Big Brother is Watching You

[O Really]

Sure, I read that part. Added to the outrageosity of the cops behavior, but you know how they get once somebody yells "squirrel!" Willing to arrest anybody in sight or who - in their totally blanked out mind - dares to "interfere" with their serving and protecting. But their abuse of the director still had nothing to do with content.

[Vrede too]

... But their abuse of the director still had nothing to do with content.

Not sure about that, it sounds like his content was that they were out of line.

[O Really]

I dunno, man. I read the links, but I don't particularly agree with the petitions. For example, according to one petition, "Torture is not a policy choice, it is a crime under U.S. and international law." In that context, they ask that Obama declassify the report that may constitute an admission of criminal activity. Like that's going to happen. Confession may be fine for the soul, but not so much for international relations.

I also noticed they were petitioning to keep FBI/DHS away from peaceful demonstrations for Black Lives Matter. Certainly we could agree that "activism is not the same as terrorism," but if you were up to some nefarious deed, would you show up with a bomb in your hand looking like one of Mad Magazines "Spy vs. Spy" characters, or would you pick a crowd you could blend in with? And if they crowd was a bit too peaceful to provide cover, might you consider starting a little violent action? You know the most successful I-95 drug carriers? It's not the ones driving an Escalade with 22's and super dark tinting. It's the ones driving a Volvo with a baby seat in the back and a Disney sticker on the bumper.

[Vrede too]

Since when should odds of success stop us from trying to do the right thing? I think the point re Obama non-transparency is valid, whatever one thinks of individual issues. Those are some pretty knowledgeable and credible groups saying so.

... And if they crowd was a bit too peaceful to provide cover, might you consider starting a little violent action? ...

Could be either radicals or undercover cops doing that.

No one object to cops being present at demos, it's part of their job. However, the decades long history of surveilling, intimidating and disrupting nonviolent groups is a different matter.

If I were up to some violent or destructive deed I would stay far away from any political group, especially one that's likely infiltrated. I would be so normal that hippies and radicals would throw up as I walked by.

[O Really]

Since when should odds of success stop us from trying to do the right thing? I think the point re Obama non-transparency is valid, whatever one thinks of individual issues. Those are some pretty knowledgeable and credible groups saying so.

.

May be. I wouldn't argue transparency one way or the other, mostly from lack of knowledge. But principle of transparency notwithstanding, I don't think it's a good idea admit you're guilty of international crime, even if everybody in the world who cares knows you did it.

As to Obama, I wonder if the environment he's lived in for eight years where people are recording every word and culling through every document and parsing the words of every decision so as to use it against him had any effect on his transparency.

[Vrede too]

We should have charged and jailed the torturers and their bosses, or at the least forced their public account in a South Africa style "truth commission" and run them out of government. Instead, they got away with it. It's not like releasing the report will do any harm. The US rejects international law.

[O Really]

The US rejects international law.

Objection. Overly broad.
I'm OK with sacking, and charging where applicable, those responsible and those responsible for them and for them, though.

[Vrede too]

We don't recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court. Who else could hold our torturers accountable?

As you say, "everybody in the world who cares knows (we) did it," and we've even already admitted guilt with the Senate report. Given that we won't prosecute here, transparency and naming names is the best way to make sure that we don't do it again . . . and end our longstanding practice of torture by proxy.

[O Really]

Opting out in accordance with the provisions isn't necessarily the same as not recognizing authority. From the link, apparently the US isn't alone in opting out. I usually favor international agreements, alliances, and treaties, but I'm not so sure I'd want a bunch of Third World guys hauling in the US President for trial (yes, even Shrub). Maybe I'm just ignorant about the court.

[Vrede too]

Opting out in accordance with the provisions isn't necessarily the same as not recognizing authority....

How so? We've rejected and ignored rulings on our support for the Contra terrorists and non-adherence to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, for example.

The International Criminal Court in the Hague, Netherlands is hardly "a bunch of Third World guys". Anyhow, whether we should be subject to the only arbiter of international law (I think we should) is a whole different debate. The fact is that we aren't. So, the only reason to not be more transparent about the torture program that everybody in the already world knows about and that we've already admitted to is to protect the torturers from even the personal accountability of publicity.

[O Really]

You're right, I shouldn't have characterized them as "third world guys". But the President is from Argentina and the first vice president from Kenya and not everybody who is on the judge list is from countries that are known for their judicial process. But I'm guessing it would take more than some CIA-style torture to get them to indict somebody as far up the food chain as a VP, Prez, Cabinet member, etc.

[Vrede too]

I'd even settle for outing a few hands-on and mid-level torturers, anything to create the institutional memory and consequent resistance to doing it again, directly or by proxy. Foolishly, I still believe that the Nuremburg practices and principles matter. Being a "good" German or American is not an acceptable excuse.

[rstrong]

The ICC is in the news today:

BBC: UN court throws out Marshall Islands' nuclear weapons case

Marshall Islanders, having been nuked a few times, accuse the nuclear powers of failing their obligations under the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty. In return for other countries not adopting nuclear weapons, the nuclear powers promised to disarm.

The court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case.

[Vrede too]

The US rejects international law. ... We don't recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court. Who else could hold our torturers accountable? ...

... The Marshall Islands had sought to use the case to force nuclear powers to disarm. The tiny South Pacific nation originally filed cases against all nine treaty signatories: The UK, US, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.

But only the UK, India and Pakistan recognise the jurisdiction of the Hague-based International Court of Justice and only those three cases proceeded to the preliminary court stage....

[O Really]

I suppose this guy will claim he stole info for the good of us all, too

National Security
NSA contractor charged with stealing top secret data

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

[Vrede too]

He might be an asshole, he might just think he stole info for the good of us all or he might have stolen info for the good of us all. It is interesting that the one described piece of stolen info is how the NSA steals info.

[rstrong]

Good thing that after Snowden in 2013, the NSA kept insisting that it put in place more controls to stop it from happening again.

[Vrede too]

Or:

NSA Contractor Who Allegedly Stole Top Secret Info 'More Weirdo Than Whistleblower,' Officials Say

Does he have a lot of cats, too?

[Boatrocker]

Or:

NSA Contractor Who Allegedly Stole Top Secret Info 'More Weirdo Than Whistleblower,' Officials Say

Does he have a lot of cats, too?

What, are you saying he's gay? NTTAWWT.

[O Really]

It would appear it's become fairly easy to steal data. Way back in the day, you would have had to smuggle out actual paper, or maybe a large analog tape, but certainly not spirit out terabytes of data in your arm pit, or whatever. But even then, they were pretty lax on physical security of information. You couldn't bring anything in (briefcases, lunch bag, whatever), and you couldn't carry anything out, but they didn't check your pockets or anything. But that's two Booz Allen people with their hand in the till. Hopefully it's not another "lowest bidder" issue.