US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2255

On September 01 2015 02:16 Yoav wrote:




Except that all of this completely falls apart under scrutiny. Part of the story is that he withheld information that could be damaging to the US. Did he use a part of that to buy entry into China/Russia?

Remember, Roman Polanski lived as a free man in France for many years. The French are willing to show the US the bird to the extent that they shelter child rapists. Snowden would have been welcomed as a hero there, with a zero percent chance of extradition. And if he'd done that, no-one would be saying he probably sold secrets to Russia or China. This all of course assumes he wouldn't just try to get senatorial protection; whistleblowers who hand secrets over to sympathetic senators have lots of protection. One imagines Rand Paul would have been sympathetic. I'd have done it while hanging out in France, just in case, but there's a good chance it could have worked.

And it sure looks like there was a bartering stage. Russia actually didn't welcome him with open arms. China turned him away, and Russia held him at the airport for a while. And many of us who are very happy he did what he did would be treating him like a great American hero right now if it didn't look a lot like he turned over secrets to hostile dictators.

I have no doubts that he leaked out of patriotism. But I also think that he seems to have done things since then out of regard for his own safety that may have harmed his country. Mind you, I think he should be tried on that, and if no evidence can be found, released, rather than bullshit attacks on the actual leak. But he should not be granted clemency for selling secrets to our enemies if he in fact has.

In California, more prisoners have died of natural causes on death row than have perished in the death chamber. More than 900 killers have been sentenced to death since 1978, but only 13 have been executed.

The question a federal appeals court will consider on Monday is whether years of unpredictable delays from conviction to execution resulted in an arbitrary and unfair system that violates the constitution’s eighth amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment.

The hearing at the ninth US circuit court of appeals in Pasadena comes as support for the death penalty wanes in parts of the country. The Connecticut supreme court recently ruled that it served no legitimate purpose, and Nebraska eliminated it this year.

US district judge Cormac Carney ruled in the case of a Los Angeles rapist and murderer that the state’s death penalty was dysfunctional and offered an empty promise seldom leading to executions while jamming up death row.

“Inordinate and unpredictable delay has resulted in a death penalty system in which very few of the hundreds of individuals sentenced to death have been, or even will be, executed,” wrote Carney, a President George W Bush appointee.

While death penalty opponents cheered the ruling, attorney general Kamala Harris appealed.

Prosecutors argued in court papers that the state cannot be faulted for having a procedure that protects the interest of everyone with a stake in a case. Even if some cases move faster than others, they said, it does not create a dysfunctional system resulting in arbitrary executions.

“The court mistook its policy critique as a proper basis for legal judgment,” supervising deputy attorney general James Bilderback II wrote.

On September 01 2015 02:32 zlefin wrote:
What he said there in that interview sounds pretty reasonable;
note: "But I've sort of tongue-in-cheek said that if I had the choice, I'd put Clapper and Snowden in the same jail cell for about the same period of time"

He also doesn't say in there that he would put snowden in jail necessarily, but that there has to be some punishment for what he did.

On September 01 2015 02:31 KwarK wrote:
France, like the UK, Germany, China and Russia have their own illegal spying operations. That's what made his position so dangerous. As an opponent of the security state there was no nation anywhere who wanted anything to do with him because all states love power. He's not Roman Polanski.

He claims that after Hong Kong he had no documents accessible to him at all. That is was vital for his security, and that of his loved ones, that after Hong Kong he had nothing of any value that could be extracted from him by coercion, torture or hostage taking. You have to ask yourself which nation is big enough to not be bribed the US, strong enough that the US won't simply steamroll them and stupid enough that they'll accept someone who offers no value beyond pissing off the US. If not Russia, where?

Western Europe would sell him out because they're all fully on team NSA. They've all got their own illegal and intrusive networks going on and they partner with the NSA. Eastern Europe would sell him for the money. China gives no fucks about limiting government power or whistleblowers but are on great terms with the US. Honestly it kind of comes down to Russia or North Korea.

You don't need selling information to explain why he went to Russia, the lack of any alternative is sufficient, especially when accompanied by significant amounts of evidence that he had no information to sell after Hong Kong. They held him in the airport because it took a few days to decide what to do with him and to satisfy themselves that he really did have no information to sell.

Incidentally the law under which he'd be prosecuted in the US doesn't care about whether the information disclosed damaged the US, or whether it was evidence of unconstitutional practices, or whether it was sold, or indeed anything else that you'd think would differentiate between whistleblowing and spying. It comes down to "do foreign governments know something now that they didn't before" which is a slam dunk conviction so broad you could hit anyone with it. Snowden cannot face the consequences in the US because the system is rigged and the law is antiquated (100 years old at this point).

On September 01 2015 02:32 zlefin wrote:
What he said there in that interview sounds pretty reasonable;
note: "But I've sort of tongue-in-cheek said that if I had the choice, I'd put Clapper and Snowden in the same jail cell for about the same period of time"

He also doesn't say in there that he would put snowden in jail necessarily, but that there has to be some punishment for what he did.

On September 01 2015 02:42 Djzapz wrote:

What the first part of that quote mean though? "I've sort of tongue-in-cheek said...". English is my second language and I find that very confusing.

tongue-in-cheek
adjective & adverb
adjective: tongue-in-cheek; adverb: tongue-in-cheek
with ironic or flippant intent.
"her delightful tongue-in-cheek humor"

On September 01 2015 02:18 Djzapz wrote:

I linked the wrong article x_x
http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/06/04/rand-paul-on-edward-snowden

Remember, Roman Polanski lived as a free man in France for many years. The French are willing to show the US the bird to the extent that they shelter child rapists. Snowden would have been welcomed as a hero there, with a zero percent chance of extradition. And if he'd done that, no-one would be saying he probably sold secrets to Russia or China. This all of course assumes he wouldn't just try to get senatorial protection; whistleblowers who hand secrets over to sympathetic senators have lots of protection. One imagines Rand Paul would have been sympathetic. I'd have done it while hanging out in France, just in case, but there's a good chance it could have worked.

President Obama is adding a special item to his Alaskan itinerary.

He is set to appear an upcoming episode of Running Wild With Bear Grylls, NBC announced Monday.

The President and host Bear Grylls will venture through the Alaskan wilderness for a special edition of the unscripted adventure series to air later this year.

President Obama will meet the famed survival expert while visiting the state to observe the effects of climate change on the area. President Obama departs for Anchorage on Monday, and is also set to visit the towns of Dillingham and Kotzebue, as well as tour Exit Glacier and Kenai Fjords National Park, during his three-day trip.

The president’s visit to Alaska is expected to ruffle feathers. On Sunday, the White House announced that the Obama administration will change the name of North America’s tallest mountain peak from Mount McKinley to Denali – a major symbolic gesture for the Alaskan natives. Renaming the peak Denali puts the Obama administration in the middle of an ongoing conflict between the residents of Alaska and Ohio. Although Alaskans call the peak Denali, which means “high one” in Athabascan, the peak is officially recognized by the federal government as Mount McKinley, in honor of former U.S. president and Ohio native William McKinley, who was assassinated early in his second term.

This is yet another unconventional media move for the president, who’s been choosing fewer mainstream outlets for interviews in the past year. In addition to his appearance on Running Wild With Bear Grylls, the President will also be seen on an upcoming special episode of Vice, in which he becomes the first commander-in-chief to visit a federal prison. VICE Special Report: Fixing The System, for which a trailer was released Friday, will air Sept. 27 on HBO. He sat down for comedian Marc Maron’s WTF podcast in June.

This marks the visit by a sitting U.S. president on Running Wild With Bear Grylls, which is currently in its second season. The reality series has welcomed a slew of celebrity guests including Kate Winslet, Channing Tatum, Kate Hudson and Zac Efron, among others.

Grylls will produce the special edition of Running Wild with Delbert Shoopman and Dave Pearce of Bear Grylls Ventures, and Chris Grant, Viki Cacciatore and Liz Schulze of Electus.

On September 01 2015 07:07 Rebs wrote:
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/31/this_incoherent_donald_trump_interview_proves_one_thing_sarah_palins_descent_into_obscurity_is_complete/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Appealing to the lowest common denominator has always been important... but if it becomes the dominant force in politics. Oh man your heading straight for third world politics..

On September 01 2015 07:28 Acrofales wrote:

I only watched the first 2 minutes, but that's pretty hilarious:

1. Sarah Palin asserts that Donald Trump's heart is with the working class. Donald Trump wouldn't know what the working class was if it came up and punched him in the face.

2. Donald Trump claims there's 93million unemployed in the US. Lololololol. Using this data, that would be a 46% unemployment rate... ahahahahahahaha. If that were true, there would be riots in the street. That is almost double Greece's unemployment rate!

EDIT: watched the entire interview. That was absolutely cringeworthy. I don't think I have seen so much masturbation outside of some soft porn. It was basically 10 minutes of:

Sarah Palin: oooooh, Mr Trump, why are you so awesome?
Donald Trump: well, thank you Sarah, I like you too. Obama sucks.

On September 01 2015 02:31 KwarK wrote:
France, like the UK, Germany, China and Russia have their own illegal spying operations. That's what made his position so dangerous. As an opponent of the security state there was no nation anywhere who wanted anything to do with him because all states love power. He's not Roman Polanski.

He claims that after Hong Kong he had no documents accessible to him at all. That is was vital for his security, and that of his loved ones, that after Hong Kong he had nothing of any value that could be extracted from him by coercion, torture or hostage taking. You have to ask yourself which nation is big enough to not be bribed the US, strong enough that the US won't simply steamroll them and stupid enough that they'll accept someone who offers no value beyond pissing off the US. If not Russia, where?

Western Europe would sell him out because they're all fully on team NSA. They've all got their own illegal and intrusive networks going on and they partner with the NSA. Eastern Europe would sell him for the money. China gives no fucks about limiting government power or whistleblowers but are on great terms with the US. Honestly it kind of comes down to Russia or North Korea.

You don't need selling information to explain why he went to Russia, the lack of any alternative is sufficient, especially when accompanied by significant amounts of evidence that he had no information to sell after Hong Kong. They held him in the airport because it took a few days to decide what to do with him and to satisfy themselves that he really did have no information to sell.

Incidentally the law under which he'd be prosecuted in the US doesn't care about whether the information disclosed damaged the US, or whether it was evidence of unconstitutional practices, or whether it was sold, or indeed anything else that you'd think would differentiate between whistleblowing and spying. It comes down to "do foreign governments know something now that they didn't before" which is a slam dunk conviction so broad you could hit anyone with it. Snowden cannot face the consequences in the US because the system is rigged and the law is antiquated (100 years old at this point).