Now they'll have more opportunities to stage events designed to freighten congress into giving more budget to this fake "cyberwarfare" stuff they're hawking.
Now that everyone knows that the NSA is (and apparently, has for some time been) wiretapping every phone on the country, I guess this is how lobbyists and legislators and business persons intend to communicate privately with one another.
They were probably just broke and got solicited by undercover FBI goons to make a "terrorist" plot.
The fact that they've already been lying about this, that they've expressed specific interest in prosecuting the whistleblower and that they are now saying it's completely innocent totally ruins their creditability. The notion that this capability exists and yet is not used unscrupulously strains credulity. Does anybody believe that -even if the NSA itself only uses this data responsibly- its use will remain responsible given the kind of psychopathic crap coming out of washington these days?
Just as Obama assures us that "during his administration" Americans won't be indefinitely detained under the NDAA, obviously, whoever forced him to sign that law and request that section be placed into it in the first place anticipates it being used in the (near?) future. This person or group obviously is also responsible for the legally questionable practices outlined here and I don't believe for a second that the expected use has anything whatsoever to do with a so-called fantasy "war on terror". Clearly, those responsible for these policies are preparing to violently take over this country and enslave or kill many of its inhabitants. It is the only logical conclusion from their actions.
If I understand correctly, this whole episode began because a local politician visited you in your home and he had the expectation (for whatever reason) that you would pay him USD $30,000 as some kind of protection money for his campaign and your expectation was that politicians are supposed to work for people and not the other way around. Is this a reasonable characterization? If so, how do you think such a large missmatch in expectations came about? Do you think you were overly naive? Or is the political environment in Belize changing? I can easily believe that this might be the normal expected way that people do business down there based on other things I've heard, but I really have no idea. Now that you've had time to reflect, what would you say was responsible for the conflict in the first place?
The 'threat-o-gram' is directed at two community members personally, volunteers of the Foswiki project. In his reply, one of the adressees says not to be impressed: "We have a decent insurance at
Link to Original Source