42
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
spendius
 
  2  
Wed 12 Feb, 2014 04:26 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Why do you have so much problem with that? What is bothering you so?


What is bothering izzy is that he "listened" to the statements that "I also guess the French are doing it; the Israelis; the Chinese; the Japanese; and the Togoese. Looks to me to be reasonable to guess that all god's chillen are doing it," and having been so impolite enough to have listened to it and thus knows what a load of tripe it is.

That is because in all these countries there is a distinct class of people who try to spy on all the others and avoid being spied upon themselves. They know what they are doing and play the game, roughly, within an agreed framework and respecting each other to greater or lesser extents.

There is another class of people, by far the largest of the two classes, which is not spying on anybody and does not expect to be spied upon for no particular reason and at the whim of operatives analysing meta-data.

The Snowdenards might feel that without any disclosures a situation would arise at some point where they needed to march on Washington to restore their freedoms. And they wish to avoid that sort of thing. They know that the taking away of freedoms is highly addictive for those who get started doing it and the craving can result in there being no more freedoms of any sort in principle. Even, as Dylan said, your home garden might be against the law.

Supporters of the NRA often justify gun ownership on the basis that they might sometime need to take such drastic steps. Indeed, they claim that the right to bear arms was granted in the Constitution for the precise purpose should it ever be needed.

The anti-Snowndenards being perceived as those trying to take those freedoms away.

Spengler predicted a long time ago that the final battle would be between Money and the Blood. And here it is.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Wed 12 Feb, 2014 04:31 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

What makes you think that Bradley Manning did not get a fair trial?


His treatment.


He was treated fine at the trial...always resplendent in his starched uniform. He did not seem in any kind of distress. There were rumors that he was mistreated before the trial. He may have been, but I have never seen hard evidence that he was.

Quote:
Quote:
The UN special rapporteur on torture has formally accused the US government of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment towards Bradley Manning, the US soldier who was held in solitary confinement for almost a year on suspicion of being the WikiLeaks source.

Juan Mendez has completed a 14-month investigation into the treatment of Manning since the soldier's arrest at a US military base in May 2010. He concludes that the US military was at least culpable of cruel and inhumane treatment in keeping Manning locked up alone for 23 hours a day over an 11-month period in conditions that he also found might have constituted torture.

"The special rapporteur concludes that imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence," Mendez writes.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un


He may or may not have been treated poorly while being detained. I still have not seen conclusive proof that he was.

In any case, at the trial, he was treated very reasonably...and showed no signs of distress or poor treatment whatsoever.

Quote:
Stick to the facts, stop making assumptions and guesses.


Are you assuming you have the right to talk to me that way, Izzy? You are going to assume I am not sticking to the "facts" and that I am operating on assumptions and guesses.

I have no idea of why it has gotten this way between us...but I will not participate in it by being as rude to you in kind.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Wed 12 Feb, 2014 04:47 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Seem like you are supporting my position that we are going toward a totalitarian state in fact by your comments we are even further down the road in your opinion then I think we are as you are stating that the people no longer can effect the course of our government and all those who are unhappy can do is leave.


Except for its laughable quality, all this blather about our country becoming less free and headed toward fascism...is some of the most useless and inane nonsense ever attempted to be sold.

Our country has become a freer place…and the notion that it is approaching fascism is farcical. One has to suspend common sense to suppose something like that.

Just a few decades back, if you had been identified as a person DEFENDING an individual who stole classified government intelligence documents; released them to the public; and then fled to China and Russia for asylum…you would have been skewered.

Any newspaper taking the defense of someone doing that would probably have been burned to the ground.

Today…you people have no trouble whatever defending Edward Snowden…who did all those things. You feel completely safe doing it…you write letters to the editors of newspapers…and sign petitions defending him.

That would not have happened back then…and you all know it.

The entire thesis that the US has moved closer to being a totalitarian state is absurd and laughable; the kind of stuff only indulged in by the tin-foil brigade. We have not moved in that direction at all…and in fact, have moved significantly in the opposite direction of more freedom of expression.


0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Wed 12 Feb, 2014 04:53 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
I see that the USA military and cops use tor, Bill


Yes the US navy research department first develop tor to meet the navy needs before releasing the technology.
.
Snowden with all his inside information on NSA capabilities used tor and truecrypt and pgp and have the reporters he deal with used that software also.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Wed 12 Feb, 2014 05:32 pm
@Frank Apisa,
The very idea that someone who has been subject to torture can have a fair trial is nonsensical. Regardless of anything else, the torture invalidates the claim.

I realise you're not of the opinion he was tortured, but as far as opinions go I'll take the UN special rapporteur on torture's opinion over yours any day.

You're the one who is being rude, dismissing every thing I say as being down to an anti-American bias when I have been as critical of the British government's part in this whole shady business.

If you something offhand just so you don't have to examine it, don't be upset when you get called an ostrich. You dismissed the report of the UN special rapporteur on torture's opinion out of hand. Why not read it to get the expert opinion from the leading neutral international organisation? It's very easy to dismiss it as anti-Americanism so you don't have to deal with the truth.

I have based my arguments on facts, and as far as opinions go, expert ones.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 12 Feb, 2014 05:48 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

The very idea that someone who has been subject to torture can have a fair trial is nonsensical. Regardless of anything else, the torture invalidates the claim.

I realise you're not of the opinion he was tortured, but as far as opinions go I'll take the UN special rapporteur on torture's opinion over yours any day.

You're the one who is being rude, dismissing every thing I say as being down to an anti-American bias when I have been as critical of the British government's part in this whole shady business.

If you something offhand just so you don't have to examine it, don't be upset when you get called an ostrich. You dismissed the report of the UN special rapporteur on torture's opinion out of hand. Why not read it to get the expert opinion from the leading neutral international organisation? It's very easy to dismiss it as anti-Americanism so you don't have to deal with the truth.

I have based my arguments on facts, and as far as opinions go, expert ones.


Izzy...you are so far out of line, I suspect you cannot see the forest for the trees.

Manning got a fair trial. He may or may not have been mistreated beforehand...but to suppose that makes the trial suspect is an absurdity.

If you want to suppose you are basing your comments on facts...do it. I think you are guessing and speculating every bit as much as I, but you don't seem to be able to acknowledge it.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 12 Feb, 2014 06:01 pm
Manning gets torture and 35 years in prison, while the government officials who broke US and international laws gets off scott free!

From Huff Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/bradley-manning-prison_n_3789867.html

Quote:
"Shouldn't we be deterring people who commit torture?"


Also,
Quote:
List of Torture Techniques Applied to Pfc. Bradley Manning:

1. Solitary Confinement/Isolation

Solitary confinement is strictly prohibited under international law. It is a cruel practice which causes permanent psychological damage. The impacts can range from hallucinations, emotional damage, delusions and impaired cognitive functioning to anxiety and depression. Solitary confinement is outlawed under the Convention Against Torture, ICCPR and the Geneva Conventions.

Manning was in solitary confinement in Kuwait and Quantico for nine months. He was in a cage (Kuwait) or a small, windowless cell for 23 hours a day. He was given 20 minutes of "sunshine call" each day, during which he could "walk" figure eights in restraints with guards holding him up. Eventually, he received 1 hour of recreation per day--still woefully below legal standards. His treating military psychologist, Col. Rick Malone, much to his credit, testified that

The ways he was being held was detrimental to his physical and mental health. His custody status was a stressor . . . He was taken of medications after several weeks because he was symptom-free. . .in complete remission . . .and posed no harm to himself or others.
2. Humiliation Techniques
Bradley Manning, being held alternatively in "suicide risk" and "prevention of injury" status (despite military psychologists testifying that he posed no risk of injury to himself or others) pointed out that

If I really wanted to kill myself, I could use my underwear.
Even though he was under 24/7 observation, the military took his underpants. At the routine count the next morning, he covered himself with the prevention-of-injury sandpaper blanket. An officer asked,
Detainee Manning, Is that how you stand at parade rest?
Manning requested clarification. He was soon standing completely naked for morning count. Forced nudity is used to induce feelings of humiliation and fear. Manning also had to request toilet paper any time he needed to relieve himself. This was supposedly an anti-suicide measure, which is belied by the fact that he was under constant surveillance.
3. Sleep Deprivation

Upon his initial confinement in Kuwait, Manning's days and nights were reversed, being awoken in the evening and kept up all night. Sleep deprivation is a very effective torture technique used by torturers because it makes a person more suggestible, reduces psychological resistance and it reduces the body’s capacity to resist pain. It had this very effect on Manning, causing him to have what has been described as an "anxiety attack" and "nervous breakdown." Once he was moved to Quantico, guards awakened Manning multiple times on multiple nights each week, and a flourescent light was always visible from his cell. The Committee against Torture (CAT) has noted that sleep deprivation used for prolonged periods constitutes a breach of the CAT, and is primarily used to break down the will of the detainee. Sleep deprivation can cause impaired memory and cognitive functioning, decreased short term memory, speech impairment, hallucinations, psychosis, lowered immunity, headaches, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, stress, anxiety and depression...even though Manning was supposedly in restricted custodial status due to anxiety and depression.

4. Sensory Deprivation

Sensory deprivation is used to instil a sense of fear, disorientation and cause dependency on their captor. Sensory deprivation has also been attributed to increased pain sensitivity and increased psychological stress. The military confiscated Manning's glasses, without which he cannot see. So all of the isolation he endured, he did so while essentially blind.

5. Stress Positions

Manning was kept shackled in his cell. He was told he had to stand because he was still "on duty." If he sat, he was not allowed to lean against the wall or lie down. The strangest thing was the "tear-proof smock," which was really a nearly floor-length, rigid, abrasive rubber-and-foam straight jacket. Manning donned this restraint, which he often had to wear with nothing on beneath. Manning got stuck in this device, which was supposedly for his protection, and had to be extracted by guards.

These physically and psychologically abusive techniques were used to disorient Manning and induce regression, psychic disintegration, and feelings of helplessness that lowered his defenses. He would routinely go through perfunctory "wellness checklists," and didn't start advocating for himself until his amazing attorney, David Coombs, told him to start filing formal grievances contesting his conditions of confinement so he could exhaust his administrative remedies. (These formal grievances led to 3 sham "Classified & Assignment Board" hearing, which Manning testified had already decided to keep him on restricted status.)

These techniques were used not by rogue CIA thugs, but by the military--on someone in pre-trial detention, not found guilty to have done anything.

ORIGINALLY POSTED TO JESSELYN RADACK ON SAT DEC 01, 2012 AT 07:07 AM PST.

ALSO REPUBLISHED BY INHERENT HUMAN RIGHTS, BLOGGERS AGAINST TORTURE, AND OCCUPY WALL STREET.

TAGS
spendius
 
  2  
Wed 12 Feb, 2014 06:03 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Manning got a fair trial. He may or may not have been mistreated beforehand...but to suppose that makes the trial suspect is an absurdity.


I have already dealt with that ridiculous point with my reference to the trial of Michael Servetus which Apisa would obviously approve of.

The Courts Martials and executions of soldiers in WW1 for "desertion" is another case in point.

As well as the numerous purges we have all read about.

Supporting the authorities whatever they do is a sign of insecurity bordering on panic.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Wed 12 Feb, 2014 07:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The exclamation mark illustrates that you are surprised, CI. That is how it has always been in rule of law America but you already know this.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Wed 12 Feb, 2014 07:08 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank: .always resplendent in his starched uniform

That had to have been the ultimate torture of all, dressed up in the costume of the very criminals he exposed.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Wed 12 Feb, 2014 07:11 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I have never come across anyone as delusional as you, frank Apisa, and I have encountered many many Americans.
anonymously99
 
  0  
Wed 12 Feb, 2014 08:24 pm
@JTT,
I'm afraid you're making some not want to like you because of your anger you have.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 02:01 am
What really doesn't surprise me (on the other side, it does!) is, that quite a few Republicans are ... well, not pro-Snowden but kind of "pro-Snowden-documents".

Like Napolitano in his Washington Times' opinion or Rand Paul sueing Obama over the NSA data collection.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 02:29 am
@Frank Apisa,
You're the one whose who argument is based on guesses and speculations. It doesn't matter how much evidence is placed in front of you, you'd rather live in a fantasy land. Well fair enough you do that.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 07:34 am
@Walter Hinteler,
You can trust the libertarians to go mad about Washington spying on citizens. The GOP at large has joined the Snowden scapegoating spree.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 08:12 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

You're the one whose who argument is based on guesses and speculations. It doesn't matter how much evidence is placed in front of you, you'd rather live in a fantasy land. Well fair enough you do that.



FACT: My argument IS that Snowden is charged with serious crimes.

I have submitted the evidence that he has been charged with serious crimes.

My opinion is that he should face trial...or, if he chooses, he should stay in asylum in Russia.

You simply do not want to accept that fact...an so you continue to talk about the guesses and speculations.

revelette2
 
  1  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 09:08 am
Exclusive: Snowden Swiped Password From NSA Coworker

Quote:
While the memo’s account is sketchy, it suggests that, contrary to Snowden’s statements, he used an element of trickery to retrieve his trove of tens of thousands of classified documents: “At Snowden’s request,” the civilian NSA employee, who is not identified by name, entered his password onto Snowden’s computer terminal, the memo states.

“Unbeknownst to the civilian, Mr. Snowden was able to capture the password, allowing him even greater access to classified information,” the memo states.

The memo states that the civilian employee was unaware that Snowden “intended to unlawfully disclose classified information.” Nevertheless, by sharing with Snowden his personal “public key infrastructure” certificate -- a system of highly secure credentials that provided greater access to NSA’s internal computer system -- the employee “failed to comply with security obligations,” the memo states. As a result, the employee’s security clearance was revoked in November and the NSA has notified the Justice Department that he recently resigned. (A public key infrastructure certificate is a highly secure system of password and log-in exchanges designed to protect against unauthorized access to sensitive computer networks.)

The memo does not explain what actions the U.S. military member and the contractor took that caused them to lose their access to NSA facilities.

The Feb. 10 memo was signed by Ethan Bauman, the NSA’s director of legislative affairs. It was sent to the congressional committees after repeated questions from senior members about whether the NSA intended to hold any of its employees accountable for the security lapses that enable Snowden to gain access to massive volumes of classified documents that he later leaked to the news media

“Has anybody been disciplined at NSA for dropping the ball so badly?” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., demanded of NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander at a Dec. 11 hearing. Alexander at the time replied that the agency had three “cases” that “we’re currently reviewing.” (An NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines declined comment Wednesday night, writing in an email: “I don’t have anything for your story.”)

The question of how Snowden was able to obtain as much classified material as he did while working at a remote NSA station in Hawaii has been the subject of intensive investigation by the U.S. intelligence community for months.

Reuters reporters Mark Hosenball and Warren Strobel reported in November that Snowden used login credential and passwords provided “unwittingly” by colleagues at the Hawaii spy base. The Reuters report said Snowden “may have persuaded between 20 and 25 fellow workers” to give him their passwords. But the NSA never publicly commented on that report and Snowden appeared to deny it during a public Google chat on Jan. 23.

“Was the privacy of your co-workers considered while you were stealing their log-in and password information?” Snowden was asked during the chat.

“With all due respect to Mark Hosenball, the Reuters report that put this out there was simply wrong,” Snowden replied. “I never stole any passwords, nor did I trick an army of co-workers.”

Ben Wizner, a lawyer for the ACLU who represents Snowden, did not immediately respond to phone and email requests for comment.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 09:20 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
“With all due respect to Mark Hosenball, the Reuters report that put this out there was simply wrong,” Snowden replied. “I never stole any passwords, nor did I trick an army of co-workers.”


Interesting question as on the one hand we have Snowden word on this subject and on the other hand we have the word of a government agency that we know had lied to congress and to the american people in the past over national security matters.

My vote is for Snowden as the old saying of fool me once shame on you me fool me twice shame on me, seems to apply here.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 09:39 am
@Frank Apisa,
I'm quite happy to discuss that fact, you're not happy to discuss the fact that the NSA broke its country's laws. Snowden is the minor lawbreaker in all of this.
revelette2
 
  1  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 09:41 am
@BillRM,
So you really think they randomly just picked a couple of fall guys out of the blue and the civilian who worked at NSA who had the special clearance revoked (again just randomly picked) just resigned because they made his life intolerable or something like that? And to cement it, the military got in on it and randomly revoked the clearances of a couple of guys there too?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 288
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 05/18/2025 at 08:52:51