Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Indi Guy

(3,992 posts)
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 03:10 AM Jan 2014

Julian Assange: Obama ‘embarrassing’

Source: Politico

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sharply criticized President Barack Obama’s proposed surveillance reforms Friday, calling them “small” and saying it is “embarrassing for a head of state to go on like that for 45 minutes and say almost nothing.”

“Although those national whistle-blowers have forced this debate, this president has been dragged, kicking and screaming to today’s address. He is being very reluctant to make any concrete reforms,”... “And unfortunately, today we also see very few concrete reforms.”


During the (CNN) interview, Assange homed in on the U.S Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees surveillance warrants and came under heightened public scrutiny following leaks last year by National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden.

“The big problem with the FISA court is the creation of secret judge-made law that is capable of reinterpreting anything that Congress passes in order to make it acceptable for the NSA to engage in bulk collection activity,” Assange said...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/julian-assange-obama-embarrassing-102323.html



240 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Julian Assange: Obama ‘embarrassing’ (Original Post) Indi Guy Jan 2014 OP
Gotta get back in the headlines again, Julian? SoapBox Jan 2014 #1
Well, the NSA gets on my nerves. GliderGuider Jan 2014 #3
Did Julian Assange get on your nerves when he praised Ron Paul and Matt Drudge? Cali_Democrat Jan 2014 #118
You know, it's not mutually exclusive. Fawke Em Feb 2014 #199
He's also... Veilex Jan 2014 #5
Drudge? Ron Paul? mimi85 Jan 2014 #128
I think perhaps you're missing the context of my reply. Veilex Jan 2014 #130
Perhaps you were replying to somone else? :) Veilex Jan 2014 #131
I'll be looking for your headline... Indi Guy Jan 2014 #7
CNN likes people who bash Obama Democat Jan 2014 #12
What's your views on Civil Liberties? 2banon Mar 2014 #235
And, who are you? 1000words Jan 2014 #14
1000words - Does that mean you should not question Obama, the members of Congress and the cabinet? karynnj Jan 2014 #132
Right proudretiredvet Feb 2014 #203
Like kicking the messanger and not the message, i see. Nanjing to Seoul Jan 2014 #18
Good post! Gerhard28 Jan 2014 #145
oh the old 'egotist' crap again. You get to speak and we don't insult you Swagman Jan 2014 #27
I agree with him. Nt newfie11 Jan 2014 #33
A pity, because he's got a valid point - n/t primavera Jan 2014 #54
He hit my last nerve mimi85 Jan 2014 #125
What's your views on Civil Liberties? 2banon Mar 2014 #236
Attacking the messenger. snot Feb 2014 #226
What's your view on Civil Liberties? n/t 2banon Mar 2014 #233
Desperately trying to be relevent. 4now Jan 2014 #2
Glad to see you bought into the smear campaign. Indi Guy Jan 2014 #4
And... Veilex Jan 2014 #8
what rape charges ?. Get your facts straight. Swagman Jan 2014 #26
So there is absolutely no threat of arrest? hack89 Jan 2014 #49
Right. Because the opinions of a few DUers are what are keeping Assange a fugitive. randome Jan 2014 #52
he's a SELF ADMITTED rapist joshcryer Jan 2014 #99
Where did he "admit" this? Gerhard28 Jan 2014 #144
he admitted to penetration without a condom joshcryer Jan 2014 #167
You don't know any of this. Gerhard28 Feb 2014 #182
uh, no, that was literally his defense joshcryer Feb 2014 #183
uh, no, it wasn't Major Nikon Feb 2014 #188
You are completely wrong. joshcryer Feb 2014 #189
Nothing you posted supports your assertion Major Nikon Feb 2014 #190
His defense was it wasn't rape in the UK. joshcryer Feb 2014 #192
If they admitted it, then post the quote where they admitted to it Major Nikon Feb 2014 #193
This message was self-deleted by its author Gerhard28 Feb 2014 #194
This message was self-deleted by its author Gerhard28 Feb 2014 #195
and that is what trials are for nt arely staircase Feb 2014 #187
Is it? Gerhard28 Feb 2014 #200
why not just take any accused sex offender at their word? arely staircase Feb 2014 #206
Well the idea is "innocent until proven guilty." Gerhard28 Feb 2014 #207
hence the word "accused" arely staircase Feb 2014 #209
Attacking the messenger. snot Feb 2014 #227
Responding to post #26. joshcryer Feb 2014 #228
Talk to Sweden. lumpy Mar 2014 #231
You or Assanage? nt NoGOPZone Jan 2014 #46
What's your views on Civil Liberties? n/t 2banon Mar 2014 #234
"go on like that for 45 minutes and say almost nothing." Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #6
When are you going to face the sexual abuse charges you ran from, Julian? bravenak Jan 2014 #9
not as embarrassing as your ignorance : he is not facing sexual abuse charges Swagman Jan 2014 #28
Are you lying? bravenak Jan 2014 #29
Sweden is trying to get him for sexual abuse allegations. bravenak Jan 2014 #30
First I've heard mimi85 Jan 2014 #127
Assange is not running from rape charges. OnyxCollie Jan 2014 #36
I don't believe him. It's okay if you do, but I don't. bravenak Jan 2014 #38
Who needs facts when you have beliefs. OnyxCollie Jan 2014 #39
You're cute. bravenak Jan 2014 #40
Don't you find it interesting that... Indi Guy Jan 2014 #77
I do find it very interesting. The timing was impeccable. bravenak Jan 2014 #79
I'm the kind of person who, if a government decides to smear me for something I didn't do because I El_Johns Feb 2014 #210
I understand. bravenak Feb 2014 #212
Brave words, but pretty useless when no one hears. El_Johns Feb 2014 #214
Oh they hear. They hear everything. bravenak Feb 2014 #216
I mean the public. Because that would be your only hope. El_Johns Feb 2014 #217
You have to be believable. bravenak Feb 2014 #219
Zimmerman wasn't going against the government. If an entity is serious enough to drum up smears El_Johns Feb 2014 #220
I've never put my trust in truth justice or the American way. bravenak Feb 2014 #221
You can't be serious. El_Johns Feb 2014 #222
Why would I trust America? Look at me. bravenak Feb 2014 #223
sweden, uk and the us work together. El_Johns Feb 2014 #224
Never read Shakespeare? Hubris tends to take one down at the height of success. msanthrope Jan 2014 #134
In Christie's case, I can see the hubris... Indi Guy Jan 2014 #136
Manning has a conscience. Assange has none. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #138
That's a statement of opinion... Indi Guy Jan 2014 #150
There is no case in the United States treestar Jan 2014 #89
Appaling that some people will support people who feel they are above the law and cant face up lumpy Mar 2014 #232
what's your views on civil liberties? 2banon Mar 2014 #237
What are yours? bravenak Mar 2014 #238
This message was self-deleted by its author bravenak Jan 2014 #9
So apparently secret courts are OK because Snowden is a rapist? El_Johns Jan 2014 #11
"Snowden is a rapist"? Cha Jan 2014 #13
I'm paraphrasing the comments of others. El_Johns Jan 2014 #16
It rings a Bell, no? nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #56
Thanks, I needed the laugh. n/t freshwest Feb 2014 #197
Oooooops ... 1000words Jan 2014 #15
What was Ted Kennedy thinking when he proposed this same secret court??? JoePhilly Jan 2014 #58
I don't care if Jesus signed. El_Johns Jan 2014 #72
I'm betting ... JoePhilly Jan 2014 #91
I wish I knew. That's what the topic should be, not Assange. n/t freshwest Jan 2014 #155
Strangely, Joe never came back to enlighten you. El_Johns Feb 2014 #211
Well, don't hide your light under the bushel. But I did google a bit, and found out myself. n/t freshwest Feb 2014 #213
I googled and got this, I'm still not sure what it means: freshwest Feb 2014 #198
Wait, a little more. A bill to reform: freshwest Feb 2014 #202
fucking loser attention whore JI7 Jan 2014 #17
Considering how fast and furiously his Wikileaks (political) party crashed burned and turned to dust Number23 Jan 2014 #20
Assange thinks "Rand Paul would be Cha Jan 2014 #21
^^^Well said, Cha! As always. nt mimi85 Jan 2014 #126
Amazing how many posts have nothing to do with the information provided in the OP. RC Jan 2014 #19
Indeed. dipsydoodle Jan 2014 #24
+infinity! newfie11 Jan 2014 #34
He has a problem with the FISA court? treestar Jan 2014 #42
Isn't that part of the problem? RC Jan 2014 #44
John Roberts, who voted in favor of the ACA? randome Jan 2014 #48
So we're just now getting upset about a secret court created in 1978. JoePhilly Jan 2014 #51
Succinct and to the point, as usual. randome Jan 2014 #53
No, we're not just. Hissyspit Jan 2014 #59
Really ... JoePhilly Jan 2014 #61
I've been alive since before 1978. Hissyspit Jan 2014 #63
The FISA court was created to stop the government from JoePhilly Jan 2014 #65
Note how it was not a big deal when Bush went around the FISA court treestar Jan 2014 #68
Wow, that is your response is off the scale mrdmk Jan 2014 #80
DU is a pretty rough place treestar Jan 2014 #86
Yes treestar, please do research the early years when the underpinning issues were indeed a very hot 2banon Jan 2014 #105
Yeah, well, that was back in the days when Eddie wanted leakers shot in the balls, struggle4progress Jan 2014 #137
I know all that. Hissyspit Jan 2014 #70
And it came about because people realized treestar Jan 2014 #64
Exactly. The FISA court was created to stop a problem ... JoePhilly Jan 2014 #67
That's the fallacy. it was sold to the public then as the solution to the problem 2banon Jan 2014 #106
nice joshcryer Jan 2014 #100
I meant Julian treestar Jan 2014 #57
hes a government hater.. iamthebandfanman Jan 2014 #74
What kind of addled soul is the opposite...a "government lover"? DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2014 #124
because hitler was alright iamthebandfanman Jan 2014 #73
Are you listening to what Julian has to say, or RC Jan 2014 #78
+1000 DeSwiss Feb 2014 #204
These people are ultra-Nationalists. Maedhros Feb 2014 #205
"America above all" FiveGoodMen Feb 2014 #208
He must be enjoying his permanent home there at the embassy davidpdx Jan 2014 #22
Well Knightsbidge is rather nice. dipsydoodle Jan 2014 #25
He is self-confined to the premise. Historic NY Jan 2014 #37
Prison is prison treestar Jan 2014 #69
the amusing/sad thing on this whole mess though Bodhi BloodWave Jan 2014 #116
good point - making it his absurd certainty that the US is going to get him treestar Jan 2014 #122
Or if he hadn't skipped bail, he could be living like, well, not a king, but see his former digs: freshwest Jan 2014 #156
I wonder if he's allowed mimi85 Jan 2014 #129
Most will never get the chance to live nicely in one of the world's most expensive cities. freshwest Jan 2014 #75
Alcatraz was arely staircase Jan 2014 #94
The Embassy and Harrods are next door neighbours. dipsydoodle Jan 2014 #96
he can go to Harrod's? nt arely staircase Jan 2014 #97
Previous DU article shows they deliver his choice of meals to him. Opinions on the quality vary: freshwest Jan 2014 #163
then I take that as a 'no'. nt arely staircase Jan 2014 #166
And I am glad you are feeling better than last night. n/t freshwest Jan 2014 #169
And Harrods delivers his meals. But he could have had better digs if he hadn't skipped bail: freshwest Jan 2014 #154
Whereas here we're having one of the warmest winters on record , 7th I think , dipsydoodle Jan 2014 #159
Well, that's good news. We get most of our rain from the Pacific, warm air currents from Hawaii... freshwest Jan 2014 #160
We have always been subject to cold air getiing sucked down from Scandinavia in winter. dipsydoodle Jan 2014 #162
Well, just so long as that Polar Vortex doesn't come to visit. But England has survived worse... freshwest Jan 2014 #164
Meanwhile from the Reality Realm.. "NSA Critic Ron Wyden Commends 'Milestone' In Surveillance Cha Jan 2014 #23
yeah but wyden isn't hiding in an embassy to avoid sexual assault charges arely staircase Jan 2014 #47
Right, arely.. only Asshat who thinks "rand paul would be good for America" is Cha Jan 2014 #103
How to control himself?! Other than that, I got nothing but a few DU search results. freshwest Jan 2014 #148
You beat me to it ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2014 #55
Thank you, 1StrongBlackMan. Well said.. Cha Jan 2014 #104
Oh nooo's! Cha, sheshe2 Jan 2014 #161
Thanks for keeping it real. Ypu win the thread. n/t freshwest Jan 2014 #149
This should be an OP. It would be an important discussion here: freshwest Jan 2014 #165
No ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2014 #172
The NSA must be blackmailing him. JoePhilly Jan 2014 #60
Sen. Widen is being optimistic: Hissyspit Jan 2014 #62
Call me when the FISA court is abolished and the NSA is completely defunded /nt Ash_F Jan 2014 #98
Reform my ASS, a little connection of the dots is in order nolabels Jan 2014 #178
I'm just happy that it's unlikely that a thug like Chris Christie ever becomes Pres.! delrem Jan 2014 #31
Rick Perlstein at The Nation writes NSA Reform, Then and Now: QuestForSense Jan 2014 #32
Nice read! Thanks! Pholus Jan 2014 #35
Which is more embarrassing treestar Jan 2014 #41
That's apples and pears dipsydoodle Jan 2014 #76
Interesting question. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #82
The WH in itself will certainly get you a lot of attention treestar Jan 2014 #87
Personally I am not a fan of Assange. I do have sympathy for whistleblowers. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #88
The NSA has been spying for half a century... I say, get over it... secondwind Jan 2014 #43
But only in very recent times ronnie624 Jan 2014 #66
Absolutely right on the money. Indi Guy Jan 2014 #84
People who blabber about "spying", simply do not get it. ronnie624 Jan 2014 #92
Bingo. Good post. nt laundry_queen Feb 2014 #186
I disagree. We must learn our history. A post I made some time back: freshwest Jan 2014 #168
Not the same thing at all. ronnie624 Jan 2014 #175
Pro-authoritarian -duly noted eom 2banon Jan 2014 #107
This message was self-deleted by its author DeSwiss Jan 2014 #109
well there goes the all important accused foreign rapist on the lam vote nt arely staircase Jan 2014 #45
thank you Mr. Assange. n/t wildbilln864 Jan 2014 #50
And this clown isn't embarassing? From wikipedia: George II Jan 2014 #71
All aspersions and character assassination aside... Indi Guy Jan 2014 #81
He has less than zero credibility in the minds of many....he is not in a position to be judging. George II Jan 2014 #85
Really? Indi Guy Jan 2014 #90
Excellent George II Jan 2014 #93
Well, like Assange... Indi Guy Jan 2014 #101
he is one Ecuadoran election away from arrest. nt arely staircase Jan 2014 #95
Slime, huh? DeSwiss Jan 2014 #110
I was trying to be nice. George II Jan 2014 #114
K & R mrdmk Jan 2014 #83
Hope blkmusclmachine Jan 2014 #102
Looks like a dozen Pro-Authoritarians on the attack in this thread 2banon Jan 2014 #108
I put them on IGNORE. DeSwiss Jan 2014 #111
Largely I do ignore, although I don't use that function 2banon Jan 2014 #117
After eight years..... DeSwiss Jan 2014 #119
excellent analogy 2banon Jan 2014 #123
Authoritarian = not breaking the law treestar Jan 2014 #139
uh, no. 2banon Jan 2014 #140
Definition of Authoritarian: 2banon Jan 2014 #141
Wiki's : 2banon Jan 2014 #142
So in other words, obeying the law = authoritarian treestar Jan 2014 #170
You blithely ignore the actual definition - you play this game all the time. 2banon Jan 2014 #171
Right. Gerhard28 Jan 2014 #143
Assange and Snowden threads remain the most relentlessly targeted by the propaganda brigade, woo me with science Jan 2014 #176
discussing this very thing on Forum this morning. Nancy Pelosi walking back her remarks 2banon Jan 2014 #177
Sick and corrupt government? Time to pull up stakes? Russia might welcome your freedom lumpy Mar 2014 #230
Derp. HuckleB Feb 2014 #218
What do they have on Obama? Festivito Jan 2014 #112
In retrospect, I'm wondering why Obama even bothered to try doing anything... Blue_Tires Jan 2014 #113
Not everyone ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2014 #115
Actually saw the 'teleprompter' meme played here a while back. 'Pretty speech' = 'Articulate.' Hmmm. freshwest Feb 2014 #225
He is, of course, correct, woo me with science Jan 2014 #120
What a lying sack of shit. jakefrep Jan 2014 #121
What lie was put forward in those comments? TheKentuckian Jan 2014 #133
Everything. He's a liar and a scumbag. Fuck him. jakefrep Jan 2014 #174
So, your assertion is that the President willing and eagerly discussed reforms TheKentuckian Jan 2014 #179
Yeah whatever. jakefrep Jan 2014 #180
Individualized belief is not required for agreement. George W. Bush says the sky is blue TheKentuckian Jan 2014 #181
The lying sack of shit is the NSA. woo me with science Jan 2014 #147
Bullshit. jakefrep Jan 2014 #173
I guess he would know cemaphonic Jan 2014 #135
Go to Sweden and deal with the rape charges, Julian. Sheldon Cooper Jan 2014 #146
I'm sure that left a mark BeyondGeography Jan 2014 #151
cbayer: Julian Assange ‘embarrassing’ cbayer Jan 2014 #152
freshwest: cbayer '________'. (I'm afraid to even make a joke around here). n/t freshwest Jan 2014 #157
cbayer: freshwest "hilarious" cbayer Jan 2014 #158
Yada, Yada, Assauge does not change my mind about Obama. Thinkingabout Jan 2014 #153
Agreed. appacom Feb 2014 #184
It is Embarrassing, but what's more Embarrassing are those indirectly defending the indefensible fascisthunter Feb 2014 #185
He's just another wingnut peddling F.U.D. on the telly at this point. ucrdem Feb 2014 #191
Obama is 'embarrasing' but not in the way Assange says apnu Feb 2014 #196
Assange is right-- his detractors make it all about him, rather than the message.... mike_c Feb 2014 #201
He needs to get out more struggle4progress Feb 2014 #215
Instead of sitting on his ass. Cha Mar 2014 #239
The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #229
Asshat needs to look in the fucking mirror to see who's "embarrassing".. fuck the rand paul Cha Mar 2014 #240

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
199. You know, it's not mutually exclusive.
Tue Feb 18, 2014, 01:12 PM
Feb 2014

One can appreciate what Assange did to open the NSA-spying can of worms and still not agree with him politically.

One can actually LIKE the Fourth Amendment and the Constitution, but hate the glass-covered table it's show-cased in.

 

Veilex

(1,555 posts)
130. I think perhaps you're missing the context of my reply.
Sun Jan 19, 2014, 03:11 PM
Jan 2014

I said nothing regarding the frauds that are Drudge or Ron Paul.
I was specifically addressing Julian Assange's criticism of Obama.

karynnj

(59,501 posts)
132. 1000words - Does that mean you should not question Obama, the members of Congress and the cabinet?
Sun Jan 19, 2014, 03:27 PM
Jan 2014

Because after all they are somebody and you --- are you better than the person you called "nobody".

In fact, ALL of us can question the President, the Congress and the cabinet - in fact, we should. If we can question them, we certainly can question men like Greenwald, Assange and Snowden.

 

proudretiredvet

(312 posts)
203. Right
Tue Feb 18, 2014, 01:50 PM
Feb 2014

So if you are put into the category of a nobody you need to stay in your place with your eyes down and STFU.
It must take a thousand words to decide who is somebody and who can speak or have an opinion.
I was misinformed. I thought as citizens we were all equal in that matter.
I guess we learn something every day.

 

Nanjing to Seoul

(2,088 posts)
18. Like kicking the messanger and not the message, i see.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 05:04 AM
Jan 2014

The NSA spying on us is a-okay. Exposing it and then the questioning why there are no real reforms is "trying to be relevant" and "getting on your nerves."

Drone attacks are okay too, right?

mimi85

(1,805 posts)
125. He hit my last nerve
Sun Jan 19, 2014, 01:29 PM
Jan 2014

from day one. Narcissistic prick. I cringed to see his wannabe pal, GG, on Bill Maher Friday.

4now

(1,596 posts)
2. Desperately trying to be relevent.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 03:41 AM
Jan 2014

While hiding out from justice in little room.
When is he going to face up to the rape charges?

Indi Guy

(3,992 posts)
4. Glad to see you bought into the smear campaign.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 03:58 AM
Jan 2014

I'll bet you have a better opinion of Snowden though.

Swagman

(1,934 posts)
26. what rape charges ?. Get your facts straight.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 06:05 AM
Jan 2014


He is wanted for questioning. When people like you accuse him of a crime he hasn't actually been charged with, what hope has he got ?
 

randome

(34,845 posts)
52. Right. Because the opinions of a few DUers are what are keeping Assange a fugitive.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 11:07 AM
Jan 2014

[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
99. he's a SELF ADMITTED rapist
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 05:15 PM
Jan 2014

his extradition defense was that it wasn't rape in the UK

the UK determined otherwise

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
167. he admitted to penetration without a condom
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 06:30 PM
Jan 2014

he also admitted a condom was a condition on which sex be allowed by the victim

never mind the person was unconscious when it happened

 

Gerhard28

(59 posts)
182. You don't know any of this.
Sat Feb 15, 2014, 08:17 PM
Feb 2014

You are simply taking the allegations of the "victim" as true. What right do you have to judge the situation so irresponsibly?

Major Nikon

(36,827 posts)
188. uh, no, it wasn't
Sun Feb 16, 2014, 05:04 AM
Feb 2014

His defense entailed quite a few things, including that the alleged victim admitted to not being unconscious which is evidence the prosecution already has and pretty much unravels their case even in Sweden.

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
189. You are completely wrong.
Sun Feb 16, 2014, 05:15 AM
Feb 2014

His defense was that "penetrating a person without a condom even though a condom was a condition of penetration" wasn't rape. Literally.

2. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party (name given) in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

...

As far as offences, 1,2, and 3 are concerned it is argued that these do not constitute extradition offences because the conduct alleged would not amount to an offence against English law.


You should go off now and read the damn ruling.

The UK rule against Assange, the admitted rapist, because he literally said that penetration without a condom despite its condition of penetration was not rape under English law (except it was).

If Assange disagrees with his lawyers, he should say so, otherwise his defense admitted he was a rapist.

Major Nikon

(36,827 posts)
190. Nothing you posted supports your assertion
Sun Feb 16, 2014, 05:50 AM
Feb 2014

His defense was against the allegation itself. The idea that he admitted to the allegations simply by challenging their validity is laughable.

Assange didn't admit to anything other than having consensual sex with the two women involved. You should go back and read the ruling slower.

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
192. His defense was it wasn't rape in the UK.
Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:16 AM
Feb 2014

It was.

Read the ruling. There's a reason the UK allowed him to be extradited.

Assange's defense admitted that he had non-consensual penetration of a woman unconscious without a condom when a condom was a condition of penetration.

Major Nikon

(36,827 posts)
193. If they admitted it, then post the quote where they admitted to it
Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:37 AM
Feb 2014

As yet you haven't.

The reason the UK allowed him to be extradited had nothing to do with whether the allegations were valid or not, only that the warrant was valid. In Sweden a warrant can be issued for questioning. The warrant was valid in Sweden. Sweden is a member of the EU as is the UK. Therefore their warrant was valid in the EU. The UK court specifically said repeatedly they weren't interested in any other evidence. The fact that you don't know these things demonstrates that you either didn't read the ruling in its entirety, or didn't understand it.

Response to Major Nikon (Reply #193)

Response to Major Nikon (Reply #193)

 

Gerhard28

(59 posts)
207. Well the idea is "innocent until proven guilty."
Tue Feb 18, 2014, 07:39 PM
Feb 2014

That's supposed to be an American principle. Of course, you may disagree.

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
9. When are you going to face the sexual abuse charges you ran from, Julian?
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 04:07 AM
Jan 2014

Gotta be embarrassing to flee from prosecution on sexual abuse charges.
Most people who are not guilty (and wealthy like Mr.Assange)would get a lawyer, fight the charges, and appeal if convicted. But not Julian!! He's special!!
I personally have been sexually assaulted and it sickens me that women are not valued, and are brushed aside when they have been violated, and called liars. Until he faces justice I will refer to him as an alleged rapist.

So, the alleged rapist is not happy with Obama and the NSA. I'm not happy that we have a probable sex offender running around checking everybody when he needs to check himself.

Swagman

(1,934 posts)
28. not as embarrassing as your ignorance : he is not facing sexual abuse charges
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 06:11 AM
Jan 2014

why have you posted this fraudulent claim ?

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
29. Are you lying?
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 06:30 AM
Jan 2014

What are you saying? Are you saying there was no investigation and he's not hiding out?

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
30. Sweden is trying to get him for sexual abuse allegations.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 06:39 AM
Jan 2014

They have been investigating for a while now. He went into hiding in London.

LONDON, June 19 (Reuters) - WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says he will not leave the sanctuary of the Ecuadorean Embassy in London even if Sweden stops pursuing sexual assault claims against him because he fears arrest on the order of the United States.

Yep. He's facing sexual assault claims.


I am not embarrassed. I have not been accused of rape and then fled the country to hide out in the Ecuadorean embassy. Julian Assange is responsible for that.

mimi85

(1,805 posts)
127. First I've heard
Sun Jan 19, 2014, 01:34 PM
Jan 2014

that the US has a warrant out for him. If he's innocent, go back to Sweden. The sooner this egotistical, maniacal person disappears from the news, the better. Or maybe he can join his pal, Snowden, in Russia - after the Olympics.

 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
36. Assange is not running from rape charges.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 07:50 AM
Jan 2014

EXCLUSIVE: "Bradley Manning Has Become a Martyr"–WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange on Guilty Verdict
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/7/31/bradley_manning_has_become_a_martyr

Julian Assange joins us via Democracy Now! video stream from the Ecuadorean embassy in London. He took refugee in the embassy in June of 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he’s wanted for questioning around sex assault allegations but has never been charged. He remains in the embassy there because the British government promises to arrest him if he steps foot on British soil. This is his first interview with a U.S. TV show since the Manning verdict.

We welcome you back to Democracy Now!, Julian Assange. What is your response to the verdict?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Thank you, Amy. First of all, I must correct you. I have been given political asylum in this embassy in relationship to the case that is in progress in the United States. It’s a common media myth that’s put about that my asylum here is in relation to Sweden. It is not. Here I am.

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
38. I don't believe him. It's okay if you do, but I don't.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 07:59 AM
Jan 2014

I believe he needs to speak to the detectives in the place where the crime was alleged to have occurred. If they do not charge him with a crime he should be free to go.

He is hiding from the rape allegations.

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
40. You're cute.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 08:11 AM
Jan 2014

As a rape survivor I don't trust men who leave the country when accused of rape. If he had stayed and faced his accuser with an emphatic " I did not rape you, you consented to have sex with me and we did multiple times. You never accused me until much later." I would probably be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. I would see that he was interested in clearing his name and give his words more weight.
He instead went into hiding.
Nobody forced him to go into hiding in that place, it was his choice to make and he made it.

Indi Guy

(3,992 posts)
77. Don't you find it interesting that...
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 01:33 PM
Jan 2014

...those charges came when they did -- at the height of his public approval? ...and in the same way that Bradley Manning allegedly outed himself as a female at the -- at the height of his public approval? Doesn't this smell like character assassination to you?

Also, Assange wouldn't be the first innocent person (if he is indeed innocent) to run from trumped up charges, as well as what promises to be a very messy and very public spectacle.

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
79. I do find it very interesting. The timing was impeccable.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 01:58 PM
Jan 2014

That's why I think he should have hot footed it to Sweden and vociferously defended himself against these allegations. They may not be true. But hiding in an embassy looks terrible.

I have a friend who I will not name who was accused of rape. He stopped going to work, stopped going home, avoided his friends and family and went on the run. Once he was caught there were two more rape allegations brought forward since they were able to identify him from his photos.
I did not believe he would do something like that. He had no reason to, girls were all over him all the time. He had no need to climb in women's windows wearing a ninja costume and raping them. But he did.
He pled guilty. He did it. I now believe those girls who I called liars. Those girls he hid from when they accused him of rape.

I guess I'm just stupid but if somebody accuses me of a disgusting, heinous act, nothing could keep me from looking in that persons face and naming them LIAR. One of the worst things you can do to a person is to bear false witness againsts them, and if that's what they are doing he should be clearing his name and seeking charges against the accuser for making false allegations and civil court for monetary damages for sullying his name.

He's kinda hiding out instead.


 

El_Johns

(1,805 posts)
210. I'm the kind of person who, if a government decides to smear me for something I didn't do because I
Tue Feb 18, 2014, 08:51 PM
Feb 2014

blew the whistle, I wouldn't get anywhere near their smear machine.

But that's just me. And history.

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
219. You have to be believable.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 01:32 AM
Feb 2014

And tell your side of the story over and over. It worked for Zimmerman.

 

El_Johns

(1,805 posts)
220. Zimmerman wasn't going against the government. If an entity is serious enough to drum up smears
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:18 AM
Feb 2014

and false accusations, it's no telling how serious they can get.

Which is why I wouldn't put my hopes in truth justice and the American way.

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
221. I've never put my trust in truth justice or the American way.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:54 AM
Feb 2014

It would be stupid in the extreme, because of History.
He's not in America though, right? And we don't have any warrants out for his arrest so I don't know why he should be too worried about America.
Maybe he's just not trying to talk to the authorities about the rape allegations. Makes more sense than a government conspiracy.

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
223. Why would I trust America? Look at me.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:25 AM
Feb 2014

No reason for me to trust the American way.
I think our government loves the fact that he's hiding out looking guilty. Less work for them.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
134. Never read Shakespeare? Hubris tends to take one down at the height of success.
Sun Jan 19, 2014, 04:15 PM
Jan 2014

Manning's defense attorney chose to present certain facts...I would not call that hubris, but legal strategy.

As for Assange, I think it's folly to assume that people at the height of their public approval are saints...look at Chris Christie..power corrupts.

Indi Guy

(3,992 posts)
136. In Christie's case, I can see the hubris...
Sun Jan 19, 2014, 08:15 PM
Jan 2014

...but not where Manning & Assange are concerned. They were acting on conscience & exposing the misdeeds of government -- and therefor wide open to a systematic effort at character assassination.

Indi Guy

(3,992 posts)
150. That's a statement of opinion...
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 03:36 PM
Jan 2014

...not a a statement of fact.

And that opinion has nothing to do with the validity of his statements as presented in th OP (which you have yet to address).

treestar

(82,383 posts)
89. There is no case in the United States
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 02:38 PM
Jan 2014

He is delusional and it's weird other people follow his delusions.

lumpy

(13,704 posts)
232. Appaling that some people will support people who feel they are above the law and cant face up
Wed Mar 12, 2014, 10:59 PM
Mar 2014

to their bungling.

Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
58. What was Ted Kennedy thinking when he proposed this same secret court???
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 12:06 PM
Jan 2014

And what was Carter thinking when he signed the creation of this secret court it into law?

I mean, you do know how and when this secret court came into existence, don't you?

Here's a hint ... it was before Snowden was born.

Oh ... its Assange who was accused of rape, not Snowden.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
198. I googled and got this, I'm still not sure what it means:
Tue Feb 18, 2014, 01:09 PM
Feb 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act&printable=yes#Before_FISA

Noted that it affects the 4th, and other Constitutional matters. Also found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court&printable=yes

It says:

Congress created FISA and its court as a result of the recommendations by the U.S. Senate's Church Committee.

We know where it's located:


Since 2009, the court has been located in the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse in Washington, D.C.[3][4] For roughly thirty years of its history, it was housed on the sixth floor of the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building.


The Wikipedia page names the people on it, too they are a matter of public record, and I've never heard of any of them.

Other than that, it's vague to me as I'm not in government nor have I been in the military, and seeings as this involves other countries mainly. I don't know what their attitude is. A lot of criticism in that article.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
202. Wait, a little more. A bill to reform:
Tue Feb 18, 2014, 01:45 PM
Feb 2014

Last edited Tue Feb 18, 2014, 09:14 PM - Edit history (1)

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/314973-senate-bill-would-create-fisa-privacy-advocate

And more stuff:

http://gigaom.com/2013/07/28/new-sunlight-on-americas-secret-spy-court-but-too-much-remains-dark/

Created by Ted Kennedy:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/tp/FISA_1978.htm

I suspect this was created to stop abuses known about back then.
The worst things were added in the Bush era. And they added a LOT, with something new almost every other year after 9/11.

The Patriot Act is a no-win law that hamstrings every POTUS after Bush, voted on in a panic and a corporate wet dream of contracts and other trash. And it changed everything. It forces every president after it to follow this maze of laws.

The lack of Congressional interest to repeal despite grandstanding is the problem. They wrote it, got it passed and signed into law under Bush. They attach its renewal to every continuing resolution, which Obama cannot veto. They know this, and have not repealed it.

If Rand Paul and the baggers wanted to end spying and overseas adventures, they would defund that, not go after women and the poor. Their media events on this issue are hypocritical. They could stop this if they wanted.

Imagine what they will do if they win in 2014, and it won't be eliminating any of this, especially if they snag the office of president in 2016. They have run this up the flagpole to demoralize Democrats and get them to stay away from the polls.

They have the power now to cut the deficit and end this thing at the same time. They won't, because the GOP and Libertarian (both RW) use of the issue is nothing but a scam.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
20. Considering how fast and furiously his Wikileaks (political) party crashed burned and turned to dust
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 05:08 AM
Jan 2014

If there's one thing that man knows, it's "embarrassing."

 

RC

(25,592 posts)
19. Amazing how many posts have nothing to do with the information provided in the OP.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 05:05 AM
Jan 2014

Not even the bolded parts, to make it real easy.

Something is very wrong with this country and too many would disparage the messenger of these wrongs, than discuss the problem.
This should scare the hell out of everybody --

“The big problem with the FISA court is the creation of secret judge-made law that is capable of reinterpreting anything that Congress passes in order to make it acceptable for the NSA to engage in bulk collection activity,”


dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
24. Indeed.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 05:54 AM
Jan 2014

Attack the messenger in an effort to cloud his message. I watched Obama's speech live and he spoke my mind was on exactly the same subject - the aspect of secrecy in court cases that will prevail. Similar issues occur in the UK.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
42. He has a problem with the FISA court?
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 09:23 AM
Jan 2014

Ignorant little dipshit. Before that, there was nothing, no limits on the President whatsoever. Any other country has no limit on it whatsoever. The FISA court results in cases and there can be appeals.

 

RC

(25,592 posts)
44. Isn't that part of the problem?
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 10:39 AM
Jan 2014

"The FISA court results in cases and there can be appeals."

The FISA is a secret court and therefore we don't know what they are doing. John Roberts(R), a bu$h appointee, appoints the other members of the court. You don't have a problem with that? Why not?

I'd be careful of who you are calling names. Your post reads as if you might be calling Obama an "Ignorant little dipshit".
Depends on what the definition of "He" is.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
48. John Roberts, who voted in favor of the ACA?
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 10:54 AM
Jan 2014

Roberts is still a Conservative asshole but things are usually more complex than identifying who appointed whom.

And one of the reforms is to include privacy advocates, which, to me, is the most important reform of all of them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
51. So we're just now getting upset about a secret court created in 1978.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 11:07 AM
Jan 2014

And we are also now very upset about the way the judges sitting on that court are selected. A process that also has not changed since 1978.

Thanks Obama.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
53. Succinct and to the point, as usual.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 11:09 AM
Jan 2014

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
61. Really ...
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 12:11 PM
Jan 2014

... because having been alive since before 1978, its only in the last couple years that folks are suddenly concerned that this court even exists.

Now, I suspect that most people don't know that, and many of the critics are quite happy to make statements which suggest that this court just came into being since the evil dictator Obama took office.

In fact, every time this topic comes up, there will be some number of very angry critics who are surprised when they learn the date on which it was created.

They also think that the manner in which the judges are selected is part of the President's evil plan too. Again, not knowing that the process hasn't changed since Ted Kennedy proposed, and Jimmy Carter signed the FISA court into law.

Imagine that ... Kennedy, Carter ... Authoritarian Fascists.

Who knew.

Hissyspit

(45,788 posts)
63. I've been alive since before 1978.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 12:18 PM
Jan 2014

People had concerns then, they know more now, and have newer concerns.

They knew more during the Bush administration's abuses, since The Patriot Act, and they know more since the Snowden leaks.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
65. The FISA court was created to stop the government from
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 12:24 PM
Jan 2014

spying on American citizens.

Prior to its creation, the government could use "national security" as a basis to bypass all oversight when investigating a US citizen. That's what people were concerned about. And that's the primary reason the FISA court was created.

Now the FISA court is blamed for the very problem that it was originally created to stop. Often by people who have no idea how and why it came to be in the first place.

The Bush administration used elements of the Patriot act to bypass the FISA court, a practive which ended under Obama.

Not that anyone around here would know that ... but because the Obama administration has gone to the FISA court, well, the very existence of the FISA court is the "new" problem.

Which is why throughout this thread we find statements that basically say " OMG, there's a secret court!!!!"

treestar

(82,383 posts)
68. Note how it was not a big deal when Bush went around the FISA court
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 12:28 PM
Jan 2014

Might be interesting to dig Old DU for any posts about that. I don't remember it becoming a DU fixture. Notice Eddie or any prototype of Eddie didn't find that to be a problem either. Hmmmmmm.

mrdmk

(2,943 posts)
80. Wow, that is your response is off the scale
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 02:06 PM
Jan 2014

Maybe you need to reconsider your post, you just insulted the majority of your friends here...

 

2banon

(7,321 posts)
105. Yes treestar, please do research the early years when the underpinning issues were indeed a very hot
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 07:19 PM
Jan 2014

item. In fact so hot, that there were thousands of posts, threads discussing the Patriot Act and FISA -- look for every OP identified with Russ Feingold.

Look for everything related to the Patriot Act in the subject header, Senate hearings or legislative hearings on C-Span threads too numerous to count.

I'm sure others can remember just how often this issue was hot on the burners and the various subject headers that might have described these discussions.

It was indeed a major concern then as it continues to be now.

struggle4progress

(118,273 posts)
137. Yeah, well, that was back in the days when Eddie wanted leakers shot in the balls,
Sun Jan 19, 2014, 08:17 PM
Jan 2014

and back before Obama voters smushed Eddie's libertarian candidate in the 2012 elections

treestar

(82,383 posts)
64. And it came about because people realized
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 12:21 PM
Jan 2014

there were no checks on the President before. None whatsoever. Not even a "secret court." And they make like "secret" is evil, when it's really because it deals in things we don't want our enemies, the bad guys, or other countries to know. They are "our" secrets, not secrets kept from us.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
67. Exactly. The FISA court was created to stop a problem ...
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 12:26 PM
Jan 2014

that the FISA court is now blamed for having created in the first place.

 

2banon

(7,321 posts)
106. That's the fallacy. it was sold to the public then as the solution to the problem
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 07:24 PM
Jan 2014

but in fact it never was. But it was secret, so most of the population didn't even know it existed then.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
57. I meant Julian
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 12:01 PM
Jan 2014

The FISA court is there where before, there was nothing. Plus its rulings may be considered under the law in some way. Therefore, Julian is an ignoramus. He should see if Ecuador has a FISA court or anything resembling it, or anything resembling a whistleblower act.

iamthebandfanman

(8,127 posts)
74. hes a government hater..
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 12:54 PM
Jan 2014

period. doesn't matter the reason, hed hate organized government regardless.
libertarians unite!

why motive is dismissed by some folks on DU is beyond me...
I have this feeling that if our government came clean about everything tomorrow and instantly stopped, hed find another reason to be angry at our government.

that doesn't mean theres no validity in some of the things he says...

but even if rush Limbaugh had a 'good' idea, would you use it if he was the source?

iamthebandfanman

(8,127 posts)
73. because hitler was alright
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 12:48 PM
Jan 2014

past all those personal beliefs and character flaws...


sorry, but sometimes credibility and character do matter when considering some ones stance or position... people do have motives sometimes.

besides,
Julian is not saying anything, in those beloved highlighted areas, that hasn't been said before... is he ?

 

RC

(25,592 posts)
78. Are you listening to what Julian has to say, or
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 01:48 PM
Jan 2014

is the loss of our privacy, Constitutional Rights and our very freedom not matter to you, because his private life supersedes the importance of what our government is doing to us?

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
205. These people are ultra-Nationalists.
Tue Feb 18, 2014, 01:54 PM
Feb 2014

In their tiny minds, Assange disparaged the United States by airing its dirty laundry. Anyone who disparages the United States must be attacked. America above all!

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
25. Well Knightsbidge is rather nice.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 05:58 AM
Jan 2014

The Embassy is literally just round the corner from Harrods food hall and his accommodation in the Embassy don't look too bad anyway.

Yes - I'd say he is enjoying his stay.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
69. Prison is prison
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 12:32 PM
Jan 2014

Even if it's a nice place, there's a point where a person wants to get out. Unless he's become a recluse, he's not happy by now. He's not getting any attention. IMO there will be a point where he goes to Sweden, due to reporters getting bored with him and moving on, and the trip to Sweden will get him attention.

Bodhi BloodWave

(2,346 posts)
116. the amusing/sad thing on this whole mess though
Sun Jan 19, 2014, 12:40 AM
Jan 2014

is that if Assange had gone to trial in Sweden instead of fleeing to the UK then appeal for a few ages and now confining himself to an embassy for a few ages longer to avoid the accusations then he would likely have been a free man again by now(or very close) had he been found guilty on most the points.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
122. good point - making it his absurd certainty that the US is going to get him
Sun Jan 19, 2014, 12:16 PM
Jan 2014

his only remaining reason for doing all this.

Swedish jails even may not be that bad, and at least he'd be serving a sentence that terminates. The one he sentenced himself to has no end.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
75. Most will never get the chance to live nicely in one of the world's most expensive cities.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 12:56 PM
Jan 2014

We are lowly peasants in comparison. Just trying to keep a roof over our heads, which Julian has no trouble obtaining on any continent or island.

Today, MSM reports that Assange has something to say for his media pals, but it's never about us commoners. Obama focuses on us, and is an embarrassment to very important people.

Meh.

arely staircase

(12,482 posts)
94. Alcatraz was
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 03:23 PM
Jan 2014

indistinguishable from a suit at the Mark Hopkins. I mean, you know, because San Francisco!

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
96. The Embassy and Harrods are next door neighbours.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 04:22 PM
Jan 2014


That's an early picture - now just a lone policeman stands at the door which is pretty much stock for an Embassy in London.

I'm happy to keep kicking this important post in reply to others who obviously feel the same.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
154. And Harrods delivers his meals. But he could have had better digs if he hadn't skipped bail:
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 03:46 PM
Jan 2014
Santa Assange's country house Christmas: He may be under house arrest, but that hasn't stopped WikiLeaks founder enjoying the festive season to the full











http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343362/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-enjoys-Christmas-country-house-arrest.html

The article with the estate pictures says a bit on his confinement there. That's a 600-acre estate and sustainable farm in England. There are other pictures of him during his stay there and other places Julian enjoyed before settling down in Knightsbridge. He's not living as large as he is used to and I'm sure he misses it.

I have a friend who visits Norfolk on her rare breaks from her flat in London and apparently it's quite beautiful there. I'm always surprised the UK maintains its rural character and kept all of these open spaces with room for nature. We still have our parks, but they are under pressure, as well as the mountain top removals, etc, damaging ecosystems.

Hope that Polar Vortex doesn't fall on you over there, it's predicted to dip down into the USA again at the end of this month. Still rather cool here.

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
159. Whereas here we're having one of the warmest winters on record , 7th I think ,
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 04:30 PM
Jan 2014

albeit a bit wet . Its ok where I am with no adjacent rivers and about 270' above sea level. Its infinitely better than last year when the jet stream was getting on vertical this side and dragged the cold air in from Scandinavia pretty much from very end of October to end of March - finally brightened up in April.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
160. Well, that's good news. We get most of our rain from the Pacific, warm air currents from Hawaii...
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 04:41 PM
Jan 2014

I hadn't imagined your weather coming from Scandinavia, I thought you guys were generally enjoying warm weather from the Gulf Stream.

Guess thecold you had before is like our getting the icy winds from Canada. And anyone in the northern hemisphere will get it from the Arctic sooner or later.

I'm at 600 above sea level although I can see the water. We have mountains to see the snow on year around, too, that we can see from all directions.

I am hoping we'll always be tsunami proof although other things might get us!

EDIT: it's said we have a similar climate to the UK, good for gardening but we are all looking to zeroscaping to save water.

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
162. We have always been subject to cold air getiing sucked down from Scandinavia in winter.
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 04:50 PM
Jan 2014

Its just that last year we got too much. The Gulf Stream sweeps up the north west side of the UK.

The issues with the jet stream shape were what had previously caused the floods in Pakistan 2010 and the heatwave in Russia the same year.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
164. Well, just so long as that Polar Vortex doesn't come to visit. But England has survived worse...
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 05:52 PM
Jan 2014

Still amazed at how timeless some of the countryside is there. The old homes that have lasted so long. But I have friends whose houses flooded with the springs they were built upon hundreds of years ago rose up with the water table. They didn't know the history of the land they had bought their homes on.

Not much history here except from the tribal people who know the most, and the geological record which shows past volcanic eruptions. Now there are quite a lot of people living in the lahar zones downhill of the mountains.

We also have streams that overrun their banks in the fall gales and then there are news videos of people getting out of their cars to toss salmon stranded on the roads back into the creeks to continue their life journey and spawn. Some dams have been opened or eliminated to help them get to where they need to go.

Cha

(297,104 posts)
23. Meanwhile from the Reality Realm.. "NSA Critic Ron Wyden Commends 'Milestone' In Surveillance
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 05:39 AM
Jan 2014
Reform"

"Vocal National Security Agency critic Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR offered full-throated praise for the changes to NSA surveillance programs announced by President Barack Obama on Friday.

In a joint statement with fellow Senate Intelligence Committee members and privacy advocates Mark Udall (D-CO) and Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Wyden commended the President for proposing changes to the NSA's phone records collection program in particular. He and Udall had proposed a bill last year to curtail the agency's authority to collect that data.

“After the long push to rein in overbroad surveillance powers, we are very pleased that the President announced his intent to end the bulk collection of Americans’ phone records," the senators said. "Ending this dragnet collection will go a long way toward restoring Americans’ constitutional rights and rebuilding the public’s trust. Make no mistake, this is a major milestone in our longstanding efforts to reform the National Security Agency’s bulk collection program."


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wyden_commends_obama_nsa_chang

Cha

(297,104 posts)
103. Right, arely.. only Asshat who thinks "rand paul would be good for America" is
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 06:52 PM
Jan 2014

the definitive word on the President. rofl

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
148. How to control himself?! Other than that, I got nothing but a few DU search results.
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 03:13 PM
Jan 2014

He appears to have been highly thought of by some here at one time:

Ron Wyden: The Lonely Hero of the Battle Against the Surveillance State


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023911655

Under the bus in 3... 2 ... 1...

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
55. You beat me to it ...
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 11:25 AM
Jan 2014

Okay ... the guy that thinks there should be NO secrets/surveillance in government, and runs a private company/group based on brokering secrets gained through surveillance ... thinks the guy that is working to balance the privacy rights and national security interests of the American people (with real life consequences, should he get it wrong) is an embarrassment.

So what? Other than whipping up a segment of DU and a really, really small segment of the American people that wish to ignore/have the luxury of ignoring any real world consequences of their opinion, what can come of this?

The important consideration is ... What do those legislators that have a similar responsibility as the President (i.e., balancing the privacy rights and national security interests of the American people) think?

Thanks, Cha.

I care what assuage thinks on this topic about as much as who he thinks will be in, and will win, the Super Bowl.

Cha

(297,104 posts)
104. Thank you, 1StrongBlackMan. Well said..
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 07:05 PM
Jan 2014

"...the guy that thinks there should be NO secrets/surveillance in government, and runs a private company/group based on brokering secrets gained through surveillance ... thinks the guy that is working to balance the privacy rights and national security interests of the American people (with real life consequences, should he get it wrong) is an embarrassment."

Yes, the hypocritical asshat speaks and a certain segment bow down to the one speaking in a trap of his own making at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. But back, as I said in the real world, there's Rep Ron Wyden.. and Senator Bernie Sanders I heard from my friend was on the tube this morning..

"I was just watching Bernie Sanders on MSNBC this morning and he had some praise for the President's speech. He said it's a start - and then went and hit Snowden for going against his oath. Uh oh."


link

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
165. This should be an OP. It would be an important discussion here:
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 06:19 PM
Jan 2014
"...the guy that thinks there should be NO secrets/surveillance in government, and runs a private company/group based on brokering secrets gained through surveillance ... thinks the guy that is working to balance the privacy rights and national security interests of the American people (with real life consequences, should he get it wrong) is an embarrassment..."

The important consideration is... What do those legislators that have a similar responsibility as the President (i.e., balancing the privacy rights and national security interests of the American people) think?


Do you think it's possible to have this discussion here?

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
172. No ...
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 11:33 PM
Jan 2014

Last edited Tue Jan 21, 2014, 08:20 AM - Edit history (1)

I really don't think there is any possibility of having a reasonable discussion on this matter.

ETA: If anything, this is a perfect example of the difference between governments (and members of government) and private corporations ... the former is bound be rules (be they laws or moral stricture); that the latter is not bound to respect and must confront consequences that the latter can ignore.

Hissyspit

(45,788 posts)
62. Sen. Widen is being optimistic:
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 12:12 PM
Jan 2014

And, by the way, all of a sudden we're concerned with "reality"-based issues instead of just knee-jerk Greenwald insults?

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obamas-restrictions-on-nsa-surveillance-rely-on-narrow-definition-of-spying/2014/01/17/2478cc02-7fcb-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html

In his speech, and an accompanying policy directive, Obama described principles for “restricting the use of this information” — but not for gathering less of it.

Alongside the invocation of privacy and restraint, Obama gave his plainest endorsement yet of “bulk collection,” a term he used more than once and authorized explicitly in Presidential Policy Directive 28. In a footnote, the directive defined the term to mean high-volume collection “without the use of discriminants.”

That is perhaps the central feature of “the golden age of signals intelligence,” which the NSA celebrates in top-secret documents leaked by former contractor Edward Snowden. Obama for the first time put his own imprimatur on a collection philosophy that one of those documents summarized this way: “Order one of everything from the menu.”

As digital communications have multiplied, and NSA capabilities with them, the agency has shifted resources from surveillance of individual targets to the acquisition of communications on a planetary scale. That shift has fed the appetite of Big Data tools, which are designed to find unseen patterns and make connections that NSA analysts don’t know to look for.

“It’s noteworthy that the president addressed only the bulk collection of call records, but not any of the other bulk collection programs revealed by the media,” said Alexander Abdo, an attorney with the ACLU’s national security project. “That is a glaring omission. The president needs to embrace structural reforms that will protect us from all forms of bulk collection and that will make future overreach less likely.”

In principle, these tools have the potential to reveal unknown associates of known foreign targets, although the intelligence community has struggled to offer examples. But they rely, by definition and intent, on the construction of vast databases filled almost entirely with innocent communications. Obama’s view, like the NSA’s, is that there is no intrusion on privacy until someone calls up the files and reads them.

nolabels

(13,133 posts)
178. Reform my ASS, a little connection of the dots is in order
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 04:12 PM
Jan 2014

When you send your tax return in what part does it say that portions will be used to record and categorize every electronic communication you make?

You all sound like a bunch of boiling frogs to me

delrem

(9,688 posts)
31. I'm just happy that it's unlikely that a thug like Chris Christie ever becomes Pres.!
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 07:02 AM
Jan 2014

Because so few politicians are like Chris Christie. Also it's unlikely that the Republican machine ever again attain the President's office.

So as far as I'm concerned everything's cool and so-called "change" isn't needed.

QuestForSense

(653 posts)
32. Rick Perlstein at The Nation writes NSA Reform, Then and Now:
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 07:15 AM
Jan 2014

So now comes President Obama, proposing “reforms” for the National Security Agency. Kevin Drum of Mother Jones summarizes them as “weak tea.” Obama is responding, of course, to the advisory panel he appointed that released its recommendations about a month ago—which Drum has described as slightly-less-weak tea. Though even that report—for instance, the conclusion that the current system of storing bulk metadata “creates potential risks to public trust, personal privacy, and civil liberty,” and that “Americans must never make the mistake of wholly ‘trusting’ our public officials”—must have been pretty damned humiliating to President Obama, who has consistently preached to us we have nothing to fear from trusting our public officials at all.

Being, well, me, when the Obama panel released its recommendations about month ago, I immediately thought to pull down from my shelf the Church Committee’s final report from 1976 on spying on Americans to see how its thirty-six page section about the NSA’s abuses of power, and the government’s investigation of them forty-seven years ago, compares to what we’re seeing today. It certainly makes for an interesting study.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/17/1270588/-Open-thread-for-night-owls-NSA-reform-then-and-in-the-1970s?detail=hide

Pholus

(4,062 posts)
35. Nice read! Thanks!
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 07:42 AM
Jan 2014

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I resent being subjected to all that cold-war propoganda that implied that "we are better than that."

Nope, we aren't.

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
76. That's apples and pears
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 01:01 PM
Jan 2014

The only valid comparison with the WH would be Buckingham Palace residence in which is permanent : not a 4 year rolling tenancy.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
87. The WH in itself will certainly get you a lot of attention
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 02:35 PM
Jan 2014

If you are its main occupant or his/her family. The press will be there every day just because. Everything you do will be scrutinized, while there and whenever you leave it. It tends to mean that a majority of voters in the right states with the number of electoral votes actually chose you to be the occupant of said house and run the executive branch of the federal government of the richest country on earth.

Living in the Ecuadorian Embassy without being able to leave it? Now that's embarrassing. Especially when you are there because you are afraid to face relatively minor charges. And embarrassing yourself with your imaginings about what the said WH occupant is going to do to you.

ronnie624

(5,764 posts)
66. But only in very recent times
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 12:26 PM
Jan 2014

has the NSA, in collaboration with its allies in the UK, Australia, Canada and elsewhere, began collecting detailed information on everyone on earth in an ultra sophisticated surveillance apparatus, for the purpose of maintaining the current system of global political and economic power, and preventing reform to it. This system of power is taking us in a direction that is detrimental to all of us. You're promoting apathy. People need to wake the fuck up. Getting over it, is the last thing we need

Indi Guy

(3,992 posts)
84. Absolutely right on the money.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 02:20 PM
Jan 2014

Apathy toward this matter is deadly.

The metaphor of the frog in the pan of water comes to mind. We need to take notice of how the water is getting hot and it's time to jump out before the boiling point is reached.

ronnie624

(5,764 posts)
92. People who blabber about "spying", simply do not get it.
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 03:02 PM
Jan 2014

It's about consolidating power through the control and use of information. The elite do not need to spy as long as they are recording your every activity. They can destroy you at their leisure should the 'need' arise. It's about preventing reform to the corrupt system of power. If the security of our civilization was truly the concern of the powerful, they would pour the resources squandered on the GWOT into mitigating the looming environmental disasters and shortages of energy, water and food supplies, which are the real threats to our civilization. Terrorism does not even come close to posing the threats that those issues do.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
168. I disagree. We must learn our history. A post I made some time back:
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 06:53 PM
Jan 2014

Last edited Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:58 AM - Edit history (1)

...The treaty sharing info goes back to WW2.

The entire Anglosphere has been sharing a lot of information offically on the same basis it did during that war. Below is a post by Devon Rex, but most of us knew this for years, just not this well laid out. I edited DR's post using the same source for coherence:

I'll spell it out: UKUSA. It's the SIGINT Intelligence Agreement. BRUSA.

Might as well be signed in blood.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

United Kingdom – United States of America Agreement (UKUSA, /juːkuːˈsɑː/ ew-koo-sah) is a multilateral agreement for cooperation in signals intelligence between the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The alliance of intelligence operations is also known as Five Eyes (FVEY). It was first signed in March 1946 by the United Kingdom and the United States and later extended to encompass the three Commonwealth realms of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The UKUSA Agreement was a follow-up of the 1943 BRUSA Agreement, the World War II agreement on cooperation over intelligence matters. This was a secret treaty, allegedly so secret that it was kept secret from the Australian Prime Ministers until 1973.

The agreement established an alliance of five English-speaking countries for the purpose of sharing intelligence, especially signals intelligence. It formalized the intelligence sharing agreement in the Atlantic Charter, signed in 1941, before the entry of the U.S. into the conflict.

History

The agreement originated from a ten-page British–U.S. Communication Intelligence Agreement, also known as BRUSA, that connected the signal intercept networks of the U.K. Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) at the beginning of the Cold War. The document was signed on March 5, 1946 by Colonel Patrick Marr-Johnson for the U.K.'s London Signals Intelligence Board and Lieutenant General Hoyt Vandenberg for the U.S. State–Army–Navy Communication Intelligence Board. Although the original agreement states that the exchange would not be "prejudicial to national interests", the United States often blocked information sharing from Commonwealth countries. The full text of the agreement was released to the public on June 25, 2010.

Under the agreement, the GCHQ and the NSA shared intelligence on the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and several eastern European countries (known as Exotics). The network was expanded in the 1960s into the Echelon collection and analysis network.

In July 2013, as part of the 2013 Edward Snowden revelations, it emerged that the NSA is paying GCHQ for its services, with at least £100 million of payments made between 2010–13.

Collection mechanisms

The UKUSA alliance is often associated with the ECHELON system; however, processed intelligence is reliant on multiple sources of information and the intelligence shared is not restricted to signals intelligence.

The "Five Eyes" in question are –

USA – National Security Agency
United Kingdom – Government Communications Headquarters
Canada – Communications Security Establishment
Australia – Defence Signals Directorate
New Zealand – Government Communications Security Bureau

Global coverage

Each member of the UKUSA alliance is officially assigned lead responsibility for intelligence collection and analysis in different parts of the globe.

Australia

Australia hunts for communications originating in Indochina, Indonesia, and southern China.

Canada

Formerly the northern portions of the former Soviet Union and conducting sweeps of all communications traffic that could be picked up from embassies around the world. In the post-Cold War era, a greater emphasis has been placed on monitoring satellite, radio and cellphone traffic originating from Central and South America, primarily in an effort to track drugs and non-aligned paramilitary groups in the region.

New Zealand

The Waihopai Valley Facility—base of the New Zealand branch of the ECHELON Program. New Zealand is responsible for the western Pacific. Listening posts in the South Island at Waihopai Valley just south-west of Blenheim, and on the North Island at Tangimoana. The Anti-Bases Campaign holds regular protests in order to have the listening posts closed down.

United Kingdom

Europe, Africa, and European Russia.

United States

Monitors most of Latin America, Asia, Asiatic Russia, and northern China.


Devon Rex writes, 'Might as well be signed in blood.' That is true. Millions of people died in that war and that's still taken seriously. True, it was before most of us were born but it formed the world we live in.

It's NOT a secret and was NOT forced, it was for mutual protection in a world being overrun by fascists, who were NOT kidding around one damned bit. And they still aren't, but are a lot slicker now. As Thom Hartmann explained in his OP here last year about the Koch brothers' influence on generations.

If a new generation wants to break the ties of the USA to the Anglosphere, just go for it. The problem is, the rest of the world really won't agree to it.

The information discussed here is the legal property of all of those nations, and the agreement was literally written in the blood of millions of combatants and civilians. It was a period of total warfare before the Gevena accords as they stand now and the Nuremberg trials. And those nations didn't want to see it happen again, thus the firm support from treaty partners, both the government and many of the people who live in those nations.

That blood has long since dried for some and may be forgotten, but for others, it has meaning that guides how they lived their lives and still do. More knowledge is needed of what they know, so we must ask them their intent.

I don't see anyone offering a solution in real life terms, which is not more media madness. It would require legislation restricting governments from taking private information as in Europe. We used to pass such legislation in the progressive era of the 1970's. That is the worry for individuals. What goes on between those governments is not the same thing.

There is no law saying it is proper to take information from any of the partners. The treaty partners all work together as a unit, as they are bound by law to do. I find the ignorance of history and civics to be bad for all of us. I hear no calls to revoke the treaty signed to make it all of these nations' business years ago.

We dream of a world without enemies and many of us are in vigorous debate over who the 'enemy du jour' is as we see things today. Frankly, I don't have any enemies abroad.

One thread on Assange showed how the Bankster© meme was used to get public approval on the purported release of terrible information abou them. It didn't happen, but their stocks went down while some other people's stocks went up, and that was why the banks cut them off. I'm amazed at times that the media conspiracy gods can get away with their little con jobs, gold, etc.

It's SOP for governments to snoop on others, since 'intelligence' is the practice of prophecy with a slightly better track record than reading sheep entrails. But it could be they are doing a good job. And telling the future won't work too well, since the human mind is capable of an infinite variety of tricks.

I'm not saying either, that I think this is the ultimate solution to world peace. In fact, in researching all this, I got the chills. This is reality, though, and it's hard to figure out how to react to all of it. I've been interested in politics for over half a century, but never worked for the government, nor was I in the military. This world is unfamiliar to me. What I've found though, made me respect some things in life I'd cast aside and didn't understand why they existed. And I still have not found out enough to give an unequivocal yea or nay about this. Because it's about billions of people at once, and it's damned complicated.


I've worked with telecommunications. And there are laws in place regarding all this information, which has always been available, all our lives, just as on the internet now. Since a lot of information is required to even go online, which I've posted about before, too.

The only thing that is new is the farming out of this data to private corporations since the Bush era. Assange and his firm Wikileaks are of the same breed that profited from that and now cry foul of the practices they used to make money in the media business.

The evil government call has become like crying wolf and people are tired of it being used without solutions other than a form of anarchy which leads to right wing takeovers. We have the quality of governance we elect. It's our input, and most of us are not waiting to be saved by an internet diva who gets the media eye.

JMHO.



ronnie624

(5,764 posts)
175. Not the same thing at all.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 02:38 AM
Jan 2014

Last edited Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:19 PM - Edit history (1)

No supercomputers, no powerful software, no massive, search-able databases with which a government official can pinpoint anyone and examine personal details about them, with the click of a mouse. What we have now, is a powerful tool that can be used for political purposes, and to thwart reform to a corrupted system of power. I have no idea what your point is. Your post, if I invested any of my limited time in it, would be nothing more than a wasteful distraction, but thanks anyway.

Response to secondwind (Reply #43)

George II

(67,782 posts)
71. And this clown isn't embarassing? From wikipedia:
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 12:39 PM
Jan 2014
Since November 2010, Assange has been subject to a European Arrest Warrant in response to a Swedish police request for questioning in relation to a sexual assault investigation.

In June 2012, following final dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom of his appeal against enforcement of the European Arrest Warrant, Assange has failed to surrender to his bail, and has been treated by the UK authorities as having absconded.

Since 19 June 2012, he has been inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has since been granted diplomatic asylum.

The British government intends to extradite Assange to Sweden under that arrest warrant once he leaves the embassy.


The slime has been living off the Ecuadorians for more than a year and a half, and has no qualms about putting Equador between the British and Swedish authorities.

Indi Guy

(3,992 posts)
90. Really?
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 02:46 PM
Jan 2014

Anyone can judge anything; and anyone can judge rightly or wrongly.

How would you characterize the president's speech?

George II

(67,782 posts)
93. Excellent
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 03:15 PM
Jan 2014

Once again, I don't think Assange is in a position to be judging others, particularly our President. Now if he walks out of that embassy and faces his responsibility, he might be in a better position to judge others. Until then he should just STFU.

 

2banon

(7,321 posts)
108. Looks like a dozen Pro-Authoritarians on the attack in this thread
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 07:41 PM
Jan 2014

Hard to accurately gauge, tried to count it up. Fascinating reaction none the less.

Of the pro-authoritarians, largely 99% of those are personal attacks on JA -himself - less than 1% on the actual substance wrt to the topic - the speech, the issue of NSA domestic spying and the lack of serious proposed reforms to address these concerns.

hmmm...

 

2banon

(7,321 posts)
117. Largely I do ignore, although I don't use that function
Sun Jan 19, 2014, 01:02 AM
Jan 2014

It's tempting.. on the other hand, it's interesting to be aware of the handles the black boot bot functionaries use on this topic.

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
119. After eight years.....
Sun Jan 19, 2014, 03:39 AM
Jan 2014

...I couldn't be here without it. I think of DU as a large pub with all kinds of people who come in to talk about things they like or are concerned about.

- I don't talk to everyone in the pub either......

 

2banon

(7,321 posts)
123. excellent analogy
Sun Jan 19, 2014, 01:05 PM
Jan 2014

there are people who wander over who clearly do not jive with others at the table, yet they insist in barging in on the conversation sputtering unintelligible nonsense or Fox "talking points".. or just plain looking for a fight. You have to ignore them and try to go on with the conversation.

 

2banon

(7,321 posts)
141. Definition of Authoritarian:
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 12:18 PM
Jan 2014

au·thor·i·tar·i·an

adjective

1. favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, esp. that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom. "the transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime"


synonyms: autocratic, dictatorial, despotic, tyrannical, draconian, oppressive, repressive, illiberal, undemocratic

synonyms: autocrat, despot, dictator, tyrant


noun: authoritarian; plural noun: authoritarians
1. an authoritarian person.

synonyms: autocrat, despot, dictator, tyrant

 

2banon

(7,321 posts)
142. Wiki's :
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 12:35 PM
Jan 2014

Wiki's page on Authoritarianism is worth a few minutes of your time.


Authoritarianism is a form of government.[1][2][3] It is characterised by absolute or blind[4] obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience.[5]




subtypes of authoritarian regime: corporatist or organic-statistic, racial and ethnic "democracy" and post-totalitarian.[9]

Corporatist authoritarian regimes "are those in which corporatist institutions are used extensively by the state to coopt and demobilize powerful interest groups"; this type has been studied most extensively in America.[9]

Racial and ethnic "democracies" are those in which "certain racial or ethnic groups enjoy full democratic rights while others are largely or entirely denied those rights," such as in South Africa under apartheid.[9]

Some have pointed to Israel as another example of "democratic" authoritarianism. The far-reaching implications of denying a different group republican privileges can contribute to the typically highly negative international view of these types of governments.

Post-totalitarian authoritarian regimes are those in which totalitarian institutions (such as the party, secret police and state-controlled mass media) remain, but where "ideological orthodoxy has declined in favor of routinization, repression has declined, the state's top leadership is less personalized and more secure, and the level of mass mobilization has declined substantially."[9]

Examples include the Soviet Eastern bloc states in the mid-1980s.[9]



there's much more of course.. enjoy.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
170. So in other words, obeying the law = authoritarian
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 07:23 PM
Jan 2014

Even though that definition refers to a type of government. Ours of course, is not. It is made up of elected officials. They make the laws. You are failing to see the difference there in your zeal to call other people "authoritarian" as if we support dictatorship, just to feel a little better about your silly position that we live in a police state or whatever you want to call it.

 

2banon

(7,321 posts)
171. You blithely ignore the actual definition - you play this game all the time.
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 09:04 PM
Jan 2014

I dont' know why you refuse to look at and respond to the specific information people go out of their way to offer you.. the actual issue of concern, but you do.

I find it pointless to engage any further.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
176. Assange and Snowden threads remain the most relentlessly targeted by the propaganda brigade,
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 03:42 AM
Jan 2014

which is a clear sign of how dangerous the US government considers their revelations.

How deeply sick and corrupt this government has become. We all live in Oceania now.

 

2banon

(7,321 posts)
177. discussing this very thing on Forum this morning. Nancy Pelosi walking back her remarks
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 02:14 PM
Jan 2014

regarding Snowden, somewhat. Softening her tone greatly, expressing "concerns" with regard to Clapper and NSA officials lying to Congress, etc.

But we before we pat ourselves on the back thinking that her change in tone and expressed attitude is in any way a result of the public's collective outrage, chances are more than likely she got "counseled" by Google et al, who as we all know feigned "surprise" and "outrage" with regard to the Snowden revelations. After all, they're in serious lobbying mode with an aim to become the ultimate "keepers" of all that "meta data".


HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
218. Derp.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 01:24 AM
Feb 2014

So, you can't handle being challenged. And those who challenge your preconceptions are something or another bad.

Pffffft.

Festivito

(13,452 posts)
112. What do they have on Obama?
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 08:56 PM
Jan 2014

Or are they promising some good stuff on Republicans, omitting that they'll give Republicans ten times the information on Democrats.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
113. In retrospect, I'm wondering why Obama even bothered to try doing anything...
Sat Jan 18, 2014, 09:07 PM
Jan 2014

It would have been more politically expedient to just keep up the occasional denials another couple of years....

Granted, the whole issue is a bear trap -- I've said from the beginning that the NSA is too big, bloated and powerful to accept any kind of meaningful reforms, and the only solution with any certainty of being successful is outright elimination...Even all 46 proposals if implemented would have been nothing more than a temporary band-aid...

But no, everyone said...Obama has to at least do *something*, almost everyone said...Any bit of NSA reform is better than nothing and at least a step in the right direction almost everyone said...

So you all got your "any bit of reform" and everyone is shitting on him for it...

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
115. Not everyone ...
Sun Jan 19, 2014, 12:02 AM
Jan 2014

but I get what you mean ...

"Use the bully pulpit" => "Nice speech, do something." => Something done, but not 100% because of republican (and Democratic) opposition => "All he has to do is use the bully pulpit."

Rinse and repeat.

TheKentuckian

(25,023 posts)
179. So, your assertion is that the President willing and eagerly discussed reforms
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 07:06 PM
Jan 2014

and the discussed reforms are substantive?

Is Jon Stewart also a liar, he had similar criticisms last night?

TheKentuckian

(25,023 posts)
181. Individualized belief is not required for agreement. George W. Bush says the sky is blue
Wed Jan 22, 2014, 10:42 PM
Jan 2014

I might feel the need to look out the window to be sure but I don't have to have a lick of personal faith or trust to agree with the assessment.

cemaphonic

(4,138 posts)
135. I guess he would know
Sun Jan 19, 2014, 08:03 PM
Jan 2014

Can't be much more embarrassing than being an international fugitive from justice and alleged rapist.

Sheldon Cooper

(3,724 posts)
146. Go to Sweden and deal with the rape charges, Julian.
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 01:32 PM
Jan 2014

Hiding out in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, like the little weasel you are, is SO not embarrassing. Not in the least.

 

fascisthunter

(29,381 posts)
185. It is Embarrassing, but what's more Embarrassing are those indirectly defending the indefensible
Sat Feb 15, 2014, 11:17 PM
Feb 2014

by attacking this man's character. They won't defend the subject matter... because then they'd have to admit they like living in a country that has no respect for it's citizen's right to privacy or the Constitution itself. I call that cowardly and the tactics used by them, embarrassingly sophomoric.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
191. He's just another wingnut peddling F.U.D. on the telly at this point.
Sun Feb 16, 2014, 06:15 AM
Feb 2014

It's true he once had a more important role in the RW disinfo-sphere but how the mighty have fallen.

apnu

(8,751 posts)
196. Obama is 'embarrasing' but not in the way Assange says
Tue Feb 18, 2014, 12:32 PM
Feb 2014

There is so much more he can be doing to further the liberal cause that Obama just isn't. I don't know if its a weakness of character or a product of the office.

Its not just the do-nothing Republicans. Obama's got the bully pulpit, he was elected to bring hope to the world. Which he hasn't. He has allowed himself to get mired down in the minutia of the DC swamp and hardly speaks out about what's right and true in the world. Hence why we still linger in the war zones, why the NSA and Bush-era policies are still in place and humming along nicely. Gitmo still operates.

I would rather that he stick up, boldly and loudly for liberal causes with conviction and risk failure because of Republican obstructionism. Put it on display! I say. Let America and the world see the curmudgeonly ways of the Republicans, let them have all the rope they want to hang themselves. If Obama had done that in his first term, the teabaggers would have flamed out in 2010.

But no, he's too cautious, too meek. I believe he's well intended, but now half way through his 2nd term, he's accomplished nothing and though his words might be bold, they ring hallow due to years of inaction and "working with" a party that has zero motivation to assist him for any reason. The Republicans are so hostile to Obama, and have been since the first day, that if the President was asking for toilet paper from the Republican in the next stall, they'd deny him that too.

Its embarrassing, that its taken Obama this long to figure that out.

And does he call them out on their poor behavior? No. He will not shine a bright light on those cockroaches and parasites and let the world judge them for what they are.

Still, don't regret my vote. Obama is 100% better than McCain, and 500% better than Mitt Romney.

mike_c

(36,281 posts)
201. Assange is right-- his detractors make it all about him, rather than the message....
Tue Feb 18, 2014, 01:24 PM
Feb 2014

They don't want to face the truth.

 

grahamhgreen

(15,741 posts)
229. The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 07:01 AM
Feb 2014

The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.

John F. Kennedy


Cha

(297,104 posts)
240. Asshat needs to look in the fucking mirror to see who's "embarrassing".. fuck the rand paul
Thu Mar 13, 2014, 06:00 AM
Mar 2014

pusher.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Julian Assange: Obama ‘em...