Wow Mike... here's switch. Usually people come on here accusing you of hyping things up. Well, now I feel the need to tell you that you're downplaying something too much here:
"It's too bad that this is as far as this case will go."
This isn't 'too bad'... it's fsking scary!
As you mention: "This is really unfortunate, because now the original book banning ruling stays valid and on the books for others to point to." This is a dangerous precedent to set. Now anyone can simply make the case that a new expression is too much like their own and point here to get it banned.
Welcome to government-approved censorship ladies and gents. Last one out, please get the lights.
Here you go... some of these may be the same AC, or even Mr. Anonymous himself... that's the bad thing about AC... can’t really identify them across posts. The snowflakes don't track infinitely
I'm sorry... did I have a language-setting changed or something? [looks up] Nope... I did post that in english.
As I said "the 'apologies' cannot be pointed-to because they are all anonymous cowards." (yes, I misspelled "apologists"... my bad for relying on spellchecker). But, I can show you some of thier posts... sit tight...
Re: Re: Re: Please cite sources for "Solitary = Torture"
"but it is apparently difficult for many people to employ the critical thinking skills that enable a person to differentiate between opinion and fact."
You're right... as you just demonstrated yourself. Until legislation is passed at some level describing what is and is not torture, it is a matter of opinion. The question, then, is whose opinion is weighed more by those making decisions based on that opinion (such as those who may wish to prosecute Manning or the government for engaging such tactics). And if these articles are citing sources such as independent, non-partisan groups/think-tanks/activists who themselves use the input of psychologists, psychiatrists, and experienced detainees... I'd say that gives them a bit of weight.
So again, until a law is passed one way or the other, there is no 'fact' regarding what is or is not torture.
"Next time cite some source other than Salon or the Huffington Post."
Why, because they express an opinion other than yours?
You're right... the 'apologies' cannot be pointed-to because they are all anonymous cowards. I'll take you at your word that you're not included therein.
And if you think 'us insiders' are making up the fact that there is a hostile group of ACs who, in the arena of file sharing, repeatedly argue against established proof and refuse to back their own positions with like kind, then you must be new here.
Nah, they don't need encouragement... they're like roaches. You can't get rid of them and they're going to scamper about doing their own thing regardless of what you do.
The attitude of people blindly saying "he broke the law, let's hang 'em" is just as astounding to me.
Remember, there was a large group of insurrectionists long ago who said that they didn't feel it was right to pay taxes they found unfairly levied without their representation in the governing body. They broke the law that was laid down by the authorities ruling them because they felt the moral imperative outweighed the legal imperative. Do I need to give names, or and I being obvious enough?
I'm not saying my opinion on who's right or wrong is the correct one. But keep in mind that the only difference between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War is whether or not the ruling body won.
And if you're going to say "the law is right" then why aren't you angry about the fact that he's been placed in solitary confinement 'for his protection' even though he hasn't even been tried yet?
"Gabrial, there is no need to prove that any information given by Manning harmed anyone."
When others try to use the 'danger he created' as a reason for his arrest/incarceration/treatment... especially when making a play to the nationalism-wrapped-in-a-false-patriotism emotional view of "for the troops!"... you bet your ass someone better pony up some proof. If there isn't, everyone can stop claiming he "put his fellow troops in harm's way".
Regardless of the conversations we've had over whether or not Torrent-Finder is guilty of infringement, contributory infringement, or nothing at all... the government's entire case against them is based on completely different websites?!? First post was right... I can't wait to see the shill's defense of this one. To borrow from some of the hiphop blogs still MIA (but not forgotten): Shit goan' be GOOD!
"months, he's a traitor, he'll be there for years, and after that, he's screwed. who is going to trust a moron, traitor, who put his follow military 'friends' in mortal danger.:
Once again... for however many times this is... be so kind as to produce even a shred of evidence that this has caused or could cause any harm to American soldiers.
"He's in solitary because if he was mixed with the rest in military prison. They would kill him."
I'm glad you're an expert on prison psychology. But even if you're right (yeah, I know...), solitary is not the only option for keeping him separated from general population.
"there is a military disipline act, that hold those who sign onto it, to a higher legal standard that civil laws."
Feel free to post a reference. I'm glad you would hold our soldiers to a higher standard. Personally, I would hold my elected officials to the higher standard. But that's neither here nor there. What is here is which crime he broke. If it’s just being unethical, that’s called Conduct Unbecoming and is not treason.
"If you break those laws, you face military court, and receive military punishment in a military prison."
And the fact that he hasn't had a trial yet factors into your reasoning how?
"This manning, like everyone else who is in the military SIGNED this document, and are bound by its rules and laws."
So you do have basic understanding of the concept of contractual obligation... now, care to point out where in that contract it states solitary confinement as the pre-trial holding for supposed treason?
"There is no doubt therefore that he is guilty of breaking both military and civil laws. And the fact that he handed or made availible that information to assange, means he conspired with him."
So because he is being held by authorities, he's 'obviously guilty'. Wow Darryl, I haven't seen a abortion of justice so horribly exemplified in a loong time. And, how does any of what you've said back up a claim that just because he leaked documents he was 'obvioulsy conspiring'? I'll wait for proof from you, but I'm not holding my breath.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'complicit agreement'... did he agree to allow Assange to post the documents? Yeah, I'm pretty sure he did. In fact, I think he even admitted to that. So, what are you getting at?
"The conspiracy to gather secrets and make them public is what wikileaks is. so yes, to give wikileaks information, without even talking to them, is conspiring to commit."
No... that's what you accuse them of being. Me, Mike, DH, hell, a lot of people around here... not to mention all over the damned world... including the people who gave Wikileaks an award for uncovering conspiracies in the past... yeah we all believe that Wikileaks is about transparancy of goverment actions.
"If you find something in the street, of value, if you keep it you have conspired to commit a crime, and you have commited a crime. If you take that item and hand it into police you have not commited a crime, and you have conspired with yourself or any other group to commit a crime."
Do I even have to try on this one? Wow man. Try here: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm. According to 18 U.S.C. 371, a conspiracy must have multiple people who have reached an agreement to act in such a way as to break another law. Someone just picking up something on the street is not a conspiracy. And before you mention that he's a soldier under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 18 of the UCMJ states that there must be more than one person. You can't 'conspire with yourself'.
Jezzus Darryl... how bad are you trying to stretch here?
"As soon as manning made that information available to wikileaks he conspired with assange and wikileaks to release that information, which is an illegal act because its the use of stolen goods (at the least) for the purpose of making money.."
So now we're talking about what? Theft? Copyright infringement? Darryl, we're talking about an accusation of treason... which is NOT what you just described. I wish it was just theft... then the poor guy would be facing a bit of brig-time and be done.
As far as your statement there of it being a conspiracy... if it was a conspiracy, and they had proof (look out! that's a dirty word apparently!), why would the be offering him a deal if he admits to conspiracy? Hmm... good question.
In case you missed this, we’re talking about the fact that he’s being held in solitary before being found guilty and sentenced. Which is outside of due-process.
Now that you've been let out and had a bit of exercise, why don't you go lay down again before you hurt yourself.
In 2006, a bipartisan National Commission on America's Prisons was created and it called for the elimination of prolonged solitary confinement. Its Report [link below] documented that conditions whereby "prisoners end up locked in their cells 23 hours a day, every day. . . is so severe that people end up completely isolated, living in what can only be described as torturous conditions." The Report documented numerous psychiatric studies of individuals held in prolonged isolation which demonstrate "a constellation of symptoms that includes overwhelming anxiety, confusion and hallucination, and sudden violent and self-destructive outbursts." The above-referenced article from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law states: "Psychological effects can include anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive disturbances, perceptual distortions, obsessive thoughts, paranoia, and psychosis." Link mentioned in quote: http://www.prisoncommission.org/pdfs/Confronting_Confinement.pdf
*Subject to approval by authorities. Void where prohibited by our whims. No purchase necessary, only blind and unquestioning obedience required. Many, many restrictions apply. For a limited time only (that actually expired long, long ago).
No, I think that's the kool-aid that we Masnick Cultists drink when we hatein. Either that or the drink we use to replenish our hate-rolytes and hate-rients after exhausting ourselves with hate-xertion.
where does it go from here. Many times we've seen our elected representatives make some noble statements then do absolutely nothing on them. Don't get me wrong; I think this is a WONDERFUL sign... but I'm not popping the champagne until something is actually done to reduce the secrecy.
I don't hold to your argument Hilary... Considering that the whole point of Boot Camp is (as my brother described it to me) is to break down one's individuality and rebuild you as a soldier and part of a team/family. With that kind of change, I'm going to say that most 'scofflaw' criminals (those that do it because of a lack of respect for the law, as opposed to a psychological condition) will shed that attitude in exchange for the discipline and respect for command. Yes, I know that a lot of soldiers will roll their eyes at a CO's back, etc... but the discipline and the willingness to respect those who’ve earned it is there.
From the change I saw in my brother, going from a pussy-whipped whiner to a very respectable man who has his shit together more than I do, I say that one's past doesn't matter that much in who they are after joining service.
welcome our new Trivia Pursuit overlords. Actually, I think it's pretty cool. One of the Star Trek milestones I've been wanting (after antigravity and teleportation) is conversational interface with computers. Rock.
On the post: US Banning Books: Unauthorized Catcher In The Rye Sequel Permanently Banned
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Banning Books: Unauthorized Catcher In The Rye Sequel Permanently Banned
downplayed
This isn't 'too bad'... it's fsking scary!
As you mention: "This is really unfortunate, because now the original book banning ruling stays valid and on the books for others to point to." This is a dangerous precedent to set. Now anyone can simply make the case that a new expression is too much like their own and point here to get it banned.
Welcome to government-approved censorship ladies and gents. Last one out, please get the lights.
On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet - Or The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101214/02371412269/owners-hiphop-blogs-seized-homel and-security-still-havent-been-told-why.shtml#c1847
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101214/023 71412269/owners-hiphop-blogs-seized-homeland-security-still-havent-been-told-why.shtml#c599
http: //www.techdirt.com/articles/20101210/17301212243/oh-look-digital-downloads-arent-saving-music-indust ry.shtml#c916
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101210/17301212243/oh-look-digital-downloads-are nt-saving-music-industry.shtml#c724
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101210/17301212243/oh-look -digital-downloads-arent-saving-music-industry.shtml#c269 (granted, this one is not Anonymous or an AC... it's Darryl.)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101210/17301212243/oh-look-digital-downloads-arent-sa ving-music-industry.shtml#c459
That good for you?
On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet - Or The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I said "the 'apologies' cannot be pointed-to because they are all anonymous cowards." (yes, I misspelled "apologists"... my bad for relying on spellchecker). But, I can show you some of thier posts... sit tight...
On the post: So After Torturing Bradley Manning For Months, US Officials Offer Him A Deal If He Says Assange 'Conspired' With Him
Re: Re: Re: Please cite sources for "Solitary = Torture"
So again, until a law is passed one way or the other, there is no 'fact' regarding what is or is not torture.
Why, because they express an opinion other than yours?
On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet - Or The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if you think 'us insiders' are making up the fact that there is a hostile group of ACs who, in the arena of file sharing, repeatedly argue against established proof and refuse to back their own positions with like kind, then you must be new here.
On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet - Or The Law
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet - Or The Law
Re: Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet - Or The Law
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: So After Torturing Bradley Manning For Months, US Officials Offer Him A Deal If He Says Assange 'Conspired' With Him
Re:
Remember, there was a large group of insurrectionists long ago who said that they didn't feel it was right to pay taxes they found unfairly levied without their representation in the governing body. They broke the law that was laid down by the authorities ruling them because they felt the moral imperative outweighed the legal imperative. Do I need to give names, or and I being obvious enough?
I'm not saying my opinion on who's right or wrong is the correct one. But keep in mind that the only difference between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War is whether or not the ruling body won.
And if you're going to say "the law is right" then why aren't you angry about the fact that he's been placed in solitary confinement 'for his protection' even though he hasn't even been tried yet?
On the post: So After Torturing Bradley Manning For Months, US Officials Offer Him A Deal If He Says Assange 'Conspired' With Him
Re:
When others try to use the 'danger he created' as a reason for his arrest/incarceration/treatment... especially when making a play to the nationalism-wrapped-in-a-false-patriotism emotional view of "for the troops!"... you bet your ass someone better pony up some proof. If there isn't, everyone can stop claiming he "put his fellow troops in harm's way".
On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet - Or The Law
So... let's look at the score
On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet - Or The Law
Re:
On the post: So After Torturing Bradley Manning For Months, US Officials Offer Him A Deal If He Says Assange 'Conspired' With Him
Re: Allways trying to justify crime..
Once again... for however many times this is... be so kind as to produce even a shred of evidence that this has caused or could cause any harm to American soldiers.
I'm glad you're an expert on prison psychology. But even if you're right (yeah, I know...), solitary is not the only option for keeping him separated from general population.
Feel free to post a reference. I'm glad you would hold our soldiers to a higher standard. Personally, I would hold my elected officials to the higher standard. But that's neither here nor there. What is here is which crime he broke. If it’s just being unethical, that’s called Conduct Unbecoming and is not treason.
And the fact that he hasn't had a trial yet factors into your reasoning how?
So you do have basic understanding of the concept of contractual obligation... now, care to point out where in that contract it states solitary confinement as the pre-trial holding for supposed treason?
So because he is being held by authorities, he's 'obviously guilty'. Wow Darryl, I haven't seen a abortion of justice so horribly exemplified in a loong time. And, how does any of what you've said back up a claim that just because he leaked documents he was 'obvioulsy conspiring'? I'll wait for proof from you, but I'm not holding my breath.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'complicit agreement'... did he agree to allow Assange to post the documents? Yeah, I'm pretty sure he did. In fact, I think he even admitted to that. So, what are you getting at?
No... that's what you accuse them of being. Me, Mike, DH, hell, a lot of people around here... not to mention all over the damned world... including the people who gave Wikileaks an award for uncovering conspiracies in the past... yeah we all believe that Wikileaks is about transparancy of goverment actions.
Do I even have to try on this one? Wow man. Try here: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm. According to 18 U.S.C. 371, a conspiracy must have multiple people who have reached an agreement to act in such a way as to break another law. Someone just picking up something on the street is not a conspiracy. And before you mention that he's a soldier under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 18 of the UCMJ states that there must be more than one person. You can't 'conspire with yourself'.
Jezzus Darryl... how bad are you trying to stretch here?
So now we're talking about what? Theft? Copyright infringement? Darryl, we're talking about an accusation of treason... which is NOT what you just described. I wish it was just theft... then the poor guy would be facing a bit of brig-time and be done.
As far as your statement there of it being a conspiracy... if it was a conspiracy, and they had proof (look out! that's a dirty word apparently!), why would the be offering him a deal if he admits to conspiracy? Hmm... good question.
In case you missed this, we’re talking about the fact that he’s being held in solitary before being found guilty and sentenced. Which is outside of due-process.
Now that you've been let out and had a bit of exercise, why don't you go lay down again before you hurt yourself.
On the post: So After Torturing Bradley Manning For Months, US Officials Offer Him A Deal If He Says Assange 'Conspired' With Him
Re: OMG!
Yes.
Here, since it's a few clicks in... I understand...
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/
On the post: So After Torturing Bradley Manning For Months, US Officials Offer Him A Deal If He Says Assange 'Conspired' With Him
Re: Pledge
Liberty And Justice for All*
*Subject to approval by authorities. Void where prohibited by our whims. No purchase necessary, only blind and unquestioning obedience required. Many, many restrictions apply. For a limited time only (that actually expired long, long ago).
On the post: Denver Post Column That Righthaven Is Suing Over May Have Given Implied Permission To Copy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So... Is it in you?
On the post: Congressional Hearing On Wikileaks Surprisingly Focuses More On Gov't Overly Secretive Actions
Good start, but...
On the post: Interesting Timing: Senate Passes Federal Whistleblower Protection Bill
Re: Re: Whistleblowing vs. Treason
From the change I saw in my brother, going from a pussy-whipped whiner to a very respectable man who has his shit together more than I do, I say that one's past doesn't matter that much in who they are after joining service.
On the post: IBM's Jeopardy Answering Computer Apparently Ready To Compete For Real
I for one
Next >>