331–340 of 612 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ICE is now close to being Trump's private police, funded by tax payer's money and beyond accountability.
Close? That's been the case since ICE started rocking face masks and getting deployed only to "blue" cities.
Quite an interesting phenomena though, how affiliations color some unarguable facts. Many clearly believe that ICE agents are doing the right thing, they got what they voted for.
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…
When you phrase it that way though, it doesn't actually sound that bad. If a crime was committed, and some uninvolved person possesses evidence about that crime, the authorities need to be able to access it.
To give another scenario: if someone gets shot in front of my parked car, but the bullet passes through them and gets lodged in my car, the police should have the power to compel me to hand over the bullet even if I don't want to (which is important evidence that only I have).
> 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 obligated to protect that info. They did not pursue Barton Gellman because he wasn’t.
But if Barton Gellman was the only person in possession of the full collection, and the police needed it to help find the perpetrator of the crime, it would be legitimate for them to compel Gellman to hand over a copy.
However, it wouldn't be legitimate for them to go after you or me if we download the information from some public website, because that would serve no legitimate investigative purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but... the quoted phrase should not be taken literally as a statement about battlefield capability. It was a political struggle for legitimacy, not just territory, and the enemy did not have to win any battles, just avoid losing until the political will collapsed. The thing is, military power does not automatically translate to political success, and guerrilla fighters do not need to defeat tanks and jets, they…
Absolutely, and I think the domestic opposition strategy here makes military superiority irrelevant. The US government doesn't want to, and would collapse if they tried to, shoot everyone who says that Donald Trump is an illegitimate president and any prosecution he wants to succeed should fail.
It'd be real cool if all the second amendment (guns) people cared as much about the first amendment (free speech and freedom of press). "They're gonna take my guns away!" Yet that never happens. But people are being targeted for what they say, for disagreeing publicly. That's real. And a lot of "patriots" don't seem to notice or care.
[flagged]
"Natanson said her work had led to 1,169 new sources, “all current or former federal employees who decided to trust me with their stories”. She said she learned information “people inside government agencies weren’t supposed to tell me”, saying that the intensity of the work nearly “broke” her." Wow. So they're going to plug her phone in to whatever cracking tech they have and pull down the names of everyone who has…
I hope Washington Post does a better job of training their reporters than my friend’s former employer did. They sent her off to a certain country with highly repressive speech laws and secret police to interview and survey various civil rights activist groups. They gave her little to no guidance about how to protect herself aside from “Use a VPN to send any documents to us.” They didn’t even instruct her to use an en…
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'd be real cool if all the second amendment (guns) people cared as much about the first amendment (free speech and freedom of press). "They're gonna take my guns away!" Yet that never happens. But people are being targeted for what they say, for disagreeing publicly. That's real. And a lot of "patriots" don't seem to notice or care.
[flagged]
Forget the left. Why don't they stand up for themselves?
“ Agents searched Hannah Natanson’s Virginia home and seized devices in inquiry tied to a classified materials case” Right underneath the headline. That’s pretty normal for the FBI, assuming they had a search warrant.
Interestingly enough, that was an event related to classified information with the same newspaper.
> Set in 1971, The Post depicts the true story of attempts by journalists at The Washington Post to publish the infamous Pentagon Papers, a set of classified documents regarding the 20-year involvement of the United States government in the Vietnam War and earlier in French Indochina back to the 1940s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fear over the past week we've hit 3.99
The other side is already using box 4.
Sure, maybe some ICE home invaders will be shot in self-defense while committing their crimes, but we already know how that plays out legally and even in the court of public opinion sadly (Walker/Taylor). So instances of self-defense won't change the big picture, regardless of such self defense options perhaps being pragmatic for those who are likely to be attacked right now or in the near future.
So that brings us back to the question of the large scale situation, which IME rests entirely on there being so many people Hell-bent on using the ammo box to "save" the country with the net effect of trashing it. We've essentially got flash mobs of brownshirts, understandably frustrated at how they've been disenfranchised and their liberties taken away, but having their frustration channeled into being part of the problem. Which I'd say comes back to filter bubbles, social media, pervasive and personalized propaganda, etc.
Of course freeing people from those filter bubbles is much harder than if we had managed to avoid the corporate consumer surveillance industry from taking hold and strongly facilitating them in the first place.