Posts by Matt Bryant 9690 publicly visible posts • joined 21 May 2007
"Actually, the university is very unlikely to give a flying F word." Actually, not so. All unis in the UK operate in a sort of beauty contest to get students to apply to them, so do not want a "bad review". So for them it would be a risk taking on a known troublemaker with a history of dissing his previous places of education, especially as Zaloom's rantings seem completely unfounded.
And before you bleat on about "Fascist", etc., such bad reports from headmasters have been happening for decades. I myself was in a similar position to Zaloom - I was not the best behaved of pupils and twice came close to expulsion for "bringing the school into disrepute", and was told at one of my uni interviews that my old head had passed on a bad reference. In my case I got better grades than I required so it wasn't an issue, but looking back I can now understand why my old head passed on the bad report, and why my uni interviewer gave me a stern warning that such a bad reference could affect both my educational and business futures. I suspect the difference will be I learnt my lesson.
The anarchist skiddies these days are just too tied to their tech, they just don't have any imagination. Everything has to be done for them, preferably by some "clever" code. A simple look through history would show them a mere update of an ancient encoding technique would suit 99% of their needs as most of it is just sending their paranoid delusions in text. It's called a book cipher. Thousands of books are now available online in digital form meaning that they can still play with their computers, and with very large books you can usually find many possible options for each word you want to encode so you can avoid statistical and pattern analysis. You could encipher a whole website and only the readers with the source book to refer to could decipher it (in real-time if they have some "clever" browser code). The random nature of the enciphering means you can throw as much computing power as you like at it in vain. And with so many texts now available in digital form you can even change source books (keys) every message if required. The only problem for the anarchists is their reading is so limited they have so few options for source books. Just a quick warning for them - 300 copies of Mao's "The Little Red Book" being downloaded at once are going to ring a few alarm bells at the NSA.
"The EMC Benchmark certainly does look impressive...." Nah, the boyos from one of the Nimble resellers are currently my fave benchers. They seriously confused a business manager by telling him that an array not being all flash was so last year, etc., and provided an all flash array benchmarks for a project that required iSCSI delivery to remote offices.....
"At thirty dollars postage to the United Kingdom, I think that I will give this cheeky item of merchandise a miss..." Well, you could always take a screenie of the shirt, edit it in Photoshop, then take it down your local printing shop and have them apply the text and logo bits to a t-shirt for you. It's not like the t-shirt company can claim trademark infringement if they're in infringement themselves.
"because I think this new hype about smarwatches is just that - hype and....." Yeah, but I'm much more likely to use a smartwatchphone than be a Glasshole, especially if I'm doing something like jogging or cycling when I don't want my phone falling out of my pocket and breaking. Pair it with a (discrete) Bluetooth headset and enjoy not looking a total nerd.
Of course, one of the smaller Andorid phones, something the size of the old HTC Wildfire S, mounted in landscape mode on a wrist strap is even better and a whole lot cheaper, and has a far better screen.
So, no-one noticed the timing on this leak? No-one noticed it wasn't a Greenwald-Snowden leak but came from "other" sources? This is a clever attempt to split the opposition to eavesdropping by showing it being used "for good". Many of the soft liberals that were upset by PRISM will hesitate to condemn the use of similar tech against drug dealers and their gangs. The anarchists will continue to shriek and bleat but they'll suddenly find themselves without as vocal support from the liberals.
"....feel free to just skip over that sort of moral argument...." So, having lost all the legal arguments, having run out of dubious half-truths, and having had all your "factual" points thoroughly debunked, you retreat to the fact-free "moral" argument, the last stand of the discredited.
"....But basically, if lots of people complain that it is wrong, then , normally, it's wrong...." You mean just because you noisy 0.099% think you're right the rest of us should just go with what you say? Sorry, think again. TBH, get over yourself.
"....Keith Vaz, David Davis, Nick Clegg, Yvette Cooper...." AKA, Keith-Rentaquote-Vaz, David Not-fair-I-want-to-be-the-Tory-leader Davis, Nick No-I-want-to-be-the-Tory-leader-more-than-Davis Clegg, and Yvette We-couldn't-get-hold-of-Vaz Cooper? Wow, with those kinds of shining examples of heroism, you're a sure-fire for success - not. I'm quite comfortable in predicting the next election will be fought over real issues such as the economy, and not bleating points.
"....You appear to have ignored the fact that my argument has consistently been that they should have used appropriate laws, like the OSA, but chose not too because those don't allow for forced questioning....." You are ignoring the fact it matters not one jot. They could have stopped him under a Schedule 7 and - if they found half-a-kilo of coke up his rectum - still charged him with possession of drugs. The police do not have to ignore evidence of a crime that is different from the initial reason for a stop and search, be it an ordinary stop and search on the street or a Schedule 7. And, as already discussed, and completely ignored by you, it could be argued that the secrets would be of use to terrorists, therefore the original Schedule 7 stop was applicable. Keep denying it until you are blue in the face, it was all completely legal and very unlikely to change. Enjoy!
"....Well to some extent - they haven't even been charged with anything (yet), never mind convicted , so on the face of it why would you say they have Matt?...." Greenwald has in his possession secret material covered by the OSA, and whilst you may be so blind as to think he has done nothing wrong, it speaks volumes that Greenwald was too scared to go see Poitras himelf. Obviously he doesn't share your conviction that he wouldn't be arrested.
"....Has the little judge and jury inside of you already decided the sentence?...." It was you that was insisting they had not broken any laws despite it not going to court. I am pointing out that there are numerous articels on the Web from respected news sources (with legal teams, not bleating sheeple bloggers), that have pointed out that the stop was completely legal, and that Miranda was in breach of the OSA if he did have classified documents relating to GCHQ in his possession. Maybe you should try reading more than just IndyMedia?
"....What will you do if they never get charged, or get proven innocent?...." Well, seeing as the police are preparing a case, it looks like charges will be presented at least against Miranda shortly. At that point it will get interesting as Miranda is unlikely to volunteer to leave Brazil and return to the UK to face prosecution, so whilst he may never be convicted he will never be proven innocent, and will always be a fugitive from justice. Should the police find evidence in his data linking Patrois and Greenwald to the stolen docs then it gets real interesting - Greenwald spouting of about GCHQ is one thing, but Greenwald definitively linked to evidence is another matter. Again, Greenwald might not care too much from his Rio hideaway, but Poitras is in Europe and therefore vulnerable to an European arrest warrant. Whilst Merkel may be playing for votes in an election year, I doubt if she'll be willing to deny an extradition to the UK. But I bet you didn't want to consider any of that.
"....What about the spying on the embassies, UN and stuff Matt?...." Shall we wait to see if a case ever gets presented in any court? You know, with actual evidence presented. What was that about making yourself judge and jury? LOL, try again, lambikins.
".....So, unless David has dual nationality or handed over documents in the UK or associated crown territory, section 5 does not apply, he isn't an employee of the Guardian and is only handing documents over to Greenwald or Poitras, so the publication of the documents isn't directly connected to him...." All complete cobblers - he just has top be in possession of the material, full stop. And his couriering them between Poitras and Greenwald is definitely aiding in their illegal publication, so you fail again. The rest of your laughable attempt at rewriting the OSA is simply too stupid for words, but I have submitted it to the Plain English Campaign as an extreme case of complete gobbleydegook masquerading as an argument.
"....you might have a case if they hadn't taken all these documents off of him before letting him go...." That's like saying the police can't possibly re-arrest someone just because they had to release them before all the evidence was tested. Imagine if the police caught a known drug-dealer with a bag of pills, but couldn't get the lab results back on the pills before having to release him. By your argument, should the lab results later come back saying the tablets are Ecstacy the coppers would not be allowed to re-arrest and charge the dealer - what complete and utters bollocks! Please say you work in teh legal profession, for Bindmans maybe, and that you will be representing that other complete tosser Assange soon?
"....you show exactly part of one document...." Documents that prove my points. And you showed none at all. Face it, you lost again, Miranda got the lawyer of his arrangement if not personal choice (he delegated the choice to Greenwald). All your hairsplitting and denial does not change that simple fact, and does not stop me exposing the lie you continue to make when you claim the police did not let him have a lawyer.
"....The fact that one turned up would be hard to ignore once the diplomatic and legal thumbscrews come on...." What complete bollocks! Kendall was taken to Miranda within 40 minutes of having turned up unannounced and without the correct documentation, and "diplomatic and legal thumbscrews" had nothing to do with it. The Brazillians had been told politely and correctly of the legal matter and told to go through diplomatic channels (AKA, "go get stuffed"), and were busy sulking and huffing ineffectually, not even knowing who Kendall was! And Kendall's hilariously lackadaisical progress to Heathrow makes me wonder if Bindmans had employed thumbscrews upong themselves! ROFLMAO!
"....So, in this situation, someone as well connected as he is can't get a lawyer there for 8 out of 9 hours of the questioning, and the maximum is 9 hours, and according to you this is only to be expected on a Sunday, with the Airport being so far away etc...." That is what the facts show, and all you have are wild accusations and no facts to back up your bleatings. Fail! In fact, your whole diatribe and all your posts are simply fail throughout. At least you're consistant.
Sorry, I was laughing so hard at your indignant bleating I missed a part of your selective reading of events:
"...,He wasn't allowed his own lawyer, or to contact anyone else himself.
A member of the team detaining him who refused to give his name told Greenwald he was in custody, after 3 hours, and said he wasn't allowed a lawyer
Lawyers sent to the airport anyway were not allowed to contact him for 5 hours and got to see him one hour before he was freed (probably only then due to diplomatic pressure). In the meantime he had been questioned for 8 hours....."
The problem is that is almost completely untrue or a mass of assumptions based on what you want to baaaaah-lieve. Indeed, you sheeple need to get your stories straight as you're beginning to contradict yourselves (http://liberalburblings.co.uk/2013/08/details-of-legal-representation-allowed-to-david-miranda-at-heathrow/). Let's look at your points one at a time.
"...,He wasn't allowed his own lawyer, or to contact anyone else himself...." This is part untruth and part procedure. He was allowed the solicitor of his choice as shown by the fact that Gavin Kendall of Bindmans was able to attend as Miranda's representative. Mr Kendall was not refused access and not told he could not be Miranda's lawyer, nor was Miranda told he had to take a police duty solicitor or nothing, so your first point is a complete fabrication. It is also procedure not to let a suspect contact anyone they like when under questioning to avoid them warning off a fellow suspect or getting an accomplice to dispose of evidence. So that first set of statements can be completely debunked straightaway.
"....A member of the team detaining him who refused to give his name told Greenwald he was in custody, after 3 hours, and said he wasn't allowed a lawyer...." The police officer that called Greenwald gave him his warrant number, which is his unique legal identifier. In Yank terms it is equivalent to a detective's shield number. This shows the officer was not trying to hide his identity as you imply. They also called Greenwald as Miranda requested they do so to provide him a lawyer. This choice of Greenwald by Miranda was understandable as Miranda was unlikely to have known any solicitors to call in the UK, but it was Miranda's choice of Greenwald that delayed him receiving legal representation, not any interference by the police. And the police did not say Miranda could not have a lawyer, that is patently male bovine manure, as the first thing Greenwald did was call up the UK Guardian office who then called Bindmans via their Bindmans rep Kate Goold.
"....Lawyers sent to the airport anyway were not allowed to contact him for 5 hours and got to see him one hour before he was freed (probably only then due to diplomatic pressure). In the meantime he had been questioned for 8 hours....." Kendall initially wasted time trying to contact Miranda by phone. This was simply stupid - there was no way the police would let someone under Schedule 7 detention talk to anyone on the phone as the they would be unable to verify that the person on the phone was not an accomplice. So Miranda had to wait for Kendall to get his lazy ass down to Heathrow. Given that Bindmans are London based this could have taken a few hours in itself. The fun gets better - Kendall does not appear on the Bindmans website as a member of their solicitors team (http://www.bindmans.com/our-people/lawyers). Given that it all happened on a Sunday, I suspect what happened was Goold sent out their duty solicitor, probably a contract solicitor, and not the type of legal challenger Greenwald assumes he would get. So instead of someone more qualified (like Gwendoline Morgan, who represented for Mr Miranda's failed injunction attempt, or Bindmans' Head Of Police Misconduct, Chez Cotton), Miranda got what seems to be the inept substitute. That seems to have been a failure of Bindmans causing, not the police. It gets even better. As I understand it, for a duty solicitor to attend they need to be on the Police Station Register so they can bypass such checks as are required to ensure they are an actual solicitor. It seems Mr Kendall was down as representing McCormacks, not Bindmans (according to the registration in 2005 http://www.criminalsolicitor.net/forum/uploads/DaveyB/files/2005-02-17_065653_PS_Attendances_-_Consultation_Response.pdf), so it was inevitable that he would have to wait whilst being checked, which on Sunday would probably not be a quick process. Again, it looks like another blunder by Bindmans, who seem to be either incompetent or not really putting much value in the Guardian contract, IMHO. Whatever the reason for the delays, Kendall was eventually allowed access to Miranda as his legal representative.
So, IMHO, all the delays you assume were down to police skulduggery actually seem to be due to lack of preparation on Greenwald's part (considering the task he gave Miranda, why didn't he predict UK interference and at least give him the contact number for Bindmans in advance?) and what appears to be a sloppy service from Bindmans. Enjoy!
"Again Matt....." LOL, you're not tired of being shown to be repeatedly and completely wrong yet? Blimey, the stupid is strong with this one! Ah well, let's just enjoy whatever whimsical fantasy you come up with whilst waiting for the late night movie to come on.
"....You seemed to have overlooked the point about how laws get changed when abused even when the use of them is technically "Legal" but obviously wrong....." But how is it "wrong"? And for laws to be changed there has to be a majority of people that agree they are wrong and want their MPs to change said laws, so where is your popular movement against them? Are backbench Tories revolting over them? Are the opposition standing up and demanding their repeal? Nope. As I pointed out to you before, you and the rest of the sheeple are the 0.099%, not the 99%, and just because you deeply want something to happen does not mean it will. Enjoy!
".....Although even the technical "legality" of the questioning is pretty suspect here...." Not according to the actual legally trained people (of which you very obviously are not, to the point where I would actually question if you have been fully pottie trained) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23870616
"....If the government actually uses the OSA against them....". Oh puh-lease, that is such an obvious lie. It is patently obvious that you think Miranda and co have done nothing wrong and you will shriek and bleat just as pointlessly when a case is brought against them. What an epic failure of a pretense.
".....I don't believe there would be a case to put him in prison under the OSA so long as he complied with that request....." Again, I suggest you go read up on the law instead of blindly assuming it works how you want it to work, as another one of your sulky tantrums really would be just too boring.
"....You just keep on missing the point...." If by missing the point you mean showing you wrong on the topic thread and every point you raised then guilty.
".....You are just unable to process the idea that laws are intended for one thing, and being used for other purposes is wrong, even if "Legal"....." They were used for the process intended, otherwise their use would be illegal, which I have already shown was not the case. It is YOU that are unable to accept those simple facts because it would upset your fragile fantasy alternate reality baaaaaah-liefs. For you the measures MUST BE illegal because you elevate people like Greenwald and Assange to the point of being gods, to whom man-made laws simply shouldn't apply, so it hurts you to see them fail to predict the actions of mere mortals like the UK authorities. It's truly amusing to watch you shriek and bleat in despair.
"...Having a police (or MI5) provided lawyer isn't the same as independent legal advice...." Firstly, where did it say he had a stooge lawyer? Miranda was given a call to any lawyer he liked, and Greenwald himself admits he sent additional Guardian lawyers and Brazilian officials to the airport as well. So take that lie and shove it. You are simply wrong, again, yet again.
"....The official secrets act is a law I agree. Pity they didn't use it...." LOL, I understand the police are readying a prosecution case for the authorities involving the OSA, so again you are simply wrong. Again. Yet again. What would really be novel if you were actually right about ANYTHING! Here's an easy one to get you started, one within even your capabilities - what colour is the sky? I would suggest you don't follow your usual modus operandi and wait for Greenwald or Assange or similar wannabe revolutionary to tell you what colour they want you to think it is.
"....And as for getting the law repealed, thanks for the encouragement. I do actually carefully consider the platforms (and individual voting records it applicable) of the candidates...." I'm hopeful that will help when you actually grow up to be old enough to vote. LMAO!
Well, at least you're consistent - you completely and totally fail again. Yet again.
"....The stop wasn't magically "Random". You get that?....." LOL! Having lost on all other points, and having failed to drag the topic off into your fantasy baaaaah-liefs of institutionalised police racism, you now want to bleat on about whether the stop was random or not? WTF? Who CARES if it was random, it DOESN'T NEED to be random to satisfy the legal requirements, as recently proven in the case of Sylvie Beghal.
"....So they knew full well who he was, and that he wasn't a terrorist....." Massive fail - you don't have to plant bombs to be legally classified as a terrorist. Providing support, either monetary (such as by dodgy Islamic charities) or materially (such as through websites with Islamist and terror material) count too. There is zero doubt (except amongst the blinkered sheeple) that information on the methods used by GCHQ to intercept terrorist communications would be of use to terror groups, so there is also zero legal doubt that their distribution, whether intentionally for terrorism or not, constitutes interference with anti-terror activities if nothing else, making the use of anti-terror laws both applicable and completely legal. You can go on insisting they aren't but that legal matter has already been tested and shown valid, just accept you have lost again and get over it.
"....Greenwald isn't a terrorist either, and your assertion that as he might have documents of interest to terrorist somehow makes him a terrorist? Also crap...." Except I never accused Greenspan of being a terrorist, so it is you that is talking crap. Why don't you wait and see if Greenspan is ever stupid enough to step on British soil before you start making groundless accusations. After all, so far he seems to feel much safer putting his boyfriend in the firing line.
".....There are plenty of laws to stop and catch actual criminals Matt, and that what they are to be used for....." The Official Secrets Act is a law, go read up on it.
".....without legal protections...." You mean apart from having a solicitor? Yeah, no legal protection at all - not! I'm not keeping score, but I reckon that's at least your third completely bogus statement in one post! What a shining example of self-delusion and paranoid fantasist you are.
"....Saying "its all legal, honest" isn't going to shut people up Matt, it just going to make them determined to get the law changed or removed..." Agreed, being proven repeatedly wrong doesn't seem to shut you up at all. Good luck getting any of the laws repealed, you would need to gain some form of popular majority for that, and it is patently clear every election that you and your fellow sheeple are the 0.099%, not the 99% you claim. Enjoy!
"....I think you'll find you are the one flailing about looking for reasons to justify the actions of the police in pretty much all these circumstances...." I don't have to justify them, they are already pronounced legal. In case you missed it, the wife of a terrorist that challenged the airport stop laws has just lost her case (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23870616), with the judge pronouncing them not only legal but thoroughly applicable. I don't think even Dickileaks can call that one a "strategic victory". Enjoy!
The rest of your post is just more irrational bleating and frothing rage, waaaaay off-topic and still completely lacking in any verifiable facts to back up your ridiculous baaaaah-liefs. But I love the bit where you completely ignore the view of real legal professionals and attempt to rewrite the anti-terror laws:
"....Your insistence that David Miranda is "involved in committing, preparing or instigating acts of terrorism"...." Which is not the requirement for Schedule 7 stop and search. As the BBC explains (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23757133) in layman terms even you might understand; "....Unlike with some other police powers to stop and search, there is no requirement for an officer to have a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is involved with terrorism before they are stopped....." And you can forget claiming the use of the powers was "arbitary" as Miranda was suspected of carrying stolen GCHQ documents that would be of interest to terrorist groups, with an intent to facilitate the illegal distribution of those documents. Yes, you fail again! LMAO!
"....there have been many martyrs throughout history....." Que? If you seriously believe Greenwald and co have any interest in martyrdom then I have some prime Florida river-side real estate to sell you! Greenwald's motivations are a lot more basic and monetary.
".....The fact remains that the security services are still left without the key....." So what? The prime aim is to stop the transfer of secret docs, so locking up all the people involved goes a long way towards that. It's also a powerful disincentive to others. You are forgetting that the NSA and GCHQ already know what's in the docs since they are their docs, what they want is to track down and arrest the people involved in stealing and distributing said docs. Tracking coms between them tells them all they need to know (conspirators' identities) without the need to decrypt docs. Once they then arrest (or stop under Schedule 7) a conspirator they can root through hiis or her data at their leisure. The ability to decrypt even a little of the docs for court evidence is a bonus, otherwise the authorities will settle for sending them to prison for several years at a time in repeat cycles until they do give up any keys. I bet the FBI are quite jealous of the UK police powers.
".....Even torture won't help them (expect to make them feel better of course)." Why do they need to torture anyone? It's kinda hard to be "an international journalist/film-maker/toyboy, tirelessly fighting the fight for the right" when you're locked up at HMG's pleasure.
"The whole not knowing the encryption key thing doesn't help you if the security services believe otherwise...." Indeed, the law states you have to provide the key, and is not conditional that you are the originator or that you know it yourself, so if the encryption has been done by others you still have to convince those others to hand over the key or suffer the consequences yourself.
"What does the UK charge him with?...." If he is in possession of material covered by the Official Secrets Act, regardless of how they came to be in his possession, then he is in breach of that law.
"....These files were not taken from any UK system, or within the UK, may not even be UK material, so I'm not sure how they can prosecute...." Go read the relevant Act, it matters not one jot how the material was stolen, just that you have it in your possession and are not authorised to have it in your possession. If you show intent to distribute it that makes it worse.
"....They can try some vague thing about making terrorism...." The terrorism angle was simply used to stop him, it will be the OSA used to prosecute. They could go the extra mile in court and, if they can show that Miranda and co knew the material would be of interest to terrorists and still distributed it, charge them with material support of terrorism, but they don't need to when they can go to town with the OSA charges.
"....Which might be why they didn't arrest him after their nine hours...." I would suggest that the volume of documentation meant they simply hadn't processed enough to charge Miranda with inside the nine hours, so they let him go whilst still examining the data. It seems they ahve found plenty since as they are preparing a criminal case.
".....If you were mugged, would you be satisfied if your attacker escaped justice on the grounds that they only hit you, in some places they might have shot you?...." Yeah, so please show us on the doll where you were hit? Oh, you can't, becase no-one is interested in reading your delusional blatherings. You haven't been "mugged", you are just hapiilly living in some fantasy where you like to imagine you are just so gosh-darn cool and rebellious that the security services would consider you a top priority intercept target, when the reality is they have real fish to fry, not wannabes. Get over yourself.
"So if say Canada merely refused permission for any flights to the US to enter it's airspace....." Yes, Canada has complete sovereinty of its airspace so it is within the rights of the Canadian government to close their airpsace to US flights. But diplomaticy they would need to supply a reason for doing so. In the case of Morale's aircraft, it was because he was suspected of transporting a person not on the passenger manifest, which is in breach of the Chicago Convention. Rather than go for a request for a search, France and Spain seem to have taken the slightly less diplomaticly upsetting refusal for overflight, as is their right. Austria simply added the request that if the Bolivian aircraft landed to refuel then the Austrians would exercise their right to check the manifest against the actual people on the aircraft. Morales could have refused and returned to Russia but decided to accept the Austrian request.
".....Whether this justifies the interference with the press is another matter." Whilst you're right about both the Guardian journos and Dickileaks making far too many assumptions around security (and it the Guardian's case seemingly pretty uninformed about simple tech like zipped files), I would have to point out that Mr Miranda was not a Guardian employee nor a registered journalist, so no "interference with the press" took place.
"After forcing down the plane of a head of state over Europe....." Sorry to correct your hysterical shrieking but no such event happened. The Bolivian aircraft was merely refused permission to cross airspace, then was requested to submit to a passenger check. The Bolivians could have refused and returned to Russia but needed to refuel, but no-one was "forced down". Please do try to keep at least one foot in reality whilst bleating.
"....it seems a bit much for the intelligence agencies to beef about someone else's security discipline." Actually, the files in question seem to have come from Snowden, and he was a contract employee of the NSA, not GCHQ, so a Yank security problem, thank you.
"....But nobody's actually named "Abdul"....." It's quite a common Muslim name, apparently it means "servant of the creator" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arabic_theophoric_names) and so would be the choice of the pious rather than ill-advised parent.
"....we beat the yanks to it ..." I'm sure I read some article a few years back about a furious Swedish driver who was arrested for beating on a half-dead elk that he had driven into becasue "it had wrecked his car". True, I don't recall he was biting it, but as an exercise in stupid road rage it seems to have even the US example beat!
".....Everybody I have ever known that took a swing at a cop....." It is becoming patently obvious that all your "opinions" on the police have been formed from mixing with the type of degenerate that regularly gets in trouble with the law. I bet those losers also had wonderful excuses for why they were commiting whatever crimes they were pursuing when the polcie caught them. My suggestion would be buy a clue and start mixing with a better type of person, there are plenty of them out there, the majority of people never having any cause to be arrested by the police.
"....Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, warned: "It's most like riddled with contamination, and a thorough investigation needs to occur....." I'm almost tempted to ask whom exactly Ms Esposito considers "qualified" to investigate, but I suspect - going by her groups hysterical approach to fracking (http://www.citizenscampaign.org/campaigns/hydro-fracking.asp) - she'd have to loosen up the tin-foil a lot more to supply a coherent answer.
"....namely an article written by William Montgomery published online by the Jurist...." Which was not in your original post and you don't even provide a link to in your reply. Please try harder. Did you eman this article (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2008/08/arresting-radovan-karadzic-euphoria-and.php) which explains: "....The uniformed military and their civilian leaders were terrified that our troops would become targeted in a form of guerrilla warfare in Bosnia (pity that similar concerns weren't a factor several years later in the case of Iraq) and determined that there would be no "Mission Creep" which would keep them in Bosnia. This meant that the military narrowly defined its mission as only providing the overall security for Bosnia...." So US forces were not instructed to arrest Serb war criminals but to maintain the peace. Surely you should be celebrating that the Serbs eventually were presuaded to give up the criminals through diplomacy seeing as "blowing shit up" seems to upset your sooooo delicate sensibilities so much?
"....your posts suggest that you are awfully keen to have shit blown up...." Incorrect, I am railing against the built-in inefficiency and corruption that is the UN system. It is equivalent to having a street mugging where the police have to stop and ask the opinion of everyone on the street if they can arrest the mugger, with it only taking one friend of the mugger saying no to derail the whole affair and ensure the mugger escapes.
".... because you rail at length as to what's in the way of blowing shit up...." Again, incorrect, I am saying I don't belief the current suggestion of "blowing shit up" is actually going to benefit the Syrian people, it is simply you are too obtuse to understand that. The only way to completely ensure Assad does not use chemical weapons would be to destroy them all (technically very difficult, and possibly with dangerous collatoral damage and pollution threats to the Syrian civilians) or seize them by force (which would be a massive and costly military action). And that then leaves the question of whether any chemical weapons have fallen into rebel hands and do we do the same to them? None of which was being discussed in the UK motion, which was effectively asking for a "blank cheque" of military action (probably cruise missiles and bombing) to slap Assad with. The only other option I can see is getting Assad to allow UN monitors (probably Russian) to take over control of all his chemical weapons until the civil war is settled, with the threat of bombing if Assad doesn't agree. Shall we see if you can summon enough concentration to suggest anything other than more shrieking?
"....Why did the US/NATO fail to step up to the plate on that occasion ?....." The problem with Rwanda was that the UN had a fixation not with interfering with civil wars or internal affairs as long as there was no genocide involved. This left far too much room for those trying to stop the UN interfering (such as Uganda, who backed the Hutus) until the genocidal action had happened. But one of the main reasons for the US not getting involved was European pigheadedness - the Belgians saw Rwanda as their ex-colony and resisted outside pressure for an American involvement, despite an informer having given the Belgians detailed info on the plans for the genocide which had been in turn reported back to the UN.
".....Somalia didn't work out very well...." Yes, exactly because there was no set objectives beyond Bill Clinton wanting to be seen to be "doing good". It is the perfect example of scope-creep and exactly what needs to be avoided in Syria. An half-arsed rush into a civil war could leave NATO embroiled in a protracted war that could spill over into Lebanon and Iraq (and even Turkey) with no set objectives.
"....NATO did the job differently to the UN because they had a different job to do. In case you haven't noticed the UN and NATO are two different organisations with different purposes...." Yeah, I notice none of that disagrees with the point I made - duh!
"....Ah yes, I remember how that worked: The US check-points positively identified the "war criminals" and then waved them on their way as a matter of policy on multiple occasions until the rest of NATO found out what was going on and ensured that the job was done properly....." And your evidence of this is.... Oh, you don't provide any! What a surprise - not.
"....The tone of your post suggests that you resent the UN getting in the way of killing people and destroying countries...." The tone of your post suggests you would be shrieking at the UN as "lackeys of The Man" if they did approve action against Syria.
"....that you know absolutely fuck all about....." I'll just choose to smile at that as I can virtually guarantee i know more about Syria than you, even if your post hadn't already exposed you as a shrieking ignoramus.
"....If you like blowing shit up so much do it in your own backyard on your own dime, big man." <Sigh>. So you were too quick to froth and bleat you didn't bother to read my original post? What a surprise - again, not. If you had bothered to read it you would have seen that I did not want a loose and non-explicit granting of action, I would prefer a very detailed scope of exactly what is being authorized, so exactly the opposite of what you accused me of. Next time please try engaging your brain before bleating.
".....The reason why Wilson “overlooked Soviet interference” was because in 1919 and 1920 when the League was being established, there wasn’t any...." Yes and no. Wilson had already commited US troops to the Allied forces fighting the Reds in Russia in 1918, supposedly in a non-combat role, due to the "Red" problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia). But the reasons Wilson had to rush home from Europe was because of the wave of socialist activity and "anti-Red" politics sweeping the States in 1919, and because his political opponents, both opposition and in his own party, were painting him as more interested in European politics than home politics. By that point, civil war had already taken hold in Germany with Communists fighting socialists and republicans and royalists in cities like Munich. Lenin saw Germany as the key to a Soviet Europe and paranoia meant many Americans saw a "Red" in every refugee from Eastern Europe. I would suggest you read up on The Red Scare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare). In the US, Attorney General Palmer, riding the political wave of his Palmer Raids on the IWW, was predicting that there would be a similar attempt at a "Red Revolution" in the US on May Day 1920. That Palmer's prediction turned out to be false didn't matter, Wilson had to be seen to be taking it seriously. Thus, Wilson was very pre-occupied with affairs at home, detaching himself from "the European matter". He probably intended returning to it but his stroke in 1919 virtually ended his ability to interfere.
"....The problem that you noted with the League concept also applies to the UN concept — powerful nations still only go along with it when it suits them. Interventions of various sorts still happen nowadays even in the absence of authorizing Security Council resolutions....." Again, yes and no. Where possible, the US has tried to court World public opinion by only acting in concert with the Security Council. Rwanda was an example of how that approach failed. Bush Senior was very careful to ensure he had the UN firmly covering his arse on the First Gulf War, and very careful not to allow scope creep by invading Iraq. In between Bush Senior and Dhubya, it was Democrat POTUS Bill Clinton that set the precedent for intervention "on humanitarian grounds" in the Former Yugoslavia. Dhubya was not quite as politically adroit as his father in the Second Gulf War. Obambi saw the fallout that Dhubya's actions generated (the hypocritical Democrats having generated most of it), and so has virtually tied himself to having to gain UN SC approval for any action. He made that clear during the Libyan fiasco, where he pretended the Europeans were in the lead and he was being reluctantly dragged into the affair. It is also very obvious now in how he is letting the UK and France lead on Syria, pretending all the while that they are dragging him along behind them.
"....but the fact Dick Cheney is a free man...." Puh-lease, if there was any actual case against Cheney then don't you think the US Lefties would have brought one by now? They know the strength of lawfare, so the fact that Leftie people with plenty of money to waste in court haveen't even tried speaks volumes for the lack of case. Seriously, get over it.
"....That is not the ICC is it?...." It is a special example of the ICC to deal with a specific war, so yes it is.
"....It was Euro peace keepers that stood by and watched the slaughter....." Their hands were tied due to insufficient numbers and a brief that left them no options, mainly because the EU was waiting on the UN. it was only when the UN delivered another epic failure that NATO stepped in. It was a measure of how serious NATO took the matter that their subsequent deployment included the first use of German troops in a combat role outside of Germany since WW2.
".....Justice only came much later when the Serbs wanted something from the EU and gave up the butcherers themselves." Many of the war criminals were arrested in the field or hunted down post-war by EU police. It was only the highest ranked war criminals that evaded capture until the Serbs finally handed them over.
"Matt, the entire world had seen the League of Nations fail to prevent a war between the major powers, which demonstrates that the power of the old European colonial powers was not strangled by the League..." Wrong, all it demonstrated was that the concept - a venue where all nations could come as equals to discuss issues in a peaceful manner, with the majority imposing sanctions and solutions on those that failed to participate - didn't work because the larger nations only went along when it suited them. More problematic for Europe was that they initially saw Soviet interference as more of a problem than imperial wars, a point Wilson completely overlooked. The Italians thumbed their nose at the League when they invaded Abysinia (Ethiopia) and the other European powers backed off from imposing real sanctions. The Nazis saw It and promptly left the League, realizing that there was very little chance of the League standing up to them. The Yanks hadn't helped by refusing to sign the original Charter when they realises it would constrain their own building of a sphere of influence (an empire by any other name) in the Pacific and Latin America. What Wilson had originally intended as an instrument to stop European wars and also cripple the colonial empires by giving the Third World countries equal voice turned out to be a flop.
"...,you still have not explained the means through which the US could have used this “Septic construct” to strangle said colonial powers...." The intent was that giving the a third World countries equal voice and voting rights in the League meant that they could gang up and out-vote the Imperial powers.
"iPhones have the highest resale value of any mobile phone...." This kind of deal is indicative of how Apple are becoming desperate to prop up the iPhone. In times past they have been happy to let the market bouy up sales but now sales are dropping, Samsung are eating into their market share and also making a device which is arguably (some would say clearly) competitive in terms of desireability. Whilst Apple used to be able to rely on fanbois to continue buying new models every release, now they are worried, and this type of lock-in deal shows how much. It also props up the secondhand value of older iPhones, which is slipping. Apple can't have their older products being perceived as only worth as much as the average Android phone, so they will want to keep the secondhand value up. All of this threatens to eat into Apple's profits. It also betrays Apple's fear of the opposition - if their next gen product really was so über-cool and good then they would have confidence in the fanbois buying it regardless, but instead it seems Apple themselves think this kind of trade-in deal will be necessary to keep fanbois onboard.
For all those trying to pretend that TOR is being used for "saving the World from dictatorships", it has long been possible to block it, as shown by the Chinese (http://www.cs.kau.se/philwint/static/gfc/). So that leaves it largely being used by criminals, paedos, skiddies downloading copied porn movies, and the tinfoil-attired.
""Developers! Developers! Screw the developers!" (© Steve Ballmer)". I suspect this is more a case of "stop screwing as it is not making the profit we thought it would". Just about all the so-called IT accreditation schemes I know seem to have morphed into money-making schemes for the vendors and their training partners. What I suspect has happened is that some bean-counter in MS has done the sums and decided the money coming in from exam and course fees for the very top level accreditations don't equal the cost to MS of running that bit of the program. So, without considering the PR impact of killing off the top-level accreditations, someone has pulled the plug and seriously upset some people that thought getting a few extra pieces of paper would guarantee them a higher salary.
I do have some sympathy for Manning - he/she was a two-time loser before enlistment (which, apparently, wasn't even his/her idea), but at least he/she entered the military without the intent to cause harm. It is tragic that Manning could not fit into military life, but the actions Manning subsequently chose were criminal, so Manning does deserve punishment. Snowden, on the other hands, seems to have applied for the job with the NSA with the express purpose of gaining access to material to use for his own grandisement, deceiving his employers and with deliberate intent to harm. If he should ever stand trial it will be a lot harder for Snowden to appeal for a reduction in sentence.
".....272 MP's wanted to go to what would amount to war....." Not true. They were voting on a limited action predicated on UN confirmation of the use of chemical weapons, not a full-on war. There is a massive difference between the most likely action - cruise missile strikes - and a full war with an invasion force as used in Iraq or Afghanistan.
BTW, before you accuse me of being a bloodthirsty warmonger, etc., only wanting war at any cost, I did not want the vote to succeed as I did not want to hand Dave or Obambi an open-ended remit. If we are to punish Assad then I want it to be (a) when we have comprehensive proof, and (b) clearly defined what we will do (such as target Assad's chem warfare units only and send the perpetrators to stand trial), and (c) not do anything that will allow the AQ-backed faction of the rebellion to gain an advantage. I see no gain for the Syrian people in striking down Assad simply to replace his administration with another failed Islamist state like Afghanistan became under the Taleban. Dave goofed on the wording of the motion, he pushed too hard.
"Lets be honest about this, an escapee tells all playing right into the hands of those that want to discredit a nutty regime, it's exactly what they want to hear..." Lars, you sound exactly like the kinds of blinkered socialists that refused to believe the Soviet Union was anything but a workers' paradise between the World Wars. Don't worry, far cleverer people than you convinced themselves that they were right and it was all "exaggerated capitalist propaganda". George Bernard Shaw was one who fell for a carefully staged trip to Russia in 1931, writing to then Manchester Guardian to proclaim that Soviet Russia was replete with joy (http://colley.co.uk/garethjones/soviet_articles/bernard_shaw.htm) at exactly the same time as the Soviets were using starvation as a weapon to subjugate the Ukraine, killing over a million unarmed civilians. He carried on insisting it was all lies (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1433323/How-Shaw-defended-Stalins-mass-killings.html) long after other socilaists like Malcolm Muggeridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Muggeridge) had actually exposed the horrors Stalin was ordering. Stalin sent an untold number of people to the Gulags which the Nork camps are closely modeled on, and forcing one prisoner to kill or maim another was a common occurrence in the Gulags, so I do not find it a stretch that they would resort to such an act.
"Are they going for the "People with funny shaped over-sized pockets" market now?" Pocketability doesn't seem to have been a factor with the mini iPad, Vita, or any number of the larger Android phones. I have rArely seen anyone put the original DS in a pocket, usually they were carried in cases and put in backpacks or the like (I do know one stockbroker that kept one in his briefcase along with his FT!). The clamshell design of the original DS was brilliant in that it protected the screen, extending the unit's life even when given to young kiddies, but I suspect it is much cheaper to make without the hinges.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
