121–130 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this worst than using Top Secret documents as toilet paper? https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/FyM1h-C...
Pardon my ignorance but what’s the context of this picture? I don’t watch the news fwiw.
Turns out US military strategy is the same as me and my mates setting up a bar date.
It's a disturbing leak in itself but i take issue with the journalist obsessing over the tool of choice whilst ignoring the actual strategizing.
The casual way in which a mass murder is planned. The emphasis on "messaging" and how to spin this on Biden and Europe. The teenage-like emojis to celebrate acts of war.
This administration looks bad from the outside but through this leak we can see that their shocking press moments are still the polished and spun versions of a reality that is far more sick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SO much for 'the most transparent administration in history', not that I bought into that claim in the first place. Seems like a violation of multiple public record-keeping laws.
Please FOIA the administration's process for meeting records requirements while using Signal. People need to call them out on this or nothing happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As soon as he realizes (or a reasonable person would realize) that the group chat is not a hoax, and that he is getting confidential military information over that channel, his continued membership in the channel demonstrates intent to receive the information, which makes anything he writes about it in the future legally problematic. It's complicated and it's not like just receiving classified information from a sour…
The fourt cases related to Watergate established that receiving classified information is not illegal, and affirmed 1A rights. I'd argue it's a exactly the same as a journalist overhearing this motley crew discussing the war plan in the halls of the White House without being aware there's a journalist nearby. I wouldn't bank on the current supreme court to uphold precedence, or the current administration persecuting…
Counting on SCOTUS to respect precedent at this point is either extremely optimistic or extremely naive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this worst than using Top Secret documents as toilet paper? https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/FyM1h-C...
Pardon my ignorance but what’s the context of this picture? I don’t watch the news fwiw.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Goldberg wrote an influential-at-the-time article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Goldberg#Views_on_Iraq I feel it's a stretch to say 'he lied us into the Iraq war' as if everyone based their decisions on that. There's an very unfortunate tendency in political discussions to rely on fallacies of composition, where an instance of some phenomenon is taken as equivalent to a whole. Throwing that out with no furth…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My theory is that he had to balance the journalistic scoop of the century with the risk of being arrested for illegally accessing/storing classified information. If they had noticed before he published the story then he could have been vanned and the public told that he had infiltrated a secure channel, and who would be able to say otherwise? MAGA people would cheerfully call for his execution.
Under US federal law it is generally not a crime for a person without a security clearance to receive or store classified information. The legal problems come in when they solicit it or take some other action to obtain it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sort of surprised Democrats haven’t snapped yet.
> surprised Democrats haven’t snapped yet There is no Democrat in the singular. There is a left-wing bloc defined, first and foremost, by identity politics and foreign policy views (namely, Palestine). There is a centrist bloc focussed on employment and wages (historically pro-union). And there is a free-trading bloc focussed on American enterprise and industry (historically pro Wall Street and the party's dominant w…
the second bloc is liberals, which are more center-right as they frequently side with conservative policies and are pro-capitalist. in recent years, this has come to include DSA (AOC) and other progressives like Bernie Sanders, who believe that the current system of politics under capitalism can be reformed instead of abolished. these people are very much for identity politics because they believe idpol will bring the leftmost bloc into the fold (it won't). this bloc sometimes supports leftmost causes but will abandon them when it is politically expedient (AOC, Bernie).
the third bloc is just right-wing. Bush Jr-era neocons. the party has always catered to these folks but more recently has come to embrace them as it moves rightward. this bloc will continue to grow as we see more of a rightward shift as more Democrats embrace the far right because they believe it will lead to electoral gains (Gavin Newsom, Chuck Shumer, etc) - once again, it won't.
the first bloc absolutely is not part of the Democratic party, and in fact despise the Democrats. they largely do not participate in federal electoral politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Goldberg wrote an influential-at-the-time article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Goldberg#Views_on_Iraq I feel it's a stretch to say 'he lied us into the Iraq war' as if everyone based their decisions on that. There's an very unfortunate tendency in political discussions to rely on fallacies of composition, where an instance of some phenomenon is taken as equivalent to a whole. Throwing that out with no furth…
[flagged]