Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:If I was running counter-intelligence for the C (Score 1) 338

by NicBenjamin (#48414899) Attached to: Alleged Satellite Photo Says Ukraine Shootdown of MH17

If it wasn't a time-bomb what was it? It has to be in the cockpit, so it can't be transmitting signals or it would screw up the pilot's insturments and tip them off. It's 5-6 miles up so it can't be receiving signals passively.

And you still haven't addressed the risk/reward problem. If Israel gets caught Israel dies. Period. Therefore a 2% chance of getting caught is only an acceptable risk if the alternative is a 3% chance of the destruction of the country, and that just wasn't gonna happen no matter how bad the blow-back from Gaza.

Comment: Re:If I was running counter-intelligence for the C (Score 1) 338

by NicBenjamin (#48399631) Attached to: Alleged Satellite Photo Says Ukraine Shootdown of MH17

So an Israeli security contractor put a bomb on the plane, which nobody noticed, and timed it to go off over a very small war-zone, and it worked?

This is an aircraft that travels at 900 kph. If the pilot's a half-hour behind schedule he's over Kiev when the bomb goes off. If it's an hour he's in Poland. If he's 10 minutes ahead of schedule he's well into Russia.

Even if you have an answer for that one you still haven't addressed the risk/reward: if the Israelis get caught doing this they get fucked. All of Europe would ostracize them. That means UN Security Council resolutions requiring everyone to embargo Israel until they've turned half their security services over to the Dutch for prosecution. The US is not gonna veto those resolutions because a couple hundred million Europeans are a lot better alliance-partner then 7-8 million Israelis. The Russians probably wrote the damn resolution, because the Israelis were trying to frame Russia. That means Israel's only hope is China, and the Chinese are not likely to stick their necks out to save the people who just pissed a) their biggest energy supplier, and b) all their customers.

That's a lot to risk for some abstract reward of "distracting" people.

Comment: Re:Yet Another Fake Picture (Score 2) 338

by NicBenjamin (#48397515) Attached to: Alleged Satellite Photo Says Ukraine Shootdown of MH17

Two points:

1) We know the rebels were using anti-aircraft weapons in the area because they said they were using anti-aircraft weapons. They got an AN-26, an SU-25, and an IL-76. I never read CNN because they are too damn cheap to do their own research, which means in international news they almost always end up parroting the President's line. But the BBC had extensive coverage of all three shoot-downs, it's quite skeptical of the official line (check out the Hutton Inquiry if you don;t believe me), and all were quite close (150 km or less) to MH17. They themselves repeatedly claimed to have done all three shoot-downs.

2) Your source does not understand how aerial combat works or looks. Canon fire produces lots of identical holes. Identical. The bullets are precisely machined to all be exactly the same size, they are coming in at the exact same angle, and they are hitting the exact same material. You don't get a 2 cm hole right by a 5 mm hole, you get a bunch of 30 mm holes.

Moreover his scenario may be "coherent," but it's stupid. Su-25s are not fighter aircraft, they are ground-attack aircraft. Their systems are not designed to accurately hit a specific part of an aircraft traveling at hundreds of miles an hour, they are designed to pepper a 30 mph tank with as many bullets as possible in the hopes that one will get lucky and hit a weak point in the armor. Moreover they have to be incredibly close to work, (under a km, a couple hundred meters is ideal), aimed straight at the target (the gun is welded onto the nose), and the pilots of a commercial aircraft are damn well gonna notice a military aircraft pointed straight at them, at maximum speed, closing to within a km. If the Ukrainians actually wanted to do this they'd use an actual fighter-jet, like a Mig-29 or Su-27, or they'd sneak a missile battery close to the front and use that.

OTOH, as I said we know the rebels were using anti-aircraft weapons. We know those weapons put a bunch of non-similar-sized holes in the planes cockpit. We know they boasted about shooting down a plane (which they thought was a large Yakovlev transport) at exactly the same time MH17 went down, and they pulled the post pretty much the second they realized the only plane missing in Ukraine was a neutral civilian airliner, etc. Most important we know their attempt to blame it on the other side is ridiculous. It's the kind of thing you think up when you've been caught red-handed and you don;t want to admit it, not the kind of thing you say because you believe it's true.

Comment: Re:If I was running counter-intelligence for the C (Score 1) 338

by NicBenjamin (#48397053) Attached to: Alleged Satellite Photo Says Ukraine Shootdown of MH17

The problem with plans like that are numerous, sundry, and gi-fucking-normous.

The number one biggest problem is finding a reliable trigger-man. If you use an Israeli (or even a non-Israeli Jew) it's gonna be pretty conspicuous, so you need a reliable gentile. Let me repeat: you're looking for a person who is willing to murder several hundred completely innocent people, but will never betray you. Because if he does betray you you got bigger problems then a bunch of Euro-sissies with no military complaining about your latest Gaza offensive, you've UN resolutions accusing your PM of war crimes, the country you usually depend on to protect (the US and Russia) will not protect your ass, and your back-up (Israel maintains a fairly good relationship with the Russians) is probably sponsoring the damn thing.

Then there's the problem of getting weapons in the right place. You get the right Ukrainian patsy that works fine, but that guy pretty much has to be a Ukrainian ultra-nationalist, and Ukrainian ultra-nationalists are not known for their loyalty to the Zionist project. They're also not known for their ability to keep secrets from Russia.You could get around that problem by using an IDF aircraft with an IDF pilot, but getting an IDF aircraft 800+ km across Turkey, the Black Sea, Russian bases in Crimea, etc. without anybody noticing is not an easy task.

Comment: Re:uh, no? (Score 4, Interesting) 338

by NicBenjamin (#48396795) Attached to: Alleged Satellite Photo Says Ukraine Shootdown of MH17

What else can we do?

Putin has apparently just accidentally killed several hundred civilians, most of whom are part of a nuclear-armed alliance. And he won't even say "oops."

The reason those countries are in that alliance is that they expect us to have their backs when somebody does that kind of shit to them.

Now if we respond militarily, which has the advantage that a) it would target the people who actually blew the plane up, and b) if it worked would work really well; we face the disadvantage that c) our military aim isn't perfect so we'd probably nail a bomb shelter full of civilians, d) much of the Russian military is conscripted, e) invading Russia is historically speaking a really ineffective policy, and f) if we did so Putin might nuke Seattle.

Which leaves sanctions. Sanctions are slow, and they tend to hit a lot of innocents, but military action is worse (ie: Bush's invasion of Iraq ended the sanctions that killed thousands, but only by starting a war that killed hundreds of thousands and refuses to end).

Comment: Re:If I was running counter-intelligence for the C (Score 1, Insightful) 338

by NicBenjamin (#48395053) Attached to: Alleged Satellite Photo Says Ukraine Shootdown of MH17

I have no idea why a sane person would suspect Mossad.

Some sane people suspect Mossad of secretly supporting the Russians in their war against Georgia, because they may actually have gotten something they could use out of that (Russian support against the Iranians). But they really don't give two shits about who owns Luhansk and Donetsk, but they definitely give a shit whether the Russians hate them because a nuclear-armed Security Council state could make life very uncomfortable for them. So they are gonna stayt far away from any anti-Russian operation in this conflict.

Comment: Re:Yet Another Fake Picture (Score 1) 338

by NicBenjamin (#48394951) Attached to: Alleged Satellite Photo Says Ukraine Shootdown of MH17

It's hard to take that possibility very seriously.

Cannon fire is a bunch of bullets that are exactly the same shape and size. This leaves a bunch of identical holes in the wreckage. Frequently they're all in a line.

OTOH, an air-to-air missile blows up before it hits the target, peppering it with shrapnel, The shrapnel puts lots of holes in the plane, but they aren't all exactly the same size, and there's just a mass of them where the missile hit.

The pictures of wreckage we've seen show the latter, not the former.

Just as important, we know the rebels were operating air-to-air batteries in the area because they blew a couple Ukrainian military aircraft out of the sky. It's not uncommon for anti-0aircraft batteries to blow up the wrong plane, particularly if there's a lot of fighting going on and the crew are poorly trained. We did it to an Iranian airliner, the Russians did it to a South Korean jet. The rebel military is quite new so their guys can;t have 20 years experience telli8ng a Boeing from a Sukhoi.

Comment: Re: uh, no? (Score 1) 338

by NicBenjamin (#48394879) Attached to: Alleged Satellite Photo Says Ukraine Shootdown of MH17

In the short term in Russia proper that's true.

But everyone else knows this is more then a bit fishy. In fact it's ridiculous BS.

And in the long-term it's really, really hard to duck responsibility on something like this for an extended period of time. We blew that Iranian airliner up, gave the dude who did it a medal, but within a decade we had to take responsibility and pay substantial damages. Libya was able to duck responsibility for quite a bit longer after the Lockerbie bombing, but even Gadaffi had to own up eventually.

Comment: Re:uh, no? (Score 4, Insightful) 338

by NicBenjamin (#48394795) Attached to: Alleged Satellite Photo Says Ukraine Shootdown of MH17

Because the only thing they could do that would work is sending NATO troops into Ukraine, which would be mighty fucking risky. And not risky as in "we could lose a few thousand troops for no damn good reason and waste a $Trillion or three doing it," risky as in nuclear fucking war.

So they decided on sanctions. Apparently the sanctions are pretty effective, because there's no good economic news out of Russia.

Comment: Re:Summary is hogwash (Score 1) 271

by NicBenjamin (#48383183) Attached to: Dealer-Installed GPS Tracker Leads To Kidnapper's Arrest in Maryland

The Appeals Court removed Judge Scheindlein.

She said the Fourth Amendment bans a policy that resulted in every black man in New York City being frisked, and the Appeals Court removed her. It reprimanded her in extremely strong language, accusing her of major ethical violations (they've changed their tune on this). Then they said the Stop-and-frisk program can continue until a new trial is held under a Judge who hasn't said that stopping all black people is racist and against the Fourth Amendment.

Don't get me wrong. But that's not the ruling you issue if you think the Fourth Amendment is something more thena technicality to be reasoned away.

Comment: Re:Summary is hogwash (Score 1) 271

by NicBenjamin (#48365591) Attached to: Dealer-Installed GPS Tracker Leads To Kidnapper's Arrest in Maryland

You got an example of a case like this?

Ideally with someone using a public defender.

You are claiming something is a universal right. I am claiming, that regardless of the high-faluting legal principles you're talking about, the Courts will not respect the right. If you prove somebody who is rich enough to drop $50k fighting his kids weed conviction, and you haven;t proven a universal right. You;ve proven that Judges will be really nice to rich people.

Comment: Re:Meh, I can't bring myself to care (Score 1) 271

by NicBenjamin (#48365581) Attached to: Dealer-Installed GPS Tracker Leads To Kidnapper's Arrest in Maryland

If you want people to interpret you precisely, you have to be precise.

Right, I'll be sure to be a pedantic asshole the next time you say something that isn't 100% precise. Or you could learn to understand simple human language.

And if you find such a slip-up I'll at least acknowledge I was unclear.

Considering the pathetic nature of the one attempt you make in this post I'm not holding my breathe.

and you're 100% positive their response to a massive database of trivial tweets would be to freak the fuck out?

You've revealed your true colors by trivializing the situation. This so-called "metadata" (which is just data) could've been used to find Paul Revere. When you have rights groups all over up in arms about this because the government is unconstitutionally gathering everyone's data, you know there is a problem. This is no less than a mass violation of people's fundamental liberties, and you are an authoritarian to the core to even suggest otherwise.

You know what else right's groups were up in arms about? Reconstruction. Their attempt to increase freedom by decreasing the authority of the Feds ended up turning most of the South into a dystopian hellscape for nearly a century, during which the anti-authoritarian state governments use anti-authoritarian rhetoric to allow private citizens to ethnically cleanse their territory of black people. Note that in a couple of states (SC and either AL or MS) the majority of voters were black during Reconstruction, so it was not easy for the white minority to take over.

That's the thing that makes protecting freedom very complicated in the US, the number one biggest threat to freedom in these united states is not the official authority of the Feds, it's the totally unofficial authority of your next door neighbor, his Gatt, and his 15 best friends.

Oh, and it's not just tweets, you ignorant fucking fool. There, you weren't 100% precise and didn't describe all the sorts of data they're collecting. Should've been more precise, idiot.

So you're demanding that everyone assume a paean to anarchy isn't a paean to anarchy because anarchists don't exist, but a simplification of a complex database topic, which you brought up without explaining which mass surveillance you were trying to oppose, is complete BS.

Whatever you say. I shouldn't have said that it's a database of trivial tweets, I should have assumed that you meant all electronic monitoring of anyone, including the Russian Air Force.

Now, since you've made which database we're talking about a key part of your argument, precisely which database are we talking about.

So they set up a totally new level of government, specifically giving it the power to create the very first massive database of every American (aka: the Census)

You're bullshitting by comparing the Census to mass surveillance of people's communications.

You realize most American Jews put their ethnicity on the Census in some form -- it isn't asked directly, but quite a few people will write in Israeli, Hebrew, Yiddish, etc. on their census forms when it asks for ethnic background. It's also got income information, social security numbers, all kinds of sensitive information. The Census list is actually the only Federal mass database that's ever been abused -- it was used to find Japanese folks to round up in '42. That took a special act of Congress, an Executive Order from the President, and special orders written by the Army's West Coast commander.

Note that to my knowledge, no authoritarian regime has ever been able to abuse any database of communications. It's much easier for them to go around asking people whether their neighbors are Jewish, then set up a Jew-list in the capital based on an algorithm. After all, if you're actually going to expel/murder/etc. all the Jews you'll need an actual human being in their neighborhood anyway, and if your algorithm gets something wrong (ie: it doesn't realize that a prominent vegetarian Adventist does not eat pork and never works on Saturday) you've got a huge political problem.

I did. Its spirit clearly forbids mass surveillance. I would suggest you read the actual amendment, but you read everything through authoritarian goggles.

Also, the founders were not the be-all end-all, and I didn't try to make it seem like that; they violated the constitution as well. I speak of the constitution's spirit, and gave more arguments than just "The founders would've disagreed," which I still believe.

I've read it. Probably a lot closer then you have.

The problem with using the "spirit" of a document in a legal setting is that nobody agrees on the spirit. You're convinced the Fourth was intended to establish a very strong right to personal privacy. I'm convinced it wasn't.

Therefore to break the impasse we have to go to the text. And in the text it says you're free from unreasonable searches and seizures on your person or property (extended by the Courts, reasonably IMO, to electronic properties), unless they get a warrant. It does not apply to the President's Commander-in-Chief powers, probably because those powers are limited by custom to certain extreme circumstances. It doesn't put any explicit limits on their non Search//Seizure data-gathering (ie: if Congress had the money they could have hired somebody to stand on every street-corner recording illicit affairs) at all.

Comment: Re:Meh, I can't bring myself to care (Score 1) 271

by NicBenjamin (#48347911) Attached to: Dealer-Installed GPS Tracker Leads To Kidnapper's Arrest in Maryland

So you are claiming I totally misinterpreted you, and it's all my fault because you are a beacon of clarity in an otherwise unclear world?

No, I'm claiming that I think that saying that I'm for anarchy or something similar just because I wasn't absolutely precise is an unreasonable interpretation of my words.

If you want people to interpret you precisely, you have to be precise.

So you don't tell us anything about the Fourth Amendment, except that it's anti-authoritarian and anti-mass-surveillance in spirit?

It's both. Why would go in depth about it in an unrelated discussion?

Anti-Authoritarianism does not gain credibility from Appeals to Authority.

No clue what you mean.

Has it ever occurred to you that a) you should probably read the Fourth Amendment before making claims about it, and b) if the Founders included multiple 'buts' in the Amendment explicitly precluding it from being used the way you think it should be used

The founders couldn't have predicted mass surveillance on this scale. Still, they were opposed to general warrants (and that's with a judge actually providing checks and balances), and likely would have taken measures against it had mass surveillance been used against them (assuming they survived). Given that they took action against other injustices that they knew of at the time, any other interpretation seems unreasonable.

So they set up a totally new level of government, specifically giving it the power to create the very first massive database of every American (aka: the Census), while failing to put any particularly meaningful checks on data gathering, and you're 100% positive their response to a massive database of trivial tweets would be to freak the fuck out?

Read the actual Amendment. And don't do that thing Americans always do where they read it specifically to find out everyone who has ever disagreed with you is a fucking moron. There are multiple ways the Founders could find everything the NSA does is perfectly legal.

They could declare it "reasonable." They could say the warrant issued by the FISA Court is fine. They could declaim at length on how the Fourth Amendment does not apply because it is restricted to the President's Law Enforcement powers of Search and Seizure, and a Military Signals Intelligence Agency (the NSA) is authorized under his Commander-in-Chief powers, in which case the problem with the program isn't that it exists, it's that the President is wasting everyone's time by getting it repeatedly authorized (and re-authorized) by the FISA Court.

Note that the absolute best bet is that they'd disagree. The Founders were not supermen with intellects millions of times greater then those of modern men, able to easily interpret the Constitution. They were ideological assholes just like us. The Federalists (like Washington and Adams) would almost certainly claim you were a fool for even bringing up the Fourth, because to them the Commander-in-Chief power was second only to God. Jefferson was not quite that enamored of the Commander-in-Chiefship, so he'd probably agree with you, but on the other hand he could easily agree with the current US Court system and say that warrants issued by the FISA Court are perfectly valid.

Comment: Re:Summary is hogwash (Score 1) 271

by NicBenjamin (#48345179) Attached to: Dealer-Installed GPS Tracker Leads To Kidnapper's Arrest in Maryland

So the cop says "I knew he was a criminal because I could smell the weed, there was a gun-like bulge in his pants, and he looked at me funny." The wee-dsmelling client goes to fucking jail.

Lawyers obsession technicalities of the legal precedent that never mean anything in the real world would be endearing if they didn't get so self-righteous about said technicalities.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Working...