|
I'd think Snowden would be quite pleased to be a party to a suit by the US Government for breach of contract.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:I know it is supposed to be a big bushy mustache but I'm still all It's a small wiry mustache with pronounced nasolabial folds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 00:35
|
|
at the drawing of the black guy here
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:I've never understood the whole "Snowden is targeted by the US government" thing. Yeah, of course he is. He breached a legal contract. He released classified information. Doesn't matter if he didn't give it to another nation or a terrorist organization, he did something with it that he said he wouldn't when he signed a contract to work for a company employed by the United States government. Edward Snowden posted:People sometimes say I broke an oath of secrecy—one of the early charges leveled against me. But it’s a fundamental misunderstanding, because there is no oath of secrecy for people who work in the intelligence community. You are asked to sign a civil agreement, called a Standard Form 312, which basically says if you disclose classified information, they can sue you; they can do this, that and the other. And you risk going to jail. But you are also asked to take an oath, and that’s the oath of service. The oath of service is not to secrecy, but to the Constitution—to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That’s the oath that I kept, that James Clapper and former NSA director Keith Alexander did not. Does that help? (the source is from a fantastic interview he did with The Nation.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Well that shuts me up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:Well that shuts me up. He still released classified information. Even if it wasn't a breach of contract it is against the law. And whistleblower protections only apply to people in very specific circumstances, which Snowden doesn't qualify for. The information leaked needed to be (a) about actions that are illegal at the time the actions were being done and (b) you must first try to bring the information to your superior and allow him to try to act on it before releasing it publicly. That's the only time you can be shielded from the consequences of releasing information you are not allowed to release.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Cpt.Americant posted:He still released classified information. Even if it wasn't a breach of contract it is against the law. And whistleblower protections only apply to people in very specific circumstances, which Snowden doesn't qualify for. The information leaked needed to be (a) about actions that are illegal at the time the actions were being done and (b) you must first try to bring the information to your superior and allow him to try to act on it before releasing it publicly. That's the only time you can be shielded from the consequences of releasing information you are not allowed to release. God drat that snowden for not live streaming everything as soon as it happened!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Cpt.Americant posted:He still released classified information. Even if it wasn't a breach of contract it is against the law. And whistleblower protections only apply to people in very specific circumstances, which Snowden doesn't qualify for. The information leaked needed to be (a) about actions that are illegal at the time the actions were being done and (b) you must first try to bring the information to your superior and allow him to try to act on it before releasing it publicly. That's the only time you can be shielded from the consequences of releasing information you are not allowed to release. Are you aware that there's a difference between legal and moral? The NSA secretly monitoring everyone was legal, but it was immoral and Snowden was right to leak information about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
 quote:"The killing of 17 victims in 3 despicable terrorist acts this week prompted a unity march of 1.5 million people including 40 world leaders in Paris. Well done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Cpt.Americant posted:He still released classified information. Even if it wasn't a breach of contract it is against the law. And whistleblower protections only apply to people in very specific circumstances, which Snowden doesn't qualify for. The information leaked needed to be (a) about actions that are illegal at the time the actions were being done Various judges have declared the warrantless mass surveillance as being in direct violation of the fourth amendment. quote:and (b) you must first try to bring the information to your superior and allow him to try to act on it before releasing it publicly. He did, and was ignored.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Are you aware that there's a difference between legal and moral? The NSA secretly monitoring everyone was legal, but it was immoral and Snowden was right to leak information about it. You must be European with all your "right to privacy" sorry but we gave that all up for freedoms. Now I am going to eat my Freedom fries. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
 Guardian:  "Steve Bell on David Cameron's deficit speech – Prime minister takes decision not to renew his call for EU migrants to be stopped from coming to the UK if they do not have a job" Yesterday's Telegraph:  Independent:  Apology for 'Muslim Birmingham' Fox News claim Express:  Commuter train from Brighton to London Victoria NEVER on time for whole of last year
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Hope everyone is READY for this talking point to get even more traction. 1 2 3 (No comment on Stephen Harper skipping the same event, CAM?) 4 5 6 I'm kind of mystified that this is even considered a thing worth commenting on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
ElMaligno posted:Thank you for the inspiration. Welp, first time that's happened to me. Just to make clear, I do think both that cartoon and the original Charlie Hebdo one I was commenting on are good cartoons. NoEyedSquareGuy posted:Various judges have declared the warrantless mass surveillance as being in direct violation of the fourth amendment. I was going to post just that. This year is going to be very interesting as one or several of these lawsuits are likely to get to the supreme court. escape mechanism posted:More French/Flemish stuff. Should have said thanks for that in my last post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
 Not sure what's up with this DBD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Is Rall jealous of the fact that his cartoons haven't inspired anyone to try to kill him?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
JaggerMcDagger posted:Is Rall jealous of the fact that his cartoons haven't inspired anyone to try to kill him? You ask that like it's not incredibly obvious
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Death Ray posted:I drew this after reading Arthur Chu's Charlie Hebdo-deflating column on the Daily Beast. I don't disagree with all his points, but his Internet triumpahlism stuck in my eye. And hey, sometimes a guy just has to draw an overweening cartoon. Professional quizboy not actually very smart at things that don't depend on memorizing facts, film at 11. I loving wish quizboy became an actual non-Venture Bros term
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:I like how many of these cartoonist don't even bother to look up and research readily available verbal descriptions of how Muhammad probably looked like, they just cook up their own idea based off of their own outlook towards Arabs in general. There's a certain expectation on what a cartoon Muhammed has to look like, though. If you stray too far from it people will raise an eyebrown and you probably don't want people to think all that much if you're in the business of editorial cartoons. (Because you're a propagandist.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Wow, McCoy did NOT do a good job reconciling the two images he Googled with the part he actually drew. At least he flipped the colors on the Les Miserables logo so the French flag is facing the right way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Are you aware that there's a difference between legal and moral? The NSA secretly monitoring everyone was legal, but it was immoral and Snowden was right to leak information about it. But moral is subjective. There was a former attorney general in Kansas who leaked information about who had gotten late term abortions, because he felt it was morally right to release that information. That didn't save him, and I don't want the law to spare people just because the judge makes a value judgement that someone was "right." That's why having a clear line like legal/illegal is important for giving immunity. And, as far as 4th amendment arguments go, this isn't as plainly unconstitutional as people seem to think when you actually look at the details. "Expectation of privacy" means something very different to a court of law than to most people who frequent the internet. And security of your "persons, houses, papers, and effects" does not include things that you don't have the only copy of. Phone metadata for example, the phone company has a copy of it and so it is not "yours" constitutionally speaking. The Supreme Court has held that no warrent is needed for cops to look at phone metadata for that reason. It is not your persons, houses, papers, and effects, so you have no right against warrentless searches. Digital data is also often usually kept off site on someone else's servers, so people don't have the ownership of that information like they think they do. That leaves aside how I think it should be, but just a statement of how things are. "Privacy" is not explicitly in the constitution and it should be, so that poo poo like this doesn't happen. Cause constitutionally, the NSA is on decent ground and that's not right. Cpt.Americant fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
colonel_korn posted:Hope everyone is READY for this talking point to get even more traction. Obama really should have just taken a supersonic jetfighter to be there on time rather than sending the designated person who's job it is to go to these things in his place. I mean it's what dubya would have done 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
As a Texan, where can I get my Dallas Cowboy's Christie Cake Hat?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:
 Look at Muir thinking that the Crusaders were the good guys. It's adorable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Cpt.Americant posted:But moral is subjective. There was a former attorney general in Kansas who leaked information about who had gotten late term abortions, because he felt it was morally right to release that information. That didn't save him, and I don't want the law to spare people just because the judge makes a value judgement that someone was "right." That's why having a clear line like legal/illegal is important for giving immunity. Guys, you should really just read that (or any other) Snowden interview. He does lay out moral arguments as well as legal arguments against mass surveillance in general, but he's also very explicit that he saw frequent and flagrant violations of the law that clearly had nothing to do with national security (analysts spying on ex-girlfriends, people taking naked pictures off random people's phones and passing them around, that sort of thing). He lays out a very strong case that this was a culture where people committed criminal acts with complete impunity and he felt it was his duty to bring these abuses, and the culture that allowed them to take place essentially out in the open into the public view. Now you can argue he's making some of this stuff up (dubious, but I guess it's possible), or you can argue there were "proper channels" he should have gone through (what channels though?), or you can argue that his leaks "exposed" US intelligence in a way that was harmful to national security (this seems to be the government's line, but I'm not sure how you could possibly prove it), but if you say that the information he leaked exposed no clear-cut lawbreaking, all you're telling me is that you have no idea what was in those leaks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:Does that help? Consider the fact Snowden has gone on the record as a defender of Putin, who's abuses far exceed that of the U.S. governments I wouldn't put much stock in what he says.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
gently caress you. e: You know the U.S. economy is (contextually) booming when this is the poo poo these bozos are concerning themselves with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Satsuki Kiryuin posted:Consider the fact Snowden has gone on the record as a defender of Putin, who's abuses far exceed that of the U.S. governments I wouldn't put much stock in what he says. Read the loving interview in the post you just quoted. Jesus Christ. e: Here's the specific quote: quote:The Nation: Well, your video question at that big Putin press conference this year… Duckbox fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Didn't he get a Russian government job though? That he still has?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Dr. Killjoy posted:Professional quizboy not actually very smart at things that don't depend on memorizing facts, film at 11. Generally Arthur Chu is pretty cool and writes some good articles but that article was pretty bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Not trying to be lovely but can you post something good he wrote, because every time I've seen him my eyes couldn't roll back hard enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Not trying to be lovely but can you post something good he wrote, because every time I've seen him my eyes couldn't roll back hard enough. I recall this article being pretty good. I also like this one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:P.S. I'm missing the say of Asay on this whole thing. I googled and it looks like he's retired for good, but am happy to report that Something Awful was hit #5 for his name, and #1 for "chuck asay charlie hebdo". Je suis Chuck! It's entirely possible he may make a comment, as I know he did attend an AAEC convention or something similar a year or two ago, but I dunno if he'll do a quick cartoon for it. Asay does take time on his work, so it's possible he might do something since this is the combination of a news event involving his profession and the opportunity to hate on Muslims. I wouldn't hold your breath though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
 Another Ramirez that AGCs itself. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Wow, conservatives really love France all of a sudden don't they.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:
I… am loving confused, and not simply "Muir" confused. Is she calling Zed "something"? This is practically word salad! And why is the font different?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Death Ray posted:I… am loving confused, and not simply "Muir" confused. Is she calling Zed "something"? This is practically word salad! And why is the font different? Certain mental illnesses make people prone to word salad and I'd put money on Muir having some sort of mental illness without any goonish exaggregation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Didn't he get a Russian government job though? That he still has? Best as I can tell, no. There are a few reports like this one that mention him having an undisclosed IT job of some sort (possibly for residency reasons), but I haven't found anything saying it's for the government. Anyone who knows more is welcome to prove me wrong though. e: For those of you who think his mere presence within Russia is damning, it's worth remembering that he's only there are all because his passport got revoked before he could catch his intended flight to Latin America. Duckbox fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Apple Pie Hubbub posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
Can someone post the panel(s) from Rall's Year of Loving Dangerously where he's saying "Okay!"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:30
|
|