Same goes for Wikileaks. You leak classified information? You get in trouble. But once the information is out there, there's no logical or moral reason to go after the free press.
But this doesn't make sense.
Here's a sensitive analogy: let's say a movie was leaked long before it was due in theaters, and this happens occasionally. Now, in all fairness, let's say this movie was obtained via illegal means, and posted as a torrent for all to access.
Per your argument, is the original copy the only infringing (and illegal) copy? I would suspect not. Therefore, it makes sense for whoever might want their data/documents back to attack or as some here would call it "censor" any server or party that might be harboring the document.
This is of course under the assumption that whatever was obtained and broadcast was in fact illegal.
What's more funny (read: unnerving) is the public persecution of Assange, even by the Media itself, yet they outwardly present - and thereofre promote - the leaked information, with juicy headlines of course!
So on one hand, the Media denounces his actions, yet it's intoxicated by the information they can now stew over for months/years.
You're right on point. Some folks would claim this man was entrapped, and therefore he's the victim here - even though he willfully attempted to mass murder. America, the land of opinions.
The man in question attempted mass murder, and you have the liberal prejudice to simply call him "misguided"? Was the Khmer Rouge just wacky bunch in your worldview?
You're totally right. The FBI, DHS and all other counter-terrorism units ONLY employ the tactics as described in this one article, namely: sting operations.
What is happening as a result of such farces is far more dangerous to our country and the turn it's taking in the name of security fm boogeymen, then had a bomb actually gone off.
Talk about extremism abroad, we have it right here on TD.
So you're claiming that the FBI nabbing this would-be terrorist is more dangerous that if he actually killed hundreds of people, including woman and children? Holy shit bro.
While I do follow your logic, and to some degree agree, I still think these tactics are necessary, although maybe not properly employed.
Sting operations are not new, and as for using them in a counter-terrorist light, it was simply a natural progression - moreover, I'm sure we were doing this long before it made it to headline news.
And for folks to claim that "we're only catching the dumb ones," well that's absurd. Can anyone make the valid claim that if this teenager didn't get nabbed by the FBI, he wouldn't be in some Pakastani terror camp in a month...a year? Absolutely not.
After all...this person willingly attempted to use an explosive, which happened to be fictional. In ethical terms, there is no difference between his real actions and his intended consequences.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...
"Yes, I've always been against it because it's wrong and doesn't work, as I explained above."
God, I wasn't going to respond but you have your head so far up for your own smug, arrogant ass that you can't even connect the dots I plainly laid out for you. Talk about ZERO reading comprehension, you're too busy mouthbreathing over your keyboard to type the quickest, most haggard response you can articulate.
Racial profiling works. Feel free to read this from the mouth of a Muslim:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...
"She's saying that racial profiling doesn't work when the bad men are the same race as the good men."
And the argument is once again wrong from the start. It's simply fallacious to assume that the only people interested in terrorism that might happen to be at Ben Gurion look like Israelis.
No, that's second hand knowledge. Your cousin has direct knowledge because he actually experienced it.
What happened to TD? Why am I suddenly surrounded by snarky, smug, nitpicking people who feel the need to inflate their egos by pointing out the possible ambivalence of a phrase. Get a life.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...
All of the people who want to blow up Israelis look like Israelis, you idiot.
You seem to say "behavioral profiling" a lot, but I'm not sure you grasp the concept.
Behavioral profiling is not based on what people look like, in fact it's quite the opposite, it's based on how they act. If it were based on what people look like, it would be racial profiling, which is what you were against several posts back. Wow!
"I'm wrong that neither the gropes nor the scanners can see into a cavity? I'm completely wrong that behavior profiling is effective?"
No, you're right - I'm sure the Israeli equivalent of a TSA agent can just look at someone and know they've got something up their ass...it's quite a skill.
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: No secrets
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
But this doesn't make sense.
Here's a sensitive analogy: let's say a movie was leaked long before it was due in theaters, and this happens occasionally. Now, in all fairness, let's say this movie was obtained via illegal means, and posted as a torrent for all to access.
Per your argument, is the original copy the only infringing (and illegal) copy? I would suspect not. Therefore, it makes sense for whoever might want their data/documents back to attack or as some here would call it "censor" any server or party that might be harboring the document. This is of course under the assumption that whatever was obtained and broadcast was in fact illegal.
On the post: Why The Wikileaks Document Release Is Key To A Functioning Democracy
Re: You can't have it both ways
So on one hand, the Media denounces his actions, yet it's intoxicated by the information they can now stew over for months/years.
On the post: FBI Celebrates That It Prevented FBI's Own Bomb Plot
Re:
On the post: FBI Celebrates That It Prevented FBI's Own Bomb Plot
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FBI Portland bust
On the post: FBI Celebrates That It Prevented FBI's Own Bomb Plot
Re: Re: Re: Re: Since...?
On the post: FBI Celebrates That It Prevented FBI's Own Bomb Plot
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The US government could fuck up a free coffee.
On the post: FBI Celebrates That It Prevented FBI's Own Bomb Plot
Re: What are the smart ones up to?
/fail
On the post: FBI Celebrates That It Prevented FBI's Own Bomb Plot
Re: Re: Re: FBI Portland bust
Talk about extremism abroad, we have it right here on TD.
So you're claiming that the FBI nabbing this would-be terrorist is more dangerous that if he actually killed hundreds of people, including woman and children? Holy shit bro.
On the post: FBI Celebrates That It Prevented FBI's Own Bomb Plot
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Take a quick glance at the 5th bullet down in the Examples section. Just need to ask yourself if this is a day when you'll trust Wiki.
On the post: FBI Celebrates That It Prevented FBI's Own Bomb Plot
Re: Re:
Sting operations are not new, and as for using them in a counter-terrorist light, it was simply a natural progression - moreover, I'm sure we were doing this long before it made it to headline news.
And for folks to claim that "we're only catching the dumb ones," well that's absurd. Can anyone make the valid claim that if this teenager didn't get nabbed by the FBI, he wouldn't be in some Pakastani terror camp in a month...a year? Absolutely not.
After all...this person willingly attempted to use an explosive, which happened to be fictional. In ethical terms, there is no difference between his real actions and his intended consequences.
On the post: FBI Celebrates That It Prevented FBI's Own Bomb Plot
Re: Re:
On the post: FBI Celebrates That It Prevented FBI's Own Bomb Plot
Why is this being tactic decried? Just because you don't like the way they market it? That sounds more like personal preference.
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...
God, I wasn't going to respond but you have your head so far up for your own smug, arrogant ass that you can't even connect the dots I plainly laid out for you. Talk about ZERO reading comprehension, you're too busy mouthbreathing over your keyboard to type the quickest, most haggard response you can articulate.
Racial profiling works. Feel free to read this from the mouth of a Muslim:
http://atangledweb.typepad.com/weblog/2006/06/why_racial_prof.html
But why would you do that? It would blast a whole in your delicate (read: ignorant) understanding of what morality is.
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...
And the argument is once again wrong from the start. It's simply fallacious to assume that the only people interested in terrorism that might happen to be at Ben Gurion look like Israelis.
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What happened to TD? Why am I suddenly surrounded by snarky, smug, nitpicking people who feel the need to inflate their egos by pointing out the possible ambivalence of a phrase. Get a life.
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...
You seem to say "behavioral profiling" a lot, but I'm not sure you grasp the concept.
Behavioral profiling is not based on what people look like, in fact it's quite the opposite, it's based on how they act. If it were based on what people look like, it would be racial profiling, which is what you were against several posts back. Wow!
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!
No, you're right - I'm sure the Israeli equivalent of a TSA agent can just look at someone and know they've got something up their ass...it's quite a skill.
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...
Yah, and neither does the LAPD, on paper.
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!
Next >>