Support NeoGAF

[Trouble]

Amazing

 

[Slacker]

pls print

I honestly can't wrap my head around what's happening here. Here's what I know:

1. Someone asks where Abedin might end up in a Clinton White House (I assumed, maybe naively, that this is an innocent question).

2. I respond that she's worked for Clinton for a long time so I'd assume she'd be put in a high up position in the Clinton administration.

3. You say "Wow, more than we need to know. Much more."

4. I'm baffled, and ask why you say "Wow." You provide text from some righty rag explaining that idiots think Clinton might be gay.

I guess I don't need any further information - I'm just trying to figure out what you're trying to say.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

More on those scumbags at Goodwill:




It's not really secret.

So the example you just happened to pick, presumably as typical, is actually so atypical as to have been investigated?

cmonson.gif

 

[GaimeGuy]

Fuck the GOP holding for ransom the day to day operations of the government over their crusade against women, minorities, and the poor using a boogeyman as a smokescreen. AGAIN.

 

[benjipwns]

So the example you just happened to pick, presumably as typical, is actually so atypical as to have been investigated?

cmonson.gif

You really think it's hard to find non-profits where >15% of the revenue goes to executives?

I didn't expect to see that 50% of it went to executives! gg goodwill lol

I honestly can't wrap my head around what's happening here. Here's what I know:

1. Someone asks where Abedin might end up in a Clinton White House (I assumed, maybe naively, that this is an innocent question).

2. I respond that she's worked for Clinton for a long time so I'd assume she'd be put in a high up position in the Clinton administration.

3. You say "Wow, more than we need to know. Much more."

4. I'm baffled, and ask why you say "Wow." You provide text from some righty rag explaining that idiots think Clinton might be gay.

I guess I don't need any further information - I'm just trying to figure out what you're trying to say.

At least Bill Clinton was a HETERO hound dog.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I honestly can't wrap my head around what's happening here. Here's what I know:

1. Someone asks where Abedin might end up in a Clinton White House (I assumed, maybe naively, that this is an innocent question).

2. I respond that she's worked for Clinton for a long time so I'd assume she'd be put in a high up position in the Clinton administration.

3. You say "Wow, more than we need to know. Much more."

4. I'm baffled, and ask why you say "Wow." You provide text from some righty rag explaining that idiots think Clinton might be gay.

I guess I don't need any further information - I'm just trying to figure out what you're trying to say.

Benji is trying to say "boy, these people are easy to fuck with."

 

[ivysaur12]

Benji.

 

[HylianTom]

I'm sitting here giggling at all of this.

When you go into any FreeRepublic thread about Huma, the commenters there usually end-up posting pics that look like Hillary is staring at, say, a pert pair of breasts.. that kind of thing. I always end-up clicking on those threads, just to laugh at whatever new pics they produce.

 

[RustyNails]

I honestly can't wrap my head around what's happening here. Here's what I know:

1. Someone asks where Abedin might end up in a Clinton White House (I assumed, maybe naively, that this is an innocent question).

2. I respond that she's worked for Clinton for a long time so I'd assume she'd be put in a high up position in the Clinton administration.

3. You say "Wow, more than we need to know. Much more."

4. I'm baffled, and ask why you say "Wow." You provide text from some righty rag explaining that idiots think Clinton might be gay.

I guess I don't need any further information - I'm just trying to figure out what you're trying to say.

You getting trolled broski

But I agree that she might end up as a deputy chief of staff.

 

[Retromelon]

Sometimes when you post too vaguely when youre trolling and want to cover your ass, you mess up
Gotta be careful

 

[benjipwns]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-deportation-warmly-humanely

Donald Trump dodged divulging specifics of how he plans to deport the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants during a Thursday morning interview with Alisyn Camerota on CNN's "New Day."

Trump has been vocal that he plans to deport all undocumented immigrants from the country, but has yet to tell how he will go about it.

Camerota asked, "How would you specifically go about it?"

Trump then dodged the question.

"Through good management and through a process. And the process is the bad ones go and they never come back," Trump said. "They’re never coming back. The really good ones, and there are many, they will go and they will come back legally. They’ll come back on an expedited system."

She then asked if he would use the National Guard or police to enforce the policy.

"I would use different forms," Trump said. "It will take place and it will be done effectively and warmly and humanely. And a lot of people will be very happy about it. Did you know i had a good hispanic poll the other day?"

Trump then pivoted into talking about his poll numbers.

I'm sitting here giggling at all of this.

When you go into any FreeRepublic thread about Huma, the commenters there usually end-up posting pics that look like Hillary is staring at, say, a pert pair of breasts.. that kind of thing. I always end-up clicking on those threads, just to laugh at whatever new pics they produce.

From the link:

 

[Fenderputty]

When the updated lesbian fan fic from PD coming?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

You really think it's hard to find non-profits where >15% of the revenue goes to executives?

I didn't expect to see that 50% of it went to executives! gg goodwill lol


At least Bill Clinton was a HETERO hound dog.

Revenues? Or what would be profit?

 

[NeoXChaos]

https://twitter.com/MoCGruber/status/647162872313835520

 

[HylianTom]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-deportation-warmly-humanely

From the link:

There's another one out there of Hillary and Janet Reno in a strip club that always cracks me up..

(And Trump is already on Twitter bragging about that NH poll.. damn, he's quick!)

 

[PhoenixDark]

When the updated lesbian fan fic from PD coming?

I can't stand lesbian porn, why would I write a fanfic of it.

On a serious note it's clear Huma and Hillary are really good friends who have gravitated to each other in part due to sharing similar marital grief. Both are smart, attractive women who were rejected by husbands who crave nonstop attention.

 

[benjipwns]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...7a811c-5b22-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

An Obama administration working group has explored four possible approaches tech companies might use that would allow law enforcement to unlock encrypted communications — access that some tech firms say their systems are not set up to provide.

The group concluded that the solutions were “technically feasible,” but all had drawbacks as well.

You don't say?

Senior officials do not intend to advance the solutions as “administration proposals” — or even want them shared outside the government, according to a draft memo obtained by The Washington Post.

...

“Any proposed solution almost certainly would quickly become a focal point for attacks,” said the unclassified memo, drafted this summer by officials from law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic and economic agencies for eventual consideration by Cabinet members.

“Rather than sparking more discussion, government-proposed technical approaches would almost certainly be perceived as proposals to introduce ‘backdoors’ or vulnerabilities in technology products and services and increase tensions rather [than] build cooperation,” the memo said.

You don't say?

The first potential solution called for providers to add a physical, encrypted port to their devices. Companies would maintain a separate set of keys to unlock devices, using that port only if law enforcement had physical access to a device and obtained a court order to compel the company’s assistance.

The second approach would exploit companies’ automatic software updates. Under a court order, the company could insert spyware onto targeted customers’ phones or tablets — essentially hacking the device. However, the memo warned, this could “call into question the trustworthiness of established software update channels” and might lead some users to opt out of updates, which would eventually leave their devices less secure.

Under the final approach, which officials called a “forced backup,” companies under court order would be required to upload data stored on an encrypted device to an unencrypted location. But this might put significant constraints on companies, the memo noted, saying it would require that they design new backup channels or “substantially” modify existing systems.

All four approaches amount to what most cryptography experts call a “backdoor” because they would require developers to alter their systems by adding a surreptitious mechanism for accessing encrypted content, according to Joseph Lorenzo Hall, chief technologist at the Center for Democracy & Technology.

Law enforcement officials have rejected the “backdoor” terminology. “We aren’t seeking a backdoor approach. We want to use the front door, with clarity and transparency, and with clear guidance provided by law,” FBI chief James B. Comey said at the Brookings Institution in October.

The forced backup also has drawbacks, law enforcement officials said. The user has to be connected to WiFi, and such backups drain battery power more quickly, which the user might notice.

lol

Even if law enforcement is able to persuade major tech companies to create ways for investigators to obtain decrypted information from devices, users can still secure their communications by relying on encrypted apps, the memo said.

Also, a number of encryption solutions are built by groups of open-source developers, who make the software available for free on the Internet. The open-source nature of the code makes it harder to hide a backdoor. And because the developers are often dispersed among different countries and volunteers who are not working for any company, it is impractical for law enforcement to serve an order on one that’s enforceable on all.

“[T]hese challenges mean that inaccessible encryption will always be available to malicious actors,” the memo said.

Ban it.

Ban encryption. If you don't have anything to hide you don't need it.

And FOIA requests.

And encrypted FOIA requests.

 

[User1608]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-deportation-warmly-humanely



From the link:

It better be expedited Trump, or I'll be smuggling bananas forevah. Hah hah, no specifics for the main topic that his campaign rests on. Smh.

 

[RustyNails]

Guys, less lesbo fantasies and more appointment speculations. Will she get a secretary level post?

 

[Incognito]

New CNN/WMUR NH Democratic poll:
Bernie Sanders 46
Hillary Clinton 30
Joe Biden 14
Martin O'Malley 2
Sept. 17-23, 314 D voters, +/-5.5%

 

[Fenderputty]

I can't stand lesbian porn, why would I write a fanfic of it.

On a serious note it's clear Huma and Hillary are really good friends who have gravitated to each other in part due to sharing similar marital grief. Both are smart, attractive women who were rejected by husbands who crave nonstop attention.

You're like half way there already man. Great set up.

 

[Aaron Strife]

You know, if Hillary really is having a secret love affair with Huma, all I can say is - get it.

Kind of hope Boehner lets the government shut down for a week or so before inevitably caving to the Democrats on a clean CR. Enough to drag the Republican brand through the mud (again), and caving could trigger a vote of no confidence in which Pelosi secures his Speakership in exchange for floor votes on immigration reform, a minimum wage increase, restoring the Voting Rights Act and ENDA.

 

[benjipwns]

Biden needs to get campaigning in NH, his numbers there aren't showing any of the Joementium.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Like the Republican race, the Democratic race remains fluid. The polls showed only 25 percent of likely Democratic primary voters have definitely decided who they will vote for, while 28 percent are leaning toward a candidate and 47 percent are still trying to decide.

Hmm.

 

[benjipwns]

You're like half way there already man. Great set up.

Both are even more distressed when they're sent to prison over the e-mails. Obama pulls some strings and gets them the same cell.

Unfortunately, the air conditioning is broken, and things are slowly becoming sweaty and steamy even after lights out.

 

[Coriolanus]

I can't stand lesbian porn, why would I write a fanfic of it.

On a serious note it's clear Huma and Hillary are really good friends who have gravitated to each other in part due to sharing similar marital grief. Both are smart, attractive women who were rejected by husbands who crave nonstop attention.

Last part goes for every politician that ever sought high office, really.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...7a811c-5b22-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html
You don't say?
Ban it.
Ban encryption. If you don't have anything to hide you don't need it.
And FOIA requests.
And encrypted FOIA requests.

It is one of those things that kinda make me sometimes wish for a milisecond that republicans had the presidency. At least then there would pe democratic pushback against this sort of thing. Maybe.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Last part goes for every politician that ever sought high office, really.

Not Obama.

 

[FloydtheFathead]

Both are even more distressed when they're sent to prison over the e-mails. Obama pulls some strings and gets them the same cell.

Unfortunately, the air conditioning is broken, and things are slowly becoming sweaty and steamy even after lights out.

And then Hillary whispers in her ear.. Pls print. Lol

 

[benjipwns]

http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/a...clusive-donald-trump-exclaims-god-is-the.aspx

David Brody: “Who is God to you? What are some of your thoughts on this? Clearly, you’re a smart man, you’re a smart businessman, you’ve contemplated this before or have you contemplate this?”

Donald Trump: “Well I say God is the ultimate. You know you look at this? Here we are on the Pacific Ocean. How did I ever own this? I bought it fifteen years ago. I made one of the great deals they say ever. I have no more mortgage on it as I will certify and represent to you. And I was able to buy this and make a great deal. That’s what I want to do for the country. Make great deals. We have to, we have to bring it back, but God is the ultimate. I mean God created this (points to his golf course and nature surrounding it), and here’s the Pacific Ocean right behind us. So nobody, no thing, no there’s nothing like God.”

one of the great deals they say EVER

 

[Fenderputty]

More like fortunately ehh *wink wink*

 

[benjipwns]

It is one of those things that kinda make me sometimes wish for a milisecond that republicans had the presidency. At least then there would pe democratic pushback against this sort of thing. Maybe.

From the comments tee hee:

Kirby Galveston
2:47 PM EDT

http://change.gov/agenda/technology_agenda/
some of the Obama-Biden campaign promises

•Safeguard our Right to Privacy: Strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy.
•Open Up Government to its Citizens: Use cutting-edge technologies to create a new level of transparency, accountability, and participation for America's citizens.
•Bring Government into the 21st Century: Use technology to reform government and improve the exchange of information between the federal government and citizens while ensuring the security of our networks. Appoint the nation's first Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to ensure the safety of our networks and lead an interagency effort, working with chief technology and chief information officers of each of the federal agencies, to ensure that they use best-in-class technologies and share best practices.

From the "suggested stories": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...roys-in-oregon/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na

The Drug Enforcement Administration spent $960,000 to destroy marijuana plants in that state in 2014 as part of its "Cannabis Eradication Program," according to a recent report by NBC affiliate KGW in Portland, Ore.

That year, the DEA succeeded in removing 16,067 pot plants from Oregon, which at first blush sounds like a lot of weed. But when you do the math, that works out to a cost to taxpayers of $60 per uprooted plant. That is a lot when you consider that nationally, it costs the DEA *ahem* $4.20 to eliminate a single marijuana plant under this program.

The DEA has budgeted $760,000 in marijuana eradication funds for Oregon this year, according to KGW. Considering that marijuana is now legal in that state, many Oregonians — including some members of Congress — are questioning whether that's a sensible endeavor. They are trying to defund the federal anti-pot program that costs about $18 million a year overall.

So much for the children in Oregon, and across the country...

 

[NeoXChaos]

Melkr_ you slacking man.

-Bernie Sanders 46%
-Hillary Clinton 30%
-Joe Biden 14%
-Martin O'Malley 2%

 

[NYCmetsfan]

No, it's that progressives pretend that state mandated/restricted licenses are anything but a protection racket.

Licensed drivers commit the vast vast majority of accidents. Where's the evidence that licensed drivers are safer and reduce risk more than unlicensed ones? You can't compare it because the latter can't be counted except when they do something wrong.

More importantly is taking into account that the mere act of criminalizing unlicensed behavior skews the data. Hence commercial retailers of schedule one drugs are so often criminals and thus more willing to engage in risky and criminal behavior unrelated to their unlicensed commerce.

So you're saying people shouldn't be tested for their knowledge of safety and proper operation before they're given permission to drive a car, truck or motorcycle?

Of course they commit the most, because its required. How is it a racket? Who is it keeping from driving? People who can't drive and know the signs of the road?

If you don't understand the difference between near-immediate self-defense in person and murdering innocent Americans from the sky on a whim I can't help you or Justice Scalia.

I'm talking about a raid like bin laden. Is if it was a raid with a shoot to kill order on alwaki would it be better?

And its absurd to require the solider to be put in harms way before he can kill someone doing active harm.

and no I'm not endorsing the killing of alwakis cousin. If he was targeted I don't think you can justify it. Alwaki? no problems. He was actively working with those planning attacks on the US.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...7a811c-5b22-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

You don't say?


You don't say?






lol


Ban it.

Ban encryption. If you don't have anything to hide you don't need it.

And FOIA requests.

And encrypted FOIA requests.

Wow its almost like security is a difficult thing and raises questions of balance about openness, privacy, inviting bad actors, etc. The worlds not black and white!

That approach is a lot better than snark and the idea that privacy above all else! It denies the state the ability to in your words "use the threat of violence to coerce people into doing things"

A principle that all but libertarians embrace by the way when its in accordance with democratic principles.

If there's anything I hate more than people who hate the idea of welfare is these privacy absolutists and their desire to shut off avenues for democratic control. The only people that can go full privacy have be libertarians

 

[Coriolanus]

Benj was actually providing an argument for more and stricter regulations, you see.

And its absurd to require the solider to be put in harms way before he can kill someone doing active harm.

Ah, but is there evidence that all killed were doing active harm? On top of that, did they present a clear and imminent threat?
Unless they present a clear and imminent threat, you arrest them. You don't bomb them.

 

[benjipwns]

So you're saying people shouldn't be tested for their knowledge of safety and proper operation before they're given permission to drive a car, truck or motorcycle?

I don't know why you would get that from anything I wrote. Of course the owner of the road is free to institute whichever rules he or she wishes.

How is it a racket?

Follow the money.

I'm talking about a raid like bin laden. Is if it was a raid with a shoot to kill order on alwaki would it be better?

And its absurd to require the solider to be put in harms way before he can kill someone doing active harm.

So when you responded to my facetiously posed question to Scalia you actually were talking about something 100% different from the question he was asked about. In which a soldier is inherently in harms way.

Alwaki? no problems.

So you do agree with Scalia, having no problems with an innocent American citizen being murdered by the federal government.

Wow its almost like security is a difficult thing and raises questions of balance about openness, privacy, inviting bad actors, etc. The worlds not black and white!

That approach is a lot better than snark and the idea that privacy above all else! It denies the state the ability to in your words "use the threat of violence to coerce people into doing things"

A principle that all but libertarians embrace by the way when its in accordance with democratic principles.

If there's anything I hate more than people who hate the idea of welfare is these privacy absolutists and their desire to shut off avenues for democratic control. The only people that can go full privacy have be libertarians

What in the hell is this rant even supposed to be about. Are you seriously arguing that the state should have backdoors into everyone's security methods because that grants "democratic control"?

what in the fuck am i reading

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Benj was actually providing an argument for more and stricter regulations, you see.


Ah, but is there evidence that all killed were doing active harm? On top of that, did they present a clear and imminent threat?
Unless they present a clear and imminent threat, you arrest them. You don't bomb them.

Alwaki? Yes. restricting imminent threat to a few minuet or hour time table means that a state has to intentionally put people at risk to secure some vauge and probably never sastifying "proof of imminence".

I favor curtailing the drone program severly. I think its far to lax. But if we can come up with a way to figure out a system similar to "clear and imminent" that can translate that to current war I favor its use within that context.

In war its far to morter people, drop cruse missles on legit targets, snipe people without informing them. I don't see how a drone strike on a legit target is differnt.

The problem is defining what is a legit target.

 

[benjipwns]

Alwaki? Yes. restricting imminent threat to a few minuet or hour time table means that a state has to intentionally put people at risk to secure some vauge and probably never sastifying "proof of imminence".

That's what George W. Bush was trying to tell everybody!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So you do agree with Scalia, having no problems with an innocent American citizen being murdered by the federal government.

Innocent? I have an issue with? People waging war? No problem

What in the hell is this rant even supposed to be about. Are you seriously arguing that the state should have backdoors into everyone's security methods because that grants "democratic control"?

No but the rants I read from greenwald and libertrains about the government not having a legitiment right to being able to set up any way to act on certain people breaking the law is anti-democratic. That absolute privacy. That people should about the technological eliminate warrants is undemocratic. The state should be able to serve warrants and technology shouldn't be able to make that impossible because that eventually would lead to a world in which the state can't act. And individuals have a veto over society which is a horrible world IMO. Of course its a dream world for libertarians but it would be horrible for those who are at any disadvantage. And without the states ability to stop bad actors we couldn't rectify this.

And my "state" is democratic, so equate it with "the people"

Should criminals should be able to say no to the state prosecuting them. That's what I'm arguing about. I'm not arguing for any specific proposal but the idea that we shouldn't give up absolute privacy rights for security is absurd and something everybody already agrees to with the idea of a warrant.

That's what George W. Bush was trying to tell everybody!

Way to read the rest of the post where I say there needs to be a clear definition. I just think the 'imminence' in its current use is wrong, inapplicable and dangerous.

I still have the "clear" which the iraq war would have failed.

 

[Coriolanus]

Alwaki? Yes. restricting imminent threat to a few minuet or hour time table means that a state has to intentionally put people at risk to secure some vauge and probably never sastifying "proof of imminence".

In war its far to morter people, drop cruse missles on legit targets, snipe people without informing them. I don't see how a drone strike on a legit target is differnt.

The problem is defining what is a legit target.

Yes, the state would have to put soldiers at risk. It's their bloody job. If they're uncomfortable with that they shouldn't have signed up. Not like they were drafted. If the state doesn't want to put those people at risk, they'd get them out of the country they've invaded.

Additionally, as you've said, in war it is fair to a whole lot of things to military installations and personnel. Which those people aren't.

Fucksake, just imagine if police in your country ever started used those bullshit excuses.

 

[benjipwns]

Innocent? I have an issue with

al-Awlaki was never found guilty, let alone tried, by the United States. He was therefore innocent.

His 16 year old son also was. Despite not having been born with a "better father" as the President's spokesman suggested.

Neither was murdered in a country in which the United States was in a declared state of war.

No but the rants I read from greenwald and libertrains about the government not having a legitiment right to being able to set up any way to act on certain people breaking the law is anti-democratic. That absolute privacy. That people should about the technological eliminate warrants is undemocratic. The state should be able to serve warrants and technology shouldn't be able to make that impossible because that eventually would lead to a world in which the state can't act. And individuals have a veto over society which is a horrible world IMO. Of course its a dream world for libertarians but it would be horrible for those who are at any disadvantage. And without the states ability to stop bad actors we couldn't rectify this.

So you're willing to sacrifice both liberty and security (because backdoors inherently make the system insecure) so the state can act against people it dislikes? Is that what you're trying to say here?

 

[pigeon]

So you're willing to sacrifice both liberty and security (because backdoors inherently make the system insecure) so the state can act against people it dislikes? Is that what you're trying to say here?

Uh, I mean, I think most people in this thread have already agreed to make this sacrifice? Hence, like, the police existing? Is this news to you?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yes, the state would have to put soldiers at risk. It's their bloody job. If they're uncomfortable with that they shouldn't have signed up. Not like they were drafted. If the state doesn't want to put those people at risk, they'd get them out of the country they've invaded.

Additionally, as you've said, in war it is fair to a whole lot of things to military installations and personnel. Which those people aren't.

Fucksake, just imagine if police in your country ever started used those bullshit excuses.

Al awaki and al queda base camps are those things, a truck full of known and confirmed terrorists is.

I'm not for bombing weddings based on nothing but patterns though. Read what I'm arguing for rather than assuming I'm justifying the current policy.

And police aren't the military, they're held to different standards. The fact that different system have different rules is a commonly used idea. The conflation with the two doesn't flow (though the militarization of the police does bother me BECAUSE they use different rules)

and the idea that nations must put their soliders at risk is an absurd one and one that has no iota of historical precident. Yes, armys may be limited in their tactics but you're logical leads to the idea that the only fair war is were everybody is fighting with the same weapons and no nation can have a technological more advanced weapons because it keeps people save.

 

[benjipwns]

Uh, I mean, I think most people in this thread have already agreed to make this sacrifice? Hence, like, the police existing? Is this news to you?

How are the police...I...

what

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

How are the police...I...

what

The state dislikes people who break its laws, people who may have been born here by no choice of their own and weren't given a say in said laws. It will act out against those people with the police. I.E. The state will act out against people it dislikes.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

al-Awlaki was never found guilty, let alone tried, by the United States. He was therefore innocent.

His 16 year old son also was. Despite not having been born with a "better father" as the President's spokesman suggested.

Neither was murdered in a country in which the United States was in a declared state of war.

Him never having a trial doesn't make him innocent, that's not how it even works in the US and with a trial.

And the US sure did kill a lot of innocents in the US civil war (which also never had a declaration of war! and killed US citizens!) I mean they even fired morter shots sometimes (the 19th century drone)

and to the bolded

Section 2 – Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

I mean you can argue its unconstitutional but I don't think a court is going to say an act of war is unconstitutional or that wars must not kill americans.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So you're willing to sacrifice both liberty and security (because backdoors inherently make the system insecure) so the state can act against people it dislikes? Is that what you're trying to say here?

You mean suspected criminals? Yes.

Again, I'm arguing for the existence of warrants. A state has evidence of a crime, it can go to a court get permission to knock down a door to serve that warrant..

Again, read what I'm arguing. Not what you want me to argue. I'm not saying it should spy on americans, nor am I arguing for things like CONTELPRO using these type of systems

 

[benjipwns]

Him never having a trial doesn't make him innocent, that's not how it even works in the US and with a trial.

And the US sure did kill a lot of innocents in the US civil war (which also never had a declaration of war! and killed US citizens!) I mean they even fired morter shots sometimes (the 19th century drone)
and to the bolded



I mean you can argue its unconstitutional but I don't think a court is going to say an act of war is unconstitutional or that wars must not kill americans.

what in the fuck am i reading

The state dislikes people who break its laws, people who may have been born here by no choice of their own and weren't given a say in said laws. It will act out against those people with the police. I.E. The state will act out against people it dislikes.

Okay...this and pigeons reminder have what to do with the government seeking ways to eliminate electronic security?

You mean suspected criminals? Yes.

Again, I'm arguing for the existence of warrants. A state has evidence of a crime, it can go to a court get permission to knock down a door to serve that warrant..

Again, read what I'm arguing. Not what you want me to argue. I'm not saying it should spy on americans, nor am I arguing for things like CONTELPRO using these type of systems

Dude, you went on a unhinged rant about libertarians and glenn greenwald and some shit over an article about the government trying to find ways to eliminate electronic security. And hide it.

Nothing about warrants or anything sane was even mentioned.

 

[Coriolanus]

and the idea that nations must put their soliders at risk is an absurd one and one that has no iota of historical precident. Yes, armys may be limited in their tactics but you're logical leads to the idea that the only fair war is were everybody is fighting with the same weapons and no nation can have a technological more advanced weapons because it keeps people save.

Gevena convention is a thing that exists, mate. You went off the deep end.

 

[benjipwns]

Gevena convention is a thing that exists, mate. You went off the deep end.

nobody cares about your libertopian bullshit mate

 

[pigeon]

Okay...this and pigeons reminder have what to do with the government seeking ways to eliminate electronic security?

I mean, you're the one who generalized the argument from "government wants to read your email" to "sacrificing liberty to enable state power." I'm just saying that seems like a tactical misstep.

I note that the article says that the government doesn't actually want to do any of the theoretical solutions discussed in the working paper and that the group actually recommended targeted rather than bulk data, technological limitations on government access rather than procedural limitations, no unilateral government access, etc. All of which are explicitly restrictions on state access to information.