp. I imagine it would be simpler to lift finished materials and construction than smelting ore and fabricating materials in space. But who knows? Isn't that half the fun of a mission like this?
But I've been in that spot before, and calling your bank will get you an agent who will fax stuff around to whomever needs it. There are laws on the books that require the bank to document everything, so it is all available there. No worries. Otherwise, I agree with everything else you stated - the deck is stacked high against us.
He assumed you watched on a video ipod, not via itunes on a computer / tv.
You have some good points here, but you need to use the line break html coding to make some paragraphs or something...
The UN was never given any teeth for enforcements or mandates. Look at it more like a giant recordkeeping organization for world nations. We can reference the resolutions to see when hostilities begin. They rarely are able to do anything remotely looking like policework or soldierwork, b/c none of the involved countries want to cede state power to global power - it is much like America when we were working out the confederacy vs federal powers (not the Civil War)arguments.
Look at the blue helmets in Lebanon; none of them were given instructions or rules of engagement, so that means as long as nobody shot them directly, they were not allowed to act in any sort of capacity.
It's an ugly world we live in where selfish nations (none are excluded) would rather hang onto a scrap of power vs consolidate it and make some true gains for human civilization (sorry Darfur, good luck out there). It might be the one single recommendation for having a global government - reducing regional conflict.
Here is a question for the knowledgeable - which of the AV products (free and otherwise) are the BEST for resources and still competent at catching problems?
Is Trend the smallest footprint? I would love some answers from the people here.
We would give you the story back, but the author is now an unperson and the blog dropped down the memory hole. :-(
THe point here is that the Act takes pains to define the combatants, where before we did not have our own definition. It may seem like a small thing, but remember that we were signatories to the treaties and Conventions - so that means we don't make changes to those without bringing the other member groups in to discuss. Unless we wanted to create our own definitions.
And back to the "terrorists were never covered by Geneva" defense I always hear - Here is the Convention, Second Section, Article 43-45 where we see exactly what is supposed to happen to someone captured on a battlefield (like most of the Guantanamo prisoners captured in Afghanistan).
1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war. 2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
a) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate. Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c). 4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.
5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities . 6. This Article is without prejudice to the right of any person to be a prisoner of war pursuant to Article 4 of the Third Convention. 7. This Article is not intended to change the generally accepted practice of States with respect to the wearing of the uniform by combatants assigned to the regular, uniformed armed units of a Party to the conflict.
WHat is the point to all this wrangling? Even back then, they realized that insurgents / terrorists / rebels / partisans would be sucidial to simply wear uniforms and fight their occupiers, so they said it was okay to not wear a uniform. THey wanted soldiers to wear uniforms, but put the goddamn caveat in there that says if you don't have a uniform it will not deprive you of your combatant status.
T
Yes, but it has been ruled several times that non-citizens are not held to the strictures of the Constituion or Bill of Rights by our Supreme Court - the Geneva Conventions used to be useful as they did cover world wide definitions of combatants / soldiers / POWs.
But the new law that Bush and Co. passed circumvented that and took the right to name who and what a combatant was away from the conventions and into the loving arms of the Executive & Congress.
So, the foreign terrorists were never under Haebeus Corpus, but were under the conventions. Now, they enjoy neither protection.
Also, for you budding home-grown US terrorists, you would be protected under Haebeus Corpus - but if the Executive declares you a combatant, there is NO RELIEF allowed for you to petition the court under the new law. Which means you can be denied Corpus / Due Process.
This is correct - the designation of combatant is defined by the Executive via this new law. It used to be defined by the quaint Geneva Conventions, but that was the ENTIRE point of this law - getting to change who can be called a combatant (which is lower than a soldier).
Also, even in the Geneva Conventions, a combatant was supposed to have all the same rights, except in very specific instances (like if you surrender then shoot at the soldiers arresting you).
Even if you didn't wear a uniform or have an organized army or commingled with civilians (those are the common defenses against treating terrorists like POWs), the conventions were extremely clear in that they had the same rights as a POW.
There is one article, commmonly quoted by Limbaugh / Hannity / Coulter dittoheads that defines the difference btw a combatant and POW (uniforms, organized army, separated from civilians) But they never ever ever quote further down where we can see that the combatant gets the same rights as a POW (unless the very narrow standards are met where they directly lie / pretend to surrender to the arresting soldiers). If you get a chance, read them sometime. They were very carefully crafted to protect those who fight our wars, no matter who is nice and who is nasty. Whether you agree or not is another matter, but the recent law takes the important job of naming a POW vs combatant vs a terrorist away from the Geneva Conventions and gives it to our Executive.
Security through obscurity (through not posting it) is not an answer at all. You are passing the buck along to someone with less scruples who will simply just use it and NEVER tell anyone. Expose these evil methods to the light of liberty and freedom, and see what still stands up when the fires have abated. Or maybe noone will care and just continue watching cable. But the ethical step IS publication, not standing aside and waiting for another method of fraud to take place. If someone says something AFTER it happens (like Iran Contra or any other unpleasant Congress-hearing-level issue) then it is already far too late for everyone but the historians.
TO append this comment - this is the danger posed by Aristotlean philosophy that we are taught in school and has filtered almost all aspects of Western classical & modern culture. There is no room for gray areas and uncertainties. You have to wonder where we posit those defective ideas of Intelligent Design or Erich Von Daniken "explaining" how the civilization was a result of alien intervention. They both push the idea of "if you can't disprove it, it MUST be the answer". I say to hell with politics and religion today. Let us give thanks to the Flying Spaghetti Monster once again. Ramen.
Why don't more big buisinesses simply use a VPN instead of keeping everything on your laptop? Almost everywhere you can get an internet connection, and if some fuckstick takes your stuff, the credit reports of thousands can remain in gentle slumber... I also work at a finance buisness where a laptop was stolen, and the mess that ensued was ridiculous! And there is still no VPN-only rule...
It was more for the preemptive strike capability and in case the silos were shut down. If you've seen Dr. Strangelove, that is the mission of the plane - to strike a Soviet silo when the crazy general orders the planes out. Our nuke subs and bombers were supposed to give us the edge over MAD.
Word to that - I read those books myself. It is the allegory to the current Intelligent Design - "If we can't prove it 100%, then it was God/Aliens that did it deliberately."
No, we were in negotations with them and the British for several years - we explained to the Colonel that if he brings policy change to the table and acts on good faith, we would completely abandon the regime change - remember that we dropped bombs on him personally and killed some family members, so it wasn't the toothless gibbering that we perform w/ Jong Il and the Ayatollah. The negotations were not big and public, and so most people never heard anything about them until he switched sides and gave up the expensive WMD pogrom.