Re: So US judges believe "National Security" trumps *everything* else.
Interesting interview Q+A with Levison
... lots of little lessons in there.
107 publicly visible posts • joined 2 Feb 2011
Interesting interview Q+A with Levison
... lots of little lessons in there.
... et voilà! ... the Russian destroyer Admiral Panteleyev will shortly make a port call in Caracas, putting paid to this nonsensical non-problem and busting a hot-air-balloon-sized hole through the Yanki criminals' bluster.
Excellent point re. Perjury, which includes testifying under oath that a fact is true when not, from own personal experience, KNOWING that to be the case.
Also, it's not necessary for the victims to wait for the police to prosecute (in this case, there'll be a cold day in hell) as anyone with knowledge of the offence can, as a 'common informer', commence criminal proceedings by 'laying an information' (prima facie evidence) before their local judge, asking for the issue of a summons to compel the accused to answer the charge.
Another bunch of incompetents, or rather, complicit and lazy bottom-feeders, are the gutless lawyers who vigorously misrepresented these innocent victims into jail -- a further indictment of the pandemic but very well-paid corruption in the legal system.
Let's hope at least a few can be criminally prosecuted or sued into professional oblivion for malpractise ... pour encourager les autres!
... of rampaging institutional stupidity in the Pentagon since 1945:
"The inevitable fact is that giving you more and more money compels you to make worse decisions and this is the important bit. No matter how good you are at deciding, more money makes your decisions dumber."
That's the kind of touchingly infantile political naiveté so essential to the class of people who design and use that system to subdue the masses into acquiescence, allowing their injustice to continue unhindered. Well done!
Your practically religious resistance to reality would be admirable, if it did not have such severe consequences.
Check this and see if you still agree with yourself:
and one easily mimed, for which there should be no consideration in a rational and fair legal proceeding.
What you are really referring to is the practice of pandering to the sentencing Judge's pampered sense of sadism by engaging in a (generally lawyer-advised) ritual bout of 'voluntary' self-abasement taking the form of grovelling apologies and abject pleas of misericordia. Those who are innocent or proud refuse to engage in this extra-judicial public auto-flagellation and so are otherwise punished with a more severe sentence within the (corrupt) Judge's 'discretion'. Those who do, get the sentence already decided upon - i.e. gain no benefit from the humiliation.
Another weighty factor here are the desired political effects, of which I can see two:
1. The lower classes must (re)learn that their place is toiling in silence, not embarrassing OverLords with disclosures about their vulnerabilities or crimes - lulz, satire or free speech against the ruling mafia will be severely punished.
2. Hackers must learn to tremble in pre-emptive fear of the Pentagovernment, and quietly render any discovered 0-Days to the CyberOffence Command for Droit-de-Seigneur-style exploitation against the fabricated enemies-du-jour, both foreign and domestic.
Of course, for the morose US legal body, in which the highest value is the perpetual impunity of State warcriminals and torturers, this kind of savage result is achieved during coffee breaks, hardly even counting as in the day's work.
So, au contraire - it's a filthy, rotten Injustice System, which earns no respect but rather an immeasurable contempt.
Free All Political Prisoners, Free Weev!
.. further cramping that PeeNACker ideological swagger to more of an arthritic hop ";0))
Cue much deflationary baaawwing from the Blowhard Bryant-class WMBs [White Man's Burdenites].
Congratulations to DPRK on fielding the only 'legal argument' today's cloth-eared NATO warcrims care to comprehend -- a verified readiness to pack their already prolapsing jacksies with a fissile punch at the first sign of trying on any business-as-usual aggression.
regardless of whether the law in question is good or bad (<--this one), the rotten nub of this story is that the punishment is being applied before any conviction.
i.e. the collaborating service providers lend themselves to become the police' private preemptive lynch-mob to harass and herd those naughty "nazis" (or any suspected thought-criminal) back into the NATO-standard political corral of the cartel parties.
Senile Uncle Sam sends his greeting (a fart brooded since 1945) to all EU White Niggers.
So, if donating to the Swedish National Democrats makes one a Neo-Nazi, does that make everyone who supports the British Labour or Tory Party a War-Criminal?
Or is the collective guilt by association theory and defamation dressed as reporting only applicable to Johnny Foreigner?
And is it only theoretical thought-crimes which the crusading holier-than-thou Reg hacks feel safe to attack, as opposed to the truly monumental real ones they habitually support and cover for?
PS: Regardless of any other politics, I heartily congratule Mr Lundström on his not giving the Swedish State/MAFIAA even the monetary steam off his shit re. TPB.
[Prosecutor gingerly proffers 'it' to the bench, using a barbecue-fork]
Mr. Troll O'Punter Q.C.: "Here, M'Lud, we have Exhibit A, one deceased doobie of the type wherein my Client will claim the Accused failed to ensure his reciprocating rascal was adequately wrapped at the relevant engorged time, on or about the vinegar strokes."
Cocklecarrot J.: "Uhm, a 'doobie', you say? And what, prithee, is it for?"
Q.C.: "I am advised that it is a latex sheath for preventing the male milt as't'were amingling with the lady's tummy-bits during the performance of conjugal duties, a.k.a. carnal knowledge, M'Lud."
J.: "Ah, most fascinating; but I then fail to see why it should be open at both ends?"
Q.C.: "Yes, that is precisely the issue, M'Lud, which I ... er ... now see appears to be drippling somewhat upon my papers as we speak ..."
J.: "... so, the Accused's issue, one presumes?"
Q.C.: "Alas, M'Lud, 'tis not! The Boffins have determined that it pertains to a different Gentleman who remains at large."
Cocklecarrot J.: "Right! Counsel shall approach the bench and assume the position, fingers splayed atop facing forward! Now, where is my little GTFO-gavel? Ah, yes ..."
[dull thuds and muffled groaning]
Me, I'm delighted to hear you escaped learning the hard way [no pun], as I don't think children should be buggered for disciplinary or any other reasons.
It was an innocent joke, really ~ the phrase tickles me to think it's used only by those without much actual experience of buggery or who, probably more often, are blissfully unaware of the word's literal meaning.
Cage-rats to the face, though, I suppose there's an argument for that. But not *too* many ~ just six of the best!
Anyway, you had it easy, in my day naughty spool-children were bound in cellophane then had crocodile-clips attached to their ears and were hoisted up on a little gallows with an electric winch at the front of the class, before being PUMMELED by all the bullies in turn using the school rabbit stuffed in a stocking, as the teacher looked on and clapped ecstatically, often for hours until a confession of guilt was extracted. On one particularly hard-boiled character, Injun Jim, they had to expend 3 rabbits before he broke.
The invaluable lesson for the spectators was that, if the sadists and psychopaths amongst us conform to the 'basic rules' they will be provided a 'socially acceptable' [because enforcing the corrupt authority which employs them] outlet for their otherwise anti-social tendencies. Thus are police, judges and soldiers formed and selected in these happy NATO-lands.
In fact, the author of this 'article' is a good example of the product turned out by this filthy system.
Of course, in this field, natural talent was always way ahead of formal science:
"All this was inspired by the principle — which is quite true in itself — that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility. Because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily.
And thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.
Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes."
~ Adolph Hitler, 'Mein Kampf', 1925
Well done, but I had already 'got' that.
If you claim your link refutes anything I said, just specify what that is ~ I won't waste my time on a goose chase to try and discover a point you fail to make.
Political rehabilitation is reserved for those sufficiently alive to be returned to whatever fold they once departed ~ hardly applicable here.
Now to wrap up, without volumes, let me suggest an explanation to break this down for you using the theory of Cognitive Dissonance Reduction in sensu Festinger:
1. You were bemused by and reflexively objected to being unexpectedly confronted with an accurate and unbiased take [i.e. NON-propaganda] on an 'official demon' about whom you have been saturated in the aforementioned greater warcriminals' agitprop for many years.
2. You could not resolve why this novel disjunctive history should so irk you, or coherently formulate an objection.
3. The reason it irked you is that, if I am right and you believed the agitprop, then you have been politically duped and cynically used to obtain your support for or at least acquiesence to some pretty filthy warcrimes of which Hitler himself would rightly have been jealous.
4. Nobody likes to think he has been scammed, particularly on a monumental, life-altering scale.
5. A 'strong sender' [Western 'Establishment' + NATO lackeys] has broadcast the official propaganda 24/7 for decades, with every intention to continue indefinitely. Their 'message' was/is streamlined and palatably presented as if self-evident and already accepted by the large majority of 'reasonable people'. Swallowing it bears no immediately perceptible penalty, in fact, it flatters those who do that they join in a righteous cause, to encourage peer-pressure reiteration and propagation. Lucre beyond the dreams of avarice [not for you!] rides on the successful penetration and a corresponding investment is made. Furthermore, as we both know, they realistically threaten every effort to punish those who seriously oppose their criminal politics.
6. I am a comparatively weak and intermittent sender, neither counting on benefit nor caring a toss how you take it. I invest little more than my spare time and omit the sugar glaze. You may find sparse peers who agree, but I will not persecute you if you do not.
7. As they are diametrically opposed, however, you must either accept the position of the strong or weak sender.
8. Leaving all other factors aside, e.g. morality, facts, etc., continuing to go with the flow and at least superficially act in conformity with the message of the strong sender seems to you [whether consciously or not] the path of least resistance/cost, thus the one for which you have unsurprisingly opted.
9. However, to reduce the lingering cognitive dissonance raised between [in]action and actual belief, and it being easier to try to change your mind than pick the path less trodden, you seek to find a rationalisation to lessen the 'acceptability' of the unpreferred version. In this case, lacking logic, argument or facts in support, you reverted to ad hominem attempts to impugn my character.
10. Hence, without seeing the irony, you try to accuse me of supporting a sub-ex-warcriminal, which I have and do not, to excuse yourself for supporting the supra-current ones, which it does not and you effectively do.
11. This is not a personal criticism, merely taking this example to discuss the way the human brain is wired to work. Understanding how the psychotrick can be exploited by misrulers is useful for political analysis.
12. Despite being the bearer of distasteful news, I think it better to face facts than live wrapped in convenient [not for you!] and politically counterproductive [not for them!] delusions induced by those with ulterior motives.
... whose country the British sub-Government illegally invaded, occupied and destroyed in an historic joint warcriminal enterprise with the Bankrupt Banana Empire of Yankistan, has swallowed a whole lot less of the ludicrous 'liberation' propaganda than the 'news controllers' of the aggressor nations had hoped, and that the consequent retribution to be exacted for the unlimited murder and mayhem inflicted upon them is far from over.
BTW, to summarise Saddam Hussein: he started as a typical enough US-franchised sub-Dictator oiled into the saddle by standard CIA machinations, whose every warcrime while he followed the diktat of Washington [e.g. playing their proxy in attacking Iran] was approved, sponsored and justified with further weapons deliveries. Only when he stopped taking orders was he provoked and set up for destruction, via Cheney's KBR slant-drilling operation into the Rumaila oilfield from Kuwait. Towards the end he largely redeemed himself by breaking the US-petrodollar monopoly, supporting the legitimate national Resistance and preferring to die honourably, having spat upon rather than touch the proffered declaration of surrender in exchange for his signing of which the Neo-Mongol Invaders promised to spare his life. The subsequent filthy murder after a kangaroo charade was hurried to silence exposure of the much greater warcriminals whom he had turned away from serving. His last words were "Down with the traitors, the Americans, the spies and the Persians."
but as he is a petty [and rather dim-witted] robber, not a learned barrister who 'thinks big' enough to get away with literal mass murder whilst making millions and being crowned a 'Peace Envoy' by fellow 'elite' warcrims, he must be severely punished in order to prove the moral fibre of the superior thieves whose tricks of the trade he has so ineptly attempted to emulate.
Ho-hum, so it goes!
er... they didn't kill themselves, just used some collective bargaining power [a.k.a. realistic threat] to raise instant political pressure to assist their employer in backing away from his cheap ploy to cheat them. Hence, the enemy lost this round. Now, back to your remedial logic ...