Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 350

1) Have a look at

Key points for me:
a) Only 5% of gitmo detainees were actually captured by the US. 86% were handed in by' bounty hunters' during a dubious bounty program that offered the public a nice way to get rich while getting rid of anyone you really didn't like :

Get wealth and power beyond your dreams....You can receive millions of
dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al-Qaida and Taliban murders.
This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for
the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books and
housing for all your people.

b) Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2) Terror laws are being used against US citizens...on US soil.

"Since then[9/11], the Justice Department's Inspector General found that the FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of national security letters, a majority against U.S. persons, and many without any connection to terrorism at all."

Americans can be accused of terrorism, with no basis, and be thrown in a hole indefinitely with no right to legal defense or trail.

So, for me...I'd rather say "Stop" to the government who I feel is out of control. You fight a war, you fight a war - you don't use it as a justification to take away constitutional protections of the citizens who put you in power.

As far as actual fear of terror...I am more afraid or (and statistically much more likely to actually die from) getting hit by a car crossing the street.

So yes, I want the government to obey the law and the constitution. I do not want the government to have more and more power over me because of media inspired fear of something that is not actually a real threat.

I don't have numbers to back it up but I suspect that I am more likely to be hurt by the government, in some way, than I am to be hurt by a terrorist.

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 350

Enemy combatants/POW's and Unlawful Combatants are NOT afforded constitutional rights by the military and never will. Even if you are a US citizen, if you are an enemy combatant in a zone where the military is conducting combat operations, guess what, you don't get to complain that they killed or detained you without due process.

Now if you don't think that's a good idea, or that this is somehow unethical and you think it should be changed, I ask you to carefully consider the implications and costs of what you are suggesting. The military simply MUST not be burdened with protecting the constitutional rights of combatants when conducting combat operations. They also must NOT be viewed as a law enforcement agency or be expected to operate under rules of engagement which pretend they are. The military is the military, it's for killing people and breaking stuff in the defense of the nation's interest, not for enforcing laws.

Point 1) Not everyone who is taken is actually an enemy combatant, other than by the word of those doing the capturing. Some will be, some will not be, having been caught up in a sweep - wrong place, wrong time or just delivering pizza. The problem is that you cannot know unless you were there. So unless you're ready to say "I don't give a shit if they're guilty or not we're going to torture them until they admit something" then this is not a reasonable solution.

Point 2) When these laws are used against US citizens, those US citizens should be protected by their constitutional rights. Period.

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 350

Enemy combatants are NOT afforded constitutional rights by the military, they can be killed, detained without charge and questioned without a lawyer present even after they request legal representation. PLEASE tell me you understand why this is and why you don't want to change it.... So, if you put them on trial, what do you suppose the FIRST motion their appointed lawyer is going to make?

Well that's the problem isn't it - some of the people in question may not actually be enemy combatants.

With regard to constitutional protection, I am referring to American citizens who have such protection to protect them (us) from the government. I do not believe that these rights should be thrown away out of convenience or fear of what the 'terrorists' might do.

You're more likely to be killed by furniture falling on you than by a terrorist attack so you really should get your capital letter hysterics under control.

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 350

The issue with bringing the combatants from Gitmo to US soil is not about them getting loose, it's about them getting extended constitutional rights because they are not in the custody of the Armed Forces anymore.

They will be given the right to stand trial, PUBLIC trial, where the reasons why they are being detained and how we know that information will be subject to the standard rules of evidence used in criminal court. Likely the evidence will not meet the requirements of our legal system and get thrown out, which will set them free. The military is NOT a law enforcing agency (except for the Coast Guard) and it is this way for a very good reason. They do not collect evidence legally when they are dealing with enemy combatants. They have the legal ability to capture, detain and kill combatants within the rules of war, which are totally different than the rules dealing with criminal prosecutions. And this is how it should be.

So, no, I'm not afraid of the guys in Club Gitmo as long as they are guarded 24/7, but if you let them go they are avowed to do us harm. If you bring them to US soil, you are likely letting them go, just as sure as if you dropped them off in front of their home and drove away.

I'm amazed at how many folks don't get this, that somehow think we can just stuff them into our federal prisons (with or without trials and convictions) and keep ourselves safe from them. That idea is stupid because I see an army of lawyers at the ready to plead their case and force their release starting just as on as they set foot on US soil. Heck, they've tried it already and they are in Cuba under military rules...

You are assuming that they are guilty - what if they're not?

The problem with Gitmo and the whole 'Be Afraid We Are Here to Protect You' system of politics that is winning in the US isn't the actual enemy combatants but those who get caught up in the terrorist witch-hunt who are innocent and yet have no recourse - and this doesn't apply only to foreigners, but to American citizens as well:

At some point you have to stop being afraid of what, in all probability, cannot hurt you and start worrying about what you're supporting being used against you.

Comment mmm... (Score 1) 339

Someone who has been treated badly and been metaphorically kicked out the door does not write a follow up like this, which sounds more like a marketing blurb:

"I had outlined in the original post how excited I was at the prospect of owning a Tesla, especially the Model X and especially the configuration I ultimately ordered-the P90D in red with black leather seats and the Ludicrous Speed option."

Raises doubts for me for the whole story.

Comment Re:Nexus aren't satisfactory (Score 1) 180

That was my experience with a Samsung Galaxy S4. MicroSD slot became somewhat unreliable, which led to unreliable functioning of things like music, because I had my music on the SD card. Sadly, I had assumed this would be rock-solid when I bought the phone, so I went with minimum internal memory.

My replacement is a Nexus 6P with 128GB of internal storage. Much happier. Except for the part where I spent something like $739 or thereabouts for the 6P with Nexus Protect. :)

For me it hasn't been the slot, just the cards - and generally formatting them resolves the issue.

I refuse to pay that much for a phone just to get that RAM internal which is one reason I won't buy an iPhone.

Comment Re:I'm a republican ... (Score 1) 182

why didn't any of these agencies say "So ... we're going to pay you a huge pile of money ... once ... for this font."

Because spending large piles of money outside of their own pet interests is exactly what Republican's don't want to do; plus, being pro-business, it was in their interests to let some third-party company profit from this mandate. I also don't think it was a required mandate or a standard; if a jurisdiction didn't want to pay for Clearview, they could probably still use Highway Gothic. Clearview was just the other approved font.


Republicans haven't done anything any better than other politicians when it comes to eradicating public debt.

And no I'm not a democrat. I dislike all politicians pretty much equally.

Comment Re:Nexus aren't satisfactory (Score 1) 180

I disagree. Nexus devices are satisfactory but not exceptional. They lack essential features like SD Card slots and don't really feature any nifty "bits" to mess with, but are the only devices guaranteed over the long term to receive regular updates, and that alone makes them better. Everything else is, by far, less than satisfactory due to the emphasis of gimmicks or poorly implemented features while often neglecting or actively harming security.

The SD card is a double edged feature. Get filesystem corruption on the card and your phone starts behaving like a two year old on crack.

Anyone using Android with a micro SD card and who gets random freezes and reboots may want to try removing (or erasing) the SD card and see if that clears things up.

Comment Re:YAR HAR, FIDDLE DE DE (Score 1) 581

Although I have a number of legitimate copies of Win7, I much prefer my pirated copy that disables all updates.

Yeah, yeah, security/viruses. IDGAF when it's been a decade since I've gotten one and I back everything up. Don't download or browse sketchy shit.

Like dodgy copies of the OS maybe?

Comment Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. (Score 1) 96

I think the President can pardon only at the federal level, not state.

Also, probably can't pardon someone for something they haven't yet been found guilty of.

Guess you weren't paying attention when G.Ford gave RMN a full pardon for all possible misdeeds.

"The pardon power of the President extends only to offenses recognizable under federal law."

Comment Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. (Score 1) 96

Everyone chip in $10

What bugs me is that the common voter should even have to consider supporting this person in lieu of a non-corrupt government. Is there not a single earnest populist left in Capitol Hill? A decent president would be quick to sign a pardon and put this to rest.

I think the President can pardon only at the federal level, not state.

Also, probably can't pardon someone for something they haven't yet been found guilty of.

Slashdot Top Deals

Make headway at work. Continue to let things deteriorate at home.