Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 612 posts

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#231

Post by itsanaccount »

HNisCIS wrote: post #128
mingus88 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soap box > ballot box > jury box > ammo box We are on step 3

I fear over the past week we've hit 3.99

i keep tabs on posts roughly along the lines of "maybe we need guns after all."

imo they're usually too late, as guns without training and a group aren't very useful. but i can tell you the number has went up about 4x the baseline in the holiday season. and thats after its doubling after November's elections.

this country is a powderkeg and what's worse is i think these provocations are international. the admin seems to want to start a civil war.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#232

Post by billfor »

an0malous wrote: post #74
iamtheworstdev wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The following question is "what will they do with the names of the people they pull?". I'll take a shot at the answer -> Charge them with treason. Because that's the country we live in now, and most of us are just sitting by passively watching it happen.

There’s a good fraction of people, especially on this forum, who are actively encouraging this. Posts that criticize the administration consistently get flagged off the front page even when they’re related to tech

It's flagged because its historically not Hacker News. Many of the newer accounts seem to bias towards using this forum as a "reddit" to discuss how much they hate the current administration or their mental issues. The technical "hacker" content is getting less and less -- thank God for https://lobste.rs/. So that's all fine and maybe hackers should just change be a reddit forum, but don't take it personally or be surprised if 15 old accounts are flagging your posts. I say this noting that the account you posted from is only 9 months old.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#233

Post by SubiculumCode »

pjc50 wrote: post #116
SubiculumCode wrote: post #83

Keep your eyes on protecting the midterms from interference... re ICE / militias etc. I encourage governors to call up their State's National Guards to protect their State's electoral systems from Federal intrusion and extremist militia groups. This move is founded in the most republican of urges: State Sovereignty. (btw, I'd even consider that as a move in Minneapolis, right now).

Do you think the Minneapolis National Guard are willing to fire on ICE if ordered to do so? What do you expect the legal fallout of that situation to be?

There is a lot of room before that. Rather that the Guard would intervene illegal searches etc, and the inevitable tense ICE - National Guard interaction would change the dynamic, temper ICE's behavior. Moreover, the expected outcome would actually be Trump trying to nationalize that guard, then a constitutional crisis/emergency supreme Court intervention. The most power move that Democrats could make right now is the Republican one: state's rights/ sovereignty

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#235

Post by r721 »

technothrasher wrote: post #39
nutjob2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's appropriate and descriptive?

We're actually dumber than the frogs. The original 19th century experiment involving frogs that didn't jump out of heated water was using frogs who had had their brains destroyed. The question being asked was whether the escape reaction to hot water was caused by the brain or by something further down in the nervous system. With an intact brain, the frogs would jump out. Without one, they wouldn't. Question answered.

Relevant Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog#Experiments_and_a...

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#236

Post by sneak »

wtcactus wrote: post #221
snowwrestler wrote: post #88

To clarify why it’s aggressive: federal employees have a legal duty to secure classified information, but everyone else does not. Reporters are not federal employees and it’s not illegal for them to have or discuss classified materials. Most of what Snowden leaked was classified, and remains classified to this day , but you and I can read about it on Wikipedia. The government pursued Snowden because he was legally ob…

Didn’t they persecute (or tried to, I don’t remember anymore) Assange for the same reason though? Or is there some clear difference here?

They had a flimsy argument that Assange actively conspired with Manning to hack government machines based on some chat logs.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#237

Post by kilroy123 »

an0malous wrote: post #74
iamtheworstdev wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The following question is "what will they do with the names of the people they pull?". I'll take a shot at the answer -> Charge them with treason. Because that's the country we live in now, and most of us are just sitting by passively watching it happen.

There’s a good fraction of people, especially on this forum, who are actively encouraging this. Posts that criticize the administration consistently get flagged off the front page even when they’re related to tech

Sadly, a lot of people in Silicon Valley now subscribe to this "dark enlightenment" nonsense.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#238

Post by fzeroracer »

nickff wrote: post #77
bossyTeacher wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As others pointed out, the problem with this is that you end up with a government that can target any reporter by claiming they have "classified materials". No need to prove what those materials are (because they are classified). This is how third world countries choke journalists.

In the USA, the claim has to be convincing to a judge, so it’s not quite as arbitrary as you indicate.

In order for ICE to raid homes they need to have a valid warrant signed by a judge, but that doesn't seem to be stopping them in Minneapolis doing warrantless raids.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#239

Post by [deleted] »

softwaredoug wrote: post #227
snowwrestler wrote: post #88

To clarify why it’s aggressive: federal employees have a legal duty to secure classified information, but everyone else does not. Reporters are not federal employees and it’s not illegal for them to have or discuss classified materials. Most of what Snowden leaked was classified, and remains classified to this day , but you and I can read about it on Wikipedia. The government pursued Snowden because he was legally ob…

Some added context for this raid. It allegedly is about a govt contractor > The search came as part of an investigation into a government contractor accused of illegally retaining classified government materials.

[deleted]

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#240

Post by bluGill »

dragonwriter wrote: post #161
xhrpost wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's one thing both parties agree with, it's that you can't ever vote for a third party because that's effectively voting for the other major candidate. So the problem of not having more than 2 choices perpetuates indefinitely.

> If there's one thing both parties agree with, it's that you can't ever vote for a third party Actually, both major parties (not always at the same time) have a long track record of working very hard to promote voting for third-party candidates, doing things like funneling funds covertly (or simply nudging donors) to fund their efforts, assigning party activists to support third-party efforts, etc. Of course, they e…

That only works if the message of the third party is more appealing to those voters. And so the major party also pays attention to which third party messages from those who would support them are getting through and changes.

It is also helped because many of the people who are insiders in the major party are secretly voting for the third party when the majority of primary voters (who are rarely well informed) force someone they don't like on the party. They can't do anything this time, but they can send a message to each other where they failed.

Post reply on HN