Earlier quoted context omitted.
A little child? Great way to participate in constructive conversation
Nothing outrageous was claimed.
Perhaps not. Personal insults and attacks are against the site rules, though.
“We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
171–180 of 276 posts
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any actual evidence that he declassified all of that material while in office? Did he even tell anybody? No? Well, then, any such claims are necessarily retroactive, or else they're invalid from the get-go. Which do you prefer?
Any ideas you have about the President having to follow any sort of official process regarding classification are nothing but illusions. The most you're going to get here is he's irresponsible in a way people don't like but is not criminal. Even if I were to imagine he were technically breaking the law with some of these documents, look at it from a practical standpoint. At one point he could've done whatever he want…
I could've written down the correct numbers for the lottery but I didn't, therefore I don't get to claim any winnings.
I think it's kind of ironic that - speaking generally - the "patriots" don't seem to care at all that a former president took state secrets after leaving office.
I wonder how big the "nothingburger" would be if it turns out he actually did leak them.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Ohio National Guard is not a branch of the US military. It reports to the government of Ohio.
Now you’re splitting hairs. A government ordered death is the same no matter if the shooter is a soldier or a national guardsman.
This is a big difference. State national guards operate a lot more like the state police than like the army. Posse Comitatus does not apply to them.
By the way, if you want to split hairs and bring up examples like Kent State, the elephant in the room is the self-defense justification in a lot of these examples. Find a killing that occurred when a soldier believed their life to be in danger.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ad serving probably has less false-positives, because those cost the ad companies money.
You think that false positives requiring the staging/deployment of a multi-million dollar weapon system don't cost money?
Not really, the US military practically has a blank check.
I can think of multiple decade-long government projects off of the top of my head (including from NASA) that had entire programs scrapped because they ran out of money.
Overages from a single military program, like the F-35, have eclipsed the entire budget of those canceled projects.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
You invented 'retroactive.' I suppose you are blasé about this because it applies to someone of an opposing political party.
How exactly was retroactive 'invented' here? If they were already declassified then there wouldn't have been a raid.
If this is not sarcasm: I appreciate your genuity. However, this is not how the legal system works in the US either broadly or in this particular.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you aware that Trump could have tweeted a copy of every top secret document the government has and it would have been perfectly legal?
Perhaps - when he was president. He wasn't president when Mar A Lago was searched, though.
If he took them while he was still President it was perfectly legal to do so in any manner he chose. His mere act of doing it made it official policy because that was his unique Constitutional power. The next President can create new policy, re-classify information, etc. The only real risk is if Trump perjured himself or something about the docs when asked. All of his property is secured by the secret service. The idea that anything at Mar-a-Lago was stored in an insecure way is preposterous on its face.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#177To me discussions about privacy often seem like bullshit. Here is a comment I wrote yesterday about a former AdWords employee as privacy violation apologist: Hypocritically people bitch about intrusive data collection from governments and yet simultaneously give away the same data, and encourage others to do the same, and more to private companies knowing that data will be weaponized against them. As such it’s almost…
People don't have a choice about giving information to governments. There's a fourth amendment for a reason so I'm obviously anti dragnet. Private parties though may opt into providing anything legal to other private parties at their sole discretion and that's the nature of things. Despite the fact that the majority of Americans are making market choices that many of us would consider "not privacy respecting", that d…
> I don't have a Google account. I don't have a Facebook account.
They have shadow profiles of you.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Due process is subject to feasibility on American soil as well. Mass shooters seem to get very few days in court.
It's illegal to assassinate even mass shooters in the US. It's only legal to kill them in defense during an active situation. And just going to through out there that Anwar al-Awlaki isn't accused of taking up arms, just publishing political speech that the US government didn't approve of.
> It's illegal to assassinate even mass shooters in the US. It's only legal to kill them in defense during an active situation.
A drone strike feels like a pretty active situation no?
I'm not being pedantic, just pointing out that there is a ton of grey area that your statement doesn't account for, and we'd need to dive into the details of this situation to determine whether the assassination was justified or not. Even then, it would mostly be a qualitative judgement.
For example, let's say you had credible information indicating someone was going to bomb and elementary school, and you saw them running down your street towards one such school. Would you shoot?
What if, same situation, but you saw them riding a bike or driving a car toward the school? What if you had no idea where they were, but someone told you they'd be in a certain location before the attack and you could only get a drone to the location in time?
I'm not saying the gov was wrong or right with Anwar, just that the arguments presented here fail to account for real world complexity.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
You invented 'retroactive.' I suppose you are blasé about this because it applies to someone of an opposing political party.
Is there any actual evidence that he declassified all of that material while in office? Did he even tell anybody? No? Well, then, any such claims are necessarily retroactive, or else they're invalid from the get-go. Which do you prefer?
This is pure sophistry, and in addition it is factually incorrect. You should look carefully at the word 'authority' and diversify your information sources.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#180Metadata is data. There is no "just" metadata. Metadata is a relative classification of one piece of data compared to another piece of data, not an absolute classification.
Yeah the media was using this to downplay it a few years back. "It's just metadata." they were all parroting in unison. It aggravated me to no end.