You don't have a special "right to an attorney" other than when a legal case is involved. The NSA isn't a law enforcement agency, that is why the right to an attorney doesn't come up; they don't accuse people of crimes. When NSA evidence is used by prosecutors in a real legal case, you'll have an attorney.
You probably just THINK you have different rights than what is actually IN the Constitution. Think about that.
And the serfs didn't have a right to an attorney. They did have a right to have some human speak words on their behalf before the Lord made a unilateral determination of their fate. It was not considered useful at the time. It was also not considered safe to advocate for somebody who about to be executed...
I don't think commoners got protections against rape until after serfs were on the way out.
Serfs certainly had the Right to Justice, but that actually meant the right to have the Lord settle disputes with other serfs. The Lord's judgement was considered more important than a serf's life, so if he decided you needed to die, there was not any piece of paper to say otherwise. The Magna Carta established the right generally, but didn't ban killing a serf without cause; it only established the penalty of having to educate his children. Unfortunately, he'd be the one hearing your complaint.
That fact that you can be killed during combat without a "judicial order" is always the way it was.;) And we know that is what you mean, because there is no other situation where Americans can be legally killed without a legal sentence. Before the Magna Carta, serfs didn't even have basic right to life. And even then the right to life only extended to requiring the Lord who killed you to educate your children. Serfs had certain rights, like a row to grow food. But a general right to life was generally not one. And even when it was, it generally only meant that the Lord had to say the right words before killing you.
That link is a bunch of lies and hyperbole. The ACLU still supports it because some reform is better than none. They're way more important the ones listed, and yet the link claims that every civil liberties group withdrew support.
Shows the quality of the position.
And he was talking about actually reading it and identifying what parts you don't like, NOT just finding a random propaganda link that is against.
I think the permits stuff is a myth. Here in Oregon there is open access, anybody can run wires on the poles for known costs. The only way you would run into permit trouble is if you weren't hiring trained installers. And there is the same shortage of providers as anywhere else, you can just look at the population of an area and predict what services will be offered. It seems the cost of installation is actually the problem, not permit availability. I'm sure there are exceptions of larger cities with permit problems.
Right, and none of those names help at all. It is still apples and oranges. You're actually arguing that throwing out a name helps? They are totally different cases, with totally different charges, so is no reason to think that you can just add up what you think the "harm" was and decide what the sentence should have been. That is not how the legal system works, nor is it on the table for a vote to start consulting Random Internet Guy, so we're really going to be sticking with using the legal system for this.
And you really think it is obvious that securities fraud is way worse than actively and maliciously sabotaging a business? Fraud is bad, but what is this guy your HS friend or something? Give me a break.
One reason nobody would think of that guy you didn't name the first time when you just said "Wall Street scammers," people assume you're talking about people who committed bigger crimes. Oh, but there are people who committed bigger crimes... serving life in prison, like Bernie Madoff.
Actually, no, I'm not really interested in lies from The Guardian. They've been lying and lying all through it. If there is a real accusation, it will get repeated in legit media.
When the Snowden leaks first broke, they spent months lying to us, feeding us incorrect power point training documents as if they were policy papers, while freakin' sitting on the stories that explainded the programs in those bad training docs. They've consistently dribbled out reports that were misleading entirely by being incomplete, and where their reporters had the full information already.
If in fact the article is about the claims that were widely reported, you might want to look up what agencies you think were involved, because the NSA has nothing to do with that story. That story is about the Pentagon, mainly the Army, having done a study that said that climate-change-related environmental disasters could upset the economy and lead to wide-scale unrest. And they want 20k soldiers sitting around waiting to deal with that. The Army has been asking for various things like that since they were formed. That is why we have civilian leadership.
But there is nothing at all in any of the stories about some sort of "shift to domestic monitoring." All the revealed domestic programs are now known to predate the supposed "shift." I guess they "shifted" their domestic monitoring programs to... domestic monitoring.
You probably even think that by not knowing the details, you're fighting against it. Right? Right?
Nixon is who was discussed in the media as having been more liberal. If you're not aware of what is going on in the world, guess what, that isn't news.
You do know, (right?) that he has tried and is still trying to close the Guantamo prison, but Congress has blocked him... right? The other stuff is hyperbole that doesn't include having listened to anything he actually said, so I won't respond to it.
"Rehabilitation" is something that the general populace believes in and blindly assumes is the purpose of prison, but the legal system and prisons themselves have long made it officially clear that rehabilitation is not the purpose or intent of jails and prisons, nor is it part of their mandate. Prisons will generally take that to the extreme and point out that since they're not legally instructed to do rehabilitation, it would be some sort of illegal experiment if they tried.
Any "rehabilitation" is entirely the responsibility of the prisoner.
It sounds like some guy came up with a sympathetic-sounding "version" of his story, and sold it to you at face value. That tells me nothing about him, or the EFF, but something about you.
Oh, I'd give him a lot more than $0.01! I'm willing to support allocating whatever government resources are needed to prosecute him in an appropriate venue and house him indefinitely.
He had to twist their arms really far, otherwise why would they possibly refuse to pass a bipartisan bill? They compromise on everything else, surely there must be some sort of way to blame the President that the House Republicans finally opposed compromise. Right?
No, and there won't be, because the House Leadership are Republicans who actually don't care what President Obama wants on any issue.
From my perspective the original bill was a "weak" reform package. The EFF wants to claim that it was originally strong in their press release, but that is kinda silly. It was already weakened by the committee before, so that they just had to use the right words to bulk collect. You could say they would be forced to bulk-ish collect instead of bulk collect. That was pure House of Reps committee politics that weakened it that much. So now it is even weaker. Nowhere does the President even get consulted in this timeline.
I do way more than "skim" defense news. As a news junkie I have to say, that sounds nuts. I haven't seen anything at all like that, much less something that indicates "priority." I'd ask for links, but I already know what it would be... long stretches that I won't think are at all related to what you said. How can I be sure? Because I'm already more than skimming.;)
The standard conspiracy theory that holds that the President doesn't have any power is that the CIA killed JFK for making his own decisions regarding Cuba policy, and that every President since has done what they're told.
Generally the other conspiracy theories rely on the Presidents all being part of some secret shadow group, or not actually having their hands on the levers of power.
It is mostly only the CIA conspiracy theory that holds that the President has his hands on the levers, but is basically a hostage.
He's liberal because he's a black Democrat, so if he claims to be moderate and all his policies are moderate and centrist, then somebody must have bought him off. He's secretly a Socialist. Everybody knows it, because all black Democrats are socialists, so there is no need to listen to the President or look at his policies to determine what he believes.
Right, but is a moderate today left or right of a conservative in the 80s?
Clearly a moderate from the 80s would be a "far left liberal" today. President Reagan would be run out of the Republican party as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) if he was alive today and help the positions he held in office.
I think the window has indeed shifted far enough right that a moderate today is right of a mainstream 80s conservative.
"You know, the truth of the matter is when you look at some of my policies, in a lot of ways Richard Nixon was more liberal than I was. [He] started the E.P.A, you know, started a whole lot of the regulatory state that has helped make our air and water clean." -- President Obama
It has been fairly widely discussed in the media recently.
Slashdot Mirror
I recommend craigslist + amazon payments
So you're mad at Obama because he attempted to do what he said he would do, but Congress blocked him?
Did you think he promised to ride a magic pony and stage a coup and disband Congress to close Guantanamo?
Seriously dude, that's pretty insane. Obama is still trying to close Guantanamo, by any political calculus that is what he promised.
He wasn't convicted of many thousands of counts of fraud. Sorry. You can only sentence somebody for what they are convicted of.
You don't have a special "right to an attorney" other than when a legal case is involved. The NSA isn't a law enforcement agency, that is why the right to an attorney doesn't come up; they don't accuse people of crimes. When NSA evidence is used by prosecutors in a real legal case, you'll have an attorney.
You probably just THINK you have different rights than what is actually IN the Constitution. Think about that.
And the serfs didn't have a right to an attorney. They did have a right to have some human speak words on their behalf before the Lord made a unilateral determination of their fate. It was not considered useful at the time. It was also not considered safe to advocate for somebody who about to be executed...
I don't think commoners got protections against rape until after serfs were on the way out.
Serfs certainly had the Right to Justice, but that actually meant the right to have the Lord settle disputes with other serfs. The Lord's judgement was considered more important than a serf's life, so if he decided you needed to die, there was not any piece of paper to say otherwise. The Magna Carta established the right generally, but didn't ban killing a serf without cause; it only established the penalty of having to educate his children. Unfortunately, he'd be the one hearing your complaint.
That fact that you can be killed during combat without a "judicial order" is always the way it was. ;)
And we know that is what you mean, because there is no other situation where Americans can be legally killed without a legal sentence.
Before the Magna Carta, serfs didn't even have basic right to life. And even then the right to life only extended to requiring the Lord who killed you to educate your children. Serfs had certain rights, like a row to grow food. But a general right to life was generally not one. And even when it was, it generally only meant that the Lord had to say the right words before killing you.
That link is a bunch of lies and hyperbole. The ACLU still supports it because some reform is better than none. They're way more important the ones listed, and yet the link claims that every civil liberties group withdrew support.
Shows the quality of the position.
And he was talking about actually reading it and identifying what parts you don't like, NOT just finding a random propaganda link that is against.
I think the permits stuff is a myth. Here in Oregon there is open access, anybody can run wires on the poles for known costs. The only way you would run into permit trouble is if you weren't hiring trained installers. And there is the same shortage of providers as anywhere else, you can just look at the population of an area and predict what services will be offered. It seems the cost of installation is actually the problem, not permit availability. I'm sure there are exceptions of larger cities with permit problems.
Right, and none of those names help at all. It is still apples and oranges. You're actually arguing that throwing out a name helps? They are totally different cases, with totally different charges, so is no reason to think that you can just add up what you think the "harm" was and decide what the sentence should have been. That is not how the legal system works, nor is it on the table for a vote to start consulting Random Internet Guy, so we're really going to be sticking with using the legal system for this.
And you really think it is obvious that securities fraud is way worse than actively and maliciously sabotaging a business? Fraud is bad, but what is this guy your HS friend or something? Give me a break.
One reason nobody would think of that guy you didn't name the first time when you just said "Wall Street scammers," people assume you're talking about people who committed bigger crimes. Oh, but there are people who committed bigger crimes... serving life in prison, like Bernie Madoff.
Woah, hold on there, I refuted your claims and now you're trying to switch them out for other claims, that are also hyperbole and can also be refuted.
You were wrong, you lied about President Obama, instead of doubling down, just admit it and try to be more honest next time.
Actually, no, I'm not really interested in lies from The Guardian. They've been lying and lying all through it. If there is a real accusation, it will get repeated in legit media.
When the Snowden leaks first broke, they spent months lying to us, feeding us incorrect power point training documents as if they were policy papers, while freakin' sitting on the stories that explainded the programs in those bad training docs. They've consistently dribbled out reports that were misleading entirely by being incomplete, and where their reporters had the full information already.
If in fact the article is about the claims that were widely reported, you might want to look up what agencies you think were involved, because the NSA has nothing to do with that story. That story is about the Pentagon, mainly the Army, having done a study that said that climate-change-related environmental disasters could upset the economy and lead to wide-scale unrest. And they want 20k soldiers sitting around waiting to deal with that. The Army has been asking for various things like that since they were formed. That is why we have civilian leadership.
But there is nothing at all in any of the stories about some sort of "shift to domestic monitoring." All the revealed domestic programs are now known to predate the supposed "shift." I guess they "shifted" their domestic monitoring programs to... domestic monitoring.
You probably even think that by not knowing the details, you're fighting against it. Right? Right?
Nixon is who was discussed in the media as having been more liberal. If you're not aware of what is going on in the world, guess what, that isn't news.
You do know, (right?) that he has tried and is still trying to close the Guantamo prison, but Congress has blocked him... right? The other stuff is hyperbole that doesn't include having listened to anything he actually said, so I won't respond to it.
"Rehabilitation" is something that the general populace believes in and blindly assumes is the purpose of prison, but the legal system and prisons themselves have long made it officially clear that rehabilitation is not the purpose or intent of jails and prisons, nor is it part of their mandate. Prisons will generally take that to the extreme and point out that since they're not legally instructed to do rehabilitation, it would be some sort of illegal experiment if they tried.
Any "rehabilitation" is entirely the responsibility of the prisoner.
It sounds like some guy came up with a sympathetic-sounding "version" of his story, and sold it to you at face value. That tells me nothing about him, or the EFF, but something about you.
Oh, I'd give him a lot more than $0.01! I'm willing to support allocating whatever government resources are needed to prosecute him in an appropriate venue and house him indefinitely.
Yes, originally it totally banned bulk data collection. Well, for certain values of the words "totally," "banned," "bulk," "data," and "collection."
Personally, I find partially banned bulky metadata retention to be even more frightening than outright bulk data collection.
He had to twist their arms really far, otherwise why would they possibly refuse to pass a bipartisan bill? They compromise on everything else, surely there must be some sort of way to blame the President that the House Republicans finally opposed compromise. Right?
No, and there won't be, because the House Leadership are Republicans who actually don't care what President Obama wants on any issue.
From my perspective the original bill was a "weak" reform package. The EFF wants to claim that it was originally strong in their press release, but that is kinda silly. It was already weakened by the committee before, so that they just had to use the right words to bulk collect. You could say they would be forced to bulk-ish collect instead of bulk collect. That was pure House of Reps committee politics that weakened it that much. So now it is even weaker. Nowhere does the President even get consulted in this timeline.
Actually that sounds rather tinfoil to me. And I don't believe for a minute you're tired of typing.
I do way more than "skim" defense news. As a news junkie I have to say, that sounds nuts. I haven't seen anything at all like that, much less something that indicates "priority." I'd ask for links, but I already know what it would be... long stretches that I won't think are at all related to what you said. How can I be sure? Because I'm already more than skimming. ;)
The standard conspiracy theory that holds that the President doesn't have any power is that the CIA killed JFK for making his own decisions regarding Cuba policy, and that every President since has done what they're told.
Generally the other conspiracy theories rely on the Presidents all being part of some secret shadow group, or not actually having their hands on the levers of power.
It is mostly only the CIA conspiracy theory that holds that the President has his hands on the levers, but is basically a hostage.
He's liberal because he's a black Democrat, so if he claims to be moderate and all his policies are moderate and centrist, then somebody must have bought him off. He's secretly a Socialist. Everybody knows it, because all black Democrats are socialists, so there is no need to listen to the President or look at his policies to determine what he believes.
Right, but is a moderate today left or right of a conservative in the 80s?
Clearly a moderate from the 80s would be a "far left liberal" today. President Reagan would be run out of the Republican party as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) if he was alive today and help the positions he held in office.
I think the window has indeed shifted far enough right that a moderate today is right of a mainstream 80s conservative.
"You know, the truth of the matter is when you look at some of my policies, in a lot of ways Richard Nixon was more liberal than I was. [He] started the E.P.A, you know, started a whole lot of the regulatory state that has helped make our air and water clean." -- President Obama
It has been fairly widely discussed in the media recently.