I do indeed often wonder exactly why they allow a small contingent of speakers to express their views, but I think that its probably a two-fold process.
By allowing a small number of people to speak freely, the powers that be get an idea of what parts of the official story need shoring up and revamping and what areas of public awareness they need to eradicate.
At the same time, a total black out of all dissent would let the cat out of the bag so to speak, and tell a public body like that in America, that it had been conquered, lock, stock and barrel.
The trick is to keep the speakers numbers small enough to control the flow of information via trolls and paid shills and prevent them from ever reaching mainstream media, usually by simply controlling mainstream media.
In this way, few notice that some anonymous speakers go missing when they stop posting. Remember, you're only anonymous to the other posters, not to the CIAFBINSA.
When a speaker gets too close to the truth or talks about something sensitive/of great interest to many, and the army of paid shills is simply not up to the task of drowning out the words with a flood of stupidity, it is an easy enough task to have the speaker eliminated through various methods, including but not limited to:
-illness - the old cancer on a pin trick
-destitution via financial assassination - so many methods of doing this its silly to try and list them
-character assassination - find kiddie porn on their computer during a wrong address drug bust
-or simply run them over with a truck, using an un-convicted but recently arrested murderer as a driver, who will serve some time for the "Hit and Run While Drunk Manslaughter", in lieu of serving time for the triple murders that got him arrested
I'm sure there is more to it than that, but at least that's my take on it.
Perhaps the dinosaurs did not die off due to a meteor strike.
Perhaps, just like these dinosaur industries, they died off because they continually chose actions that made their situation worse until finally a last stupid decision ended their misery once and for all.
We can only hope that final decision comes soon. :)
Since the documents were entirely redacted, they could have indeed been any documents about anything at all and have absolutely nothing to do with leaks or national security.
They could have been documents pertaining to something like the cost of the secret escape exits ad tunnels, built into the White House and other Government Buildings throughout the US in preparation for an armed uprising by US citizens, expected to occur between 2033 and 2038, and were selected because they were handily near the top of the alphabetically arranged stack, listed under Access Accommodations Assessments.
I think the simplest way to see the real message that the USG and its various agencies are silently putting forward in defense of their actions is this:
"We must become the next Evil Empire, in order to defeat the Next Evil Empire."
Its a fight fire, with a bigger fire mentality.
If the bad guys are bad, then the good guys will have to be badder.
I think the good guys have done such a good job at this that they are now way badder than the bad guys and in fact, may have hired most of the bad guys to aid them in the endeavor.
Since the majority of Non-Good-Guy Bad-Guys are now working for or with the Good-Guy Bad-Guys, there are no Bad Guy Bad Guys left to fight anymore and because the Good Guys and the Bad Guys are now the Good but Badder Guys, who are paid by the citizens to protect the citizens, its only natural that they use the machinery they built in that original endeavor to exploit and rob the citizens they were supposed to protect, and double their income.
Re: Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
Well, in truth, that was probably the best insult you could have come up with, Gwiz.
For the record, no, I am not Out Of The Blue.
And for the life of me, I cannot imagine how you could have made such an assumption. Obviously, your detective skills are not something you should rely on heavily in future.
I've lost the count. Is this the 2nd or 3rd time you have promised to not respond/reply to my posts.
Dear nasch, should you ever actually desire to discuss a thing, or actually desire to achieve clarity of meaning through inquiry about anything I post, I will always be happy to respond. I may even continue to use your negative inquiries as a jumping board for further comments.
However, you do only yourself harm by posting such blatantly facetious comments as this, as others are not as stupid as you seem to think they are and they too can see such remarks for what they really are.
You have an otherwise excellent record as a Corrections Officer here and this attempted feud is destroying the integrity necessary to continue in that role.
I realize that you are angry, and I somewhat understand that my methods of posting are an irritant you'd like to be rid of, however, this is not a method that will have any success in that regard.
Your best bet is to petition the blog owners after gathering as many like minded posters as you can, and demanding my account be terminated. That has worked in the past. Otherwise, I'm afraid you will simply have to wait for nature to take its course.
Fell free to ignore this post. :)
My apologies to all for wasting space over this pointless post.
You really are the Champion of Popular Mythologies.
From the Wiki link you posted: "..the unlawful taking away or transportation of a person against that person's will, usually to hold the person unlawfully. This may be done for ransom or in furtherance of another crime, or in connection with a child custody dispute."
How does this differ from what I said?
"When someone - not a duly designated officer of the law - holds you against your will, preventing you from leaving, what is this called legally? It is not assault.If the ransom demanded for freedom to leave is to allow the person holding you against your will to violate your person in any manner, should not that qualify as kidnapping?
---
"I thought you meant physical restraint. And as I made quite clear, I definitely meant physical restraint."
And as I made extremely clear, twice now, that comment starts with the words "in the case of rape", and does not pertain to child abuse.
Twice now you have chosen to misread the text.
That's a childish game.
---
"If a child is forced to have sexual contact with an adult, you don't see how that's sexual?"
Sexuality is an act that takes place between two or more consenting individuals. Any act that includes a non-consenting individual is not an act of sexuality, regardless of what particular actions may be performed upon that non-consenting individual, but an act of abuse or control.
Very first sentence of the first post I made on this subject:
"Personally, I think that including sex as a part of any physical abuse offense is a silly and backwards notion."
---
As long as this is a moral crime, no justice is possible,
"What do you mean by this? Or in the words of Chandler Bing, "there's not a part of that sentence I don't need explained." ;-)"
And explained repeatedly it seems...
Once again, if you cannot play nicely then I'm afraid you will have to play alone. While I'm always willing to use an abusive poster as an excuse to clarify my point, repetition is pointless once that poster becomes transparently belligerent.
In the relentless quest to prove authoritarian infallibility in all things, it is always inevitable that along the way, many innocents will be crushed and many laws will be bent and broken.
But it is all done for a "(*1)good cause" and so it is all deemed to be a part of the unavoidable cost of doing business.
(*1) - the eventual godhood of the 1% (god gold good)
While this is definitely not the right forum for this discussion....
"...why not treat it as assault, rather than kidnapping?"
You missed the part after assault - forced control.
When someone - not a duly designated officer of the law - holds you against your will, preventing you from leaving, what is this called legally? It is not assault.
If the ransom demanded for freedom to leave is to allow the person holding you against your will to violate your person in any manner, should not that qualify as kidnapping?
---
GEMont: "in the case of rape, the victim is forcibly restrained."
nasch: "In fact in the case of child sex assault I would guess they are usually not restrained..."
Which is why I stated above "in the case of rape".
However, where a child is concerned, the society itself places the child under restraint via training of obedience to adults, so most often, no physical restraint is needed and simple guile and/or verbal coercion is sufficient effort to "restrain" the victim under the predator's control.
The obvious difference in size between a child victim and an adult predator is usually enough to guide a child towards capitulation of demands without struggle.
After the fact however, once the child has realized that he/she was abused, or at least that something "not right" has happened, the predator very often uses threats of future harm to induce silence in their victims.
I see the predator's manipulation of the social obedience to adults a child is trained for, as criminal enough to qualify for status as forced restraint, and I see the threat of future harm to induce a fear of telling others about the abuse as criminal enough to qualify as a ransom demand for freedom.
I am not a lawyer or a judge, and these are the only laws I can readily connect to the crimes.
What I do not see, is how any of these crimes can be deemed sexual and it is this that was the point of my post.
Once the sexual connotation is removed from these crimes, I am certain that other laws already on the books will be sufficient to deal with the perpetrators properly.
As long as this is a moral crime, no justice is possible, and I do not think the law should be involved with either defining or policing morality anyway.
Personally, I think that including sex as a part of any physical abuse offense is a silly and backwards notion.
Its only sex when all parties consent to the act and then its all fun.
Child molestation and rape are crimes of assault and forced control, and should be classed under the same offense level and type as kidnapping.
After all, both are situations where adults are forcing someone to do things that they would not normally do and in the case of rape, the victim is forcibly restrained.
Start charging these crimes against people as assault and kidnapping and watch the number of child molesters and rapists drop naturally.
No need for new federal minimum sentencing guidelines then as the guidelines are already drawn up for assault and kidnapping.
They are just following the rules laid out in the new Secret Post 9/11 Corporate Constitution section, titled Ways and Means of Remaining Legal, While Breaking Laws.
You see, it would be illegal for them to not comply with the FOIA inquiry, so by pretending that they are complying - by releasing blank pages covered entirely in redacting ink - they are fulfilling the rules necessary to remain on legal footing under the new secret interpretation of the laws.
After all, releasing the un-redacted documents - a stack of blank pages, or more precisely, no pages at all - would give the game away.
By releasing a stack of blank, but fully redacted pages, the agency has made it appear that the "leaks" really have harmed national security, but in ways that cannot be explained due to a need to protect national security.
Best sleight of hand PR move I've seen to date.
They must have hired someone with a college education to do their PR work recently.... or George Bush Sr.
In all of human history, there has never been as many educated literate citizens as exists currently. There has never been anything remotely similar to the fledgling hive mind we fondly call the internet.
For the very first time ever, the public is aware of and witnessing the methods and means of the heat-death of a civilization - fascism.
There is actually still a small chance that this time, the bastards will fail and we will see their heads on pikes along main streets all over the world.
Mind ye, I'll not be holdin' me breathe in anticipation of this hitherto impossible finale - humans being humans.
On the post: We Now Know The NSA And GCHQ Have Subverted Most (All?) Of The Digital World: So Why Can't We See Any Benefits?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong vector
By allowing a small number of people to speak freely, the powers that be get an idea of what parts of the official story need shoring up and revamping and what areas of public awareness they need to eradicate.
At the same time, a total black out of all dissent would let the cat out of the bag so to speak, and tell a public body like that in America, that it had been conquered, lock, stock and barrel.
The trick is to keep the speakers numbers small enough to control the flow of information via trolls and paid shills and prevent them from ever reaching mainstream media, usually by simply controlling mainstream media.
In this way, few notice that some anonymous speakers go missing when they stop posting. Remember, you're only anonymous to the other posters, not to the CIAFBINSA.
When a speaker gets too close to the truth or talks about something sensitive/of great interest to many, and the army of paid shills is simply not up to the task of drowning out the words with a flood of stupidity, it is an easy enough task to have the speaker eliminated through various methods, including but not limited to:
-illness - the old cancer on a pin trick
-destitution via financial assassination - so many methods of doing this its silly to try and list them
-character assassination - find kiddie porn on their computer during a wrong address drug bust
-or simply run them over with a truck, using an un-convicted but recently arrested murderer as a driver, who will serve some time for the "Hit and Run While Drunk Manslaughter", in lieu of serving time for the triple murders that got him arrested
I'm sure there is more to it than that, but at least that's my take on it.
---
On the post: Cable's Latest Great Idea: Speed Up Programs So They Can Stuff More Ads Into Every Hour
Time Will Tell
Perhaps, just like these dinosaur industries, they died off because they continually chose actions that made their situation worse until finally a last stupid decision ended their misery once and for all.
We can only hope that final decision comes soon. :)
---
On the post: Study After Study Shows The DHS Has An Intense Morale Problem That Can Apparently Only Be Solved By Study After Study
Re:
Precisely. :)
==========
On the post: Here's 140 Fully-Redacted Pages Explaining How Much Snowden's Leaks Have Harmed The Nation's Security
Re: They've leaked information here!
They could have been documents pertaining to something like the cost of the secret escape exits ad tunnels, built into the White House and other Government Buildings throughout the US in preparation for an armed uprising by US citizens, expected to occur between 2033 and 2038, and were selected because they were handily near the top of the alphabetically arranged stack, listed under Access Accommodations Assessments.
---
On the post: Despite Losing Money Year After Year, States Still Wondering How They Can Hand Out BIGGER Subsidies To Hollywood
A little to the left please.... ahhhhh
Kickbacks.
You get us thirty million to make the film in your town and we'll put 3 million in an offshore account under your name.
The other name for this process, is Business As Usual.
---
On the post: Evidence Copy Of 'CitizenFour' Needs To Be 'Locked Up' Claims Plaintiff Suing Snowden, Filmmakers For Billions
The Silent Explanation
"We must become the next Evil Empire, in order to defeat the Next Evil Empire."
Its a fight fire, with a bigger fire mentality.
If the bad guys are bad, then the good guys will have to be badder.
I think the good guys have done such a good job at this that they are now way badder than the bad guys and in fact, may have hired most of the bad guys to aid them in the endeavor.
Since the majority of Non-Good-Guy Bad-Guys are now working for or with the Good-Guy Bad-Guys, there are no Bad Guy Bad Guys left to fight anymore and because the Good Guys and the Bad Guys are now the Good but Badder Guys, who are paid by the citizens to protect the citizens, its only natural that they use the machinery they built in that original endeavor to exploit and rob the citizens they were supposed to protect, and double their income.
It is the nature of the beast after all.
---
On the post: Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines Have Nothing To Do With 'Justice'
Re: Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
For the record, no, I am not Out Of The Blue.
And for the life of me, I cannot imagine how you could have made such an assumption. Obviously, your detective skills are not something you should rely on heavily in future.
On the post: Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines Have Nothing To Do With 'Justice'
In requiem
I've lost the count. Is this the 2nd or 3rd time you have promised to not respond/reply to my posts.
Dear nasch, should you ever actually desire to discuss a thing, or actually desire to achieve clarity of meaning through inquiry about anything I post, I will always be happy to respond. I may even continue to use your negative inquiries as a jumping board for further comments.
However, you do only yourself harm by posting such blatantly facetious comments as this, as others are not as stupid as you seem to think they are and they too can see such remarks for what they really are.
You have an otherwise excellent record as a Corrections Officer here and this attempted feud is destroying the integrity necessary to continue in that role.
I realize that you are angry, and I somewhat understand that my methods of posting are an irritant you'd like to be rid of, however, this is not a method that will have any success in that regard.
Your best bet is to petition the blog owners after gathering as many like minded posters as you can, and demanding my account be terminated. That has worked in the past. Otherwise, I'm afraid you will simply have to wait for nature to take its course.
Fell free to ignore this post. :)
My apologies to all for wasting space over this pointless post.
---
On the post: Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines Have Nothing To Do With 'Justice'
What sacred cow did I step on this time??
From the Wiki link you posted: "..the unlawful taking away or transportation of a person against that person's will, usually to hold the person unlawfully. This may be done for ransom or in furtherance of another crime, or in connection with a child custody dispute."
How does this differ from what I said?
"When someone - not a duly designated officer of the law - holds you against your will, preventing you from leaving, what is this called legally? It is not assault.If the ransom demanded for freedom to leave is to allow the person holding you against your will to violate your person in any manner, should not that qualify as kidnapping?
---
"I thought you meant physical restraint. And as I made quite clear, I definitely meant physical restraint."
And as I made extremely clear, twice now, that comment starts with the words "in the case of rape", and does not pertain to child abuse.
Twice now you have chosen to misread the text.
That's a childish game.
---
"If a child is forced to have sexual contact with an adult, you don't see how that's sexual?"
Sexuality is an act that takes place between two or more consenting individuals. Any act that includes a non-consenting individual is not an act of sexuality, regardless of what particular actions may be performed upon that non-consenting individual, but an act of abuse or control.
Very first sentence of the first post I made on this subject:
"Personally, I think that including sex as a part of any physical abuse offense is a silly and backwards notion."
---
As long as this is a moral crime, no justice is possible,
"What do you mean by this? Or in the words of Chandler Bing, "there's not a part of that sentence I don't need explained." ;-)"
And explained repeatedly it seems...
Once again, if you cannot play nicely then I'm afraid you will have to play alone. While I'm always willing to use an abusive poster as an excuse to clarify my point, repetition is pointless once that poster becomes transparently belligerent.
Have a nice day.
---
On the post: We Now Know The NSA And GCHQ Have Subverted Most (All?) Of The Digital World: So Why Can't We See Any Benefits?
Re: Re: Wrong vector
The Drug War proved to the fascists that all they had to do was create a crisis and the world would pay them to protect it from that crisis.
Once you have a winning business model, it behooves you to expand into a variety of different fields - to diversify your commodity base.
War on Drugs.
War on Terror.
War on Cyber-hackers.
War on Copyright Infringers.
War on Poverty.
War on Cancer.
War on Crime.
War on ad infinitum...
If they have a War On something, you can absolutely bet that particular something will always exist and grow exponentially as a problem.
----
On the post: We Now Know The NSA And GCHQ Have Subverted Most (All?) Of The Digital World: So Why Can't We See Any Benefits?
Re: Why Can't We See Any Benefits?
Its funny how - once you realize who the bad guys are and what they're actually up to - how everything starts to make complete sense.
---
On the post: We Now Know The NSA And GCHQ Have Subverted Most (All?) Of The Digital World: So Why Can't We See Any Benefits?
Re:
Gitmo awaits those who are not blind! :)
On the post: We Now Know The NSA And GCHQ Have Subverted Most (All?) Of The Digital World: So Why Can't We See Any Benefits?
Could be.......
Or.......
The Governments and the bad guys are both after the exact same thing from the exact same source;
Money and Power, through control and exploitation of you, the little guy and the systems you call home. :)
---
On the post: US Court Rules That Kim Dotcom Is A 'Fugitive' And Thus DOJ Can Take His Money
The road to hell....
But it is all done for a "(*1)good cause" and so it is all deemed to be a part of the unavoidable cost of doing business.
(*1) - the eventual godhood of the 1% (god gold good)
---
On the post: Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines Have Nothing To Do With 'Justice'
c'est la vie eh
"...why not treat it as assault, rather than kidnapping?"
You missed the part after assault - forced control.
When someone - not a duly designated officer of the law - holds you against your will, preventing you from leaving, what is this called legally? It is not assault.
If the ransom demanded for freedom to leave is to allow the person holding you against your will to violate your person in any manner, should not that qualify as kidnapping?
---
GEMont: "in the case of rape, the victim is forcibly restrained."
nasch: "In fact in the case of child sex assault I would guess they are usually not restrained..."
Which is why I stated above "in the case of rape".
However, where a child is concerned, the society itself places the child under restraint via training of obedience to adults, so most often, no physical restraint is needed and simple guile and/or verbal coercion is sufficient effort to "restrain" the victim under the predator's control.
The obvious difference in size between a child victim and an adult predator is usually enough to guide a child towards capitulation of demands without struggle.
After the fact however, once the child has realized that he/she was abused, or at least that something "not right" has happened, the predator very often uses threats of future harm to induce silence in their victims.
I see the predator's manipulation of the social obedience to adults a child is trained for, as criminal enough to qualify for status as forced restraint, and I see the threat of future harm to induce a fear of telling others about the abuse as criminal enough to qualify as a ransom demand for freedom.
I am not a lawyer or a judge, and these are the only laws I can readily connect to the crimes.
What I do not see, is how any of these crimes can be deemed sexual and it is this that was the point of my post.
Once the sexual connotation is removed from these crimes, I am certain that other laws already on the books will be sufficient to deal with the perpetrators properly.
As long as this is a moral crime, no justice is possible, and I do not think the law should be involved with either defining or policing morality anyway.
---
On the post: Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines Have Nothing To Do With 'Justice'
Crimes of Morality
Its only sex when all parties consent to the act and then its all fun.
Child molestation and rape are crimes of assault and forced control, and should be classed under the same offense level and type as kidnapping.
After all, both are situations where adults are forcing someone to do things that they would not normally do and in the case of rape, the victim is forcibly restrained.
Start charging these crimes against people as assault and kidnapping and watch the number of child molesters and rapists drop naturally.
No need for new federal minimum sentencing guidelines then as the guidelines are already drawn up for assault and kidnapping.
----
On the post: Here's 140 Fully-Redacted Pages Explaining How Much Snowden's Leaks Have Harmed The Nation's Security
Re:
You see, it would be illegal for them to not comply with the FOIA inquiry, so by pretending that they are complying - by releasing blank pages covered entirely in redacting ink - they are fulfilling the rules necessary to remain on legal footing under the new secret interpretation of the laws.
---
On the post: Here's 140 Fully-Redacted Pages Explaining How Much Snowden's Leaks Have Harmed The Nation's Security
Reverse Bluff
After all, releasing the un-redacted documents - a stack of blank pages, or more precisely, no pages at all - would give the game away.
By releasing a stack of blank, but fully redacted pages, the agency has made it appear that the "leaks" really have harmed national security, but in ways that cannot be explained due to a need to protect national security.
Best sleight of hand PR move I've seen to date.
They must have hired someone with a college education to do their PR work recently.... or George Bush Sr.
----
On the post: Lawmaker Who Said Snowden Committed Treason, Now On The Other Side Of Metadata Surveillance
Shoe. Meet the other foot.
This is one of those times and it has made my day.
On the post: The Guardian Details The Horrors Of Chicago Police's 'CIA-Style Black Site'
Re: Oddly enough...
In all of human history, there has never been as many educated literate citizens as exists currently. There has never been anything remotely similar to the fledgling hive mind we fondly call the internet.
For the very first time ever, the public is aware of and witnessing the methods and means of the heat-death of a civilization - fascism.
There is actually still a small chance that this time, the bastards will fail and we will see their heads on pikes along main streets all over the world.
Mind ye, I'll not be holdin' me breathe in anticipation of this hitherto impossible finale - humans being humans.
But it is not in my nature to stop trying. :)
----
Next >>